General Engineer Position Description

• Conducts projects. Designs engineering management projects.
• Evaluates plans and determines results.
• Identifies and assures elimination of high risk/cost situations.
• Determines actual or potential deficiencies.
• Conducts or participates in Producibility Reviews.
• Determines the need for and correctness of certain proposals.
• ... Design Engineering/Manufacturing Engineering coordination and interface.
• Etc...

• Independently devises his own methods and approaches to problem solving.
• Incumbent will use specialized experience/judgment in determining specific areas requiring Manufacturing Engineering attention.

Reference: 0-38769-0
GS-801(23) General Engineer (Manufacturing)

The following version (UNCLASSIFIED) is a signed interpretation by the second Manufacturing Operations Division Chief at the AFPRO during my incumbency about my Engineering position. The second Chief started with the AFPRO in 1982. This criticism does not apply to the first Chief. The second Chief makes many errors and clearly makes the Engineer be little in appearance compared to the real magnitude of my rights and responsibilities.

There were probably many times when the Chief was asked about my work by the Contractor and various AFPRO and government personnel both locally and nationally. I am unaware of any occasion in particular and just happened to find this document in my personal portfolio. Actually, I am surprised by the composition of the text and wonder if the text was actually drafted by somebody else instead of the Chief and then used here with possibly a few changes in wording. The text surpasses my anticipation from the Chief while still failing in understanding and completeness.

On display here is the obvious slant away from the standardized terms found in all official documentation from "manufacturing processes" into the erroneous substitute "industrial processes". The motive is unknown. The phraseology of "reviews contractor's industrial processes" obviously is erroneous for several reasons. Besides the manufacturing process, there is also my responsibility for producibility, tools, equipment, plans and especially results for all United States contracts assigned for local administration, not just the few mentioned here. Also, the Chief fails to explain the reason for my evaluations (termed reviews), whether they are for the purpose of reviewing producibility, processing claims for payment, facility proposals, acquisition of contract tools, excusability of contractor delay in addition to obtaining performance, for example. Very significantly, there is typically the question of whether the technology is my own technology or the contractor's. I own the technology whenever the development effort was paid for under United States Contracts. The products, tools, equipment, designs and technology are all my possessions in the name of the United States besides my contracts and funds also handled by administrators at the AFPRO. I am clearly not a government bureaucrat or regulator interfering with somebody else's contracts or somebody else's business. My work is identified as 100% contract related special (CRX) in my official position description.

The second Chief's story can easily be discounted as opinion because the local Chief does not authorize the Engineer nor control the Engineer's position and has no authority under any contract whatever so the story is not authoritative at all. The most detailed source is the higher Headquarters providing direction, guidance and leadership and controlling the Engineering position and personnel actions. Of course, the Constitution, Laws, rules and regulations are also authoritative. Those are the things personnel should know anyway. The local Chief's can still circumvent those authorities just as they can circumvent the authorized Engineer as did occur in this case.