The USAJOBS self-rating questionnaire is going away

What changed, and why knowing it first helps you

Anyone who has applied through USAJOBS knows the moment: you reach the end of the application and a questionnaire appears where you yourself declare whether you are an «expert», «advanced» or «beginner» in each skill. Everyone marks «expert», and the system ranks candidates by what they said about themselves.

That mechanism's days are numbered, and not because of an administrative policy that can change tomorrow: **by statute**. The **Chance to Compete Act of 2024** (Public Law 118-188, enacted on **December 23, 2024**) rewrote § 3304 of Title 5 of the United States Code and inserted a definition that changes the game.

**§ 3304(a)(9)** defines a «technical assessment» as a **position-specific** tool, relevant to the position for which it is developed, that **(A)** allows for the **demonstration** of job-related skills, abilities, knowledge and competencies; **(B)** is **based upon a job analysis**; and **(C)** **does not solely include or principally rely upon a self-assessment from an automated examination**.

That subparagraph (C) names the self-rating questionnaire without naming it. The law does not ban it outright: it excludes it from the definition of what agencies must prefer and, in three years, use.

Today: mandatory preference, and an explanation you can read

**§ 3304(c)(2)** sets up a two-stage scheme and we are in the first.

**(A) Preference for a technical assessment.** During the **three-year** period that began December 23, 2024, an examining agency **shall preference the use of a technical assessment, to the maximum extent practicable**, to assess the job-related skills, abilities, knowledge and competencies of an applicant for a competitive service position.

**(B) Use of an alternative assessment.** During that same period, if the agency **determines that using a technical assessment is not practicable**, it may use an alternative, **but only if it includes a brief description of the rationale for using that alternative assessment in the job posting itself**.

Stop at that last sentence, because it is the only part of this whole reform you can verify **before** applying. If the posting sends you to a self-rating questionnaire and carries **no explanation** of why a technical assessment was not used, that posting is not meeting what the statute asks of the agency today.

It is not a fact to argue about in the moment: it is a fact that tells you **how that vacancy will be decided** and how much what you write in the questionnaire really weighs.

In December 2027 the preference becomes a requirement

**§ 3304(c)(4)(B)** is the second stage, and it leaves no room: **on and after the date three years from December 23, 2024, an examining agency shall use a technical assessment** to examine applicants for competitive service positions, in accordance with subsection (d).

The law leaves an exit, but makes it hard on purpose. Subparagraph **(C)** allows a **waiver** for a particular job series only if both conditions are met: the agency **determines that using a technical assessment is impracticable for that series**, and **the head of the agency submits to the OPM Director and the relevant congressional committees a certification** of that impracticability.

And that certification must include three things: **identification of the job series**, **the number of positions included in that series within the agency** for which it is conducting examinations, and **a description of the rationale** for the determination.

Two more details showing how seriously this is meant: the waiver **expires three years** after the certification is submitted (it takes effect the day after submission), and **the head of the agency may not delegate the authority to submit that certification**. The person in charge has to sign it.

What you will be asked to do instead of the questionnaire

**§ 3304(d)(1)** says who builds those assessments and what forms they may take, and there is the practical difference for you.

They are developed by a **subject matter expert**, in partnership with the agency's human resources employees. § 3304(a)(8) defines that expert as an employee or selecting official who **(A)** possesses an understanding of the duties of the position and of the knowledge, skills and abilities it requires, and **(B)** has been designated by the agency's delegated examining unit to assist in developing and administering technical assessments.

Translated: the person designing the test **does or supervises that work**. It is not a generic HR form.

And these are the forms the statute lists for that position-specific assessment, based on job analysis:

• **A structured interview.**
• **A work-related exercise.**
• **A custom or generic procedure** used to measure the applicant's employment or career-related qualifications and interests.
• **Another assessment** allowing demonstration of job-related **technical** skills, abilities and knowledge and relevant to the position for which it is developed.
• And what the result is used for: to **determine whether the applicant has a passing score** to be qualified, **or** to **rank applicants** for category rating purposes under § 3319.

What changes in how you prepare your application

Moving the yardstick from «what you say about yourself» to «what you demonstrate» changes where effort is worth spending. Three concrete consequences, and none of them requires guessing:

• **Read the posting looking for the assessment section.** If it sends you to a self-rating questionnaire, look for the explanation § 3304(c)(2)(B) requires. If the assessment is technical, the posting is telling you there will be a structured interview or an exercise, and that is prepared differently from a questionnaire.
• **Your federal resume still rules, but for a different reason.** A technical assessment is **based on a job analysis**: it measures the job's real tasks. The resume describing concrete tasks with context (which system, what volume, what result) is the one that speaks to that kind of assessment. The one that just repeats the posting's words does not.
• **Prepare to demonstrate, not to declare.** A structured interview asks all candidates the same questions and is scored with a rubric. A work-related exercise puts you through a small version of the task. For both, having real examples of your work ready, with numbers, is what helps.

The talent teams: who is building all this

The same statute creates the structure that must produce those assessments, and it is worth knowing because it explains why federal postings have started to look different.

**§ 3304(e)** allows each agency to establish **one or more talent teams**, including at the component level, to provide hiring support: **improving examinations**, **facilitating the writing of job announcements** for the competitive service, **sharing high-quality certificates of eligible applicants** and **facilitating hiring using examinations**.

**§ 3304(f)** allows the OPM Director to establish a **federal talent team** to support agency teams: facilitating hiring actions across the federal government, providing training, creating tools and guides, and **developing technical assessments**.

And **§ 3304(g)** closes it: the Director **shall promulgate such regulations as are necessary** to implement and interpret this section.

That last point is also our honest limit: **the regulations and the transition plan are published by OPM, and `opm.gov` is not reachable from where this guide was written**. What is here is what the statute says, verified line by line. Agency-level implementation details have to be looked for in each vacancy announcement, which is exactly where the law requires them to be.