Defense Research and Development: Federal Centers' 1993 Compensation in Relation to Federal Levels (Letter Report, 07/10/96, GAO/NSIAD-96-140)
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
fiscal year 1993 costs for professional staff, managers, and executives
at the Department of Defense's (DOD) Federally Funded Research and
Development Centers (FFRDC), focusing on: (1) salaries, other cash
compensation, and benefits for FFRDC personnel; and (2) the average
compensation paid by FFRDC to their personnel.
GAO found that: (1) the average base salary for FFRDC executives,
managers, and professional staff was $73,000, with the individual
average for each DOD FFRDC ranging from $67,000 to $81,000; (2) average
executive base salaries varied from $123,000 to $183,000; (3) the
average employer cost of benefits for all FFRDC personnel ranged from 16
percent to 24 percent of salaries; (4) executives' benefits had the
greatest variance, ranging from 19 percent to 54 percent of salaries;
(5) benefits for all federal and FFRDC executives, with two exceptions,
were about the same as those provided to all other employees; (6) the
average total compensation for all FFRDC employees was $90,000, which
corresponded to the federal level of GS-14 step 8; (7) individual
average total compensation ranged from $81,000 to $100,000; (8) average
executive compensation ranged from $149,000 to $282,000, which was above
federal levels at three FFRDC and at the cabinet level at the other
FFRDC; (9) for managers, total compensation at five FFRDC was at the
Senior Executive Service level and at the GS-15 level at three FFRDC;
and (10) for professional staff, total compensation at four FFRDC was at
the GS-14 Level and at the GS-13 level at the remaining FFRDC.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: NSIAD-96-140
TITLE: Defense Research and Development: Federal Centers' 1993
Compensation in Relation to Federal Levels
DATE: 07/10/96
SUBJECT: Compensation
Fringe benefits
Executive compensation
Non-profit organizations
Colleges/universities
Research programs
Research and development contracts
GS grade classification
Military research
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** <info@www.gao.gov> **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Requesters
July 1996
DEFENSE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT -
FEDERAL CENTERS' 1993 COMPENSATION
IN RELATION TO FEDERAL LEVELS
GAO/NSIAD-96-140
Defense Research and Development
(705064)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
DOD - Department of Defense
FFRDC - Federally Funded Research and Development Center
GAO - General Accounting Office
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-259031
July 10, 1996
The Honorable Ted Stevens
Chairman
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable C. W. Bill Young
Chairman
The Honorable John P. Murtha
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on National Security
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
This report provides information on the professional staff, managers,
and executives of the Department of Defense (DOD) Federally Funded
Research and Development Centers (FFRDC). As requested, we reviewed
fiscal year 1993 costs for salaries, other cash compensation, and
benefits to determine total compensation for the FFRDCs, and
identified the federal levels that contained the average compensation
paid by the FFRDCs to their personnel. However, we did not compare
FFRDC and federal government positions or personnel, nor did we match
positions or personnel among FFRDCs. This report is the third in a
series covering the DOD FFRDC personnels' affiliations and pay.\1
--------------------
\1 Previously issued reports were Defense Research and Development:
Affiliations of Fiscal Year 1993 Trustees for Federally Funded
Centers (GAO/NSIAD-95-135, July 26, 1995) and Defense Research and
Development: Fiscal Year 1993 Trustee and Adviser Costs at Federally
Funded Centers (GAO/NSIAD-96-27, Dec. 26, 1995).
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
The FFRDCs were established during World War II to meet special
research needs that federal and private sector facilities could not
provide. The number of FFRDCs has varied over the years, but in
fiscal year 1993 there were 39,\2 with 10 being sponsored by DOD--the
Aerospace Corporation, the Center for Naval Analyses,\3
the Institute for Defense Analyses, the Lincoln Laboratory,\4 the
Logistics Management Institute, the MITRE Corporation, the RAND
Corporation,\5 and the Software Engineering Institute.\6 Each FFRDC
is managed by a private sector nonprofit company or university and
funded primarily through a renewable 5-year, sole-source contract.
In fiscal year 1993, Congress appropriated about $1.4 billion for the
DOD FFRDCs.
Our study included 7,423 full-time, professional employees out of a
total fiscal year employment of 10,248 (72 percent). Our study
included all of the FFRDC executives. We included all managers and
professional staff who were directly involved in research and
development work at the FFRDCs. These employees represented 79
percent of managers and 71 percent of staff (see app. I). See the
scope and methodology section for a description of the employees
excluded from our study.
The total salaries paid by the FFRDCs in fiscal year 1993 were: the
MITRE Corporation $217 million, the Aerospace Corporation $203
million, the Lincoln Laboratory $131 million, the Institute for
Defense Analyses $48 million, the Center for Naval Analyses $26
million, the RAND Corporation $16 million, and the Logistics
Management Institute and the Software Engineering Institute $14
million each. Our study included
81 percent of the DOD FFRDCs' fiscal year 1993 total salary costs
($669 million).
The fiscal year 1993 federal pay and compensation levels used in this
report are those for the General Schedule (GS) grades 13 through 15
and for a combined executive level. (See tables IV.1 through IV.7
for more details.)
From fiscal year 1993 to date, according to the DOD FFRDCs: (1)
there have been no significant changes to major benefits; (2) salary
levels rose slightly, with maximum annual increases of about 4
percent; and (3) employment went up at five FFRDCs and down at three
others, with the overall employment increasing by about 2 percent.
--------------------
\2 The 29 non-DOD FFRDCs are managed by the Department of Energy
(19), the National Science Foundation (6), the Federal Aviation
Administration (1), the Internal Revenue Service (1), the National
Institutes of Health (1), and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (1).
\3 The CNA Corporation manages the Center for Naval Analyses.
\4 The Massachusetts Institute of Technology manages the Lincoln
Laboratory.
\5 RAND Corporation manages three FFRDCs--the Arroyo Center for the
Army, Project Air Force, and the National Defense Research Institute
for DOD.
\6 Carnegie Mellon University manages the Software Engineering
Institute.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
The FFRDCs' average base salaries,\7 benefits, and total compensation
for the three types of personnel we studied are shown in appendix II.
The average base salary for all FFRDC study employees was $73,000,
with individual averages for FFRDCs ranging from $67,000 for the
Center for Naval Analyses to $81,000 for the RAND Corporation. The
greatest difference among FFRDCs was in executive base salaries, with
averages ranging from $123,000 for the Center for Naval Analyses to
$183,000 for the MITRE Corporation. (See table II.1 for more
details.)
The average employer cost of benefits (as a percent of salary) for
all the FFRDC personnel in our study ranged from 16 percent for the
Aerospace Corporation to 24 percent for the Institute for Defense
Analyses and the RAND Corporation. The greatest difference among
FFRDCs was in the cost of executive benefits, which ranged from 19
percent of salary for the Lincoln Laboratory to 54 percent for the
MITRE Corporation. For all federal and FFRDC executives (excepting
those at the Aerospace and the MITRE Corporations) benefits received
were about the same as those provided to all other employees. (See
tables II.2 and II.3 for more details.)
The average total compensation cost for the FFRDC personnel in our
study ranged from $81,000 for the Center for Naval Analyses to
$100,000 for the RAND Corporation. The greatest difference among
FFRDCs was in average executive compensation costs, which ranged from
$149,000 for the Center for Naval Analyses to $282,000 for the MITRE
Corporation. (See table II.4 for more details.)
The average compensation for all fiscal year 1993 FFRDC employees in
our study was $89,000. The federal level at this compensation was
GS-14
step 8. For executive personnel, the average compensation was above
federal levels for the Aerospace, the MITRE, and the RAND
Corporations, and at Executive Schedule (ES) level for all the rest.
For managers, five FFRDCs were at the Senior Executive Service (SES)
level, and the Aerospace Corporation, the Center for Naval Analyses,
and the MITRE Corporation were at the GS-15 level. For staff
positions, the Institute for Defense Analyses, the Logistics
Management Institute, the Software Engineering Institute, and the
RAND Corporation were at the GS-14 level, while the other four were
at the GS-13 level. The federal compensation levels noted in this
report are based on Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76.
(See tables III.1 through III.8 and IV.1 through IV.7 for more
details.)
--------------------
\7 The average salaries used in our report are the means for the base
salaries of the FFRDC executives, managers, and professional staff.
Our analysis of within-FFRDC salary distributions showed comparable
results using either mean or median salaries.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
We initially requested data from each FFRDC on salaries, other cash
compensation, and benefits provided in fiscal year 1993 to their
professional staff, managers, and executives who were employed on a
full-time basis on September 30, 1993. We asked that information be
provided for all individuals in the above three employee categories
if 50 percent or more of their salary during fiscal year 1993 was
paid by the FFRDC component of their organization.
We defined the chief executive officer and all other corporate
officers as executives, including administrative and operational
officers.
We defined managers as those who plan, organize, direct, and control
major functions or departments of the FFRDCs through subordinates who
may also be managers or supervisors. Managers may also perform
independent research and development work. We excluded managers of
support operations, such as the heads of personnel and training.
We defined professional staff to include scientists, engineers,
analysts, and others in similar positions, whether they supervised
others or worked alone. We asked that the FFRDCs provide information
on only professional staff with responsibilities for work in basic
and applied research and development, special studies and analyses,
and systems planning, engineering, and integration. We excluded
professional staff whose functions were in support of the above work,
such as legal, accounting, training, and purchasing services, or who
were intermittent workers or consultants to the FFRDC. We also
excluded all nonprofessional technicians and analysts performing work
in support of professional staff.
We requested data on (1) individual employees' annual base salaries,
(2) employer annual costs for benefits, and (3) other data on FFRDC
operations and personnel. We also requested data on bonuses,
incentive awards, and other cash compensation. However, none of
these were reported by the FFRDCs as paid in fiscal year 1993. The
FFRDCs reported overall fiscal year 1993 salary and benefit costs for
full-time FFRDC employees in our study. The employer expenditures
for benefits used in our study were the premiums paid for life,
health, and worker's compensation and the costs of contributions
toward employee retirement, and social security. We took employer
benefit costs for these same benefits provided to federal employees
from the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, which
established federal employer benefit costs for fiscal year 1993 at 30
percent of salary.\8 We excluded the employer costs of some benefits
provided to FFRDC and federal employees.\9 These employer costs were
small, relative to those we considered, or the benefits were offered
to only a few employees or by only a few FFRDCs or federal agencies.
Leave costs were included as part of base salary and, therefore, were
not considered separately as a benefit. We did not compare the
content, value, or quality of any benefit plan nor did we analyze the
differences in leave amounts or policies.
The average salaries used in our report are the means for the base
salaries of the FFRDC executives, managers, and professional staff.
Analysis of within-FFRDC salary distributions showed comparable
results using either mean or median salaries. Federal compensation
levels in this report consist of base salary and benefits costs for
federal employees. Salary figures taken from the 1993 federal salary
schedules were adjusted to include the 30-percent cost of benefits to
the federal government and where applicable, an 8-percent geographic
differential for GS employees. SES and ES level positions did not
receive geographic differential pay in fiscal year 1993. Where a
compensation amount is in two federal levels, we express it as the
lower level. For example, an average compensation of $75,000, in
both the GS-13 step 8 and GS-14 step 2 levels, is noted at the GS-13
level. When a salary or compensation was over a federal level by any
amount it was expressed at the next level. Since we used the entire
ES pay scale, we did not use SES levels 5 and 6, which overlap ES
levels V and IV. We did not compare FFRDC and federal government
positions or personnel, nor did we match positions or personnel among
FFRDCs.
The FFRDCs provided all of the salary and benefit data on the
individuals and groups in our study. In addition, each FFRDC
verified that the numbers used in this report for its salaries and
benefits were accurate and presented a fair representation of its
costs. Our work on this and other previously issued reports was
performed from July 1994 through June 1996 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
--------------------
\8 The fiscal year 1993 federal employer benefit costs were 29.55
percent of salary, rounded to 30 percent, consisting of 21.7 percent
for retirement and social security, 4.7 percent for health and life
insurance, 1.7 percent for workers' compensation and miscellaneous
benefits, and 1.45 percent for medicare.
\9 Benefit costs reported by some FFRDCs that were excluded from our
study included college tuition, home security systems, airline
upgrade coupons, child care, elder care, and free physicals. We also
excluded the costs of federal benefits for subsidized parking, child
care, physicals, and health club facilities.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
In commenting on a draft of this report, each of the eight
organizations managing DOD's FFRDCs agreed that the report accurately
presented the data provided on their employees' salaries and
compensation. We also discussed the contents of the draft report
with representatives of the Office of Personnel Management and DOD.
Several of these organizations offered technical corrections or
editorial suggestions that we incorporated in the report where
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
We are providing copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense,
the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Directors, Office of
Management and Budget and Defense Research and Engineering; other
congressional committees and subcommittees; and each of the DOD
FFRDCs. We will also make copies available to others on request.
If there are any questions about the information presented in this
report, please contact me on (202) 512-4587. Major contributors to
this report are listed in appendix V.
David E. Cooper
Associate Director, Defense Acquisitions
Issues
FISCAL YEAR 1993 FEDERALLY FUNDED
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER
PERSONNEL REVIEWED BY GAO
=========================================================== Appendix I
Table I.1
Number of Personnel by Type Reviewed by
GAO Compared to Total FFRDC Employment
Execut Manage
ives rs Manage Staff Total
review Executive review rs review Staff review
FFRDC ed s total ed total ed total ed Total
--------------- ------ --------- ------ ------ ------ ----- ------ -----
Aerospace 12 12 493 647 1,925 2,251 2,430 2,910
CNA 14 14 15 23 251 431 280 468
IDA 6 6 33 57 374 749 413 812
LLB 29 29 133 159 1,013 2,246 1,175 2,434
LMI 7 7 17 17 146 199 170 223
MITRE 18 18 583 713 1,999 2,285 2,600 3,016
RAND 11 11 16 16 169 169 196 196
SEI 5 5 11 16 143 168 159 189
================================================================================
Total 102 102 1,301 1,648 6,020 8,498 7,423 10,24
8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The following identify the acronyms used in the table: The
Center for Naval Analyses (CNA), the Federally Funded Research and
Development Center (FFRDC), the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA),
the Lincoln Laboratory (LLB), the Logistics Management Institute
(LMI), and the Software Engineering Institute (SEI).
Table I.2
Percent of Personnel by Type Reviewed by
GAO Compared to Total FFRDC Employment
Execut Manage
ives rs Staff Total
review review review review
FFRDC ed ed ed ed
-------------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
Aerospace 100 76 86 84
CNA 100 65 58 60
IDA 100 58 50 51
LLB 100 84 45 48
LMI 100 100 73 76
MITRE 100 82 87 86
RAND 100 100 100 100
SEI 100 69 85 84
======================================================================
Total 100 79 71 72
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPARISON OF FISCAL YEAR 1993
FFRDC BASE SALARIES, BENEFITS, AND
COMPENSATION
========================================================== Appendix II
Table II.1
Comparison of Average FFRDC Base Salary
Costs for Different Types of Personnel
(Dollars in thousands)
Execut Manage
FFRDC ives rs Staff Total
---------------------------------------- ------ ------ ----- -----
Aerospace $175 $94 $68 $74
CNA 123 100 62 67
IDA 137 109 75 79
LLB 140 110 64 71
LMI 127 92 67 72
MITRE 183 90 65 71
RAND 162 105 74 81
SEI 139 101 75 79
======================================================================
Total $151 $94 $67 $73
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.2
Comparison of Average FFRDC Benefit
Costs for Different Types of Personnel
(Dollars in thousands)
Execut Manage
FFRDC ives rs Staff Total
---------------------------------------- ------ ------ ----- -----
Aerospace $72 $15 $11 $12
CNA 26 21 13 14
IDA 33 26 18 19
LLB 27 21 12 13
LMI 29 21 15 17
MITRE 99 20 14 16
RAND 39 25 18 19
SEI 31 22 17 17
======================================================================
Total $45 $21 $15 $16
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.3
Comparison of Average Benefit Cost for
FFRDCs (as a percent of salary) Provided
to Different Types of Personnel
Execut Manage
FFRDC ives rs Staff Total
---------------------------------------- ------ ------ ----- -----
Aerospace 41 16 16 16
CNA 21 21 21 21
IDA 24 24 24 24
LLB 19 19 19 19
LMI 23 23 23 23
MITRE 54 22 22 23
RAND 24 24 24 24
SEI 22 22 22 22
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.4
Comparison of Average FFRDC Total
Compensation\a Costs for Different Types
of Personnel
(Dollars in thousands)
Execut Manage
FFRDC ives rs Staff Total
---------------------------------------- ------ ------ ----- -----
Aerospace $247 $109 $79 $86
CNA 149 121 75 81
IDA 170 135 93 98
LLB 167 131 76 84
LMI 156 113 82 89
MITRE 282 110 79 87
RAND 201 130 92 100
SEI 170 123 92 96
======================================================================
Total $196 $115 $82 $89
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Total compensation consists of salary plus benefits.
FISCAL YEAR 1993 RANGE AND AVERAGE
TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR EACH FFRDC
========================================================= Appendix III
Table III.1
The Aerospace Corporation
(Dollars in thousands)
Average
Number Range of total
of compensati compensati
Type of personnel people on on
-------------------------------------- ------ ---------- ----------
Executives 12 $183 to $247
$374
Managers 493 67 to 193 109
Staff 1,925 35 to 158 79
======================================================================
Total 2,430 $35 to $86
$374
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.2
CNA
(Dollars in thousands)
Average
Number Range of total
of compensati compensati
Type of personnel people on on
-------------------------------------- ------ ---------- ----------
Executives 14 $110 to $149
$248
Managers 15 100 to 143 121
Staff 251 30 to 149 75
======================================================================
Total 280 $30 to $81
$248
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.3
IDA
(Dollars in thousands)
Average
Number Range of total
of compensati compensati
Type of personnel people on on
-------------------------------------- ------ ---------- ----------
Executives 6 $117 to $170
$279
Managers 33 99 to 191 135
Staff 374 37 to 181 93
======================================================================
Total 413 $37 to $98
$279
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.4
LLB
(Dollars in thousands)
Average
Number Range of total
of compensati compensati
Type of personnel people on on
-------------------------------------- ------ ---------- ----------
Executives 29 $111 to $167
$273
Managers 133 93 to 154 131
Staff 1,013 40 to 151 76
======================================================================
Total 1,175 $40 to $84
$273
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.5
LMI
(Dollars in thousands)
Average
Number Range of total
of compensati compensati
Type of personnel people on on
-------------------------------------- ------ ---------- ----------
Executives 7 $114 to $156
$185
Managers 17 42 to 150 113
Staff 146 25 to 148 82
======================================================================
Total 170 $25 to $89
$185
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.6
The MITRE Corporation
(Dollars in thousands)
Average
Number Range of total
of compensati compensati
Type of personnel people on on
-------------------------------------- ------ ---------- ----------
Executives 18 $222 to $282
$447
Managers 583 63 to 179 110
Staff 1,999 39 to 183 79
======================================================================
Total 2,600 $39 to $87
$447
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.7
The RAND Corporation
(Dollars in thousands)
Average
Number Range of total
of compensati compensati
Type of personnel people on on
-------------------------------------- ------ ---------- ----------
Executives 11 $114 to $201
$296
Managers 16 95 to 172 130
Staff 169 33 to 144 92
======================================================================
Total 196 $33 to $100
$296
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.8
SEI
(Dollars in thousands)
Average
Number Range of total
of compensati compensati
Type of personnel people on on
-------------------------------------- ------ ---------- ----------
Executives 5 $151 to $170
$218
Managers 11 98 to 135 123
Staff 143 38 to 153 92
======================================================================
Total 159 $38 to $96
$218
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 1993 FEDERAL
COMPENSATION LEVELS
========================================================== Appendix IV
Table IV.1
Federal Executive Compensation With
Benefits at
30 Percent of Salary
(Dollars in thousands)
30-
Fiscal percen
year t
1993 benefi Compensati
Category base ts on
------------------------------------------ ------ ------ ----------
SES-1 $92.9 $27.9 $120.8
SES-2 97.4 29.2 126.6
SES-3 101.8 30.5 132.3
SES-4 107.3 32.2 139.5
SES-5 111.8 33.5 145.3
SES-6 115.7 34.7 150.4
ES-V 108.2 32.5 140.7
ES-IV 115.7 34.7 150.4
ES-III 123.1 36.9 160.0
ES-II 133.6 40.1 173.7
ES-I 148.4 44.5 192.9\a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The maximum fiscal year 1993 federal compensation of $192,900 (for
Executive Schedule (ES) I) is composed of $148,400 in salary and
$44,500 in benefits (30 percent of salary). Federal executive level
positions did not receive geographic differential pay.
Table IV.2
GS-15 Federal Compensation With Benefits
at
30 Percent of Salary
(Dollars in thousands)
30-
Fiscal percen
year t
1993 benefi Compensati
Steps base ts on
------------------------------------------ ------ ------ ----------
1 $66.6 $20.0 $86.6
2 68.8 20.6 89.4
3 71.0 21.3 92.3
4 73.3 22.0 95.3
5 75.5 22.7 98.2
6 77.7 23.3 101.0
7 79.9 24.0 103.9
8 82.1 24.6 106.7
9 84.4 25.3 109.7
10 86.6 26.0 112.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.3
GS-15 Federal Compensation With Benefits
at
30 Percent of Salary and 8-Percent
Geographic Differential
(Dollars in thousands)
30-
Fiscal percen
year +8 t
1993 percen benefi Compensatio
Steps base t\a ts n
--------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ -----------
1 $66.6 $71.9 $21.6 $93.5
2 68.8 74.3 22.3 96.6
3 71.0 76.7 23.0 99.7
4 73.3 79.2 23.8 103.0
5 75.5 81.5 24.5 106.0
6 77.7 83.9 25.2 109.1
7 79.9 86.3 25.9 112.2
8 82.1 88.7 26.6 115.3
9 84.4 91.2 27.4 118.6
10 86.6 93.5 28.1 121.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The federal GS-level positions in the parts of California where
the Aerospace and the RAND Corporations were located got an 8-percent
geographic differential added to their salary.
Table IV.4
GS-14 Federal Compensation With Benefits
at
30 Percent of Salary
(Dollars in thousands)
30-
Fiscal percen
year t
1993 benefi Compensatio
Steps base ts n
----------------------------------------- ------ ------ -----------
1 $56.6 $17.0 $73.6
2 58.5 17.6 76.1
3 60.4 18.1 78.5
4 62.3 18.7 81.0
5 64.2 19.3 83.5
6 66.1 19.8 85.9
7 68.0 20.4 88.4
8 69.8 20.9 90.7
9 71.7 21.5 93.2
10 73.6 22.1 95.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.5
GS-14 Federal Compensation With Benefits
at
30 Percent of Salary and 8-Percent
Geographic Differential
(Dollars in thousands)
30-
Fiscal percen
year +8 t
1993 percen benefi Compensatio
Steps base t\a ts n
--------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ -----------
1 $56.6 $61.1 $18.3 $79.4
2 58.5 63.2 19.0 82.2
3 60.4 65.2 19.6 84.8
4 62.3 67.3 20.2 87.5
5 64.2 69.3 20.8 90.1
6 66.1 71.4 21.4 92.8
7 68.0 73.4 22.0 95.4
8 69.8 75.4 22.6 98.0
9 71.7 77.4 23.2 100.6
10 73.6 79.5 23.9 103.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The federal GS-level positions in the parts of California where
the Aerospace and the RAND Corporations were located got an 8-percent
geographic differential added to their salary.
Table IV.6
GS-13 Federal Compensation With Benefits
at
30 Percent of Salary
(Dollars in thousands)
30-
Fiscal percen
year t
1993 benefi Compensatio
Steps base ts n
----------------------------------------- ------ ------ -----------
1 $47.9 $14.4 $62. 3
2 49.5 14.9 64.4
3 51.1 15.3 66.4
4 52.7 15.8 68.5
5 54.3 16.3 70.6
6 55.9 16.8 72.7
7 57.5 17.3 74.8
8 59.1 17.7 76.8
9 60.7 18.2 78.9
10 62.3 18.7 81.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.7
GS-13 Federal Compensation With Benefits
at
30 Percent of Salary and 8-Percent
Geographic Differential
(Dollars in thousands)
30-
Fiscal percen
year +8 t
1993 percen benefi Compensatio
Steps base t\\a ts n
--------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ -----------
1 $47.9 $51.7 $15.5 $67.2
2 49.5 53.5 16.1 69.6
3 51.1 55.2 16.6 71.8
4 52.7 56.9 17.1 74.0
5 54.3 58.6 17.6 76.2
6 55.9 60.4 18.1 78.5
7 57.5 62.1 18.6 80.7
8 59.1 63.8 19.1 82.9
9 60.7 65.6 19.7 85.3
10 62.3 67.3 20.2 87.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The federal GS-level positions in the parts of California where
the Aerospace and the RAND Corporations were located got an 8-percent
geographic differential added to their salary.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V
NATIONAL SECURITY AND
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Charles F. Rey, Assistant Director
Marilyn Mauch, Assistant Director
Roy B. Karadbil, Evaluator-in-Charge
Charles W. Malphurs, Evaluator-in-Charge
Shirley B. Johnson, Evaluator
Stacy Edwards, Evaluator
Kathleen M. Joyce, Social Science Analyst
Minette D. Richardson, Computer Specialist
*** End of document. ***
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
