DoD 1402.3-H Chapter 4 FOREWORD The Senior Executive Service Handbook is issued under the authority of DoD Directive 1402.3, "Administration of the Senior Executive Service Program in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Defense Agencies," dated August 16, 1964. This is a reissuance of Chapter 4 of the SES Handbook, which is designed to provide guidance to the members of the Senior Executive Service and to their supervisors in the conduct of the performance appraisal cycle. The revised chapter 4 reintroduces a three-level rating system (i.e., Fully Successful, Minimally Satisfactory, and Unsatisfactory) for members of the SES. In addition and where necessary, provisions have been changed, and content has been reorganized to enhance use of the chapter. The provisions of this chapter apply to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), DoD field activities, the Joint Staff, the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, the U.S. Mission to NATO, and the Defense Agencies (except the National Security Agency/Central Security Service and the Defense Intelligence Agency). In this Chapter. the DARPA and the DSAA shall be considered sub-units of OSD Components rather than Defense Agencies. This chapter is effective immediately and its use is mandatory. Send recommended changes through channels to: Executive Personnel and Classification Division Directorate for Personnel and Security Washington Headquarters Services Room 3C444, The Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20301-1155 OSD Components may obtain copies of this chapter from the OSD Publications Counter, Room 3B960, The Pentagon. Other DoD Components should obtain copies of the chapter through their own publications channels. Other Federal Agencies and the public may obtain copies from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. REFERENCES References: (a) Public Law 95-454l, "Civil Service Reform Act of 1978," (Title 5, U.S.C. 4311-4314) (b) 5 CFR 430, Subpart C, "Performance Appraisal for the Senior Executive Service (SES)," April 10, 1986 (c) Amendment to 5 CFR 430, Subpart C, January 23, 1989 C4. CHAPTER 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS C4.1. GENERAL Page C4.P1. INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS 6 C4.P2. TIMETABLE FOR PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL 10 C4.P3. PERFORMANCE PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT 12 C4.P3.2. STEP1. IDENTIFY CRITICAL ELEMENTS 14 C4.P3.3. STEP 2. SPECIFY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR EACH CRITICAL ELEMENT 16 C4.P3.4. STEP 3. CERTIFY THE FINAL PERFORMANCE PLAN 18 C4.P3.5. STEP 4. REVIEW PROGRESS AND CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE PLAN 19 C4.P3.6. STEP 5. ASSESS PERFORMANCE 20 C4.P3.7. STEP 6. RECOMMEND FURTHER ACTION (OPTIONAL) 23 C4.P4. REVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS 25 C4.P5. DISAGREEMENT WITH FINAL RATING 28 APPENDICES AP1. RESPONSIBILITIES 29 AP2. LOCATION AND AVAILABILITY OF SES EVALUATION DOCUMENTS 32 AP3. PERFORMANCE WHILE ON A SABBATICAL 33 AP4. REQUIRED FORMAT FOR PERFORMANCE AWARD (BONUS) RECOMMENDATIONS 34 AP5. SAMPLE CRITICAL ELEMENTS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 35 C4.P1. PART 1 OF CHAPTER 4 INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS C4.P1.1. INTRODUCTION C4.P1.1.1. Title 5 of the United States Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter II, requires Federal Agencies to establish performance appraisal systems that: -- provide for systematic appraisals of performance of Senior Executive Service (SES) employees; -- encourage excellence in performance; and -- provide a basis for retention in the SES and for SES performance awards C4.P1.1.2. The statutory requirement has been supplemented by regulation (5 CFR 430, Subpart C) designed to ensure a performance appraisal system that: -- communicates and clarifies organizational goals and objectives; -- identifies individual accountability for the accomplishment of Agency goals and objectives; -- evaluates and improves individual and organizational accomplishment; and -- uses the results of performance appraisal as a basis for adjusting base pay, training, rewarding, reassigning, retaining, and removing employees. C4.P1.1.3. Accordingly, this performance appraisal system has been designed for members of the SES employed or serviced by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). It is consistent with statute and regulation, and has been designed to maximize flexibility to achieve the following objectives: -- systematic appraisal and fair and accurate evaluation of the performance of each executive; -- encouragement of excellence in job performance and provision of a sound basis for the distribution of performance awards; -- assistance to employees in improving unacceptable performance; -- assignment or removal of employees who continue to perform unacceptably; and -- contribution to organizational effectiveness. C4.P1.1.4. SES members and their supervisors will be briefed periodically on their responsibilities, especially in connection with their participation on Performance Review Board (PRB) panels, and will be advised of program changes by means of policy issuances and information memoranda. Program effectiveness will be evaluated annually. These evaluations will examine system difficulties, will involve Performance Review Board input and will recommend solutions to perceived problems. This chapter is designed to be used in conjunction with the Senior Executive Service Performance Planning and Evaluation form (DD Form 2206). The six steps presented in pages 14 to 24 correspond to the steps on the form. C4.P1.2. DEFINITIONS C4.P1.2.1. Critical Element: A component of a position consisting of one or more duties and responsibilities that contributes toward accomplishing organizational goals and objectives, and that is of such importance that "Unsatisfactory" performance on the element would result in "Unsatisfactory" performance in the position. C4.P1.2.2. Deciding official: The official who assigns the rating of record and determines the award of SES bonuses, following review of the initial rating and any bonus recommendation by the PRB. For OSD Components and the DoD Inspector General, this is the Secretary of Defense. For Defense Agencies (except the Defense Investigative Service, all Director, Deputy director, and General Counsel positions, and positions specified on a case-by-case basis that are covered by the OSD PRB and OSD procedures), the deciding official is the Agency Director. For the remaining Office of the Inspector the Agency staff, the deciding official is the Inspector General and OIG procedures govern these appraisals. For Defense Agency employees covered by the OSD PRB (including the Defense Agency General Counsels), the deciding official is the Secretary of Defense. C4.P1.2.3. Defense Agencies: As used here, the term includes: Defense Communications Agency (DCA) Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Defense Investigative Service (DIS) Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Defense Mapping Agency (DMA) Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) C4.P1.2.4. Initial Rating: The summary rating made by a senior executive's supervisor normally the immediate supervisor) and provided to the PRB. The rating must be based on the currently approved performance plan for the executive. C4.P1.2.5. Interim Appraisal. Assignment of a Summary Rating in part A that is not, in turn, forwarded to a Performance Review Board. Interim appraisals typically are prepared to assess performance up to the time the rated executive moves to another position (i.e., reassigned or transferred) during the rating period. Interim appraisals must be considered by preparers of the subsequent annual (initial) ratings. However, they are not submitted to PRBs, and do not comprise the basis for bonus awards or other SES employment decisions. The interim appraisal is documented on the SES Performance Planning and Evaluation Form (Step 5, DD Form 2206). C4.P1.2.6. Rating of Record: The summary rating assigned by the deciding official after considering recommendations of the PRB. C4.P1.2.7. Second-Level Review: Optional review, unless requested in writing by the executive, of the initial performance appraisal by an official at an organizational level higher than that of the rating official. Second-level reviews take place before submission to the PRB. Second-level reviews are generally not performed on interim appraisals. C4.P1.2.7.1. The second-level reviewing official for civilian Deputy Directors of Defense Agencies shall be the Under Secretary of Defense or Assistant Secretary of Defense to which the Defense Agency reports. C4.P1.2.7.2. The second-level reviewing official for SES members (other than the General Counsels) of DLSA is the DoD General Counsel/Director, DLSA. C4.P1.2.7.3. The second-level reviewing official for individuals assigned to the U.S. Mission, NATO, is the Defense Advisor to the U.S. Mission, NATO. The international supervisors of all other SES members assigned to NATO assume this role for them, unless an exception has been approved by Director of Administration and Management (DA&M) in order to ensure that the objectives of this plan are achieved. C4.P1.2.7.4. If a second-level reviewing official does not exist below the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the immediate supervisor shall forward DD Form 2206 directly to the OSD PRB. C4.P1.2.7.5. If a Defense Agency Director is the immediate supervisor of an executive who is at a level lower than Deputy Director, no second-level review is required unless the executive requests it. If there is a second level review, it is within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense or Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (or equivalent) through which the Defense Agency reports. C4.P1.2.8. Summary Rating: The rating level (see step 5, paragraph 3, page 20) assigned to a senior executive's overall performance, following the assessment of performance on individual critical elements. C4.P1.2.9. OSD Components: For purposes of this chapter, this term is defined as including: OSD, DoD Field Activities, the Joint Staff, the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO), the U.S. Mission to NATO, the NATO International Military Activities Staff, and the U.S. Court of Military Appeals. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is considered a sub-unit of OUSD(A); the Defense Security Assistance Agency (DSAA) and the Defense Investigative Service (DIS) are considered sub-units of OUSD(Policy); and the Defense Legal Services Agency (DLSA) is considered a sub-unit of OGC for appraisals of Defense Agency General Counsels. Other Defense Agency Counsels are subject to the PRB of the Agency on whose rolls they are appointed. C4.P2. PART 2 OF CHAPTER 4 TIMETABLE FOR PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL C4.P2.1. KEY DATES AND ACTIVITIES July 1 Start of rating period. Jan 1-15 Mid-period progress review. June 30 End of rating period. July 1 Performance evaluation and review for previous 12 months undertaken within the Component. New rating period begins. July (third week) Appraisal and bonus information forwarded to Personnel. PRB begins review process. C4.P2.2. BASIC PROVISIONS C4.P2.2.1. Whenever an SES member is appointed, assigned, or detailed for 120 days or longer to a different position (with significant change in duties), a performance plan (critical elements and performance standards) must be developed. C4.P2.2.2. Senior executives employed on June 30 of each year, in organizations subject to this Handbook, shall receive an annual written appraisal of their job performance, provided they have been in the SES for a period of at least 90 days. An appraisal is required also for Presidential appointees who were career members of the SES who elected to continue SES benefits relating to performance appraisal, bonuses, or rank awards. C4.P2.2.3. The annual appraisal period shall encompass the 12-month period beginning July 1 and ending June 30. C4.P2.2.4. Senior executives entering on duty after July 1 shall receive an appraisal for the period beginning with their first day of employment and ending June 30. C4.P2.2.5. This plan covers all SES members, including Career, Noncareer, Limited Term and Limited Emergency appointees. C4.P2.3. EXCEPTIONS C4.P2.3.1. Appraisals of the performance of career SES members may not be made within 120 days after the beginning of a new Presidential administration. This moratorium applies to all phases of the formal appraisal process; i.e., the initial rating recommendation, review of the appraisal, PRB action, and the assignment of the final rating by the appointing authority. C4.P2.3.2. The minimum appraisal period shall be 90 days. C4.P2.3.3. If on June 30, the executive has not been a member of the SES for at least 90 days, the executive's appraisal period shall be extended for the amount of time necessary to meet the 90 day requirement, at which time a rating of record must be prepared. C4.P2.3.4. Annual performance ratings shall be used as a basis for any reduction-in-force actions, except that an employee without an annual performance rating of record shall be given a performance rating before a RIF if the employee has served in the SES for a least 90 days; employees who have not served in the SES for 90 days shall be assigned a presumed rating of Fully Successful. C4.P2.3.5. When an SES member leaves one position for another during the rating cycle and has served at least 90 days in the old position, an interim appraisal shall be completed by the supervisor of the position from which changed and given to the executive and the new supervisor. The interim appraisal is accomplished by evaluating performance against the critical elements and performance standards as reflected in the executive's performance appraisal plan, and must be used by the new supervisor in deriving the next annual rating (see step 5, paragraphs 2 and 3, pages 17 and 18). An interim appraisal is not required when an executive resigns or retires. C4.P2.3.6. The individual who is the immediate supervisor of the SES member on June 30 is normally the person who evaluates the SES member's performance (if the SES member has been in the SES at least 90 days). This is true even if the supervisor has supervised the SES member for only a short period. When the period has been short, the supervisor must use the evaluation data provided by the former supervisor(s) earlier in the year in developing the initial rating. C4.P2.3.7. A performance appraisal period may be terminated (after 90 days) in any case in which an adequate basis exists on which to appraise and rate the senior executive's performance. C4.P3. PART 3 OF CHAPTER 4 PERFORMANCE PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT C4.P3.1. PERFORMANCE PLANS C4.P3.1.1. Performance plans consist of the identification of critical elements and standards of achievement. They must be developed at the beginning of each rating period (July 1 of each year) or whenever an employee enters a different SES position in which he/she will serve a significant period of time prior to the end of the rating period. The rater and individual to be rated shall work together to develop the plan. It is expected that the final plan will be mutually acceptable. However, when agreement cannot be reached, the decision of the rater is final. C4.P3.1.2. According to 5 USC 4313, the performance plan should take into account (but is not limited to) such factors as: -- efficiency, productivity, and quality of work or service to the public; -- cost-effectiveness; -- timeliness of performance; -- significant reduction in paperwork; -- meeting affirmative action goals and achievement of equal opportunity requirements; and -- other indications of the effectiveness, productivity, and quality of performance of the individual within the scope of the employee's position. C4.P3.1.3. Accomplishment of organizational objectives must also be included in performance plans by incorporating objectives, goals, program plans, work plans, or similar indicators of program results. C4.P3.1.4. As a matter of DoD policy (or Law in the case of meeting EEO responsibilities), certain additional items, as applicable, must be addressed in individual performance plans. These are enumerated below and must be reflected in a separate critical element, or in a performance standard of a critical element relating to the activity, depending upon its importance to a particular position. (Reference to Appendix 5 may be helpful in meeting these requirements.) C4.P3.1.4.1. Significant internal management control responsibilities assigned to executives must be identified and evaluated in SES performance appraisal plans, wherever appropriate. (Administrative Instruction No. 90, 11/8/88) C4.P3.1.4.2. Performance appraisal plans of contracting executives, as applicable, shall include the evaluation of their ability to increase contract awards to small disadvantaged business concerns, historically Black colleges and universities, and other minority institutions. (DASD(A) memo, 3/29/88) C4.P3.1.4.3. Performance appraisal plans of contracting executives shall also address, as applicable, their ability to achieve cost savings and increase competition in the DoD acquisition process. (DASD(CPP) memo, 3/7/85) C4.P3.1.4.4. Resolution of contract audits should be reflected in the performance appraisal plan of any executive who performs this function. (DASD(CPP) memo, 6/18/84) C4.P3.1.4.5. Performance appraisal plans of executives who have access to classified information must include comments on the individual's discharge of security responsibilities. (DASD(CPP) memo, 11/12/85) C4.P3.1.4.6. Executives who have supervisory or managerial responsibilities should have a critical element or a performance standard assessing their equal employment opportunity and affirmative action efforts (5 U.S.C. 4313). C4.P3.2. STEP 1. IDENTIFY CRITICAL ELEMENTS C4.P3.2.1. Requirements. Performance plans normally encompass four to eight critical elements, which address various aspects of organizational objectives, management performance, program performance, and individual assignments. Although the performance plans shall be compatible with the position description, only the most important responsibilities shall be included in the plan. C4.P3.2.1.1. At the beginning of the period, the appropriate parts of the top of page one of the Senior Executive Service Performance Planning and Evaluation form (DD Form 2206) should be completed. Then, the final plan must be documented in steps 1, 2, and 3 of the form. The rater shall retain the original and the individual rated shall receive a copy. Critical elements and performance standards must be communicated to SES members at or before the beginning of each appraisal period, with written performance plans provided normally within 30 days of the beginning of the appraisal period. Organizations may retain copies centrally in order to review, assess, and evaluate performance plans in relation to overall mission, goals, and objectives. When copies are retained, they are to be held, safeguarded, monitored, and disposed of in accordance with Privacy Act regulations and the applicable Privacy Act System Notice. C4.P3.2.2. Considerations. Critical elements are the major responsibilities of the position. Less than satisfactory performance in a critical element may be the basis for reassigning, removing, or reducing the pay of an employee. C4.P3.2.2.1. The first step in the development of the performance plan is for the rater and the individual to be rated to identify the work that is most important. C4.P3.2.3. When identifying critical elements, consider: -- the major functional responsibilities (i.e., program performance, management duties, and individual initiatives); -- the value of the responsibility; -- the consequence of error or neglect; -- the effect of achievement or nonachievement on the organization; and -- the overall mission of the organization, legislation, and current Agency priorities. C4.P3.2.3.1. It is important that resource requirements be discussed early in the planning process. If performance plans are contingent upon receipt of resources (e.g., a contractor product) not under the employee's control, this should be noted. C4.P3.3. STEP 2. SPECIFY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR EACH CRITICAL ELEMENT C4.P3.3.1. Requirements. After identifying all the critical elements, specify performance standards for each. Performance standards describe specific expectations in sufficient detail to serve as a basis for evaluating performance. C4.P3.3.2. Considerations. Standards should describe explicit goals or should describe the conditions that will exist when a critical element is performed satisfactorily; that is, at a level that would support a performance rating of "Fully Successful." Standards should not be geared to the especially competent or superior performer. The absence of a written standard at other rating levels will not preclude the assignment of a rating at those levels. C4.P3.3.2.1. To the extent possible, each objective and standard should be: -- Relevant: directly related to the job. -- Achievable: able to be accomplished within reasonable constraints of time and resources. -- Measurable: described so that the expected quality or quantity of performance can be observed. -- Explicit: likely to be interpreted in the same way by most readers. Avoid use of vague terms such as "approximate," "desirable," and "reasonable." -- Judgeable: defined in such a manner that by the end of the rating period, it is evident whether and to what extent a given standard was met. C4.P3.3.2.2. Factors frequently reflected in performance standards are the: -- Quality of work expected. -- Time limit within which the work should be performed. -- Quantity of work expected. -- Cost-effectiveness with which work must be performed. -- Methods to be used. C4.P3.3.2.3. Factors should not be limited to those outlined above because there may be other standards that are more relevant than those suggested. Even though standards addressing the quality of work are often difficult to write, they should be developed if the quality of work is the actual criterion on which the work is assessed. C4.P3.3.2.4. Some standards used in the past are shown in Appendix 5. C4.P3.4. STEP 3. CERTIFY THE FINAL PERFORMANCE PLAN C4.P3.4.1. Both the individual and the rater must initial the performance plan. This indicates that the rater approves the objectives and standards for performance and that the employee is aware of the performance plan. The rater makes the final decision on content and form of the critical elements and standards of performance. Unless there is an additional intra-organizational higher level review requirement prior to finalization, the work planning is now done. C4.P3.4.2. The rater retains the original in a manner consistent with Privacy Act regulations, and the SES member whose plan it is receives a copy, normally within 30 days of the beginning of the appraisal period. C4.P3.4.3. When SES members are detailed, and the detail is expected to last 120 days or longer, they will be given written critical elements and performance standards as soon as possible, but no later than 30 calendar days after the beginning of the detail. Ratings on critical elements must be prepared for these details and considered in deriving the next summary rating of record. C4.P3.5. STEP 4. REVIEW PROGRESS AND CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE PLAN C4.P3.5.1. Requirements C4.P3.5.1.1. There must be at least one documented occasion during each rating period on which performance is discussed with the individual being rated. It should occur during the middle of the performance year, and should be scheduled to allow sufficient time for adjustment and observation of performance before the end of the rating period. C4.P3.5.1.2. At a minimum, the executives must be informed of their level of performance for each of their performance elements and standards, although this may be done orally rather than in writing. Both the rater and the individual must sign the appropriate section of the appraisal form (Step 4, DD Form 2206), which should include comments summarizing the results of the mid-year discussion. The rater is to retain the original in a manner consistent with Privacy Act regulations, and to provide a copy to the SES member being rated. C4.P3.5.2. Considerations C4.P3.5.2.1. Additional progress reviews may be scheduled at any time during the rating period, at the initiative of either party. In addition to revising plans and reviewing progress, review meetings present an opportunity to identify and solve work problems, to discuss poor performance, and to identify development needs or corrective action. Executives with performance considered below the "Fully Successful" level shall be provided assistance in improving performance, such as formal training, on-the-job training, counseling, or closer supervision. C4.P3.5.2.2. As the work situation or the organization's priorities change, the employee's performance plan (critical elements and performance standards) should be revised to reflect those changes. Space is provided on the appraisal form for revisions that become necessary after the original plan has been agreed upon and signed. Do not erase, delete, or alter in any way any part of the original when making revisions, as changes in the plan should be apparent. For any changes in the plan during the last quarter of the performance period, particular consideration should be given to performance expectations in relation to the time remaining in the rating period. C4.P3.6. STEP 5. ASSESS PERFORMANCE C4.P3.6.1. On or about 30 June, the rater meets with the senior executive to: -- discuss performance to date; -- discuss accomplishing a development plan; and -- establish a performance plan for the coming year. C4.P3.6.2. The rater completes the evaluation and the top of page 1 of Senior Executive Service Performance Planning and Evaluation form (DD Form 2206) for every SES member 1 who has been on board within the organizations covered by this handbook for at least 90 days. 2 The appraisal must include a narrative description of the senior executive's performance in relation to established critical elements and standards of performance. The appraisal and the criteria shall consider the performance of both the senior executive and his/her organization, and shall take into account such factors as the senior executive's: -- impact on efficiency, productivity, and quality of work or services performed, including any significant reduction in paperwork; -- impact on cost efficiency; -- timeliness of performance; -- impact on the effectiveness, productivity, arid performance of subordinate employees; and -- meeting affirmative action goals and achieving equal employment opportunity requirements. C4.P3.6.2.1. The rater then narratively describes the level of achievement and assigns an adjectival descriptor for each critical element accordingly. The three adjectival descriptors are: Fully Successful; Minimally Satisfactory; and Unsatisfactory. C4.P3.6.2.2. In doing this, the rater should consider such factors as: Achievements, opportunity to achieve, risk, visibility, and consequences of failure. 1 This includes Presidential appointees who were previously SES career members and who elected to continue SES benefits. 2 Any SES member who joined the organization by reassignment or transfer fewer than 90 days before the end of the performance period, but who has been in the SES at least 90 days before the end of the performance period, should be appraised and is eligible for a bonus, assuming the supervisor of record at the end of the rating period obtains information from the losing organization to substantiate such a conclusion. Senior Executives in the SES fewer than 90 days as of 30 June shall have their appraisal period extended for the amount of time necessary to meet the minimum appraisal period (i.e., 90 days), at which time a rating of record shall be prepared. C4.P3.6.3. Then, on the front of the form, the rater assigns one overall (or summary) rating ("Fully Successful, "Minimally Satisfactory," or "Unsatisfactory") of total performance that is generally consistent with the following decision table: Fully Successful: All critical elements rated "Fully Successful." Minimally Satisfactory: One or more critical element rated "Minimally Satisfactory," with no ratings below "Minimally Satisfactory." Unsatisfactory: One or more critical element rated "Unsatisfactory." C4.P3.6.3.1. Summary ratings must take into account the ratings assigned to interim appraisals prepared upon position changes, and for details or temporary executives are detailed assignments lasting 120 days or longer. When senior outside of the Agency, the supervisor must make a reasonable effort to obtain appraisal information from the outside organization. C4.P3.6.4. The initial rater or subsequent reviewers may make recommendations for bonuses. Such recommendations must be made in the form of a supplemental narrative, be prepared in the format shown in Appendix 5, and be approved by the Component Head. A summary rating of "Fully Successful" is a prerequisite to a bonus. C4.P3.6.5. A rating of "Unsatisfactory" requires either the transfer, reassignment, or removal of the senior executive. Two ratings of "Unsatisfactory" in five consecutive years result in removal from the SES. SES members who receive either a "Minimally Satisfactory" or "Unsatisfactory" rating two times in three consecutive years must be removed from the SES. (See step 6, page 24.) C4.P3.6.6. When the appraisal is completed, the rater should discuss it with the senior executive, give him or her a copy of the proposed rating, and ask the executive to initial where indicated on page 3 of DD Form 2206. The executive's initials on the appraisal do not indicate agreement with the evaluation. C4.P3.6.7. The senior executive is entitled to respond in writing within 7 calendar days after the receipt of the initial rating, and have the rating and the response reviewed by someone at a higher organizational level (if there is one) before the rating becomes final. Normally, the second-level supervisor will conduct the review. Although not a requirement, it is preferable for the reviewing official to have been in the organizational hierarchy of the rated executive for most of the performance appraisal period. The official making the higher level review is not authorized to change the initial rating, but only presents his or her findings and recommendations through the Component Head to the PRB. The Component Head need not comment or make a recommendation with respect to the reviewing officials' findings; simply noting the results of the review is sufficient. While the higher level reviewing official cannot direct a subordinate rating official to change his or her evaluation, the higher level reviewing official may ask the rating official to reconsider his or her initial ratings based on his or her tentative findings. All related documents, including the executive's response and reviewer's comments, are provided to the PRB, the executive, and the rating supervisor. C4.P3.6.8. The original of the completed form and any supplemental material are to be sent forward, through the established review channels, in keeping with the timetable presented in this Handbook. In the case of a requested higher level review, an additional four weeks is permitted. C4.P3.6.9. Performance plans and ratings for SES members are not subject to formal appeal or to the Agency's grievance procedures (see C4.P5., Chapter 4, Part 5, Disagreement with Final Rating). C4.P3.7. STEP 6. RECOMMEND FURTHER ACTION, AS APPROPRIATE Supplemental narrative must be provided when recommending a performance award (bonus) or a removal from the SES. It should be prepared by the immediate supervisor or a higher level supervisor and should substantiate the action recommended in terms of activities and achievements. The format for bonus recommendations is shown in Appendix 4. C4.P3.7.1. Recommendations Relating To Basic Pay (Pay-Level Adjustments). Salary adjustments other than comparability adjustments are not made more than once in any 12-month period. Salaries correspond to one of the six specified SES salary rates. Salaries may be increased any number of levels. Salary reductions may not exceed one level per year, and must be preceded by written notice at least 15 days prior to the reduction. Salary adjustments are processed separately from the annual performance appraisal cycle even though performance may be the basis for the adjustment. (See Chapter 3, Executive Pay-Setting.) C4.P3.7.2. Recommendations For Performance Awards (Bonuses). Performance awards (bonuses) are lump-sum payments that may be awarded to SES members having Fully Successful performance ratings. Note that, under the law, only career SES appointees may receive bonus awards. C4.P3.7.2.1. The payable rates as of the end of the performance year (rather than the scheduled rates, if different) are to be used as the basis for computing the minimum and maximum performance awards that may be paid SES members in any given year. The total amount of pay, performance and rank awards received by a senior executive during any fiscal year may not exceed the annual rate payable for positions at Level I of the Executive Schedule. Amounts in excess of this limit may, however, be "rolled over," and paid in a lump sum at the beginning of the next fiscal year. C4.P3.7.1.2.2. A bonus may not be received in the same calendar year that a Presidential Rank Award (Distinguished Executive or Meritorious Executive) is received. C4.P3.7.3. Recommendations For Incentive Awards. Incentive awards may be used to recognize SES Career, Noncareer or Limited appointees for a specific one-time accomplishment, a suggestion, an invention, or a scientific achievement. A job-related special act or service award could be used to recognize a nonrecurring contribution or a scientific achievement that either represents a culmination of work over a period of time, or has such significant tangible and/or intangible benefits as to warrant immediate recognition. A performance bonus, on the other hand, would recognize overall performance during a particular performance appraisal period. Incentive awards are not subject to the Executive Level I ceiling on total SES compensation for a fiscal year. For further information, refer to Agency instructions on incentive awards. C4.P3.7.4. Recommendations For Presidential Rank Awards. These awards are made by the President to career SES members only for long-term career achievements. Nominations are solicited on a schedule separate from the annual performance evaluation cycle and are not reviewed by the Performance Review Board(s). C4.P3.7.5. Recommendations For Retention And Demotion -- A post-probationary SES member who receives an overall performance rating of "Unsatisfactory" must be reassigned or transferred within the SES, or removed to a continuing position at GS-15 or equivalent. (See Chapter 9.) -- A post-probationary SES member who receives two overall performance ratings of "Unsatisfactory" within a five-year period must be removed from the SES to a continuing position at GS-15 or equivalent. (See Chapter 9.) -- A post-probationary SES member who receives either a "Minimally Satisfactory" or "Unsatisfactory" rating twice in three consecutive years must be removed from the SES to a continuing position at GS-15 or above, or equivalent. (See Chapter 9.) -- An SES member who is serving a probationary period and whose performance does not meet expectations is covered under probationary period removal and placement regulations. (See Chapter 8.) C4.P4. PART 4 OF CHAPTER 3 REVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS C4.P4.1. REVIEW After the immediate supervisor completes the recommendations, he/she forwards the appraisal through: (a) the second-level reviewers (if any have been designated by the organization or requested by the executive), to (b) the OSD Component Head, 1 or the appropriate staff element head or equivalent official in a Defense Agency, to which the senior executive is assigned. All materials must be reviewed by the Component Head or the designated Defense Agency official prior to being submitted to the Performance Review Board. The purpose of the review is to keep the higher level official apprised of the performance of subordinate executives, and to ensure that they are being evaluated in a uniform and equitable manner. If a senior executive whose second-level supervisor is the Secretary of Defense has not requested a review by the Secretary of Defense, the DD Form 2206 and accompanying material (if any) are forwarded for review and comment directly to the Performance Review Board. C4.P4.2. FOR RATINGS OF SES MEMBERS COVERED BY THE OSD PRB 2 Considering all incoming recommendations and organizational constraints, the OSD Component Head forwards four copies of: -- initial performance appraisals (original and three copies); -- employee responses; -- reviewer comments; 1 This includes Chairman of the Joint Staff; Under Secretaries of Defense; Assistant Secretaries of Defense; DoD General Counsel/Director, Defense Legal Services Agency; Directors of DSAA and DARPA; Assistants to the Secretary of Defense; and Chief Judge of USCMA. The Defense Advisor to the U.S. Mission to NATO assumes this role for individuals assigned to the U.S. Mission. The international supervisors of all other SES members assigned to NATO assume this role for them unless an exception has been approved by DA&M in order to ensure that the objectives of this plan are achieved. The initial raters of SES Defense Agency Deputy Directors send their recomendations to the appropriate OSD Component. 2 In addition to reviewing the ratings of SES Members of the OSD Components, identified on page 8, this includes the ratings of the civilian Directors, Deputy Directors, and General Counsels of Defense Agencies; the Inspector General; and other SES members identified on a case-by-case basis. Defense Agency General Counsels are rated by the DoD General Counsel/Director, DLSA, in consultation with the appropriate Defense Agency Director. The OSD PRB reviews these recommendations, and the Secretary of Defense is the deciding official. Other DLSA employees assigned to the Defense Agencies are covered by Defense Agency PRB procedures. -- bonus recommendations in order of priority; -- other supporting information; and -- recommendations, as appropriate and necessary to the Executive Personnel and Classification Division, Room 3C4444, The Pentagon. The Executive and Personnel and Classification Division will manage the subsequent review process for the OSD PRB. C4.P4.3. FOR RATINGS OF SES MEMBERS COVERED BY THE DEFENSE AGENCIES PRBs Consider the following documents: -- initial performance appraisals; -- employee responses; -- reviewer comments; -- bonus recommendations in order of priority; -- other supporting information; and -- recommendations, as appropriate and necessary. C4.P4.4. PRB REVIEW C4.P4.4.1. PRBs in OSD and the Defense Agencies are constructed so that more than one-half of every PRB panel consists of career SES members, and individual PRB members do not take part in any PRB deliberations involving their own, their supervisors' or their subordinates' appraisals. As required by statute, notice of appointment to the PRB must be published in the Federal Register. See Chapter 5 for a complete description of the responsibilities of the PRB. C4.P4.4.2. The Deciding Official: -- considers all incoming material; -- decides final ratings and personnel actions (such as transfer, reassignment, and removal); -- decides who will receive bonuses; and -- decides the range or amount of those bonuses. C4.P5. PART 5 OF CHAPTER 4, DISAGREEMENT WITH FINAL RATING C4.P5.1.1. Although SES members are covered by Agency grievance procedures, the Office of Personnel Management has determined that the following matters may not be grieved: -- the substance of the critical elements and performance standards; -- the performance evaluation; or -- the granting or failure to grant a performance award. C4.P5.1.2. Complaints of unlawful discrimination will be processed through EEO channels under applicable procedures. In addition, complaints about prohibited personnel practices may be appealed to the Office of Special Counsel. Contact the personnel office for information on how to proceed in these areas. C4.AP1. APPENDIX 1 TO CHAPTER 4 RESPONSIBILITIES C4.AP1.1.1. The Secretary of Defense: C4.AP1.1.1.1. Reviews recommendations of the appropriate Performance Review Board and of subordinate rating officials;and C4.AP1.1.1.2. Makes final determinations regarding: -- the performance appraisal of each senior executive; -- the transfer, reassignment, or removal from the SES of senior executives whose performance is considered to be unsatisfactory; -- approval of financial performance awards (bonuses) within certain ranges or of certain amounts for career senior executives. C4.AP1.1.2. The Director of Administration and Management oversees operation and administration of the SES performance management Program. C4.AP1.1.3. If an organization opted to designate Intervening Levels of review at levels lower than OSD Component Head or Defense Agency Staff Element Head or equivalent, the reviewer(s) shall: -- review the SES Performance Planning and Evaluation Form (DD Form 2206) and employee response, if any; -- provide additional comments as indicated on page 4 of the form, as desired; and -- sign comments and forward the form to the individual's Component Head. C4.AP1.1.4. The Executive's OSD Component Head or Defense Agency Staff Element Head: -- reviews DD Form 2206, employee response, and any comments by the second-level supervisor or other reviewer; -- provides additional comments as indicated on page 4 of the form, as desired; -- lists all nominees for bonuses in order of priority in d transmittal memorandum addressed to the Chair of the Performance Review Board; and -- forwards DD Forms 2206 to the OSD Performance Review Board or the appropriate Defense Agency Performance Review Board. C4.AP1.1.5. The Immediate Supervisor of each senior executive: C4.AP1.1.5.1. In consultation with the employee, develops critical elements and performance standards prior to the beginning of each rating period, that: -- reflect the requirements of the work assigned to the executive to be rated; -- identify the major responsibilities and duties to be performed; -- establish the quantitative and qualitative standards to be met and results to be attained; -- identify target dates for accomplishment and key milestone indicators. C4.AP1.1.5.2. Records the performance plan on the SES Performance Planning and Evaluation form (DD Form 2206). This plan may be adjusted, as appropriate and, in consultation with the executive, during the rating period. C4.AP1.1.5.3. Provides a copy of the performance plan and any amendments to the employee. C4.AP1.1.5.4. Conducts and documents a progress review with the employee half-way through the appraisal cycle. C4.AP1.1.5.5. Evaluates the performance of each executive at the end of the annual rating period by: C4.AP1.1.5.5.1. Appraising performance against the established performance standards, and completing DD Form 2206, to include: -- a narrative evaluation of the employee's performance on each critical element; -- an adjectival rating for each critical element; -- a recommendation for an overall rating; -- as desired and appropriate, a recommendation for: -- transfer, reassignment, or removal from the SES of any senior executive whose performance has been unsatisfactory. -- nomination for a bonus for any career senior executive whose performance has been rated as "fully successful" and also warrants financial reward; C4.AP1.1.5.5.2. Providing the employee an opportunity to review the initial appraisal and to respond in writing; and C4.AP1.1.5.5.3. Forwarding the DD Form 2206 to the second-level supervisor, if appropriate. C4.AP2. APPENDIX 2 TO CHAPTER 4 LOCATION AND AVAILABILITY OF SES EVALUATION DOCUMENTS C4.AP2.1.1. During each ongoing rating cycle, the rater will retain the original plan and any necessary supporting information in a work folder and provide a copy to the individual who is rated. Performance documents are part of the Privacy Act system of records established by the Office of Personnel Management, and must be retained and disposed of in accordance with applicable Privacy Act regulations. C4.AP2.1.2. SES Performance Planning and Evaluation forms, including supplemental narrative, written reviews by higher level officials, and PRB recommendations, will be available to individuals being rated during all phases of the rating process. In addition, the completed foms will also be available to line officials, to the supervisor of the individual being rated, and to other officials having a need to know during the process of recommending, reviewing, and approving ratings, and of determining bonuses, ranks, and pay. C4.AP2.1.3. Requests for access by others to performance appraisal material will be dealt with under the "routine use" provision of the Privacy Act notice or under Freedom of Information Act access provisions and procedures. C4.AP2.1.4. Pursuant to 5 CFR 293.404(b), servicing personnel offices will maintain an Employee Performance File (EPF) for every current SES member. Completed appraisals (and all related performance appraisal documentation) will be retained in the EPF for 5 years. C4.AP2.1.5. When an SES member moves to a position under the jurisdiction of another personnel office, all performance appraisals 5 years old or less will be placed in the Official Personnel Folder (OPF) (temporary, left-hand side), and forwarded to the new servicing personnel office. Any bonus, rank award or PRB-related documents filed in the EPF must not be placed in the OPF and transferred with the performance appraisals. If the SES member resigns or retires, the performance appraisals 5 years old or less are placed in the OPF, and forwarded to National Personnel Records Center. C4.AP3. APPENDIX 3 TO CHAPTER 4 PERFORMANCE WHILE ON SABBATICAL C4.AP3.1.1. The performance of an SES member on a sabbatical should be subject to appraisal in the same manner as for SES members generally, but evaluated against standards appropriate to activities involved in the sabbatical. As a matter of policy, it is not appropriate to award a bonus for performance on a sabbatical. SES members are not precluded from receiving a bonus while on a sabbatical for performance contributions made before the sabbatical began. C4.AP4. APPENDIX 4 TO CHAPTER 4 REQUIRED FORMAT FOR PERFORMANCE AWARD (BONUS) RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Memorandum format 2. On letterhead 3. For The Secretary of Defense 4. From OSD Component Head or Defense Agency Staff Element Head or equivalent 5. Subject: Performance Award Recommendation for (Name) 6. No more than two pages of specific and substantive justification. 7. Justifications should be related to established performance standards, and should describe in particular how the individual's performance exceeded the standard(s). They should avoid merely describing the individual's duties or Component's mission. Justifications should deal in specifics rather than generalities; that is, they should identify, in detail, monetary savings or other benefits derived from the individual's accomplishments. Have a point to each paragraph; indicate the nature of the achievement, the result or net effect; stress energy or imagination applied above and beyond performance requirements. Specificity, as opposed to global statements, is what is needed in performance documents for reviewers to determine the relative value of an Executive's accomplishments. C4.AP5. APPENDIX 5 TO CHAPTER 4 SAMPLE CRITICAL ELEMENTS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Page 1. TECHNICAL POSITION 36 2. FISCAL POSITION 37 3. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT POSITION 38 4. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT POSITION 39 5. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT POSITION 40 6. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT POSITION 42 7. GENERAL MANAGERIAL ACTIVITIES 44 1. TECHNICAL POSITION CRITICAL ELEMENTS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Maintain a dynamic and balanced research program. Innovative new research projects constitute 10 percent of the Agency program, and management flexibility is maintained to accommodate new work as needed. Manage and direct the xxx programs in the xxxx Division. Establish and plan the long-range programs for advanced technology in xxx, advanced xxx, control systems, and new weapon systems. Establish technical and financial objectives and direct the activities of the Division. Successfully meet 75 percent of the major program milestone on time within budget. Prepare and submit the present and future documentation and plans for the Division inputs to the following: - Budget Book - Sept 11, 198x. - Congressional Justification - Dec 21, 198x. - Mid-year Review - Feb 11, 198x. - POM/Apportionment - June 11, 198x. Aggressively pursue a program of identifying high payoff technology gaps in the land warfare and weapon system arena. Establish and initiate at least two new technology initiatives in the fiscal year. Establish a clear transfer path with the Service or Services that would ultimately utilize the technology of the Division. Maintain good relations with the Services to insure a positive reception of the transferring technology. Transfer the xxx program to the Army by October 1. Establish a joint program with the Army on a xxx missile and an advanced xxx System. Develop "going out of business" plans for the program. Manage human, financial, and space resources of the Division. Provide for development of staff. This will be evidenced by execution of development plans. Reward superior performers. Correct performance deficiencies of subordinates. All budget requirements are met. Arrangements for physical move are made by November 15. Support the Affirmative Action Program. Emphasis on recruitment of minorities/women will be evidenced by addition of women/minorities to professional staff. Establish/restructure position at lower level to provide an Affirmative Action opportunity. Arrange for a qualified minority faculty member of a minority institution to spend the summer or take a sabbatical in the organization. Maintain Internal Controls * necessary to meet requirements of OMB Circular No. A-123 and Federal Manager's Financial Integrity Act (P.L. 97-255). Develop and maintain an organization, procedures, and practices that provide reasonable assurance that: - obligations and costs are in compliance with applicable laws. - funds, property, and other assets are safeguarded against waste, loss, unauthorized use, or misappropriation. - revenues and expenditures applicable to Agency operations are properly recorded and accounted for to permit the preparation of accounts and reliable financial and statistical reports, and to maintain accountability over the assets. - resources are efficiently and effectively managed. * May be used for any position, as appropriate. 2. FISCAL POSITION CRITICAL ELEMENTS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Manage the Organization. Execute all administrative responsibilities adequately and on time (space, personnel, EEO, budget, procurement etc.). Identify, attract, and recruit talented senior staff. Provide staff with opportunities for professional growth. Assure an adequate level of productivity from all staff or generate corrective action. Assure that all professional staff members are operating with professional maturity. Ensure that staff papers are delivered on time, well in advance of meetings, trips, etc. Ensure full and expeditious responses to all inquiries. Talking papers for meetings on etc., delivered to the ASD two evenings before the occasion, or 48 hours after agenda received, whichever is earlier. All inquiries answered within 72 hours after receipt. Supervise preparation of the semi-annual reports to the Congress on DoD audit, inspection, and investigation organizations pursuant to Section 2(c)(1), P.L. 9x-xxx. Final draft of the report for the period 10/1/8x - 3/31/8x to be ready for review by the Assistant xxx by May 20. Supervise preparation of the DoD annual report of audit operations. Final draft of the report for FY8x to be completed and ready for review by the Assistant xxx by June 30. Establish a system to account for and control the projects assigned to xxxx Directorate personnel. System schedule to be operative by September 30. Initiate program policy changes, as appropriate. Initiate at least two significant projects (one involving development or refinement of DoD audit policy and one involving the evaluation of the adherence or implementation of DoD audit policy) by June 30. Ensure development of staff. Update all IDPs concurrent with annual appraisals. During the first half of the year, implement 50 percent of training scheduled for the year. Achieve EEO objectives. Conduct a wide-ranging and thorough search for minority, women, and handicapped candidates for the next senior vacancy. Make demonstrable efforts to inform minorities, women, and handicapped about the field and federal careers. Offer temporary assignment and development opportunity to a participant of an OSD upward mobility program. 3. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT POSITION CRITICAL ELEMENTS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Establish a DoD-wide program to increase small business participation in DoD Research and Development. Develop program 15 Dec. Conduct review with OUSDRE 1 Feb. Publish directive implementing Program 1 Mar. Publicize program 1 Jun. Measure results 1 Nov. Recommend changes 15 Dec. Establish Area Small Business Councils. Develop program 15 Dec Publish program 15 Dec. Publicize program 15 Dec. Provide report to DUSD(AP) 15 Jan. Improve Program Management Oversight. Develop and implement a surveillance program by June 30. Schedule staff visits to representative procurement centers. Establish Disadvantaged Business Utilization Program Guidelines, for use by Services and DLA Procurement Management Review teams Sept. 5, 198x. Organize a program in conjunction with the OSD Training Program to conduct a series of 2-day classes on policies and procedures contained in DAC No. xx-xx of 22 Jul 8x. Contact training program personnel and Directors of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. Develop program. Publicize program. Conduct ongoing, thorough, and Selected reviews. Make report to DUSD(AP). Determine level of compliance with updated DAC No. xx-xx of 22 Jul 8x. Develop questionnaire. Review questionnaire. Conduct surveillance reviews. Evaluate findings and submit report to DUSD(AP). Actively support OSD Equal Employment Opportunities and Affirmative Action objectives. With respect to vacancies and promotions, performance is satisfactory when the incumbent has demonstrated a good faith effort to recruit highly qualified minorities, women, and handicapped candidates for vacancies as they become available. The quality and success of the search would be the basis for the evaluation. With respect to supervision of staff, performance is satisfactory when all support staff, especially minority female, and handicapped staff members have received career counseling and have individual career development plans. 4. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT POSITION CRITICAL ELEMENTS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Executive Program Improvement Plan For the rating period, performance on the FY 8x DoD xxx Objectives will be satisfactory if: The xxx Program Improvement Conference is held and a consolidated list of DoD xxx Objectives are issued by the end of the calendar Year 198x. At least 50 percent of all Objectives assigned to xxx and scheduled for completion by June are actually completed in that timeframe. Institute a reliability/maintainability program. In FY8x, a Directive will be issued to increase emphasis on front-end design to improve operational values and provide life-cycle traceability. Revise xxx Guidance Handbook. Identify areas needing improvement by 31 December. Develop a workplan to accomplish necessary revisions by January 31. Accomplish all scheduled milestones (Feb - June) by June 30. Update and consolidate existing DoD policy relating to budgeting, accounting, reporting, billing, and collecting into a Handbook. Develop an outline and work plan by Nov 15. Accomplish those milestones scheduled for completion on or before June 30. Prepare alternatives for xxx facility financing for xxxx and subsequent Congressional review. Satisfactory, if alternatives are derived and presented to xxx and introduced to Congressional staffs with substantive backup before February 15. Recruit, evaluate, and maintain morale of staff. The indicators of success are: Full staffing; highest quality recruits possible. All staff members fully employed on useful, challenging work. Outstanding staff members appropriately rewarded. All staffers know what is expected of them. All staffers have achievable career goals and plans to achieve them. Establish and achieve EEO objectives. Performance is fully satisfactory when: Applicable laws, regulations, and policies are fully implemented through formal programs. Recruitment programs identify and encourage the selection of women and other minorities. Recruitment contacts In universities and other organizations are identified by September 15. Programs are structured to insure that women, the handicapped, and minorities receive the training required to improve their knowledges and Skills and achieve occupational advancement. 5. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT POSITION CRITICAL ELEMENTS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Implement long-range planning functions. Performance is satisfactory when, by June 1980, xxxx has established an in-house capability for long-range planning and policy formulation to meet future program requirements, which will anticipate, as opposed to respond to, trends, innovations, and state-of-the-art changes in the field of health care delivery. Office management and administration of resources are improved. Performance is Satisfactory when, in addition to executing current responsibilities, the following administrative improvements have been implemented by June 1: (1) establishment of controls and organizational responsibilities for reviewing external audit reports to insure implementation of findings, or preparation of objectives to findings, as appropriate, in a timely manner; (2) implement procedures to effectively analyze manpower requirements, and insure that allocation of available resources is based upon an objective assessment of organizational responsibilities to reduce the number of vacant positions and to insure that on-board strength is at no time lower than 90 percent of authorized strength. Provide organization-wide supervision on the preparation of Congressional testimony. Performance is satisfactory when Congressional testimony for the ASD or the PDASD is prepared at least 72 hours prior to testimony date, and back-up books are completed at least 24 hours prior to testimony. Oversee the final review in the xxxx Appeals System. Performance is satisfactory when the final review process is completed and coordinated within the OSD for 75 percent of the cases annually in less than 20 working days following receipt of case file. Oversee the xxxx Decision Process for (xx Department Personnel and Flag officers. Performance is satisfactory when a decision of an Officer or Flag Officer is determined for 90 percent of the cases annually within 72 hours of receipt of the Service recommendation. Fiscal Intermediaries performance and service to beneficiaries are improved. Performance is satisfactory when, by Feb 1, 198x, the following improvements have been implemented: (1) the overall amount of time for individual claims processing is reduced to no more that 21 days; (2) procedures for periodic and comprehensive on-site performance evaluation reviews annually of all Fiscal Intermediaries have been implemented; (3) procedures to insure a fair and equitable process of selecting open competition among providers; and (4) procedures for on- going guidance and instructions have been implemented, insuring prompt policies, current interpretation of the Regulation, etc., and responsiveness to questions and requests for guidance. CRITICAL ELEMENTS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Improve the representation of minorities and women through affirmative recruitment, placement, and development. Performance is satisfactory when by April 1, 198x, the following administrative improvements have been implemented: (1) recruitment efforts are designed in a manner that will attract qualified applicants from all groups; (2) placement actions to assure that accordance with established merit principles and procedures. At least semi-annually, an analysis will be conducted by occupational series and organizational units to determine whether an out-of-balance situation exists; and (3) establish procedures to provide equal training opportunities for all employees. 6. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT POSITION CRITICAL ELEMENTS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Manage the FY 8x Joint Market Research Program (JMRP) contract survey studies and plan for the establishment of a centralized management structure for the FY 8x Joint Recruiting Advertising Program (JRAP). Full success means: - The Fall 8x Youth Attitude Tracking Study is executed, analyzed, reported, and made available to the Services by 1 March 198x in a manner considered to be clear, logical, and professional by the DASD. - The Spring 8x Youth Attitude Tracking Survey is planned and data are collected by the contractor prior to the end of the 198x-8x school year with content considered by the DASD to be consistent with past studies and responsive to Service and OSD market information needs. - A work statement is developed to revise the nature and content of the youth attitude tracking survey to include females. Insure that DoD can accept draftees and volunteers rapidly and efficiently under emergency conditions. Full success means delivery to the ASD by 30 June xxxx a report that defines how the Department of Defense will act in an emergency to receive draftees and volunteers. It will describe how the Department of Defense will accomplish such key tasks as: - Integrated SSS/DoD information systems for the processing of draftees and volunteers. - Transferring of recruiting manpower to other military jobs and to Selective Service. - Providing logistics support to SSS. - Expanding of Armed Forces Examining Stations. - Adjusting mental and physical standards. - Managing draft calls. - Allocating of manpower to the Services by mental category. Conduct an analysis of the Army and Navy 2 year enlistment option tests and prepare a preliminary report to Congress. Full success means: - Provided the RAND Corporation provides usable data analyses, (a) provide a decision paper for the ASD by 30 November that yields, in the opinion of the DASD, a clear and logical basis for a DASD decision regarding continuation of Army 2-year enlistments and that can be incorporated in a Feb 198x report to Congress on enlistment incentives; (b) provide by 30 June a preliminary report to the ASD on the results of the Army and Navy 198x tests that, in the opinion of the DASD, is clear and logical in describing the market impacts of the option. Prepare testimony and resource backup in support of the ASD's testimony before House and Senate Committees on the FY 8x recruiting program as part of his or her manpower testimony. Full success means: - Providing complete and current recruiting program information to the ASD. - Meeting deadlines set by ODASD. - Contains, in the opinion of the DASD, clear, and logical explanations of the recruiting program - Supports the President's Budget. CRITICAL ELEMENTS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Achieve EEO objectives of the organization being managed. Demonstrate a good faith effort to recruit staff from all possible sources. Quality of search and success of search will be basis for rating. Assure that all subordinate supervisors receive training in EEO or interpersonal relations. Offer at least two summer employment opportunities to minority, women, and handicapped college students. Restructure existing professional positions below journeyman level and initiate recruitment effort by October 15. 7. GENERAL MANAGERIAL ACTIVITIES CRITICAL ELEMENTS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATION: Represents and speaks for higher management and its work to persons and groups within and outside the Agency. Performance is Fully Successful when incumbent: (1) represents higher management by persuasively explaining and gaining support for policies, priorities, and goals; (2) communicates clearly, effectively, and positively in presenting policies and positions; (3) responds to questions appropriately, satisfying the requirements of the situation; (4) advises supervisor and subordinates of important issues; demonstrates a thorough knowledge of program priorities and policies in carrying out liaison responsibilities; and (5) deals effectively with others to arrive at satisfactory decisions or actions. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT: Directs and manages resources, supervises personnel, attends to career management, and is accountable for compliance with internal Agency policies and administrative directives relating to personnel management activities. Performance is Fully Successful when incumbent: (1) manages people, positions and other resources properly, effectively and productively; (2) staffs positions with high-quality candidates and holds them responsible for the timely and accurate completion of work assignments; (3) administers performance appraisals, cash awards, and other career management programs for staff effectively and equitably; (4) establishes and maintains productive work relationships with staff members that result in a highly motivated, productive, and mission-oriented staff; and (5) applies sound EEO and affirmative action principles to employee management.