Dear NAFV Members,

OPM has made two major changes to federal personnel policy. First, it has authorized agencies to use standardized distributions and calibration procedures that may limit the number of employees receiving the highest performance ratings or change a supervisor’s preliminary assessment. Second, it has revised Reduction in Force (RIF) rules so that an employee’s recent performance ratings carry substantially greater weight in determining who is retained.

The practical consequence is significant: a rating that may be affected by agency-wide limits, calibration, or the availability of higher ratings can now directly influence whether an employee keeps a federal job during a RIF. Under the new system, the three most recent applicable ratings are converted into retention points, making performance a major factor in an employee’s position on the RIF retention register.

NAFV’s core concern is straightforward: a performance rating should not determine an employee’s retention rights unless it reflects an objective assessment of that employee’s actual performance against established standards. If agencies limit access to the highest ratings or alter supervisors’ assessments to satisfy a predetermined distribution, employees may face career-ending consequences based on factors beyond their individual performance.

Under the new performance-management framework, agencies may be required to limit the percentage of employees receiving the highest performance ratings. OPM has removed the previous prohibition against forced or standardized distributions and established a system in which agencies must comply with OPM-established limits on higher ratings. Calibration procedures may also result in a supervisor’s preliminary assessment being changed before a final rating is issued.

The stated objective is to reduce rating inflation and create greater differentiation among employees.

At the same time, however, OPM’s new RIF regulations make those very performance ratings extraordinarily important in determining who retains federal employment during a RIF.

Under the new system, the three most recent applicable performance ratings are converted into retention points:

● Outstanding (Level 5) — 7 points

● Exceeds Fully Successful (Level 4) — 5 points

● Fully Successful (Level 3) — 3 points

● Unacceptable (Level 1) — 0 points

Performance therefore becomes a major determinant of an employee’s position on a RIF retention register, ahead of factors such as length of federal service.

Why NAFV Is Concerned

NAFV strongly supports meaningful performance management. Employees who perform exceptionally should be recognized for exceptional performance, and supervisors should be expected to evaluate employees honestly and consistently.

Our concern is different.

If a performance rating is going to help determine whether an employee keeps his or her job, that rating should represent an objective assessment of that employee’s performance against established performance standards—not the employee’s position within an administratively imposed distribution.

Consider two employees who both perform at a level their supervisors believe warrants an Outstanding rating. If organizational calibration or a distribution limit results in one receiving a Level 5 and the other receiving a Level 3, the consequences are no longer limited to recognition or an annual performance award.

The first employee receives 7 RIF retention points for that rating.

The second receives 3.

That is a four-point difference arising from a single performance cycle.

For perspective, under the new RIF system ordinary veterans’ preference provides three additional retention points.

Over several appraisal cycles, these differences can become substantial.

This creates an inherent tension between the two policies.

OPM is limiting access to the ratings that provide the greatest RIF protection while simultaneously making those ratings substantially more important in determining who keeps a federal job during a RIF.

We believe that deserves careful scrutiny.

A Fully Successful Employee Is Still a Successful Employee

There is another important point our members should understand.

A Level 3 rating means Fully Successful. It means the employee has met the performance requirements established for the position.

Yet under the new RIF system, that fully successful employee receives substantially fewer retention points than an employee receiving a Level 4 or 5.

Consequently, an employee does not have to perform poorly to be disadvantaged in a RIF.

An employee can perform every essential element of the job successfully—and potentially lose employment to another employee whose higher rating may have been influenced not only by individual performance but also by calibration, organizational performance, or the availability of higher ratings within a standardized distribution.

That distinction is important.

Particular Concerns for Federal Veterinarians

NAFV is also concerned about how these policies could affect specialized professional employees.

Federal veterinarians perform highly technical duties involving animal health, public health, food safety, emergency response, epidemiology, regulatory medicine, laboratory science, research, and other specialized responsibilities.

Performance comparisons involving employees working in different programs, geographic locations, organizational units, supervisory structures, or even occupational series may not necessarily represent meaningful comparisons of individual professional performance.

Yet relatively small differences in ratings can now have potentially career-ending consequences during a RIF.

We are particularly concerned about situations in which an employee’s immediate supervisor believes that employee earned a particular rating, but organizational calibration subsequently lowers it because of a broader distribution requirement.

Once performance ratings become a principal determinant of RIF retention, the integrity, transparency, consistency, and appealability of the performance-rating process become more important than ever.

What NAFV Will Do

NAFV intends to examine these policies carefully and determine what avenues are available to protect the interests of federal veterinarians.

We will seek clarification from OPM, USDA, and the agencies employing our members regarding how performance distributions and calibration will be implemented and, particularly, how those ratings will subsequently be used in a RIF.

Among the questions we believe deserve answers are:

How can a performance rating serve as an objective measure for RIF retention if the availability of the highest ratings is administratively limited?

How will employees be protected when a supervisor’s assessment is changed during organizational calibration?

How will agencies ensure that employees performing substantially different professional duties are not unfairly compared?

How will differences among supervisors, organizational units, geographic locations, and historical rating practices be reconciled when three years of ratings are used to determine RIF retention?

What meaningful review or appeal mechanisms will employees have when a rating can directly affect whether they retain federal employment?

And perhaps most fundamentally:

Should a governmentwide policy designed to control performance-rating distributions be permitted to determine an individual employee’s retention rights during a Reduction in Force?

NAFV cannot promise our members that we can change these regulations. We can promise that we will examine them carefully, raise legitimate concerns with agency and government leadership, work with our professional partners where appropriate, and advocate for a system that treats federal employees fairly.

Federal employees should be held accountable for their performance.

But accountability must work both ways.

If the government is going to use performance ratings to make decisions as consequential as who keeps a career and who loses one, then employees have every right to expect that those ratings are based upon their actual performance—not upon a quota, an organizational distribution, or the need to make the numbers fit a predetermined curve.

NAFV will do what we can to ensure that federal veterinarians receive that fundamental fairness.

Sincerely,

Joseph F. Annelli, DVM, MS
Executive Vice President
National Association of Federal Veterinarians (NAFV)