H98210-13-R-0012_DLNSEO_Amendment.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The standard size code has changed from $7M to $19M.

The following have been added by full text:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Solicitation Number: H98210-13-R-0012 Q & A

1. Clarify what is considered relevant past performance. Instructions to Offerers for Vol. II states current or completed within the past three years. Para 3.3.1 states completed with the past five years.

A1.

In accordance with para 3.3.1 of the solicitation, i.e. Contracts completed within the last 5 years are generally considered recent.

2. Clarify the minimum required number of past performance references. Instructions to Offerers for Vol II states 3-5. Please state the threshold as a point instead of a range.

A2.

The minimum number of past performance references is 3 with a maximum of 5.

3. Clarify whether para. 4.6.6 was omitted intentionally. Is there a 4.6.6 requirement? If so, please publish it.

A3.

There are no additional requirements. Para. 4.6.6 was omitted unintentionally, 4.6.7 is the requirement.

4. How many copies of deliverables are required? Currently there is a requirement for a CD in word format for reports and transcripts.

A4.

The contractor is only liable for what is listed in the PWS Para 4.6.7 “…data CD and MS Word document.” One copy is sufficient for this deliverable.

5. The current description of deliverables states in an MS Word format. Since many of the data tables could be used to evaluate or compare within or between groups, would it be acceptable to deliver excel spreadsheets in lieu of just MS Word documents?

A5.

The excel spreadsheets and tables are able to be incorporated into the MS Word document.

6. What version of MS Office is the accepted standard for delivery of MS Word products?

A6.

Microsoft Office 7

7. What is the requirement for resumes of key individuals, such as the Principal Investigator or Project Manager?

A7.

There is no need for a full resume, but a list of the key individuals’ qualifications would be sufficient.

8. Where can Offerers view Attachment C, Past Performance, which is referenced in the Solicitation?

A8.

Attachment C is included in the amendment.

9. Should we assume that interviewees could be drawn from both the Active and Reserve Components?

A9.

Yes

10. Should we assume that interviewees will all be part of the Department of Defense?

A10.

Yes

11. Should the sample of intelligence community include civilians as well as military?

A11.

Not necessarily. The 15 individuals only need to meet the criteria listed in the Performance Work Statement in Paragraphs 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.

12. Clarify the expected minimum number of interviews. We believe this number to be 95, based on the following breakdown:

- minimum of ten GPF personnel (60% enlisted/40% officer) from each Service = minimum of 40, assuming A/N/AF/MC

- as well as ten DoD Civilians = 10 (though this could also be 40 if the intention is from each service)

- minimum of fifteen (15) personnel from each of the listed specialty communities:

4.3.2.1. Special Operation Forces (choose from Civil Affairs and Military Information Support Operations (MISO)) = 15

4.3.2.2. Foreign Area Officers = 15

4.3.2.3. Intelligence Professionals (choose from Services and Defense Agencies) = 15

A12.

A minimum of 95 (only 10 DoD Civilians)

13. Given the large number of interviews required, would the government consider leveraging focus groups to either augment or replace individual interviews?

A13.

Focus groups can be leveraged to augment the data collected from the individual interviews, but they cannot replace the individual interviews. We would like this competency model to be a comprehensive representation for the DoD, therefore we realize that the sample is large but we believe this amount will adequately represent each group.

14. We understand that the initial Phase I report may have been completed in

September 2011. Has there been continued follow-on work since that point?

Has the current 3C model been in use?

A14.

The current 3C model has been peer reviewed and is awaiting clearance from the security office to be published on DTIC. After the initial model was completed, we have been asked if some of the collection methodology and data from the interviews can be released. However, the model itself is not in wide circulation, and won't be pending the results of this project.

15. Is there an incumbent for this work or is this a new requirement?

A15.

This is a new requirement.

16. Given the nature of interviews with the specialty communities (specifically special forces and/or intelligence professionals), will the contractor be required to have a facilities clearance and deliver cleared staff to perform this work?

A16.

The contractor is not required to be cleared or have a cleared staff in order to meet requirements for this project. The product and all data collected is unclassified. Any perspective interviewee working in a secure facility does not have to be interviewed in that secured facility. Even if the interview took place within that type of facility, there are existing security policies stating that personnel without clearances may be signed in and escorted by someone who is cleared.

17. On SF-1449, the solicitation states that the procurement is a small business set aside under NAICS code 541720. However, on page 27, the solicitation states that the requirement is being advertised under NAICS code 561110. Could the Government please clarify as to the correct NAICS code?

A17.

The correct NAICS code is 541720.

18. Does the Government have a preference for the vendor providing potential candidates for the Competency Modeling effort as opposed to working with the Service Manpower and Reserve Affairs offices or the Service Culture Centers to identify participants?

A18.

The government does not have preference if the PWS requirements listed in 4.2.1 and 4.3 are met.

19. Is the Government open to supplemental data collection methods in addition to interviews (e.g., surveys, focus groups)?

A.19 The government is open to supplemental data collection methods in addition to interviews, but not in lieu of the interviews.

20. Could the Government please provide a definition of ‘core competencies, the associated sub-competencies, and enables’ as discussed on page 8 of the solicitation?

A20.

The attachment of the competency model provides an example of competencies and enablers. The text book definition includes unique abilities specific to a field.

21. Could the Government please define what is meant by a ‘quantitative frequency analysis’ as discussed on page 8 of the solicitation?

A21.

An examination that quantifies the results of the rate at which terms relevant to this project occur and are repeated throughout the collected data.

22.

Although the emphasis is on conducting interviews and collecting new data to conduct the model validation, is it acceptable to use some archival data to supplement the new data that are collected?

A22.

It is acceptable to use some archival data to supplement the new data.

23. What is the correct NAICS Code and SB Size Standard? Form 1449 lists NAICS 541720, while the Instructions to Offerors states NAICS Code 561110. Also, NAICS 541720 has a Size Std of $19M (not $7M) in SBA's table of size standards.

A23.

See A17. The correct Size Std is $19M.

24. What is the anticipated date of award and/or period of performance?

A24.

The Period of Performance is one year from date of award.

25.

How much travel is anticipated? Will the government provide a plug number for the price proposal?

A25.

The government will provide a Not to Exceed Cost Reimbursable CLIN at time of award for travel.

26.

Is there a minimum number of past performances required in the proposal?

A26.

See A2.

27.

For pricing and planning purposes can the government provide the estimated contract award date?

A27.

Contract award will be made within 120 days or sooner.

28.

The Size standard for this procurement is listed as 7 million for 541 -- Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services/541720 -- Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities. However I believe that size standard was raised to 19 million in 2012?

A28.

See A23.

29.

Can you please confirm that all proposals are to be submitted as hard copies and not electronically?

A29.

The proposals are to be submitted via hard copies.

30.

The RFP states that the pricing shall be firm-fixed pricing per unit by CLIN. There are no deliverables associated with the term "CLIN." Are the deliverables on page 9 of the RFP (Ref 4.1-4.9) the CLINs we need to price?

A30.

Provide pricing for CLIN 0001 (this CLIN includes the deliverables on Page 9) on Page 3 of the solicitation.

31.

Where can Offerors view Attachment C, Past Performance, which is referenced in the Solicitation?

A31.

See A8.

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1. NOTES TO OFFERORS: OFFERORS SHOULD READ THE ENTIRE SECTION THROUGHLY AND NOTE THE FOLLOWING IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING PROPOSAL SUBMISSION:

CCR: Any Offeror that submits a proposal in response to this solicitation must be registered in the Central Contractors Registration (CCR), in accordance with FAR Clause 52.232-33 and DFARS Clause 252.201-7000 and 252.204-7004 Alt A, prior to contract award. Registration can be found at: https://www.sam.gov/.

This requirement is being advertised as a small business set-aside under NAICS code 541720. Contract award type shall be a firm-fixed price. Payment will be made by Wide Area Workflow (WAWF).

Payment will be made by Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) via Wide Area Workflow (WAWF). If a vendor wants to use payment by Government Purchase Card (GPC) as the preferred method of payment, the proposal shall clearly state this preference. If the proposal does not state a preferred method of payment, payment will be WAWF.

This is an all-or-none requirement. Partial quotes will be deemed nonresponsive and will not be evaluated. The Offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 120 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers, unless another time is specified in an amendment to the RFP.

2. Communication with the Government

Offerors may email written questions regarding clarification of the Request for Proposal (RFP) to the Contract Specialist, Noah Mitchell, at: Noah.Mitchell@osd.pentagon.mil. No information concerning this solicitation or requests for clarification will be provided in response to telephone calls. Questions will be received up to 2:00 PM Eastern Time (ET) on April 12, 2013. Questions received after this time and date may not be answered.

3. Evaluation Criteria

Proposals will be evaluated using the stated evaluation factors and criteria in Attachment B. Proposals will be evaluated and a contract awarded under the Best Value Continuum approach, to the responsible Offeror whose offer is considered the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Technical and Past Performance evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost or Price. Any proposal with a Technical factor ranked as Unacceptable will not be considered eligible for contract award and will NOT be further evaluated.

4. Proposal Submission:

Proposal submission must be received no later than 12 PM on May 2, 2013. Proposals shall be submitted to the following address:

DHRA PSO

Attn: Noah Mitchell

4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower/Suite 07G12

Alexandria , VA 22350-1300

*NOTE – Hand delivers must be arranged prior to arrival with the Contract Specialist listed above. The vendor is responsible for parking as parking is NOT available at the Mark Center.

Proposal: Offerors proposal shall be separated into the following three volumes. Each volume shall be submitted in individual folders/binders. Interested bidders shall submit:

a. VOLUME I - Business Proposal: This volume shall include:

Company Name, Address, Phone Number, CAGE code, DUNS Number, Tax Identification Number (TIN), Business Size, GSA Schedule Contract Number (if applicable), a signed copy of the Standard Form 1449, with blocks 17(a), 26 and 30(a-c) completed, and a signed copy of the Standard Form 30 of any amendments issued against this RFP.

b. VOLUME II - Technical Proposal (Not to Exceed 25 Pages): Offerors shall submit one (1) original copy and three (3) hardcopies of their technical proposal. This volume(s) shall include.

a. Technical Proposal: Shall address Offerors technical capability of meeting the requirements of the PWS and Evaluation Factors (See Attachment B).

b. Quality Control Plan: Shall address Offerors Quality Control Plan to ensure services are performed in accordance with the PWS. The contractor shall develop and implement procedures to identify, prevent, correct, and ensure no-recurrence of defective services.

c. Past Performance References: Offerors shall submit no more than 3-5 relevant Past Performance references. All references shall address current projects or those completed within the last three years.

Should the Offeror possess no relevant past performance, a written statement shall be provided by the Offeror so indicating. In this case, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will be assigned a rating of Unknown Confidence.

For each reference being submitted, complete and include a Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaire found at Attachment C.

The government will utilize the references submitted to obtain additional performance information on the Offeror.

c. VOLUME III - Price Proposal: Offeror shall submit one (1) original and one (1) hard copy of Volume III. Pricing shall be firm-fixed pricing per unit by CLIN. All items listed in the Schedule must have an entry for the unit price, and estimated amount or be marked “NSP” for “Not Separately Priced,” or marked “NC” for “No Charge.” The pricing shall include a designation of the labor categories proposed, the estimated number of labor hours, and Offerors fully burdened labor rates that shall not exceed those specified in the pricing schedule of Offerors GSA Schedule contract (if applicable). Discounted labor rates are highly encouraged and appreciated.

5. Complete Representations and Certifications of Offeror (FAR Clauses 52.212-3 and DFARS Clause DFARS 252.212-7000 of this section) or a copy of the Offeror’s ORCA Representations and Certifications and complete all clauses that require an offeror’s response.

(End of Instructions to Offerors)

ATTACHMENT B

Evaluation Factors, Criteria, and Rating Methods

1.0.

INTRODUCTION.

1.1. All proposals will be evaluated by the Source Selection Evaluation Board in accordance with the factors and criteria established in this Source Selection Plan (SSP) and in the Request for Proposal (RFP). The criteria provide the basis upon which each evaluation will be based, are established before receipt of the proposals, and are intended to ensure that the evaluation will be a structured process employing equitable measures. Proposals will be evaluated and a contract awarded under the Best Value Continuum approach, to the responsible Offeror whose offer is considered the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

1.2. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines discussions to be necessary.

1.3 Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect understanding of the requirement or capability to perform.

1.4. Pass/Fail

Pass/Fail Factor(s) ___ will _X_ will not be used

1.4.1. The purpose of the pass/fail factor(s) is to determine the offeror’s ability to fully meet critical eligibility/performance requirement(s).

1.4.2. Offers that meet all of the established criteria will receive a “Pass” rating and will receive further consideration for award.

1.4.3. Offers that do not meet part or all of the established criteria will receive a “Fail” rating and will be ineligible for award and will not be further evaluated.

2.0. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1. Technical.

2.1.1. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess the offeror’s proposed approach, as detailed in its proposal, to satisfy the Government’s requirements. There are many aspects which may affect an offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements to include technical approach, risk, management approach, personnel qualifications, facilities, small business participation and others. The evaluation of risk is related to the technical assessment.

2.1.2. Risk assesses the degree to which the offeror’s proposed technical approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will be assessed as one aspect of the technical factor rating.

2.1.3. Any proposal receiving a rating of “Unacceptable” is deemed to have a risk that is so high that award cannot be made against the proposal and the proposal will not be further evaluated.

2.2. Past Performance.

2.2.1. The Past Performance Evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements, based on past performance information. The Performance Confidence Assessment rating is assessed as an overall factor after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the technical factors and cost or price.

2.2.2. Recency refers to the state or quality of being current. The more recent the contract, the greater the likelihood that the offeror has the capacity to perform in a like manner. Information regarding contract performance that is recent and has a logical connection with the matter under consideration indicates relevancy.

3.0.

EVALUATION FACTOR CRITERIA

3.1.

Pass/Fail Factor – see paragraph 2.1. above

3.2.

Criteria for Technical Factor

Element A: Technical Approach and Methodology

By addressing each portion of the PWS, proposals shall describe the offeror's understanding of the requirement, assessment of the objectives to be accomplished, methodology for accomplishing the requirement.

Element B: Project Management Plan

The proposal shall describe the offeror’s approach for providing complete program management support that will fully integrate, manage, control, and document all phases of the contract requirements. Proposals shall describe the project management and staffing plans and assess how they will demonstrate the offeror’s approach for providing the corporate resources necessary to ensure and maintain service quality levels, staffing levels, training and risk management.

Element C: Quality Control Plan

The proposal shall describe the Offeror's approach for instituting and maintaining a capability to ensure the quality and integrity of services/products, including at least: (1) management and task controls to assure work will be completed as required; (2) contingency plans for identifying and correcting problems; (3) and steps that would be taken to assure timely delivery of quality products.

3.3.

Criteria for Past Performance Factor Confidence Assessment The Government will conduct a performance confidence assessment based upon the past performance of the offerors and their proposed subcontractors performing major or critical aspects of the requirement as it relates to the probability of successfully performing the solicitation requirements.

3.3.1. The Government will consider each offeror’s demonstrated, current, relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirement. Contracts completed within the last 5 years are generally considered recent.

3.3.2. In conducting the performance risk evaluation, the Government may use data provided by the offeror and data obtained from other sources it considers current and accurate, including the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).

3.4. Criteria for Price Factor. The Government anticipates that adequate price competition will establish a fair and reasonable price. However, if the Government does not receive adequate price competition, it will evaluate price proposals to ensure price reasonableness of the services being provided to the Government, considering the specific terms and conditions and relevant commercial practices.

4.0. ORDER OF IMPORTANCE.

4.1. Proposals will be evaluated based on best value to the Government using the trade-off approach. For this solicitation factors are listed below in descending order of importance. Price will be evaluated separately and will not be scored.

1. Technical

2. Past Performance

3. Price

4.2. Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

5.0. RATING METHODS

5.1. Technical Factor: One of the following ratings will be assigned:

TECHNICAL RATINGS

5.2. Past Performance Factor – Relevancy and Confidence Assessment:

5.2.1. One of the following Relevancy ratings will be assigned:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

5.2.2. The combination of relevancy and recency, and performance documented by the information collected by the Government, results in the selection of a performance confidence assessment as outlined below.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

5.3.

Price Factor: Price proposals will not be rated.

ATTACHMENT C

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY QUESTIONAIRE

1. Contractor (name, address, email and telephone number):

2. Contract Number and name, address, email, telephone number, of the awarding activity’s Procuring Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer’s Representative (and other references – e.g. Administrative Contracting Officer – if applicable):

3. Type of Contract: Fixed Price_____ Cost_______ IDIQ_______

4. Contract dollar value:

5. Period of Performance:

6. Scope of work and complexity/diversity of tasks performed:

7. Skills/expertise required:

8. Relevancy of work:

9. Type and extent of subcontracting:

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Cross-Cultural Competence (3C) Competency Model - Phase II

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Defense Language and National Security Education Office (DLNSEO) requires an expansion and comparative analysis of the Cross-Cultural Competence (3C) Competency model developed as part of the Defense Language and National Security Education Office (DLNSEO) study # N41756-11-C-3843, Data Collection and Analysis for a Cross-Cultural Competence Model. The model is intended to serve as the foundation for outlining assessment strategies and support the development of learning for 3C related objectives within the DoD.

2.0 BACKGROUND

DLNSEO and the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense Personnel and Readiness (OUSD (P&R)) developed an empirically grounded 3C competency model based on a recommendation to link competency lists and definitions to job performance and mission effectiveness. The model organizes a specific set of prioritized competencies and connects them to mission performance to achieve cultural readiness (Attachment 1). A total of 26 officers and senior enlisted Service personnel were interviewed and provided the data for the current model. All interviewed had been deployed, or served in different countries, at least twice where they associated or performed their duties within the local population. The data and associated analyses were used to produce the 3C Competency Model for the General Purpose Force (GPF) that can be used to develop and enhance 3C education and training.

3.0 SCOPE

The objective of these services is to provide a more comprehensive sample, by expanding the participant sample evenly across the GPF of all Services to include DoD Civilians and some specialty communities. As well as perform a comparative analysis between the GPF and specialty communities, and provide a frequency analysis of the competencies in each group.

4.0 REQUIREMENTS The Contractor shall:

4.1 Provide a technical and management work plan, including a timeline of events, via MS Word document.

4.2 Provide the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) with a proposed list of potential candidates who fit the requisite criteria for this research via email. If there are no existing connections to the various Service groups, a list can be developed by working with the Service Manpower and Reserve Affairs (M&RA) offices or the Service Culture Centers.

4.2.1.

All sample participants will have at least two tours of duty to a country outside of the United States (preferably within the past 10 years but no longer than 15 years ago).

4.2.2.

All sample participants will be able to provide accounts of associations (while performing duties, or other affiliations) within the local population of the countries where they were deployed or stationed.

4.3 Collect research data from the requisite sample.

4.3.1.

Interview a minimum of ten GPF personnel (60% enlisted/40% officer) from each Service as well as ten DoD Civilians.

4.3.2.

Interview a minimum of fifteen (15) personnel from each of the listed specialty communities:

4.3.2.1. Special Operation Forces (choose from Civil Affairs and Military Information Support Operations (MISO))

4.3.2.2. Foreign Area Officers

4.3.2.3. Intelligence Professionals (choose from Services and Defense Agencies)

4.4 Present Interim Program Reviews (IPRs) to the COR that detail progress, activities, and any other project associated issues. For each IPR, email a power point presentation in advance of the scheduled IPR. IPRs may be conducted telephonically and shall be coordinated through the COR to meet required delivery dates (initial IPRs for the first two months and then one per performance quarter).

4.5 Submit a draft copy of the Competency Model report to the COR, via data CD and MS Word document for review/comment.

4.6 Provide the Competency Model report to the COR, via data CD and MS Word document. The results shall include:

4.6.1.

A competency model that shows the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other attributes that are synonymous with cross-cultural competency and members of the Department of Defense. The core competencies, the associated sub-competencies and enables will be listed to include definitions and descriptors of each.

4.6.2.

A detailed description of the methods used to collect the participant information as well as how the competencies were determined.

4.6.3.

A comparative analysis between the initial model, (Attachment 1).

4.6.4.

A comparative analysis between the GPF and the Specialty Communities.

4.6.5.

A quantitative frequency analysis of the competencies for each group.

4.6.6.

Omitted 4.6.7.

Prepare and submit the final report upon receipt of the customer review comments.

4.7 Provide scripts of the participant interviews that highlight the ties to the competencies within the model. Excerpts will be provided via data CD/DVD in MS Word format and will be submitted with the draft report.

4.8 Participate in a Post-Award Conference. This meeting shall provide an introduction between the Contract recipients and Government personnel who will be involved with the project. The Post Award Conference will aid both the Government and Contractor in achieving a clear and mutual understanding of all requirements, and to discuss any technical or management issues not identified in the Q&A period. The Contractor shall be prepared to discuss any items requiring clarification and gather information as necessary to support each deliverable.

4.9

CONTRACTOR MANPOWER REPORTING

IAW Sections 235 and 2330a of title 10, United States Code - The contractor shall report ALL contractor labor hours (including subcontractor labor hours) required for performance of services provided under this contract for the DLNSEO via a secure data collection site. The contractor is required to completely fill in all required data fields using the following web address: http://www.ecmra.mil/.

Reporting inputs will be for the labor executed during the period of performance during each Government fiscal year (FY), which runs October 1 through September 30. While inputs may be reported any time during the FY, all data shall be reported no later than October 31 of each calendar year, beginning with 2013. Contractors may direct questions to the help desk at help desk at: http://www.ecmra.mill.

5.0

DELIVERABLES

Initial IPRs

6.0 CONTRACTOR TRAVEL

Contractor travel is required to gather relevant data concerning the validation of this report. Sites will be discussed/recommended by the COR. Contractor costs for Government authorized travel are included in this contract. All travel shall be in accordance with FAR 31.205-46 and applicable travel regulations (Joint, Federal or Standardized). Contractor payment claims shall include applicable documentation to support actual costs incurred (e.g. airfare and hotel/lodging receipts) as well as any receipts valued at or above $75.00. Failure to provide appropriate documentation may result in loss of reimbursement of travel expenses.

7.0 SECURITY ISSUES

Information/Data involved in this effort is Unclassified. The Contractor does not require security clearances.

8.0

GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY/EQUIPMENT

No government property/equipment will be furnished.

9.0

QUALITY CONTROL

The contractor shall implement and maintain a Quality Control Plan (QCP) to ensure work performed conforms to the scope of work and meets the requirements under this PWS. The QCP shall, at a minimum provide a method for performing inspections; identifying, correcting and preventing problems/defective service; addressing customer complaints, and improving the quality of services over the life of the contract.

10.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE

10.1.

The Government reserves the right to perform inspections and surveillance to evaluate the Contractor’s compliance to the contract terms and performance of the requirements in the PWS. The Government will make every effort to ensure that the surveillance methods described below are conducted in an objective, fair, and consistent manner.

10.1.1.

Periodic Surveillance. This action occurs when the COR or other Government official observes a deficiency. Examples include evidence from accidents, incidents, or delays. Regardless of where in the line-of-duty the COR observes contractual procedures not being followed, he/she has an obligation to document and report the deficiency to the Contracting Officer.

10.1.2.

Customer Complaint Surveillance. This action is instituted when the COR receives a complaint from a stakeholder regarding contractor service. The COR will obtain the complaint in writing and then conduct an investigation to determine its validity. If the complaint is deemed valid, the COR will immediately notify the contracting Officer for action. The COR will notify both the Contract Manager and the complainant of the Government’s response to their complaint.

10.2 Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR). In the event of unsatisfactory contractor performance, the COR or CO will issue a CDR that will explain the circumstances and findings concerning the incomplete or unsatisfactory service. The contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CDR and respond in writing as to how he/she shall correct the unacceptable performance and avoid a recurrence. The Government will review the contractor's corrective action response to determine acceptability and will use any completed CDR as part of an overall evaluation of Contractor performance when determining present or future contractual actions.

ATTACHMENT 1

Cross-Cultural Competence Model

1.1

1.2

1.3

Maintaining a Mission Orientation

Understanding Self in Cultural Context

Managing Attitudes Towards Culture 2.1

2.2

2.3 Self-Directed Learning of Cultures

Developing Reliable Information Sources

Learning New Cultures Efficiently

3.1

3.2

3.3 Coping with Cultural Surprises

Developing Cultural Explanations of Behavior

Cultural Perspective Taking 4.1

4.2

4.3

Inter-Cultural Communication Planning

Disciplined Self-Presentation

Reflection and Feedback

1.0 Diplomatic Stance

Competencies related to diplomatic stance provide detail around the individual’s ability to think about themselves in a cultural context and to manage their own attitudes towards culture in ways that support their ability to use cultural understanding to accomplish mission-related objectives. The ability to adopt a diplomatic stance assumes the general understanding that building strategic, intercultural relationships can be a direct means to achieve mission objectives and awareness of specific ways in which cultural knowledge and skills can be used to develop and maintain such relationships. Further, maintaining a diplomatic stance requires awareness of one’s own personality attributes, cultural assumptions, values, and biases, and the ability to use self-awareness to manage personal attributes and attitudes in order to most effectively develop and maintain strategic intercultural relationships.

1.1 Maintaining a Mission Orientation

· Develops own rationales for the value of cultural understanding

· Defines mission-relevant social objectives

· Understands the value of building intercultural relationships to achieve mission objectives

· Uses existing cultural knowledge to demonstrate interest in the culture

· Uses cultural knowledge to assess risk within social and operational environment

· Expects that it may not be possible to achieve all objectives in a single interaction

1.2 Understanding Self in Cultural Context

· Appreciates that own view of a situation is not exclusively correct

· Anticipates that in an interaction with someone who has a different background, the perspectives each person brings to the situation will likely not match

· Understands that it is not possible to anticipate all the ways in which other people think and behave differently than one’s own self

· Seeks to develop understanding of how members of another cultural group perceive members of own cultural group

· Develops personal theories about how Americans tend to differ from other people in the world

1.3 Manages Attitudes towards Culture

· Attempts to maintain positive or neutral attitude towards culture

· Develops objective explanations of value conflicts in social/ historical context as means to manage own attitudes

· Avoids value laden explanations of cultural behavior

· Puts any current negative personal attitudes about culture aside to accomplish tasks

2.0 Cultural Learning

Competencies related to cultural learning provide detail around the individual’s ability to engage in self-directed and efficient culture learning. Cultural knowledge acquisition competencies require continually seeking to advance understanding of own and other cultures and taking ownership of one’s own learning. Individuals must be able to develop strategies and identify sources for obtaining information about new cultures. Further, they must be able to maintain efficient expectations about how much must be learned about a culture and find ways to use potentially limited amounts of cultural knowledge to accomplish mission related objectives.

2.1. Self-directed learning of cultures

· Is self-directed in learning about cultures prior to and during deployment

· Sets personal learning objectives to advance own cultural knowledge

· Uses personal interests as one guide to set cultural learning objectives

· Uses current cultural knowledge as a basis for further inquiry

· Frames intercultural experiences as opportunities to learn more about a culture

· Continually explores commonalities and differences between oneself and the people within an area of operations

2.2 Developing reliable information sources

· Identifies and uses members of the local population as cultural mentors prior to and during deployment

· Develop relationships with the explicit objective of increasing cultural understanding

· Assesses credibility and bias in information sources

· Assesses trust in mentors

· Checks/vets informant opinions against other sources

2.3 Learning new cultures efficiently

· Understands that own cultural knowledge remains limited, regardless of how much has been learned

· Understands value of a little cultural knowledge

· Adopts a rational/analytical mindset towards cultural learning

· Adopts and refines tactics and strategies for learning about culture

· Develops strategies for challenging and testing existing cultural understanding and assumptions

· Asks questions as a strategy for increasing cultural understanding prior to a deployment

3.0 Cultural Reasoning

Competencies related to cultural reasoning provide detail around the individual’s ability to reason and create new understanding about behaviors and events that are initially experienced as confusing. To do so, the individual must be able to maintain alertness to behaviors or events in their environments that violate their expectations and manage surprises by analyzing their causes. They must demonstrate the ability to assess their own understanding of a culture by framing questions and challenging their assumptions, and be able to develop culturally insightful explanations for the behaviors of members of other cultures. Finally, they must be able to consider situations and problems from the point of view of culturally different others as a strategy for developing deeper understanding.

3.1 Coping with Cultural Surprises

· Understands that puzzling cross-cultural behavior present opportunities to learn more about the culture

· Inquires into the causes of puzzling or anomalous behavior

· Generates own principles for organizing cultural facts and theories

3.2 Developing Cultural Explanations of Behavior

· Develops sophisticated explanations of cultural behavior to improve future accuracy of expectations

· Uses local cultural concepts when constructing explanations of native behavior

3.3 Cultural Perspective-Taking

· Routinely attempts to consider the point of view of others during intercultural interactions

· Takes perspective of natives as one means to resolve cultural surprises

· Considers the point of view of natives when constructing explanations for their behavior

· Uses cultural knowledge to understand or make sense of how members of a culture make decisions, what they believe, and what they want

· Considers the point of view of natives when developing plans for actions and communication and for considering effects of same

· Balances native perspectives with own/US values, goals, mission objectives

4.0 Intercultural Interaction

Competencies related to intercultural interaction provide detail around the individual’s ability to employ information about people and surroundings to plan and adjust messages, means of communication, and self-presentation so as to achieve intended outcomes. Effective intercultural interaction assumes general awareness of the importance of self-presentation during intercultural interactions towards accomplishing social objectives. Further, the individual must be able to think flexibly about message content and delivery in advance of interactions as well as demonstrate the ability to behave in a disciplined manner within intercultural interactions in order to meet planned objectives. Finally, the individual must continue to think about and learn from intercultural interactions and experiences after they occur.

4.1 Inter-Cultural Communication Planning

· Understands that social objectives can be realized through a variety of self-expression techniques

· Uses cultural knowledge and understanding to determine content and means of expression

· Listens to and takes the positions and points of view of members of the host culture into consideration when setting communication objectives

· Considers all the messages that one communicates through words, body language, posture, dress, social context and actions

4.2 Disciplined self-presentation

· Adapts self-presentation in order to achieve planned social objectives in intercultural interactions

· Presents oneself in a way that enables achievement of an intended effect on the other person’s perception (includes sometimes being themselves and other times adapting)

· Avoids overt emotional reactions; keeps emotions in check during interactions

4.3 Reflection/Feedback

· Reflects on intercultural experiences and outcomes after they happened to improve understanding of host culture and future intercultural interaction tactics and strategies

· Seeks information from cultural mentors or other sources after interactions to improve understanding of host culture (and language)

· Seeks feedback about own actions from cultural mentors after intercultural interactions to improve own future performance

(End of Summary of Changes)