The RFP asks for an objective job evaluation method with every factor weight documented, an internal equity analysis with specific fixes, and at least three costed implementation scenarios. This page lets you try all three on invented data. The study applies the same logic to the County's own jobs and payroll file, and the County keeps the workbooks.
Each class is rated on the eight compensable factors the RFP lists. Each factor has defined levels with written descriptions; the level times the factor weight gives points, and points set the grade. The weights below are our starting proposal. The County's project team settles them at the start, before any job is rated, and the final weights and level definitions go into the Compensation Maintenance Manual.
| Factor | Starting weight | Levels |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge, education and experience | 22% | 6 |
| Complexity and problem-solving | 16% | 6 |
| Decision-making and accountability | 15% | 6 |
| Supervisory or fiscal responsibility | 13% | 6 |
| Organizational impact | 10% | 5 |
| Working conditions and physical demands | 9% | 5 |
| Required licenses or certifications | 7% | 4 |
| Level of public contact | 8% | 5 |
Gilda Weech-House, a Certified Job Evaluator, rates each class from the questionnaire, the interview notes and the desk audit, and signs the rating. A second classifier rates a sample of classes blind, and differences larger than one level on any factor are resolved and logged. Ratings set internal order; market data then sets where each grade sits in dollars. Where the market and the rating disagree for a class (for example a hard-to-fill public safety job), the study says so and shows the cost of each answer.