RFI M95494-MR20-011 USMC Gender-Integrated Study.pdf

SOURCES SOUGHT NOTICE

M95494-MR20-011 19 June 2020

Subject: Academic Study of USMC Gender-Integrated Recruit Training

THIS SOURCES SOUGHT IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. THIS IS NOT A

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SOLICITATION AND SHALL NOT

BE CONSTRUED AS A COMMITMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT. RESPONSES IN ANY FORM

ARE NOT OFFERS AND THE GOVERNMENT IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO AWARD A

CONTRACT AS A RESULT OF THIS ANNOUNCEMENT. NO FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE TO PAY

FOR PREPARATION OF RESPONSES TO THIS ANNOUNCEMENT. ANY INFORMATION

SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENTS TO THIS NOTICE IS STRICTLY VOLUNTARY.

>>THE GOVERNMENT IS ONLY SEEKING RESPONSES FROM PUBLIC

UNIVERSITIES AT THIS TIME.

1. DESCRIPTION:

Background:

While a number of reports and studies have examined options of gender-integrated training at the MCRDs, none to date have been conducted by a public university with a peer reviewed, published result.

Examinations of this subject by entities inside the Department of Defense (DoD), while informative, have not benefited from an external review by a non-DoD affiliated entity.

The Marine Corps is committed to gender-integrated training to the greatest extent possible in accordance with relevant statutes and mission effectiveness. A specified task for the Commanding General of Marine Corps Combat Development Command (CG MCCDC) in the Marine Corps Force Integration Implementation Plan (MCFIIP) is to: “Develop a study plan that encompasses the entry-level training (ELT) transformation process, to include but not limited to, the extent and effectiveness of gender-combined recruit training and possible options to increase gender-integrated training during boot camp.”

The end product of this effort supports accomplishment of this task.

Objectives: Determine effective alternatives to the two recruit training approaches used by the Marine Corps. This study should examine both models of integrated recruit training occurring at MCRD Parris Island; the older, defacto integrated training wherein a female series (three platoons of female recruits) trains alongside a male company (six to eight platoons of male recruits), and the more recently developed model wherein a company of recruits has one female platoon and five male platoons.

Scope:

• The focus of this study is to provide objective, data-driven recommendations for policy change to current Entry Level Training (ELT) models for Marine Corps recruits. The study should analyze combinations of gender integrated training and make recommendations for models which integrate genders to the greatest extent possible while continuing to train Marines to established standards.

Specifically, the study should consider training models which maintain the same level of discipline, physical fitness, attention to detail, camaraderie and cohesion.

• Exploring alternatives will require synthesis of all previous reports and studies on gender-integrated training at the MCRDs. These reports and studies are listed below. This may also require interviews with USMC leadership, subject matter experts and training cadre.

• This study should examine gender-integrated training practices of other Services to determine if their methods are useful to the Marine Corps. It should examine and consider the metrics other Services use to measure success of their efforts and consider the utility of incorporating them into current USMC practices.

• This study should examine both models of integrated recruit training occurring at MCRD Parris Island explained above.

- 2 -

Assumptions:

(1) In the older, more frequently occurring, integrated training model, gender integrated training occurs after the first phase of ELT and at the Series (2-4 platoons) level and above. Recruit training platoons remain single gender.

(2) In the newer integrated recruit training model, gender integrated training occurs at the Company level, but begins immediately upon assignment to a company. Recruit training platoons remain single gender.

(3) In FY20 there are eight opportunities for the newer integrated training model to occur (wherein a company of recruits has one female platoon and five male platoons). It is estimated that FY21 will see a similar number of opportunities where the new model can be studied.

(4) Overall accession targets for recruits is anticipated to remain static during the time period of this study. In addition, the number of female recruits undergoing recruit training is anticipated to remain static (est. 3,400/yr) in future years.

Methodology: The Contractor’s study methodology shall include, at a minimum, examination of the current characteristics of Marine Corps recruit training, the justification the Marine Corps utilizes for its practices, identify alternative approaches from other Services and like organizations, determine whether alternative approaches can be implemented and what impacts, such as costs, are involved secondary to implementing alternative approaches.

Specific Tasks:

Task 1 – Review existing gender-integrated training reports and studies. At a minimum, the study contractor shall review the references provided below.

Task 2 – Examine other Services’ ELT gender-integrated training practices and metrics used to measure effectiveness of these practices.

Task 3 – Determine alternatives to both existing USMC gender-integrated training models.

Task 4 – Recommend limited pilot projects to test identified Task 3 alternatives. For these projects, recommend measures of effectiveness for analysis.

Task 5 – Seek out viewpoints which differ from the methods the Marine Corps currently uses at ELT, ensure that all studied alternatives are considered.

Task 6 – Deliver final report and recommendations.

Task 7 – Publish the report in a peer-reviewed journal.

References:

The following documents/material shall be obtained by the study contractor during the literature search/data collection portion of this study effort:

(1) Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services Annual Reports, 1968 to Present.

(2) Evaluation of Gender Integration at Recruit Training Command Orlando Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida;, Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, July 1992.

(3) Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. Report to the

President. 15 November 1992.

(4) Attitudes Regarding the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces: The Military Perspective.

(Conducted for the Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, Roper Organization, Inc. September 1992.

(5) New Opportunities for Military Women, Effects Upon Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale, RAND Corporation, 1997.

- 3 -

(6) Gender Integration in Basic Training, GAO Testimony of Mark Gebick, Director, Military Operations and Capabilities issues, National Security and International Affairs Division, Before Subcommittee on Personnel, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 1997.

(7) Report of the Federal Advisory Commission on Gender-Integrated Training and Related Issues to the Secretary of Defense. (“Kassebaum Report”). 16 December 1997.

(8) New Opportunities for Military Women: Effects Upon Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale. RAND Corporation., 1997.

(9) Gender Integration in Basic Training: The Services are Using a Variety of Approaches, Government Accountability Office, 1997.

(10) Congressional Commission on Military Training and Gender-related Issues—Final Report, (Blair Commission Report) vols. I-IV, July 1999.

(11) The Status of Gender Integration in the Military: Analysis of Selected Occupations. RAND National Defense Research Institute, 2002.

(12) Women in the Armed Forces: A Report by the Employment of Women in the Armed Forces Steering Group, 2002.

(13) Mixed-Gender Basic Training: The U.S. Army Experience, 1973-2004. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, 2008.

(14) Challenge and Change in the Canadian Military: Gender and Diversity Issues. Canadian Forces Leadership Institute, 2004.

(15) Women and Leadership in the Canadian Forces. Canadian Defence Academy Press, 2009.

(16) Women in Ground Close Combat Roles: The Experiences of other Nations and a Review of the

Academic Literature. Human Systems Group DSTL, 2009.

(17) Transforming Traditions: Women, Leadership & the Canadian Navy 1942-2010. Canadian

Defence Academy Press, 2010.

(18) Women in Combat: Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service (CSR) 08 November

2011.

(19) Australian Human Rights Commission. Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women in the

Australian Defence Force. Phase 1. 2011.

(20) Australian Human Rights Commission. Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women in the

Australian Defence Force. Phase 2. 2012.

(21) Report to Congress on the Review of Laws, Policies and Regulations Restricting the Service of

Female Members in the U.S. Armed Forces. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Personnel and Readiness, February 2012.

(22) An Analysis of Marine Corps Female Recruit Training Attrition. Center for Naval Analysis, December 2014.

(23) Implications of Integrating Women into the Marine Corps Infantry. RAND Corporation, 2015.

(24) Government Accountability Office, DoD is Expanding Service Opportunities for Women, but

Should Monitor Long-Term Integration Progress, 2015.

(25) Center for Naval Analysis, Options for Increasing Mixed-Gender Recruit Training in the Marine

Corps, 2016.

(26) Center for Naval Analysis, Assessment of Options to Increase Mixed-Gender Recruit Training in the Marine Corps, 2017.An Assessment of Options for Increasing Gender Integration in Air Force Basic Military Training, RAND Corporation, 2018.

Government Furnished Information: The following documents/material shall be provided as Government furnished information by the Study Sponsor upon initiation of this study effort.

(1) Secretary of the Navy Instruction 3900.39D Human Research Protection Program, 2006.

(2) Marine Corps Order 3900.18 Human Research Protection Program, 2010.

(3) Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 3216.04 Protection Of Human Subjects And

Adherence To Ethical Standards In DoD-Supported Research, 2011.NAVMC 3500.18C. ELT Training and Readiness Manual, 2013.

(4) Joint Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Memorandum: Elimination of the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule, 2013.

(5) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Information Memorandum: Women in the Service Implementation Plan, 2013.

(6) Marine Corps Recruit Training Physical Training Playbooks (Male and Female), 2015.

- 4 -

(7) Fragmentary Order 4 (Implementation) to Marine Corps Force Integration Campaign Plan, 2015.

(8) MCRDSD Depot Order 1510.32A, 2016.

(9) Marine Corps Order 1510.32F Recruit Training, 2016.

(10) TECOM Order 1513 Recruit Training, 2016.

(11) United States Army Training and Doctrine Command Regulation 350-6, Enlisted Initial Entry

Training Policies and Administration, 2019.

(12) MCRDPI Depot Order 1513.6G, 2019.

2. PLACE OF PERFORMANCE:

Work will be performed at both Government and Contractor facilities. Work will primarily be performed at the Contractor site. Intermittent on-site work will be required at the following locations:

• MCB Quantico, VA

• MCRD Parris Island, SC

• MCRD San Diego, CA

• Fort Benning in Columbus, Georgia (US Army)

• Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas (US Air Force)

• Naval Station Great Lakes, Illinois (US Navy)

3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:

The study is expected to be completed by February 1, 2022 with the delivery of the final report to the Government and submission for publication in a peer reviewed journal.

4. RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS:

Interested parties are requested to include, at a minimum, the following information in their response:

1. Name of University, Cage Code, DUNS Number, Telephone Number, Address, and Email address for the primary point of contact. State whether your organization is currently registered in the Government’s System for Award Management (SAM) at www.sam.gov.

2. Provide any existing contract vehicles that would be available to the Government for the procurement of these services, to include General Service Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedules (FSS), GSA OASIS, GSA MOBIS, or any other Government Agency contract vehicle.

(This information is for market research only and does not preclude your University from responding to this notice.)

3. Description of your university’s capabilities, history & experience with regards to the tasks outlined above.

4. A rough order of magnitude (ROM) ($) cost estimate for the work outlined in the notice.

5. Recommendations on:

• Appropriate North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the services described in this notice.

• Any additional comments/questions about the specifics of this sources sought notice.

Responses are limited to 10 pages including graphics; 11-pt. font minimum. Cover Page not included.

VENDORS WHO WISH TO RESPOND TO THIS SOURCES SOUGHT SHOULD SEND RESPONSES

VIA EMAIL NLT 2 JULY 2020 11:00 AM (LOCAL D.C. TIME) TO

RYAN.F.THOMPSON@USMC.MIL AND JESSICA.HARKER@USMC.MIL

http://www.sam.gov/ mailto:ryan.f.thompson@usmc.mil mailto:JESSICA.HARKER@USMC.mil

- 5 -

Proprietary information and trade secrets, if any, must be clearly marked on all materials. All information received that is marked Proprietary will be handled accordingly. Please be advised that all submissions become Government property and will not be returned. All government and contractor personal reviewing RFI responses will have signed non-disclosure agreements and understand their responsibility for proper use and protection from unauthorized disclosure of proprietary information as described 41 USC 423. The Government shall not be held liable for any damages incurred if proprietary information is not properly identified.