IMAP Questions_and Answers.pdf
PDF 74 KB Posted
- Opportunity number
- W911NF-23-S-0010
- Issued by
-
Department of the Army Materiel Command
About this file
This document is a set of Questions and Answers (Q&A) for the Information Management Assessment Platform (IMAP) project from the U.S. Army Research Institute (ARI). The Q&A covers technical and procedural details about the research project, including assessment design, validity evidence, participant recruitment, and project logistics. Key guidance includes requirements to focus on performance criteria aligned with project objectives, use moderate-fidelity assessment measures, recruit U.S. Army Soldiers as participants (not general population samples), and potentially utilize Army performance data for validation. The project is anticipated to start in Fiscal Year 2026 and will be managed out of Fort Belvoir, with offerors expected to travel for data collections and potentially obtain Common Access Cards (CACs) and government-furnished equipment to access Army systems.
The document provides specific instructions for researchers, such as ensuring coverage of competencies and knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs), proposing appropriate performance criteria, and being prepared to conduct expert reviews. Notably, the project emphasizes the need for predictive validity evidence, with some flexibility in assessment methods (computer-based or paper-and-pencil). The government will collaborate with the offeror on participant recruitment and data collection, but the offeror will be responsible for identifying potential subject matter experts and aligning their proposal with the total period of performance and planned fiscal distribution.
IMAP Q&A
View the file
Other files
Show all 38
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
IMAP Questions
1. What performance criteria are available to us to establish evidence of predictive validity?
a. The o eror should propose performance criteria that will meet project objectives in line with their design.
2. Given the cognitive nature of the information management competency, what amount of discriminant validity evidence do you expect to see with other cognitive measures?
a. Some evidence of discriminant and convergent validity should be present but should not be given precedence over evidence of predictive validity. The o eror should take other design factors into account like time required to complete the assessments when planning the strategy to obtain evidence of validity.
3. Is there a platform besides MARS that might be available to host more technologically involved measures (e.g., game-based assessments)?
a. Currently, assessments that are technologically involved are planned to be hosted on MARS.
4. Should we be focusing on the overall competency for the assessment or on lower-level KSAOs? Both? If the KSAO level, are there particular ones you are more interested in than others for each construct?
a. The o eror should ensure coverage of the competencies and KSAs under each competency to the extent feasible.
5. Can you anticipate how much time will be given for soldiers to take each assessment, either individually or in concert with other assessments (e.g., convergent measures)?
a. There are generally no limits on how long Soldier participation can be requested, but as the time requested for participation increases, the likelihood of the request being supported decreases.
6. We were unable to locate the following report: Dickson, J. N. (2025). Data Governance and Information Management to Improve Operational E ectiveness (Report No. FA8075-23- F0030). Booz Allen Hamilton. Would it be possible to receive a PDF copy?
a. The in-text citation “Dickinson” was a misspelling. The author’s last name is spelled the way it is in the References section, “Dickson.”
7. You noted a preference for SJTs or simulated task performance over self-report inventories.
Given the logistical constraints outlined on page 4 of the solicitation, what level of fidelity and technological sophistication is expected or acceptable for the assessment platform?
a. At least moderate fidelity is expected. Measures may involve a computer or be paper-and-pencil based.
8. Page 4 of the solicitation references the involvement of the Soldier population. Will participant recruitment, data collection (e.g., proctoring, scheduling), and data sharing be coordinated by your team, or will this be the responsibility of the performer? If the latter, would the use of a general population sample (e.g., crowdsourced participants) be acceptable for preliminary validation e orts?
a. ARI will work with the o eror to recruit Soldiers and collect data. The o eror will be expected to travel for data collections. If o eror systems are not approved to hold Army data, the o eror will need to obtain CACs and government-furnished equipment to get access to Army systems. Data collection needs to be with U.S. Army Soldiers, not a general population sample.
9. You also mention expert reviews on page 4 of the solicitation. Will Government-provided
SMEs be available for this, or should we plan to identify and engage our own subject matter experts?
a. The o eror should identify who they would like to conduct the review and request government assistance if needed to secure government/military SMEs.
10. Page 4 of the solicitation notes that evidence of criterion-related validity will be needed. If Soldiers are used as participants, would we be able to access performance criteria in a predictive or concurrent fashion? Alternatively, if we use a general population sample, would validation via performance tasks or self-reported outcomes (e.g., GPA) be acceptable?
a. The o eror should propose performance criteria that will meet project objectives in line with their design. Army concurrent or predictive performance criteria may be available for us through an archival source or via data collection.
11. Is this e ort being managed out of Ft. Belvoir or Ft. Moore? Are any security clearances or specific contractor facility requirements anticipated?
a. Ft. Belvoir. If o eror systems are not approved to hold Army data, the o eror will need to obtain CACs and GFE to get access to Army systems.
13. Can you please confirm that this e ort is currently funded? We noticed a significant decrease in funding for the option period—should we interpret this to mean that most of the IMAP development and validation is expected in Year 1, with Year 2 focused on refinement or sustainment?
a. Contracts are not funded until the funding is obligated at the time of award. The CTR’s proposal should align with the total period of performance and the planned fiscal distribution to accomplish the project’s goals.
14. What is the anticipated start date or fiscal year for project initiation—FY25 or FY26?
a. FY26
15. Will o erors be expected to come to the table with an existing contract vehicle, or is there a preferred vehicle (e.g., GSA, IAC MAC) that will be used for this e ort?
a. No, the o eror is not expected to come to the table with an existing contract vehicle.
The government does not have a preferred vehicle.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .