Leadership Assessment FY 2020 Solicitation No. 693JK420R500002 Amendment No. 4.docx

Amendment No. 4

To

DOT’s Leadership Assessment Solicitation No. 693JK420R500002

This Amendment No. 4 is issued for the purposes of answering further questions posed by one or more offerors.

Question No. 7: Why does the Solicitation contradict itself by specifying 541612 as the NAICS Code in Section B.1.1 while stating in Section K that the NAICS Code is 541513?

Answer to Question No. 7: The Solicitation’s correct NAICS Code is the one specified in Section B.1.1.: 541612, with a small-business-size-standard of an average annual gross revenue of less than $15,000,000, as computed over the prime-offeror-company’s three most-recently-completed company-fiscal-years. And so Section K of the Solicitation is hereby amended so as to say the same thing.

Question No. 8: Can’t each offeror’s required Table of Other Commitments exclude other commitments falling in calendar-year 2019, since it is now known this Solicitation’s resulting new contract cannot have a performance-period that will include any part of calendar-year 2019?

Answer to Question No. 8: Yes, the subject Solicitation is hereby amended so as to specify that each offeror’s required Table of Other Commitments can and should exclude other commitments falling in calendar-year 2019. And, further, the subject Solicitation is hereby amended to specify that no offeror’s proposal need include, in the proposal’s Table of Other Commitments, any project which is expected to end within 90 calendar-days after the closing-date (proposal-submission-deadline-date) of the subject Solicitation.

Question No. 9: The Quality Control Plan mentioned in the Solicitation does not appear to be relevant to the Solicitation’s Statement of Work. So please provide clarification as to the required content of any Quality Control Plan.

Answer to Question No. 9: A. This Amendment No. 4 hereby completely deletes and removes, from the subject Solicitation, the requirement that offerors include a Quality Control Plan in the proposals they submit to DOT in response to this Solicitation. B. But this Amendment No. 3 explicitly reserves DOT’s right to hereafter require the contract-awardee-company to submit a Quality Control Plan to DOT after the contract has been awarded, if DOT, in DOT’s sole judgment, hereafter determines that such a Quality Control Plan is needed. And this Amendment No. 3 confirms that any Quality Control Plan that DOT might hereafter require from the contract-awardee-company would almost certainly be tailored more closely to the subject Solicitation’s Statement of Work than was the Quality Control plan that was mentioned in, but which this Amendment No. 3 has deleted from, the Solicitation. C. And this Amendment No. 3 specifically confirms the fact that the entire text that is set forth in “D. Quality of Tool Design” remains as a part of this Solicitation’s Non-Pricing Selection Factor 1.

Question No. 10: Will the Government please confirm the Key Personnel position(s), including experience and qualifications criteria?

Answer to Question No. 10: A. The subject Solicitation and its resulting new contract have only one Key Personnel position, and that is the Project Manager. Each offeror’s proposed Project Manager should possess at least a Bachelor’s Degree and at least three years of project-management-experience that was at least somewhat comparable to the project-management that will be required for the new contract awarded from this Solicitation. B. This Solicitation Amendment No. 4 re-confirms the requirement that the “Trainer” (a non-Key-Personnel position that is also known as the contractor-senior-level training specialist) shall possess at least 5,000 hours of experience in using the contractor’s own 360 Degree Leadership Assessment on-line tool that the contractor will be using in the performance of the contract awarded from the subject Solicitation; and this Amendment No. 3 confirms that there is no required minimum level of formal education for that “Trainer”. C. This Amendment No. 4 further confirms that the contractor’s 360 assessment Technical Support Person(s), and any other contractor-staff-person(s) who provide IT systems technical support for the project described in this Solicitation, should each possess at least two years of work-experience relevant to the project described in this Solicitation; but this Amendment No. 3 also confirms that there is no minimum level of formal education required for those contractor-staffing-jobs.

Question No. 11: Is there a page-limit on the Solicitation’s required proposal Tab F “Recruitment and Retention Plan”, and / or a page limit on the Solicitation’s required proposal Tab G “Table of Other Commitments”?

Answer to Question No. 11: This Amendment No. 4 removes and eliminates all page-limits on all parts of every offeror’s proposal. There no longer are any page-limits.

Question No. 12: May an offeror submit completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting (CPARS) in lieu of the offeror’s submitting the completed Past Performance Questionnaire forms specified in the Solicitation?

Answer to Question No. 12. No. However, any offeror may submit completed CPARS in addition to submitting the completed Past Performance Questionnaire Forms specified in the Solicitation.

Question No. 13: May an offeror include in its proposal the standard ACCORD statement, as proof of insurance? And what particular types and dollar-amounts of insurance must an offeror, in its proposal, demonstrate that the offeror possesses?

Answer to Question No. 13: Answer Part A, use of ACCORD Statement: The contracting officer’s experience has been that most offerors in most procurements do in fact submit ACCORD statements as their required proof-of-insurance. And any offeror in this procurement may certainly prove its possession of this Solicitation’s required insurance by including in its proposal one or more ACCORD statements—provided that such ACCORD statements do in fact show the offeror’s possession of types and dollar-amounts of insurance that satisfy the requirements specified in the subject Solicitation. Answer Part B, Types and Dollar-Amounts of Required Insurance:

a. The Contractor shall provide and maintain Property Damage Insurance, which will fully replace all Government property damaged, lost stolen or destroyed by the Contractor during the performance of the contract, up to an aggregate maximum total value of $200,000.

b. The contractor shall provide and maintain Liability insurance coverage, written on the comprehensive form of policy, in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and $200,000 for property damage

c. The contractor shall provide and maintain Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability insurance in dollar-amounts that comply with applicable Federal and State workers' compensation and occupational disease statues. If occupational diseases are not compensable under those statutes, they shall be covered under the employer’s liability section of the insurance policy, except when contract operations are so commingled with a contractor's commercial operations that it would not be practical to require this coverage. Employer's liability Insurance of at least $200,000 shall be required, except in States with exclusive or monopolistic funds that do not permit workers' compensation to be written by private carriers.

d. The contractor shall provide and maintain General Liability insurance, which shall include bodily injury liability insurance coverage written on the comprehensive form of policy of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence and $200,000 per occurrence for property damage.

Question No. 14: May an offeror provide, in its proposal, the offeror-company’s company-year 2018 Financial Statements in lieu of providing the offeror-company’s company-year 2019 Financial Statements, if the offeror-company’s company-year 2019 Financial Statements have not been completed at least ten calendar-days before this Solicitation’s proposal-submission-deadline?

Answer to Question No. 14: Yes

Question No. 15: Will the Government please provide a copy of DOT’s chosen leadership competency model?

Answer to Question No. 15: Yes. A copy of DOT’s current leadership competency model is attached to this Solicitation Amendment No. 4.

Question No. 16: Since the subject Solicitation requires that the contractor provide “e. Secure web site and / or database that meets DOT’s standards for secure sites”, will the DOT please specify the DOT standards that the contractor must satisfy for any website used by the contractor in the performance of the contract awarded from this Solicitation.

Answer to Question No. 16: All publicly accessible Federal websites and web services must only provide service through a secure connection. The strongest privacy and integrity protection currently available for public web connections is Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS).

Policy to Require Secure Connections across Federal Websites and Web Services https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2015/m-15-13.pdf

Question No. 17: In connection with the requirement—set forth in CLIN 0002 in Section B.2 of the Solicitation—that the contractor provide a Development Planning Guide, will DOT now please specify the scope and format required for that Development Planning Guide?

Answer to Question No. 17: The Development Planning Guide to be provided by the contractor should align with the contractor’s 360-degree Leadership Assessment tool, and should guide the user in developing an action plan based on each 360-degree feedback report. The Guide should include the following topics: an explanation of how to use the Guide; an analysis of results; defining goals; creating a plan; how to seek feedback and support the plan; and how to implement the plan.

Question No. 18: In connection with the requirement, specified in Section B.2 of the Solicitation, that each offeror propose an Option for Pre-Briefs to Leaders on Product and Usage, will DOT please now specify the expected time-duration for such Pre-Briefs, and please specify whether those Pre-Briefs will be virtual or in person, and please specify the minimum number of participants in each session?

Answer No. 18: The Pre-Briefs should be sufficient to explain the vendor’s tool and process. The Pre-Briefs may be virtual or in-person—depending on the need of the particular DOT modal-organization that issues, under this Solicitation’s resulting IDIQ contract, a Task Order for a particular Leadership Assessment. The number of participants in any particular Pre-Brief will vary, because this Solicitation will result in the awarding of an IDIQ contract under which multiple DOT modal organizations will be allowed to issue Task Orders for their needed Leadership Assessments.

Question No. 19: In connection with the requirement, specified in Section B.2 of the Solicitation, that each offeror propose an option for Group / Aggregated Reports, will DOT please clarify the number of needed Group / Aggregated Reports, and the number of leadership-assessment-participants to be assigned to each such Report?

Answer to Question No. 19: Part A: Because the IDIQ contract awarded from this Solicitation will allow many different DOT modal organizations to issue their own task orders in fulfillment of their own particular leadership assessment needs, it is impossible for DOT’s Office of the Secretary (OST) to now predict, with confidence, the number of ultimately-needed Group / Aggregated Reports, and the number of leadership-assessment-participants to be assigned to each such Report. Part B: But in order to ensure that all offerors use the same assumptions in pricing out the Solicitation’s option for Group / Aggregated Reports, and in order to thereby ensure apples-to-apples fairness in DOT’s selection of this Solicitation’s resulting IDIQ-contract-awardee, DOT is hereby instructing all offerors to assume, in pricing out this option for Group / Aggregated Reports, that no more than 450 leadership-assessment-participants will be included in each particular Group / Aggregated Report, and DOT is further instructing all offerors to assume that 100 Group / Aggregated Reports per year would be produced by the contractor. Part C: And, therefore, the Quantity of “500” Group / Aggregated Reports that is specified in CLIN 0004 in each of the yearly Price Schedule Tables in Section B.2 of this Solicitation is hereby CHANGED to a quantity of 100.

Question 20: In connection with the Solicitation’s Section H.8 on Non-Disclosure: Will DOT please specify whether DOT will be purchasing licenses to the assessment OR will be purchasing exclusive rights to a customized assessment? (Purchasing licenses should include an ability to customize to reflect competencies.)

Answer to Question No. 20: DOT will be purchasing licenses to use the contractor’s on-line 360-degree leadership assessment tool, and that should include the ability to customize that tool to reflect specific DOT competencies. However, DOT will not be purchasing any exclusive rights to use the contractor’s 360-degree on-line leadership assessment tool or any customized version of it. In other words, the contractor would be free to allow entities other than DOT to also use the contractor’s 360-degree on-line leadership assessment tool and any customized version of it. But, in accordance with the Non-Disclosure clause at Section H. 8 of the Solicitation, the contractor will not be allowed to divulge, to any entity other than DOT, any of the data or information obtained by the contractor, concerning any DOT employees, during the course of the contractor’s performance of the contract resulting from this Solicitation. In other words, the contractor will not be allowed to ever divulge, outside of DOT, information concerning DOT employees whose leadership has been assessed by the contractor.

Question 21: In connection with the requirement, stated in Section B. 1 of the subject Solicitation, that each offeror’s proposal enable the members of DOT’s Technical Evaluation Panel to “test drive” the offeror’s proposed 360-degree Leadership Assessment on-line tool: Must the cloud-link or diskette which is submitted for that purpose in the offeror’s proposal meet Section 508 requirements, and if so, will DOT please specify / share the type of Assistive Technology that will be use for the “test drive”, so that offerors can ensure functionality, since not all Assistive Technology operates the same? [And the offeror also poses that same “Assistive Technology” question as applied to information technology deliverables required under this Solicitation’s resulting contract.]

Answer to Question No. 21: Part A: Yes, the cloud-link or diskette which is submitted in the offeror’s proposal, for the purpose of enabling members of DOT’s Technical Evaluation Panel to “test drive” the offeror’s proposed 360-degree on-line Leadership Assessment tool, must be compliant with Section 508. Part B: DOT does not have a standard set of software being used at DOT for checking Section 508 compliance. Different DOT Operating Administrations (OAs) use different software. However, all deliverables must comply with the standards found at http://www.section508.gov regardless of the software used. Part C: The 360-on-line Leadership Assessment tool hereafter used by individual DOT employees whose leadership is actually being assessed under this Solicitation’s resulting IDIQ contract, and the information technology deliverables produced by the contractor under this Solicitation’s resulting contract, must also be compliant with Section 508. But DOT is not now able to specify the precise Assistive Technology that might be used by individual DOT modal entities that hereafter issue Leadership Assessment Task Orders under that IDIQ contract. And, again, the contracting officer sees no solution other than to work out the Assistive Technology details later, and one Task Order at a time, and with the contractor, to the extent that any handicapped DOT employee or employees do undergo a Leadership Assessment under any particular Task Order(s) hereafter issued, and to the extent that any handicapped DOT employee or employees need to review any contract-deliverable-item.

Question No. 22: What type of Task Orders (Time & Materials, Fixed-Price, Labor-Hour, Cost-Reimbursable, etc.) does DOT plan to issue under the IDIQ contract awarded from this Solicitation?

Answer to Question No. 22: DOT reserves the right to hereafter negotiate, with the contractor-company, the use of any Task Order type, for any particular contemplated Task Order. However, the contracting officer’s current estimate is that most Task Orders will be Fixed-Price, in order to eliminate pricing-uncertainties and risks that might conflict with DOT budgetary constraints.

Question No. 23: Please elucidate the decision-process that will be used by DOT in choosing which dollar-amount to pay on each submitted invoice (the dollar-amount derivable under Computation Method “a”, or the dollar-amount derivable under Computation Method “b”, or the dollar-amount derivable under Computation Method “c”, as specified in the Payment Schedule on page 7 of the subject Solicitation).

Answer to Question No. 23: That Payment Schedule does specify that DOT will always and only pay, on each particular submitted invoice, the lowest of the dollar-amounts derivable from the application of those computation-methods “a”, “b” and “c”. Another and perhaps simpler way of saying the same thing is to note that the contractor must never allow the cumulative total dollar-amount billed to DOT under any particular Task Order to correspond to a percentage-of-completion greater than that actually achieved by the contractor in the performance of the Task Order in question as of the time the invoice was submitted to DOT.

Question No. 24: May an offeror which is a privately held company and which does not wish to disclose its financial statements prove its financial-capability to perform DOT’s needed Leadership Assessment project by including, in the offeror’s proposal, both of the following (“a” and “b”): (a) documentation showing that the offeror has passed at least one relevant GSA financial audit performed at any time within the three-year-period immediately preceding this Leadership Assessment Solicitation’s specified proposal-submission-deadline; and (b) a complete copy of the offeror’s Dun and Bradstreet record or Beta.Sam.gov record, together with the offeror’s certification that such record does not criticize or otherwise call into question the soundness of the offeror’s financial position.

Answer to Question No. 24: Yes, any such offeror could provide—in its proposal submitted to DOT in response to this Solicitation—the information specified in Question No. 24, in lieu of providing financial statements in that proposal.

Question No. 25: Since the Solicitation specifies that DOT will consider large-business-prime-offeror-proposals only as a fall-back resource for use in the event that no small-business-prime-offeror submits a proposal that is technically acceptable and reasonably and realistically and competitively priced, should each offeror conspicuously display—on the OUTSIDE of the package(s) or other container(s) in which the offeror’s proposal is submitted to DOT—a note or notice specifying and confirming the prime offeror’s small business status or the prime offeror’s large-business status?

Answer to Question No. 25: Yes . And Section L of the Solicitation is hereby AMENDED so as to add and include such a requirement. And that special outside note or notice should say either: “SMALL-business prime-offeror”; or “LARGE-business-prime-offeror”.

Question No. 26: In section B.2 (Price Schedule), the Solicitation lists a Development Planning Guide. Is this something that is expected to be an automated feature of the tool, a manually written report for each 360, or a template that comes with the 360?

Answer No. 26: The Development Planning Guide does not have to be automated, but it must align with vendors 360 tool and guide the user in developing an action plan based on 360 feedback report. To include, explanation of how to use the guide, analyses of results, defining goals, creating a plan, how to seek feedback and support the plan, and how to implement the plan.

Question No. 27: Will DOT disclose, to prospective offerors, numerical values for the “TBD” values appearing in Section B.1.2 of the Solicitation?

Answer No. 27: No—because such numerical values will not be ascertainable by DOT until after DOT has selected this Solicitation’s winning offeror and has started drafting the needed resulting new Leadership Assessment contract document.

James H. Mowery III Contracting Officer January 24, 2020

(See below, for a copy of the DOT Leadership Competency Model (Profile).

Department of Transportation Leadership Competency Profile:

Application of OPM ECQ Model

Prepared by:

PDRI

April 2013

3000 Wilson Blvd Suite 250 Arlington, Virginia 22201 voice: (703) 276-4680 fax: (703) 276-7567 e-mail: info@pdri.com www.pdri.com

Table of Contents

Summary

DOT is developing and validating competency profiles across a wide range of occupations, including enterprise-wide core competencies, occupation-specific technical competencies, and leadership competencies. Competency models serve as an important foundation for an integrated and strategically aligned HR system to support the employee development life cycle. Particularly, competency models are essential in (1) identifying important competencies for specific occupations, (2) identifying developmental activities that enhance those competencies, in turn allowing employees to advance their careers, (3) providing a structure that guides employees in their career advancement, and (4) supporting professional and leadership development for those seeking to improve their skills.

As part of this effort, DOT is applying OPM’s government-wide leadership model, the Executive Core Qualifications (ECQ), to supervisors, managers, and executives at DOT. The ECQ competency model already includes behavioral definitions, which provide a high-level description of the competency. Sets of behavioral indicators for each competency had also been developed previously by OPM. Behavioral indicators provide detailed behavioral examples of the competency at different levels of proficiency.

There were two main purposes of the current competency development effort: (1) identify required proficiency levels for supervisors, managers, and executives at DOT and (2) develop and validate work behaviors for each competency. Identifying required proficiency levels helps managers and employees understand competency expectations at different leadership levels. Work behaviors provide detailed and observable examples of employee behaviors related to each competency, making them easier for employees to understand and easier to incorporate into competency-based HR practices. The development of work behaviors and identification of required proficiency levels also ensures that the leadership competency profile will be consistent with DOT’s technical and core competency profiles.

To achieve these results, a workshop was conducted with experienced leaders from across operating administrations at DOT. These executives provided importance ratings of work behaviors and required proficiency ratings for competencies across three levels of leadership: supervisors, managers, and executives. The result of this effort is a competency profile for DOT leaders which (1) provides additional behavioral detail in order to enhance understanding and usability, (2) identifies the expected level of performance across different career stages, and (3) contains the same key elements as the technical and core competency profiles currently in development at DOT. The competency profile included in this document provides key information to support the development of DOT leaders.

Background on the Development of the ECQs

DOT is currently developing and validating competency profiles across a wide range of occupations, including enterprise-wide core competencies, occupation-specific technical competencies, and leadership competencies. As part of this effort, DOT is applying OPM’s government-wide leadership model, the Executive Core Qualifications (ECQ), to supervisors, managers, and executives at DOT.

OPM’s ECQ model emphasizes executive experience and potential over technical or occupation-specific skills and, therefore, applies to leadership roles across occupations and organizations. OPM has identified five ECQs which define the competencies required for successful leadership in the Senior Executive Service. This leadership model has gained broad acceptance in the Federal Government and is currently used by many departments and agencies for performance management, leadership development, and selection.

The five ECQs include: Leading Change, Leading People, Results Driven, Business Acumen, and Building Coalitions. Each ECQ contains a set of underlying competencies. A competency is a measurable pattern of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics that individuals need to perform their jobs. The ECQs are supported by a set of fundamental competencies which serve as the foundation for successful leadership. Together, there are 28 leadership competencies which have been identified and validated by OPM. The ECQs were developed in 1997 based on extensive research on successful leaders and were revalidated and updated in 2006.

OPM EXECUTIVE CORE QUALIFICATIONS

Leading Change

· Creativity & Innovation

· External Awareness

· Flexibility

· Resilience

· Strategic Thinking

· Vision

Results Driven

· Accountability

· Customer Service

· Decisiveness

· Entrepreneurship

· Problem Solving

· Technical Credibility

Leading People

· Conflict Management

· Leveraging Diversity

· Developing Others

· Team Building

Business Acumen

· Financial Management

· Human Capital Management

· Technology Management

Building Coalitions

· Partnering

· Political Savvy

· Influencing/Negotiating

FUNDAMENTAL COMPETENCIES

· Interpersonal Skills

· Written Communication

· Integrity/Honest

· Oral Communication

· Continual Learning

· Public Service Motivation

As part of the 2006 update, OPM conducted a comprehensive survey which included over 2,000 Federal supervisors and managers and covered more than 20 job families. Federal supervisors and managers provided ratings of importance, requirement at entry, and required proficiency level for the 28 competencies.

Of the 28 leadership competencies, Federal supervisors identified 23 as critical for their positions. OPM considered a competency or ECQ critical based on the current importance rating[footnoteRef:1] and the required at entry rating[footnoteRef:2]. Federal managers identified 26 competencies as critical. Entrepreneurship and Political Savvy were not critical for Federal managers. The table below summarizes the competency validation results from the 2006 study[footnoteRef:3]. This table presents the ECQs and 28 leadership competencies with checkmarks indicating the competencies that were rated as important and required at entry (R@E) by Federal supervisors, managers, and executives. Previous studies conducted by OPM have established that the ECQs and supporting competencies are critical and required at entry for Senior Executive Service (SES) roles. [1: Greater than or equal to 3.5, where 3 equals “Important”] [2: Greater than or equal to 2.75, where 2 equals “Desirable at Entry”] [3: United States Office of Personnel Management: Occupational Analysis of Federal Supervisors and Managers: An Update of OPM’s Leadership Competency Model. US Office of Personnel Management, Washington, DC.]

OPM ECQ Validation Results

Leading Change

Creativity and Innovation

External Awareness

Flexibility

Resilience

Strategic Thinking

Vision

Leading People

Conflict Management

Leveraging Diversity

Developing Others

Team Building

Results Driven

Accountability

Customer Service

Decisiveness

Entrepreneurship

Problem Solving

Technical Credibility

Business Acumen

Financial Management

Human Capital Management

Technology Management

Building Coalitions

Partnering

Political Savvy

Influencing/ Negotiating

Fundamental Competencies

Interpersonal Skills

Oral Communication

Integrity/Honest

Written Communication

Continual Learning

Public Service Motivation

Critical = a competency was defined as “critical” based on Importance and Required at Entry ratings.

R@E = required at entry, which indicates that the competency is needed upon entry to the job.

indicates the competency met the requirements for importance or required at entry.

Identification of Required Proficiency Levels and Validation of Work Behaviors

In order to make the DOT leadership competency profile easier for organizational members to understand and use, there were two key tasks for the current competency effort: (1) identify required proficiency levels for supervisors, managers, and executives at DOT and (2) develop and validate work behaviors for each competency. First, required proficiency levels were identified for DOT supervisors, managers, and executives. Mapping proficiency levels to competencies provides DOT with an effective way to identify and communicate performance expectations across the organization. Additionally, work behaviors were developed and validated for each of the 28 competencies. These work behaviors provide specific behavioral examples of how the competency is manifested on the job.

PDRI developed four to six work behaviors for each of the 28 leadership competencies. Then, a workshop was conducted with experienced leaders at DOT. These subject matter experts had extensive government supervisory experience and were knowledgeable of the requirements for supervisors, managers, and executives. The purpose of this workshop was for these subject matter experts to validate the work behaviors and identify the proficiency level required for each competency at each supervisory level (supervisor, manager, executive).

Nine subject matter experts participated in the workshop and provided ratings[footnoteRef:4]. The nine participants represented multiple operating administrations and had the necessary experience in order to provide valid ratings of all leadership levels. Subject matter experts provided two sets of ratings: (1) required proficiency level ratings for each competency at each leadership level and (2) importance ratings for each work behavior at each leadership level. [4: One additional participant attended the workshop, but this participant’s ratings were excluded from the results due to a lack of supervisory experience.]

Leadership Workshop Participants (N=9)

FHWA

FRA

MARAD

NHTSA

OST

PHMSA

RITA/Volpe

SES

Proficiency Level Ratings

To identify the required proficiency for leaders at DOT, subject matter experts were asked to rate the required proficiency level of each competency for effective performance at each of the three leadership levels: Supervisor, Manager, and Executive. These ratings were completed using the following scale:

1. Requires close and extensive guidance.

1. Requires frequent guidance.

1. Requires occasional guidance.

1. Generally requires little or no guidance.

1. Serves as a key resource and advises others.

Participants provided their ratings independently and their ratings were then compiled and analyzed to determine the means and standard deviations of the group’s ratings for each competency and leadership level. If the ratings showed significant variation (as defined by a standard deviation greater than 1.0), PDRI facilitated a group discussion and the participants were given the opportunity to revise their ratings. These discussions resulted in lower standard deviations, indicating better agreement on the proficiency levels required. This process resulted in identification of the required proficiency rating for each competency and each leadership level, as determined by the group’s average ratings (rounded to the nearest whole number).

The resulting required proficiency levels by leadership role, along with the proficiency level definitions, are summarized in the table on the following pages.

Proficiency Level Requirements by Leadership Level

Work Behavior Ratings

To validate the work behaviors that were developed based on the competency definition and behavioral indicators, participants were also asked to rate the importance of each work behavior for effective performance at each of the three leadership levels[footnoteRef:5]: Supervisor, Manager, and Executive. These ratings were completed using the following scale: [5: One of workshop participants provided ratings for required proficiency levels only and did not provide ratings for work behaviors.]

In order for a work behavior to meet the validation requirements, the average importance rating must be 3.0 or greater. Nearly all of the work behaviors met this validation cutoff. Results indicated that one work behavior for Vision and one work behavior for Customer Service did not meet the cutoff at the supervisor level. These work behaviors were removed from the model and three work behaviors remained for each of these competencies. The Strategic Thinking work behaviors did not meet the cutoff at the supervisor level. However, the average rating was above 2.5 for three of the four work behaviors, they were written based on the validated competencies, and the competency validated at the supervisor level according to the OPM study with a much larger sample than the current workshop, indicating that these work behaviors and the competency should be retained. The one work behavior with a rating below 2.5 was removed from the model.

External Awareness, Entrepreneurship, Financial Management, Partnering, and Political Savvy were not critical for Federal supervisors as determined by OPM’s 2006 validation study; therefore, it was not necessary to examine the work behavior ratings for these competencies at the supervisor level. Additionally, Entrepreneurship and Political Savvy were not critical for Federal managers according to the OPM study, and it was not necessary to examine work behavior ratings for these competencies at the manager level.

The final work behaviors were added to the OPM ECQ Competency Model, along with the existing competency definitions and behavioral indicators and can be found on pages 16-48 of this document. Page 15 provides a sample competency, which details each part of the competency and provides definitions to clarify the components.

Sample Competency Behavioral Indicators: Provide detailed behavioral examples that define the levels of proficiency for each competency Work Behaviors: Describe how the competency is manifested on the job by providing precise descriptions of employee behavior Proficiency Level Definitions: Provide descriptions at different levels of competence in applying skills on the job Behavioral Definition: Provides a high-level summary of how the competency is manifested on the job

Leadership Competency Profile

External Awareness - Understands and keeps up-to-date on local, national, and international policies and trends that affect the organization and shape stakeholders' views; is aware of the organization's impact on the external environment.

· Keeps informed of developments both internal and external that affect the organization.

· Understands how external policies and trends affect DOT or specific work assignments.

· Takes external factors into account when developing or implementing procedures, policies, or programs.

· Advises others on policy developments or external trends as appropriate.

Proficiency Level

Level 5 - Expert

• Applies the competency in exceptionally difficult situations

• Serves as a key resource and advises others

• Examines and utilizes best practices to build an organizational infrastructure

• Develops programs taking into account multiple, diverse views and needs of other agencies or external organizations

Level 4 - Advanced

• Applies the competency in considerably difficult situations

• Generally requires little or no guidance

• Provides policy advice to officials which are consistent with local, national, and international policies and trends

• Reflects industry best practices in the development of agency-wide policies and procedures

Level 3 - Intermediate

• Applies the competency in difficult situations

• Requires occasional guidance

• Considers the impact of a shift in programmatic direction to meet the needs of local and national customers

• Synthesizes complex information gathered from a variety of external sources and disseminates it to staff

Level 2 - Basic

• Applies the competency in somewhat difficult situations

• Requires frequent guidance

• Gathers and summarizes information to predict stakeholder views on a new policy

• Considers external policies and trends when reviewing correspondence, reports, and policy documents

Level 1 - Awareness

• Applies the competency in the simplest situations

• Requires close and extensive guidance

• Keeps up-to-date by attending key meetings hosted by other agencies or organizations

• Keeps abreast of developments of other parts of the organization

Strategic Thinking - Formulates objectives and priorities, and implements plans consistent with the long-term interests of the organization in a global environment. Capitalizes on opportunities and manages risks.

· Identifies and analyzes the consequences, risks, and opportunities associated with various strategies.

· Collaborates with others and obtains buy-in from stakeholders in order to implement strategic goals across the organization.

· Develops and implements plans based on a consideration of strategic objectives.

Proficiency Level

• Applies the competency in exceptionally difficult situations

• Serves as a key resource and advises others

• Anticipates a demographic change in society and establishes a vision to effect change through formulation and implementation of objectives and priorities

• Designs approaches and procedures to develop a strategic plan supporting key national goals and objectives

• Applies the competency in considerably difficult situations

• Generally requires little or no guidance

• Leads and directs a strategic planning team to address and outline the future direction of an organization

• Establishes strategic performance measures to allow the organization to continually assess and adjust program direction

• Applies the competency in difficult situations

• Requires occasional guidance

• Conducts review of the agency's core mission and gathers information from relevant sources to support development of a strategic plan

• Develops and implements Governmentwide or agency policy by determining target audience, building coalitions with the appropriate population, and developing a budget

• Applies the competency in somewhat difficult situations

• Requires frequent guidance

• Considers customer needs and trends in the development of strategic plans

• Implements strategic objectives and develops metrics to assess attainment of work unit goals

• Applies the competency in the simplest situations

• Requires…