Cognitive Assessment Questions and Answers.pdf

Cognitive Assessment Questions

1. In addition to understanding individual preferences (Clarifier, Ideator, Developer, Implementer) so that teams can better leverage each member's strengths in the problem-solving process, would you also be interested in any training tools to enhance thinking agility?

a. I am open to tools to promote agility with the understanding that I we do replace the assessment with any other assessment.

2. Can you provide more information about the prototype kits – are they meant to flexibly work on various devices (for improved ability to assess wherever) or are they mainly intended to be used in a schoolhouse on a desktop computer or laptop in conjunction with other training?

a. These are physical prototypes to support a hands-on activity. Since they are physical material, it does not support virtual or laptop activity option.

3. This RFQ is seeking Cognitive Tests. HR Consultants, Inc. sells and manages Disc Assessments, and we believe we can meet the Statement of Objective for the Cognitive Assessment. Is the Disc Assessment a tool that would serve this purpose?

a. The DISC does not have a military heritage like the assessment we use now. Moreover, Special Operations has a long history of using the assessment we use now. Moreover, the DISC is not connected to the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) process. The assessment used now emerged from its association with CPS. To explain, CPS tools are connected to each preference for approaching problem solving.

Workshop involving the assessment we use now can be followed by CPS fundamentals and advanced workshops. Moreover, agility can augmented by preference-CPS-tool fit.

4. Are you seeking someone to score, interpret and facilitate conversations with these cognitive tests?

a. No.

5. Are there any required or preferred certifications for personnel administering assessments (e.g., neuroscience credentials, psychological testing qualifications)?

a. Yes. The organization that owns the right to the assessment, prototype kits, Group Profile, require certification to administer their assessment. In their certification course, they touch on the neuroscience, psychological testing, but neuroscience credentials, psychological testing qualifications are not expected.

6. Does JSOU anticipate a set schedule or cadence for administering assessments (e.g., per course cycle, quarterly, or specific SOF classes)?

a. No. Assessments have been integrated to support courses, offsites, team building initiatives, or any other bespoke initiatives.

7. Is there a preference for on-site versus remote facilitation of assessments and prototype kit delivery?

a. Onsite for the reasons stated earlier.

8. Should vendors assume on-demand tasking for assessments and kits, or will a forecasted delivery calendar be provided at contract award?

a. Assume there are courses that have already integrated assessments and kits. Also assume on-demand tasking.

9. Will assessment results need to integrate with any existing Government platforms (e.g., DoD LMS, SharePoint), or is a standalone IL5-compliant system sufficient?

a. No.

10. Does JSOU anticipate a need for optional services, such as follow-on coaching, real-time analytics, or facilitator training, that vendors may propose outside of the CLIN structure?

a. No.

11. Are there any assessment tools or platforms currently in use (during onboarding, training, etc) within USSOCOM or JSOU that this RFQ is intended to complement or replace?

a. The Enlisted Academy on occasions uses the Kirton Adaptor-Innovator assessment.

12. Does the government require any specific handling, masking, or anonymization of participant information (e.g., name, assessment results) to comply with PII or privacy-related policies? If so, are there any formatting or data security standards we should follow when delivering individual or group profile reports?

a. Only when working with elite groups. I will inform instructors and POCs to instruct students or workshop participants to use pseudo names.

13. Can you confirm whether the Prototype Kits are expected to be physical kits shipped to the government, or whether a virtual/digital equivalent is acceptable if it meets the same learning objectives?

a. Physical kits that are shipped

14. Will support be required for facilitators of these sessions (e.g., train-the-trainer programs, session debriefs, or guidance around the prototype activities)? If so, should the training be conducted at a single location, multiple locations, or virtually?

a. Yes. On-line sessions did not use kits. Residential workshops and course dd use kits. The kits add much more value and brings the preferences to life that virtuals do not.

15. Regarding “Advanced Group Profiles,” are there specific formatting or reporting expectations (e.g., printable PDF, dashboard view), or is this left to vendor discretion as long as group-level insights are provided?

i. Printable PDF

16. Are the 16 Prototype Kits intended for one-time use (e.g., disposable or single-session), or should they be designed to be reused across teams and years?

a. They are designed for single use. But I have recycled when I can. For example, I cannot recycle balloons for health reasons and because they are difficult to untie.

17. Is there a specific length of time required for the Prototype activity?

a. About 25 minutes when including 2 sections of debriefs to unpack the learning.

18. Are there any specific performance indicators or outcome data that the government is aiming to achieve through this approach to team development and innovation?

a. Observable. Reducing conflict, appreciation of preferences, and team building.

19. In support of innovation and flexibility, would alternative delivery formats—such as digital kits or virtual simulations—be considered acceptable in place of physical prototype kits?

a. I can probably hand out newspapers and tape and have them build towers.

20. Regarding the Advanced Group Profile, would the government be open to approaches that present group dynamics insights while preserving individual anonymity, where appropriate?

a. Yes. However, I’ve POCs explicitly request an advanced group profile for their intact groups and to inform their social contracting to aid in group performance.

21. Will the Government give preference to vendors with direct experience delivering cognitive assessments or cognitive performance programs within SOF environments (e.g., JSOC, ARSOF, NSW)?

a. No preference.

22. Is there a page count limit for the Technical Approach or any quote volume (e.g., 2-page max)?

a. No limit.

23. If a limit applies, does it include items such as a cover page, table of contents, or resumes?

a. No limit.

24. Are there any formatting requirements related to font type, size, line spacing, or margins (e.g. Times New Roman, 11-12 font, single spaced, 1 inch margins)?

a. No format requirements.

25. Is there a current or previous vendor providing these assessments and materials to USSOCOM/JSOU? If so, are you seeking continuity or open to new solutions?

a. This is a new requirement.

26. Should vendors provide a total price per year (all CLINs combined) or breakout pricing by line item and deliverable? Will optional services (e.g., facilitation) be evaluated if included?

a. Match the CLIN structure from the RFQ.

27. Beyond the quote and technical response, are there specific formatting requirements for the submission (e.g., page limits, cover pages, labeled attachments), or is standard commercial format acceptable?

a. No format requirements.

28. To better understand the procurement intent, would the government be able to clarify the rationale for marking the CLINs as “No” under Brand Name or Equal, especially when the terminology appears specific?

a. The SOO provides the maximum flexibility for each offeror to propose an innovative development approach. Brand Name or Equal is not appropriate in conjunction with a SOO.

29. For planning purposes, would the government be open to providing any background on whether alternative cognitive frameworks (e.g., MBTI, DISC, Gallup, Kolbe) were considered during market research?

a. Yes, alternative cognitive frameworks were considered.

30. Could the government share whether a sources-sought notice, RFI, or market research summary is available related to this requirement?

a. There is not.

31. Would the government be able to share the rationale behind selecting LPTA as the award methodology for this type of training and assessment solution?

a. Best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.

32. To assist with full alignment to the government’s objectives, could you confirm whether the Statement of Objectives was developed internally or in consultation with any prior facilitators or vendors?

a. The SOO was developed internally with market research done by subject matter experts.

33. Could you clarify how the government will determine technical acceptability for vendors proposing validated assessment methodologies that may differ structurally from the one described?

a. Solutions meeting objectives will be deemed technically acceptable.

34. Could you kindly confirm whether USSOCOM/JSOU has previously used a specific cognitive assessment framework that utilizes terms such as “Clarifier, Ideator, Developer.

a. Yes. JSOU had a previous contract (FA481419PA044) for similar work.

35. Would the Government like vendors to submit résumés or bios for key personnel, or is general qualifications language sufficient in the technical volume?

a. No resume’s or bios for key personnel are being requested nor are required.

36. Will prior performance on similar DoD or SOCOM contracts be considered as part of the technical acceptability determination?

a. Past performance is not being evaluated.

37. The Statement of Objectives references thinking preferences using terms like “Clarifier, Ideator, Developer, Implementer.” Are vendors required to use a specific framework (e.g., FourSight), or can equivalent assessment models be proposed if they meet the described intent?

a. Equivalent assessment models can be proposed if they meet the described intent.