Four agencies, four formulas, one rating of record — how federal appraisal systems actually work.

Every federal agency operates its own performance appraisal system under the same regulatory framework — 5 U.S.C. Chapter 43 and 5 CFR Part 430. What looks like uniformity on paper is in practice five dozen distinct systems, each with its own rating patterns, summary calculation formulas, documentation requirements, and translation tables. Your annual rating of record is the output of whatever system your agency runs — and when you move between agencies, the mechanics by which your performance is evaluated change entirely.

This guide covers four representative systems: the Department of Defense Performance Management and Appraisal Program (DPMAP), the Department of Homeland Security performance management system, the Department of Veterans Affairs Title 5 / Title 38 dual structure, and the Internal Revenue Service performance management program under the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 98). Together these cover approximately 1.3 million federal civilian employees — more than 60 percent of the workforce. Smaller agencies typically model their systems on one of these four.

Section I Why every agency does it differently

Under 5 U.S.C. 4302, each agency head is required to develop one or more performance appraisal systems and obtain OPM approval for them. The statute grants agencies deliberate discretion in designing the system — different missions, different workforces, and different operational tempos are expected to produce different appraisal methods.

What 5 CFR Part 430 Subpart B requires

The OPM regulations set a minimum floor every agency system must meet. Under 5 CFR 430.206 and 430.207, every agency system must include at least one critical element with a performance standard at the Fully Successful level, must appraise performance against measurable standards, must provide for assigning an overall summary rating of record at the end of the appraisal period, and must assist employees whose performance is unacceptable. Beyond those minimums, agencies choose their own rating patterns, summary formulas, cycle timing, and documentation methods.

What agencies choose for themselves

Agency-specific design choices include:

• Number of rating levels — 2 (pass/fail), 3 (Unacceptable / Fully Successful / Outstanding), or 5 (full spectrum including Exceeds and Minimally Satisfactory)
• Element weighting — equal weight across all elements, or variable weights based on mission importance
• Summary formula — simple arithmetic average, weighted average, pattern-matching tables, or discretionary supervisor determination
• Appraisal cycle — calendar year, fiscal year, anniversary of hire, or April-to-March (DPMAP)
• Documentation tool — agency-specific electronic systems (MyPerformance for DoD, PeoplePoint for DHS, VA's Talent Management System, IRS IRWorkforce)
• Mandatory elements — agencies commonly require EEO, safety, or mission-aligned elements for supervisors

Special statutory authorities override general framework

Several agencies operate under special statutory authorities that supersede or augment 5 U.S.C. Chapter 43. The IRS uses 5 U.S.C. 9508 and the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. The VA operates a parallel Title 38 Proficiency Rating System for health care professionals alongside its Title 5 system. DoD acquisition workforce employees use the AcqDemo system with Contribution Plans instead of traditional performance plans. The FBI, CIA, and other intelligence community positions have classified appraisal authorities.

For the foundational framework, see Workplace Topic 09 on How the Federal Performance System Works. For how specific ratings drive downstream consequences like WIGI eligibility and awards, see Career & Pay Topic 03 on Step Increases and Topic 16 on Performance Awards.

Section II The rating patterns under 5 CFR 430.208

5 CFR 430.208(d) establishes approved patterns of summary rating levels. Each approved pattern is a valid configuration for an agency appraisal system. The Level 1 through Level 5 numbering is ordered: Level 1 is always the lowest (Unacceptable), Level 5 is always the highest (Outstanding).

Pattern A — Two-level (Pass/Fail)

Level 5 (equivalent to Fully Successful or higher) and Level 1 (Unacceptable). Used historically by agencies seeking administrative simplicity and reduced calibration effort. OPM's February 2026 proposed rule (91 FR 8780) eliminates Pattern A except for narrow categories — seasonal employees, teachers under Title 38, GS-1 through GS-4 positions. Virtually all professional federal positions will be moved off Pattern A.

Pattern B — Three-level

Level 5 (Outstanding), Level 3 (Fully Successful), Level 1 (Unacceptable). This is the DPMAP configuration — and likely to remain a common choice for agencies seeking meaningful distinctions without the calibration complexity of a five-level scale.

Pattern D, E, F, G — Four-level and mid-range patterns

Various agency-specific configurations using Levels 1 through 4 or Levels 1, 2, 3, 5. OPM's February 2026 proposed rule eliminates patterns that include Level 2 or cap at Level 4, effectively sunsetting these configurations. Agencies currently using them will need to migrate to Pattern B (three-level) or Pattern H (five-level).

Pattern H — Full five-level

Level 5 (Outstanding), Level 4 (Exceeds Fully Successful), Level 3 (Fully Successful), Level 2 (Minimally Satisfactory), Level 1 (Unacceptable). VA uses Pattern H. DHS uses a five-level system under its OPM-approved pattern. The full five-level scale gives agencies maximum granularity to distinguish among performers but requires the most rigorous calibration. Under the February 2026 proposed rule, Level 2 would be eliminated even from Pattern H, effectively reducing it to four active tiers (1, 3, 4, 5).

The universal rule

Under 5 CFR 430.208(b)(1), regardless of which pattern an agency uses, a Level 1 summary rating must be assigned if and only if performance on one or more critical elements is Unacceptable. This rule is agency-invariant. An agency using Pattern B (three-level) and an agency using Pattern H (five-level) both must issue a Level 1 summary when a critical element is Unacceptable — no averaging rescues the rating.

Section III DPMAP — the DoD three-level system

The Defense Performance Management and Appraisal Program covers approximately 750,000 civilian Department of Defense employees, making it the largest single federal appraisal system. DPMAP is governed by DoD Instruction 1400.25, Volume 431, and operates on a Pattern B three-level rating scale.

Rating levels and calculation

DPMAP uses three rating levels:

• Level 5 — Outstanding
• Level 3 — Fully Successful
• Level 1 — Unacceptable

Every element in a DPMAP performance plan is critical, and all elements are weighted equally. The summary rating is calculated by the MyPerformance tool using a simple arithmetic formula: sum the numerical ratings assigned to each element (5 for Outstanding, 3 for Fully Successful, 1 for Unacceptable), and divide by the total number of elements. The resulting average is translated to an overall rating of record using DoDI 1400.25 V431's translation table:

• Average ≥ 4.3 — Outstanding (Level 5), provided no element is rated Unacceptable
• Average < 4.3 with no Unacceptable elements — Fully Successful (Level 3)
• Any element rated Unacceptable — Unacceptable (Level 1) overall, regardless of other scores

An employee with five elements rated Outstanding, Outstanding, Outstanding, Fully Successful, Fully Successful has an average of (5+5+5+3+3)/5 = 4.2 — below the 4.3 threshold, producing an overall Fully Successful rating. To earn Outstanding, the employee would need four out of five elements at Outstanding (4 × 5 + 3) / 5 = 4.6.

Appraisal cycle

DPMAP operates on an April 1 through March 31 cycle — a legacy of its 2016 implementation aligned with DoD's planning cycle. OPM's June 17, 2025 memorandum directs all agencies to transition to a governmentwide October 1 to September 30 fiscal-year cycle beginning with FY 2027. DPMAP will run one final April 2026 - March 2027 cycle, then transition to October 1, 2027 - September 30, 2028 as the first standardized cycle. Transitional partial-year cycles during 2027 will be necessary for the shift.

Three required formal discussions

DPMAP mandates three formal documented discussions per cycle, tracked in the MyPerformance tool via the DCPDS Portal (compo.dcpds.cpms.osd.mil):

1. Performance Plan — discussed and signed at the start of the cycle (April 1 currently, October 1 under the new cycle)
2. Progress Review — typically at midyear; employee and supervisor document the progress against the plan
3. Final Appraisal — at cycle end; supervisor issues the rating of record, employee signs acknowledging receipt

The June 2025 OPM memo adds further performance check-in requirements — at least three per cycle including a midyear review — beyond the three DPMAP formal discussions. DPMAP agencies may consolidate the check-in and formal-discussion requirements where schedule permits.

AcqDemo — the DoD acquisition workforce exception

Acquisition workforce employees at Department of Defense acquisition organizations are excluded from DPMAP and operate under the AcqDemo (Acquisition Demonstration Project) system, governed by separate statutory authority. AcqDemo uses a Contribution Plan (CP) instead of a traditional performance plan, with broadband pay levels replacing the GS grade/step structure. The CAS2NET tool is the only authorized automated appraisal system for AcqDemo. See Career & Pay Topic 27 on Demonstration Projects & Alternative Pay Systems.

Section IV DHS — the 60/40 weighted competency model

The Department of Homeland Security operates an OPM-approved performance appraisal system originally implemented on November 17, 2003, under Management Directive (MD) 1100.43-4. DHS covers approximately 250,000 civilian employees across TSA, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Coast Guard civilian positions, the Secret Service, FEMA, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

Rating levels

DHS uses a five-level rating pattern with specific agency-defined names:

• Level 5 — Achieved Excellence
• Level 4 — Exceeded Expectations
• Level 3 — Achieved Expectations
• Level 2 — Minimally Successful
• Level 1 — Unacceptable

The 60/40 weighted split

The DHS summary rating is uniquely calculated through a 60/40 weighted split:

• Performance Goals = 60% of overall rating — typically 3 to 5 individual goals, each assigned a variable weight that must sum to 100% within the goal portion. Weights are determined based on the scope of the goal, time expected to be devoted, and organizational impact.
• Core Competencies = 40% of overall rating — a set of validated behavioral competencies that apply to the employee's position. Each competency is weighted equally within the competency portion.

The Performance Appraisal Rating Summary and Calculation Sheet (the "Ratings Calculator") is the DHS-mandated Excel tool that performs the calculation. The rating official enters element ratings; the calculator applies the weights and produces a weighted score that translates to the overall rating level.

Unacceptable on any goal

Under DHS MD 1100.43-4, an Unacceptable rating on any single performance goal forces an overall Unacceptable rating, regardless of weighted score or core competency ratings. This is the agency's implementation of 5 CFR 430.208(b)(1) — all performance goals are treated as critical elements. Core competencies, by contrast, are typically not treated as independent critical elements for the purpose of the forced-Unacceptable rule.

Appraisal cycle

DHS operates on a fiscal-year appraisal cycle (October 1 through September 30) for most employees, with exceptions for TSA and some Secret Service positions on different cycles. DHS will remain on its fiscal-year cycle through the 2026 transition; its cycle is already aligned with the OPM governmentwide standard.

Mandatory formal mid-cycle review

DHS requires at least one formal mid-cycle progress review during the appraisal period, typically conducted in March or April of the cycle. Both the rating official and the employee sign to certify the review occurred. Additional informal progress reviews are encouraged and may be documented on the appraisal form.

Section V VA — Title 5 + Title 38 dual structure

The Department of Veterans Affairs operates two parallel performance appraisal systems — one for Title 5 employees (general schedule civilians) and one for Title 38 employees (health care professionals, including physicians, dentists, podiatrists, optometrists, chiropractors, and nurses). This dual structure is unique in the federal government.

Title 5 — VA Handbook 5013/19 Part I

General Schedule employees at VA are covered by the Title 5 Performance Appraisal Program described in VA Handbook 5013/19 Part I. The system uses 5 CFR 430.208(d) Pattern H — the full five-level scale:

• Level 5 — Outstanding
• Level 4 — Excellent
• Level 3 — Fully Successful
• Level 2 — Minimally Satisfactory
• Level 1 — Unacceptable

Ratings are documented on VA Form 3482e (general VA performance appraisal) or VA Form 0750 (legacy form still in use in some organizations). Unlike DPMAP's arithmetic formula or DHS's weighted calculator, VA uses a holistic supervisor assessment — the rating official considers performance across critical and non-critical elements and assigns a summary rating that reflects the pattern of performance, subject to the 5 CFR 430.208(b)(1) rule that any Unacceptable critical element forces an overall Unacceptable.

Mandatory EEO element for supervisors

Under 29 CFR 1614.102(a)(5), VA supervisors and managers must have performance standards addressing equal employment opportunity program oversight in their plans. This is a mandatory element under the Title 5 system and cannot be omitted from a supervisor's performance plan.

Disabled Veteran rating protection

Under Executive Order 5396 (still in effect), the performance appraisal and rating of record of a disabled veteran may not be lowered because the veteran has been absent from work to seek medical treatment. This protection is codified in VA Handbook 5013/19 and applies to all VA Title 5 employees who are veterans with service-connected disabilities. The rating official must adjust the appraisal period or exclude medical-treatment absences from the performance assessment.

Title 38 — VA Handbook 5013/20 (Executive Career Field)

Title 38 and hybrid Title 38 health care professionals operate under a separate Proficiency Rating System rather than the Pattern H structure. VA Handbook 5013/20 covers the Executive Career Field (ECF) Performance Appraisal Program for senior health care executives. The Title 38 system emphasizes clinical competency alongside administrative performance and uses elements tailored to medical practice rather than the general civilian workforce.

Section VI IRS — RRA 98 and the retention standard

The Internal Revenue Service operates a performance management system under statutory authority separate from 5 U.S.C. Chapter 43. The IRS system is governed by 5 U.S.C. 9508 and the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 98) Section 1204, with implementing regulations at 26 CFR Part 801 and internal policy in IRM Chapter 6.430.

Five-level rating with separate retention standard

IRS uses a five-level summary rating scale for all employees — bargaining unit, non-bargaining unit, managers, and management officials. Alongside the five-level rating, every employee is evaluated on a separate Retention Standard:

The RRA 98 Retention Standard

Under RRA 98 Section 1204(b), every IRS employee must be evaluated on whether they use the "fair and equitable treatment of taxpayers" as a performance standard. The Retention Standard is defined at 26 CFR 801 as requiring employees to administer the tax laws fairly and equitably, protect taxpayers' rights, and treat each taxpayer with honesty, integrity, and respect.

The Retention Standard is rated on a three-tier scale distinct from the five-level performance rating:

• Met — the employee has met the Retention Standard
• Not Met — the employee has failed to meet the Retention Standard
• Not Applicable — the employee's duties did not involve direct taxpayer interaction during the appraisal period

The Retention Standard is documented on Form 6774 (Receipt of Critical Job Elements and Fair and Equitable Treatment of Taxpayers Retention Standard), which every IRS employee must sign or initial annually at the beginning of each performance period. A "Not Met" rating on the Retention Standard is a separate triggering event that can support adverse action independently of a low overall rating.

RRA 98 Section 1204(a) — the ROTER prohibition

Section 1204(a) of RRA 98 prohibits the IRS from using Records of Tax Enforcement Results (ROTERs) to evaluate employees or to impose or suggest production quotas or goals. ROTERs include: number of liens, number of levies, number of seizures, dollars collected, dollars assessed, case closures measured by dollar outcomes, and similar enforcement metrics. The prohibition applies to Section 1204 employees — those whose positions involve recommending or determining whether or how to pursue enforcement of tax laws.

Section 1204(c) — quarterly manager self-certification

Section 1204(c) requires each supervisor of Section 1204 employees to self-certify quarterly whether ROTERs were used in a prohibited manner during the quarter. The IRS Human Capital Office maintains the self-certification reporting system and conducts Independent Review to verify compliance. TIGTA (Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration) conducts an annual statutory audit of RRA 98 Section 1204 compliance.

Employee performance plan structure

IRS employee performance plans have different structures by bargaining status:

• Bargaining unit employees — evaluated on Critical Job Elements (CJEs) plus the Retention Standard. CJEs are detailed in IRM 6.430.2.
• Non-bargaining unit employees — CJEs plus the Retention Standard, with additional management expectations for those in supervisory roles.
• Managers and management officials — evaluated on Critical Performance Expectations consisting of (1) the Retention Standard, (2) Responsibilities (5 standard management responsibilities), and (3) Commitments or Objectives (specific action-oriented goals). Documented under IRM 6.430.3.

Modal rating for RIF purposes

When a competitive area undergoes a RIF and one or more employees lack at least one rating of record during the previous four-year period, IRS uses a modal rating — the most common rating in the competitive area — for RIF retention calculation purposes. The modal rating is calculated separately for each competitive area undergoing a RIF. This is a specialized RIF-only mechanism that does not apply to other personnel actions. See Workplace Topic 20 on RIF Retention Standing.

Section VII Translation, transfer, and award implications

Federal employees move between agencies. When they do, their rating history moves with them — but the practical translation across different agency systems is not always straightforward.

Rating of record follows the employee

Under 5 CFR 430.208, every rating of record is placed in the employee's Official Personnel Folder. Transfers to a different agency do not reset or nullify prior ratings. The three most recent ratings of record are directly used in RIF retention calculations under 5 CFR 351.504(b), regardless of which agency issued them.

Cross-system translation

A rating's meaning in its originating system doesn't always translate cleanly. Consider an employee moving from DPMAP (three-level) to DHS (five-level):

• DPMAP Outstanding (Level 5) → translates to DHS Achieved Excellence (Level 5) — clean match
• DPMAP Fully Successful (Level 3) → sits ambiguously in DHS's five-level scale. Literally Level 3 (Achieved Expectations) but DPMAP's Fully Successful actually encompasses what would be DHS Levels 3 and 4.
• DPMAP Unacceptable (Level 1) → DHS Unacceptable (Level 1) — clean match

For most practical purposes — RIF retention calculations, promotion panels, award eligibility at a new agency — the new agency's HR staff and rating officials interpret prior ratings in context. For formal RIF retention credit under 5 CFR 351.504, the additional service credit amounts are fixed by Level regardless of originating system: Level 5 = +20 years, Level 4 = +16 years, Level 3 = +12 years.

Awards across systems

Award eligibility typically depends on the new agency's rating — but the employee's performance history at the prior agency can factor into discretionary award determinations. For specific award types, see Career & Pay Topic 16 on Performance Awards. For the cash award tax treatment, see the Performance Award & Bonus Tax Estimator in Pillar V.

The 2025-2026 PIP reform

OPM's June 2025 memorandum compresses Performance Improvement Plans to a 30-business-day maximum (roughly 6 weeks), down from the 60-to-90-day periods common under earlier agency policies. The change applies uniformly across all agency systems — DPMAP, DHS, VA, IRS, and every other agency operating under 5 CFR Part 430. Agency-specific PIP procedures must be updated to comply. See Workplace Topic 11 on Performance Improvement Plans for the updated PIP mechanics.

Supervisor accountability changes

The June 2025 memo also makes supervisor performance partly a function of how aggressively supervisors enforce accountability against poorly performing subordinates. Supervisors who fail to document performance deficiencies, conduct required check-ins, or initiate PIPs when warranted may themselves receive lower ratings on the new mandatory supervisory critical element. This represents a structural change across all agency systems — the same reform reaches DPMAP, DHS, VA, and IRS supervisors simultaneously.

Section VIII Frequently asked questions