RFP_A15054_Amendment_02_Questions_and_Answers.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted May 14, 2015

Attached to: Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Program Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: RFPA15054
Issued by: Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Program, newest first.
File	Type	Posted
RFPA15054_Amendment_2.pdf	PDF	May 14, 2015
Amendment_02_Attachment_A_-_Statement_of_Objectives.docx	DOCX document	May 14, 2015
Amendment_02_Combined_Synopsis_Solicitation_A15054.rtf	RTF text file	May 14, 2015
RFP_A15054_Amendment_01_Questions_and_Answers.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	May 5, 2015
RFPA15054_Amendment_1.pdf	PDF	May 5, 2015
Combined_Synopsis_Solicitation_A15054.rtf	RTF text file	Apr 22, 2015
Attachment_B_-_Treasury_SES_CDP_Implementation_Plan_OPM_Oct_2014.pdf	PDF	Apr 22, 2015
Attachment_D_-_Price_Submission_Worksheet.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Apr 22, 2015
Attachment_C_-_SES_CDP_Issuance_Notice_TN-11-007.pdf	PDF	Apr 22, 2015
Attachment_A_-_Statement_of_Objectives.docx	DOCX document	Apr 22, 2015
Attachment_E__Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx	DOCX document	Apr 22, 2015

Show all 11

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Q&A

RFP A15054 SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE CANDIDATE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

	Solicitation Section	Question/#	Answer
	RFP/Imp. Plan	1. We understand that Cohort 1 will be the first official SES CDP offered by the Department of Treasury through TEI and that TEI’s vision is to manage and implement future cohorts as a multi-agency offering. (Request for proposal page 2). We further understand that The Internal Revenue Service operates under an existing OPM-approved SES CDP implementation plan although it is not prohibited from participation under [the TEI] plan. (SES CDP Implementation plan page 1). Does TEI already have bureaus and agencies identified to take part in these cohorts? If so, who are they? If not, how and by whom will such partners be sought, and in what timeframe?	Participating bureaus and agencies ("Agencies") are responsible for advertising for, vetting, and selecting their own candidates per the merit staffing process. Agencies have made selections for Cohort 1. The Government anticipates that the Agencies will be made known to the vendor upon award.
	SOO	2. What specific pan-Government or pan-Treasury problem is TEI trying to solve by creating this multi-agency program. Why this RFP? Why now?	The Government currently has a need for this program and has secured adequate funding to provide the program.
	SOO	3. As the curriculum is to be designed for a multi-agency approach (Statement of Objectives Page 3) is it correct to assume that any classroom element of this program will qualify as interagency ECQ-based hours?	Although federal regulations require a minimum of 80 hours of interagency classroom training tied to the Executive Core Qualifications (ECQs), the Government does not anticipate that all classroom training will specifically be a part of the 80-hour requirement, although all elements of the program should be tied to ECQs.
	Att. D	4. We appreciate from reading Attachment D Price Submission worksheet that Treasury seeks a curriculum that comprises Orientation week, 80 Interagency hours, enriched additional ECQ-based training, Continuing learning seminars, peer learning, executive coaching and ECQ statement coaching. Is it intended that each participant in the cohort will take part in all of these activities?	Yes.
	Att. D	5. How are participants for enriched additional ECQ-based training and continual learning different from those participants taking part in 80 hours of interagency training? Are we correct in assuming 25 participants for all Cohort One elements? (Attachment D Price Submission worksheet)	The Government anticipates there will be no difference in the participants, and that approximately 25 candidates will participate in all elements of the Cohort.
	Att. D	6. What differentiates the content for Enriched additional ECQ-based training and continual learning from 80 Interagency hours training? (Attachment D Price Submission worksheet)	Regulations require at least 80 hours of interagency classroom training tied to the ECQs. Enriched and continual learning should still be tied to ECQs, but need not be interagency and need not be in the classroom.
	SOO	7. The documents provided make no mention of online teaching. Is it acceptable to offer some elements of Cohort One—for example orientation and continual learning as webinars or asynchronous online modules?	The Government does not discourage proposals that include different content delivery types such as via electronic methods.
	Att. D	8. Is peer learning something that will take place within hours allotted for classroom education or is this anticipated as intercession action learning and/or teleconference/shared space collaboration? (Attachment D Price Submission worksheet)	The Government anticipates peer learning will be intercession action learning and/or teleconference/shared space collaboration; however, the Government welcomes vendor proposals for all elements of the SESCDP, including the appropriate peer learning component for a superior SESCDP program .
	Att. D	9. Are we correct in assuming that most coaching and ECQ statement coaching will take place by phone? If it is necessary for this coaching to take place one-on-one in DC please specify. (Attachment D Price Submission worksheet)	The Government anticipates that coaching can take place telephonically.
	Att. D	10. What is meant by document management? Is this materials for participants to be handled through a Learning Management System? Or templates, reports and other material to be shared between Treasury and the contractor? Or both? If something different, please explain. (Attachment D Price Submission worksheet)	The Government welcomes proposals from vendors on how best to design and implement a document management system specifically for an SES CDP.
	Imp. Plan	11. (SES CDP Implementation plan page 1). To what extent will the successful contractor be working directly with the ERB? To what extent will the successful contractor be working directly with the Bureau/Agency Appointing Authority? Clarity around process and sign offs will help us with our pricing.	The Government anticipates that the contractor will work directly with the ERB on an as needed basis.
	SOO	12. In Attachment A Statement of Objectives Page 2, 5.2 Curriculum Development, it is not clear if Treasury seeks a detailed curriculum as part of this RFP, or merely the demonstration of capacity and experience to deliver such a curriculum. Please advise what level of detail is needed on components/modules within this RFP. A detailed curriculum would typically include session descriptions, learning objectives, classroom activities and recommended resources.	The Government seeks a detailed curriculum as part of this RFP.
	SOO	13. Is the goal of the RFP to obtain contractor support to manage the implementation of the existing Treasure SES CDP?	Treasury has an Implementation Plan approved by OPM, but no existing program beyond that described in the Implementation Plan.
	SOO	14. Will the contractor will be responsible for administration and management of the SES CDP for Cohort 1 while simultaneously, reviewing the program and making recommendations for future improvements?	The Government anticipates that any recommendations for program improvement will take place on an on-going basis.
	SOO	15. Previous sections of the RFP indicate that Treasury already has an existing SES CDP. Is the objective of paragraph 5.2 for the contractor to update the existing CDP curriculum based on the review conducted in paragraph 5.1? Or, is the contractor creating a new curriculum that will be delivered to Cohort 1?	See answer to question #13. The Government anticipates the contractor will create a program consistent with the Implementation and Corporate Plans approved by OPM.
	SOO/Issuance Notice	16. Are the modules that the contractor will develop part of the: 1)80 hrs of formal interagency and/or multisector training; 2)The TEI sessions; or 3)Supplemental training & activities as described in the issuance notice?	The Government welcomes vendor proposals for all elements of the SESCDP. The Government reserves the right to make a decision as to which elements the contractor will provide per cohort.
	RFP	17. Part I – Summary, #5. After reviewing the tasks listed in the RFP, it appears that it would be pertinent to set this aside for small businesses, but according to Part I- Summary, #5, this will not be set aside. Allowing this effort to be open to large businesses will greatly diminish the number of small businesses that will compete for this, however, there are multiple small businesses that have excellent past performance and will be able to provide these services at a very competitive price. Questions: Has any market research been done to determine if small businesses can complete this effort? Why is this effort not being set aside for small businesses?	The Government conducted preliminary market research between January and July 2014, using GSA-listed vendors, non-listed vendors, and Government agency providers. Both the IRS Office of Small Business and the Department of the Treasury's Small Business Administration Representative reviewed and approved this Full and Open competitive strategy.
	RFP	18. Is the Government using the Simplified Acquisition Process for this effort?	As noted on page 1 of the RFP, this procurement is being conducted IAW FAR subpart 12.6 "Streamlined Procedures for Evaluation and Solicitation for Commercial Items."
	SOO	19. Is contractor expected to deliver a specific 360 competency instrument, or can options be offered based on the participant's situation?	The Government currently does not require a specific assessment to meet the OPM regulatory requirements; however, the Government does anticipate that any assessment(s) will be facilitated at the beginning of the SESCDP and after the SESCDP is complete.
	SOO	20. Will coaches be required to debrief the results of 360 or other assessments?	The Government does not currently require that coaches debrief the assessment(s); however, it is open to all proposals for delivery of this element.
	SOO	21. Will Government assign a coaching and/or mentoring program liaison to support matching and tracking?	The Government will assign a mentor. The Government may or may not assign a coach. The Government anticipates the vendor will provide mentor training.
	SOO	22. Is coaching a mandatory part of the program for all participants, or will it be voluntary?	Coaching is not required per the OPM regulations governing the SESCDP, but the Government anticipates all participants will be required to have a coach during the SESCDP process.
	SOO	23. What is the expected duration (in months or hours) of the coaching engagements?	The Government welcomes proposals on the appropriate length of coaching for a superior SESCDP program.
	SOO	24. Will other developmental assessments (MBTI, EQ, etc) be expected as part of the program or coaching?	The Government welcomes proposals on all assessments that are appropriate for a superior SESCDP program.
	SOO	25. How many participants are expected to attend the program during year 1?	Given approximately 25 participants per cohort and up to 2 cohorts in the first year, the Government anticipates up to approximately 50 participants in the first year.
	General	26. Is there an incumbent contractor supporting your current SESCDP? Is support for your SESCDP part of a larger support contract?	This is a new requirement with no incumbent.
	Imp. Plan	27. In support of the SESCDP, has the Department of the Treasury used OPM’s Assessment Center (Shepherdstown, WV) for the delivery of the 360 Degree Leadership Competency Assessment Program? Would coordinating and integrating the use of OPM’s 360 Degree Leadership Competency Assessment Program be an acceptable alternative, or is the Department of the Treasury moving away from the use of other Government programs/function like OPM’s Assessment Center and want alternatives to the OPM Program?	In support of this SESCDP, the Department of the Treasury has not used OPM’s Assessment Center. This solution is not consistent with the program objectives.
	Imp. Plan/SOO	28. In support of the SESCDP, has the Department of the Treasury used FEI’s ECQ training Program? Would coordinating and integrating the use of FEI’s program be an acceptable alternative, or is the Department of the Treasury moving away for the use of other Government program like OPM’s FEI ECQ Training.	In support of this SESCDP, the Department of the Treasury has not used FEI'sECQ training Program. This solution is not consistent with the program objectives.
	Imp. Plan	29. The initial approved program (pilot) is for internal employees and future programs will be internal and external in terms of who can apply to participate in the program; please confirm that the intent was to have only Department of the Treasury employees in the initial program offering?	It is not the Government's intent to have only Department of the Treasury employees in the initial offering.
	Att. D/SOO	30. Does the pricing include the Federal employees’ travel and per diem based on the FTR, or is this considered separately and paid for by the employee’s agency?	All Agencies are responsible for their candidate's expenses.
	SOO	31. Is the contractor to handle all of the logistics for travel and hotel accommodations, but each Federal employee attending would pay their travel and per diem?	See answer to question #30.
	RFP	32. On page seven (7) of the Combined Synopsis Solicitation A15054.rtf, the format instructions state: ‘Use 8.5”x11” size paper, single spaced (doubled spaced between paragraphs) and single-sided;’. Does this mean there should be a single space between each line?	No additional space is required between lines. The intent to is permit more text on each page, not less.
	SOO	33. Page 2: “The recommendation shall identify components that could be managed and implemented by federal staff as well as those components that should be outsourced by contractor support. The review and recommendations shall be documented and submitted to the COR.” Please advise what, if any, opportunities the contractor will be precluded from by advising that components should be outsourced by contractor support?	The intent of the question is not clear. The Government reserves the right to make any determination as to what components will be managed and implemented by the federal Government.
	SOO	34. Page 3: “The curriculum shall be designed for a multi-agency approach and not focus on the mission of the Department of the Treasury alone.” Is the Department contemplating sharing the curriculum with other agencies?	The Government reserves the right to offer the curriculum to other agencies.
	SOO	35. Page 4: How long does it take to clear personnel on average? Must all staff be US citizens?	Insufficient information to answer.
	RFP	36. Page 9: “ Please submit supporting information demonstrating the extent to which your proposed pricing is discounted from your standard published rates.” The required pricing sheet does not ask contractors to show rates. Please advise how contractors can show discounts.	You may provide additional pricing information not to exceed 2 pages in Volume II - Price.
	RFP	37. Page 16: “Offerors are hereby notified that the Government asserts unlimited rights to the Statement of Work captured at contract award and any later modifications and all metrics, procedures, processes, intellectual property, etc. developed in performance of the contract.” Please advise what exactly the Government asserts unlimited rights to.	"Unlimited Rights" is defined in the cited FAR clause 52.227-14. See here: https://www.acquisition.gov/sites/default/files/current/far/html/52_227.html
	RFP	38. RFP Section Part I – Summary, 16, page 1 – The responses for this RFP are due on May 25, 2015 which is a Federal holiday. Does the Government plan to extend the due date to accommodate submission of quotes on a day in which the Government is open for business?	The due date is extended to 4pm EST Tuesday May 26.
	SOO	39. RFP Section Statement of Objectives (SOO), 5.1, Paragraph 1, Page 2 – In what ways would we collaborate with TEI in executing the program? For example, in the Issuance Notice, Section C (3) states that the Executive Resource Board will select and approve mentors for SES candidates. Will the contractor collaborate with the ERB in selection, approval or management of the mentoring component?	See answer to question #11.
	SOO	40. RFP Section Statement of Objectives (SOO), 5.1, Paragraph 2, Page 2 – The list of minimum requirements for the proposal does not include evaluation. What is TEI’s approach to evaluation and how might the vendor collaborate to ensure the program is evaluated for quality and impact?	The Government welcomes vendor proposals for all elements of the SESCDP, including proposed evaluation programs.
	SOO	41. RFP Section Statement of Objectives (SOO), 5.1, Paragraph 2, Page 2 – The list of minimum requirements for the proposal states “continuing learning” as a requirement. What does this mean in the context of the proposal? For example, does it mean that the vendor integrate principles of continuous learning into the curriculum? Or is it asking how we might address learning post-program?	The Government anticipates that continuous learning generally means integrating principles of continuous learning into the proposed curriculum.
	SOO	42. RFP Section Statement of Objectives (SOO), 5.1, Paragraph 3, Page 2 – The RFP states that we will provide TEI with “lessons learned” upon program completion. Can we also provide lessons learned over the course of the program in an effort to assess quality, impact and make appropriate course corrections to the program design or delivery?	Yes, as appropriate.
	SOO	43. RFP Section Statement of Objectives (SOO), 5.2, Paragraph 1, Page 2 – The RFP asks that the contractor “develop a detailed curriculum.” Is this done as part of the proposal or something that is expected after award?	See answer to question #12.
	SOO	44. RFP Section Statement of Objectives (SOO), 5.6, Paragraph 1, Page 3 – Please further define incentives and dis-incentives based on performance metrics.	The prospective contractor shall propose (1) means to encourage outstanding fulfilment of the requirement as measured by the metrics stated at SOO 5.5, and (2) penalties in the event performance as measured by such metrics is poor. Creative responses are welcome. The intent is to create a scheme that rewards good performance and discourages bad.
	SOO/RFP	45. RFP Section Statement of Objectives (SOO), 6.5, Paragraph 6.5, Page 4 – The RFP asks that we provide resumes for key personnel including those involved in (1) curriculum design, (2) instructional delivery, and (3) program management. In the Combined Synopsis Solicitation (page 8), it indicates that we provide three resumes. Does this mean that we provide resumes for each of the three categories, and are not limited to the number of resumes we provide under each of the category?	The intent of the request was for the vendor to provide a single resume for each component, summing to three resume total.
	SOO/RFP	46. RFP Section Statement of Objectives (SOO), Paragraph(s) 4.2 Place of Performance: Page(s) 1 – Are Offerors allowed to work at their home office location during the period of performance for this contract?	The Government exerts no control over the time and location of a vendor's work schedule or location except as the vendor's presence might be necessary for delivery of a program.
	SOO	47. RFP Section Statement of Objectives (SOO), Paragraph(s) 5.5 and 5.6 Incentives, Dis-incentives: Page(s) 3 – What are examples of incentives and dis-incentives in this context? Are these financial incentives/dis-incentives?	See response to question #44.
	SOO	48. RFP Section Statement of Objectives (SOO), Paragraph(s) 6.5 Key Personnel: Page(s) 4 – In the fourth sentence of this paragraph, how is the term “memorialize” defined?	The contract award document will include the names of Key Personnel as offered.
	SOO	49. Reference: SOO Section 2. Background, paragraph 1, page 1
Question: Is there an incumbent for this effort?	See answer to question #26.
	SOO	50. Reference: SOO Section 5. Performance Objectives, paragraph 2, page 2. Question: Does TEI have any documentation clarifying their expectations for each of the ten “topics” the program needs to address (i.e. orientation, mentor raining/ administration/ monitoring, 360 leadership assessments, etc.)?	No.
	SOO	51. Reference: SOO Section 5. Performance Objectives, paragraph 4 and 5, page . Question: If the contractor designs a custom curriculum for TEI, will TEI expect to retain ownership of that curriculum upon completion?	Ownership of data is addressed in FAR Clause 52.227-14 as cited in the RFP. Reference answer to question #37.
	SOO	52. Reference: SOO Section 5. Performance Objectives, paragraph 4 and 5, page 3. Question: Can existing COTS curriculum be used as a component of the training and executive development components?	The Government welcomes vendor proposals for all elements of the SESCDP, including the use of existing curricula and any support for the proposition that it is superior to designing a new curriculum .
	SOO	53. Reference: SOO Section 5. Performance Objectives, paragraph 4 and 5, page 3. Question: Is TEI looking to design a new curriculum, or simply revise the existing Treasury CDP program to make it applicable to multiple agencies?	See answer to question #13.
	General	54. Is there an incumbent to this work? Is so, who is currently supporting the SES CDP?	See answer to question #26.
	General	55. What is the current size of the team supporting this work today? What is the breakdown between employee and contractor?	TEI currently has one full-time program manager overseeing the SESCDP. The Government welcomes vendor proposals for all elements of the SESCDP, including the breakdown between employee and contractor.
	General	56. It would help to understand the circumstances driving the need for a new vendor to support this work. Is there a specific reason as to why the Government is issuing the SES CDP RFP now?	See answer to question #2.
	RFP	57. We have found that commercial experience can be of great value with similar programs to the SES CDP. With regards to Attachment E, Past Performance Questionnaire, will commercial experience be treated the same as federal Government experience?	Submitted Past Performance information will be evaluated using the criteria set forth in the RFP. Specifically, " The Government will evaluate the degree of relevancy between each Offeror’s past performance information and the solicitation requirements. In assessing the relevancy, the Government will evaluate the degree of similarity in size, scope, and complexity between an Offeror’s past performance information and the work anticipated to fulfill the SOO."
	SOO	58. Reference: RFP Section A, SOO Paragraph(s) 5.1, Page(s) 2

The Statement of Work identifies “Orientation” as an item to be addressed by the contractor. Attachment D, the price submission proposal identifies an “orientation week.” Does TEI envision a five day orientation period?

The Government welcomes vendor proposals for all elements of the SESCDP, including the appropriate duration of an orientation component for a superior SESCDP program .
SOO	59. Reference: RFP Section A, SOO Paragraph(s) 5.1 Page(s) 10

The Statement of Objectives on page 2 contains a reference to an “ECQ statement development.” It is not referenced in any of the other materials. Is it synonymous with an Executive Development Plan, or something else?

“ECQ statement development” refers to the final package each candidate must submit to OPM.
SOO	60. Reference: RFP Section C, Paragraph(s) 5- 5.1, "I" Page(s) 2

The OPM approved Treasury SES CDP at page 10 indicates that each candidate will attend two TEI sessions. Should the contractor assume that TEI will assume the identification and scheduling of appropriate programs?

The Government welcomes vendor proposals for all elements of the SESCDP, including the appropriate programs that meet this requirement. TEI sessions are often presented by outside vendors .
Att. D	61. Reference: RFP Section D, Price Submission, Paragraph(s) #0011 Page(s) 1

What does "peer learning" mean beyond what occurs and what is measured in the classroom?

See answer to question #8.
Att. D	62. Reference: RFP Section C, Paragraph(s) # 0016 Page(s) 2

Does the "Reading Plan Development & Implementation" refer to the development of a reading plan over and above what is assigned as the 80 hour core requirement?

Yes.
RFP	63. As stated in the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation p. 8 under Factor 1 Technical, please expand on the relevance of providing a Statement of Work.	The winner's proposed Statement of Work will be incorporated in the final contract and become the document of record regarding the vendor's proposed solution to the Government's requirement.
	QUESTIONS BELOW THIS LINE WERE SUBMITTED DURING ROUND 2
RFP	64. Our detailed curriculum typically has an overview, learning objectives, recommended resources and faculty bio for each module. We are unable to provide this level of detail within the 25 page limit. Would the Government extend the page limit to 35 pages? If not, will the Government accept an Appendix, or indicate which of the items above it would like to see in the proposal?	The page limit is extended to 35 pages. Combined Synopsis/Solicitation page 6 has been updated. Reference text highlighted in yellow.
RFP	65. There is a mention of a second cohort in answer 25, but the RFP mentions only one cohort and does not ask for pricing on base year and option years. The costs of developing a program like this are high, but the cost per cohort can drop once launch is completed. How should we show the Government our delivery cost on cohorts beyond cohort 1.	As noted on CLIN 0001, the Government seeks a price for 1 (one) cohort (defined as up to 25 participants), or "per cohort." For pricing purposes the Government cannot guarantee more than a single cohort will be purchased during the contact's entire period of performance. If the Government seeks to purchase another cohort during the period of performance, it is anticipated it will order another CLIN 0001.
SOO	66. As stated in the SOO, “The recommendation shall identify components that could be managed and implemented by federal staff as well as those components that should be outsourced by contractor support. The review and recommendations shall be documented and submitted to the COR.”

FAR 9.505-2 outlines several situations in which contractors may not furnish systems or services when those contractors have prepared specification or work statements for the competitive acquisition of those systems or services.

Are there any known opportunities that the winning vendor will not be able to bid on under this FAR clause?

The recommendation shall identify components that could be managed and implemented by federal staff as well as those components that could be managed and implemented by the vendor.
SOO	67. Assume that the winning contractor provides a solution or service that would allow a contractor to manage a component. Will that contractor be able to be objective in recommending whether the Government should manage a component or whether the Government should buy the winning contractor’s solution or service?	Attachment A Statement of Objectives page 2 has been updated to provide clarification. Reference text highlighted in yellow.
SOO	68. Please confirm that all staff must be US citizens.	Staff is NOT required to be US citizens to access anticipated facilities.
RFP	69. Can you specify what information you would like to support vendors’ fixed prices and how you will use that information in the evaluation, so that you are evaluating all vendors equally?

• Do you require an LOE?

• Do you need cost information on rates, or are published rates sufficient?

• Are other direct costs to be included in the fixed price, or will those ODCs be a separate cost reimbursable CLIN?

• Will you be doing cost or price evaluation?

The only evaluated price will be the total in the Cell D53 "TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE" in Attachment D Price Submission Worksheet. As a Firm-Fixed-Price effort no supporting information is sought or desired. Your prices submitted in Attachment D shall fully inclusive.
RFP	70. Please advise what exactly the Government asserts unlimited rights to.

To what content is the Government is reserving rights? What does “the Statement of Work captured at contract award” mean? Perhaps, “All deliverables included in the Statement of Work included in winning bidders’ contract”? Please clarify.

See answer to question 37 for the definition of Unlimited Rights. Additionally and as stated on page 8 of the Combined Synopsis Solicitation A15054, vendors must submit a SOW articulating how they will fulfill the SOO. The Government asserts Unlimited Rights to this SOW and any resulting deliverables. Note that it is not the intention of the Government to acquire rights to previously developed proprietary cirrcuculum.
SOO	71. We understand the requirement for mentor training, the SOO does not specify a need for coach training. Will the Government differentiate between the mentor and coach training?	The Government anticipates offering coaching services to the CDP candidates, but not coach training. Mentors are a specific requirement for the CDP under OPM regulations. The Government will select mentors from the current SES ranks. These mentors must be trained on their specific roles and duties under the regulations.
Question 21:	72. “ the Government may or may not assign a coach” yet the answer to question 22 states the Government anticipates all participants will be required to have a coach during the SESCDP.

Does the Government expect the contractor to create a solution for participants and volunteer coaches to form a relationship and document coaching sessions?

The Government anticipates the vendor will propose a solution for (1) offering coaching services to CDP candidates, and (2) matching coaches with CDP candidates.
Question 23:	73. “the Government welcomes proposals on the appropriate length of coaching for a superior SESCDP.”

Is this the length of a coach training program or the amount of time a coach spends with the SESCDP participant?

The latter.
Question 25:	74. Please Clarify.

This is a 24 month program for cohort 1, when would cohort 2 start the program? What can the contractor expect for additional cohorts during year two?

The Government anticipates a second cohort beginning sometime in FY 2016, although there is no guarantee such will occur. To clarify, the CDP program need not be a 24 month program under the regulations.
RFP	75. We have multiple past performance examples where we provided executive level development programs that include many, but not all, of the elements outlined in the CFR (e.g. Include the required development but that is not interagency). Will TEI consider executive level leadership development programs that are mapped to the OPM ECQs and competencies as relevant for the past performance evaluation?	Within the stated submission limits, Offerors can submit any past performance they feel is appropriate. However, it will be evaluated as stated in the RFP. See answer to question 57.
SOO	76. By making recommendations for future contractor support to the SES CDP, the contractor may create an Organizational Conflict of Interest. Making recommendations for contractor support provides unequal access to information on future requirements for support of the SES CDP. Will the contractor who provides the initial recommendations be excluded from consideration for future requirements related to the SES CDP?	See answer to question 67.
Attachment D	77. There is not a CLIN 0006 nor 0007. Is this a numbering error on the spreadsheet, or are there CLINs not yet identified by the Government?	The omission of those CLINs was in error and does not portend any changes to the requirement or pricing.
SOO	78. Does the Government require Offerors to submit a draft QA plan with the technical volume? If yes, does this count against the 25-page limit?	Yes - a QA solution must be submitted. It should be included in the Technical Volume but DOES NOT count against the page limit.
SOO	79. Can you further clarify the duration and timing of the onsite instruction? The SOO includes an orientation (one week) and 80 hours of ECQ-based interagency training. Is the orientation a distinct event from the 80 hours? Are the 80 hours to be done as a contiguous two week program or two one week sessions?	The orientation is a distinct event from the 80 hours. The 80 hours need not be contiguous.
SOO	80. Can you expand on the objectives of the orientation week as well as the mix of contractor provided instruction and Department of the Treasury / other Government provided instruction/speakers	The Government welcomes vendor suggestions and proposals from vendors for an SESCDP Orientation week consistent with best practices.
SOO	81. Para 5.1 Program Direction Support and Management Recommendation. How long after the contract award is the recommendation due? Is the format a report, briefing or both?	The due date and format will be mutually agreed upon post-award during the kick off meeting.
SOO	82. The definition of these from the SES CDP Issuance Notice ranges from additional internal or external training to participation in activities such as task forces, working groups or conducting special studies. Is the contractor responsible for either coordinating and/or providing any of the external training and for what area, topics or disciplines are we expected to propose to given there is not a specific line for this in the pricing sheet?	The Government welcomes vendor proposals on coordination services for such additional training, consistent with the regulations covering a CDP program.
Issuance Notice	83. Page 23, paragraph I, Individual Needs Assessment, states each candidate will complete one or more bureau-prescribed competency-based needs assessments. This implies these are done prior to an individual entering the CDP. Are these instruments the winner bidder provides and executes? If these are administered outside the contract, will the successful bidder have access to these as part of an individual CDP participant’s records once a candidate is enrolled in the CDP? Would we also have access to one or two years of summary data for all of these instruments administered for Department of Treasury executives to assist in designing and tailoring the collective events such as the orientation week and the 80 hours of competency base instruction to meet the cohorts learning needs?	The Government will provide these instruments to the candidates. Therefore, they will be administered outside of the contract. The instruments are not completed prior to the start of the program. At this time, the Government does not anticipate giving vendors access to these instruments.
Attch. D	84. Please clarify what services are to be included in the pricing for item 1? It’s description reads: (Includes all components listed below - 0002-0018.) Is our entry to be the total of items 2-18 or is there something else we need to price you intended for this line? If so, will the final line (53) of the spreadsheet labeled “total evaluated price” also be the sum of lines 2-18? The formula as currently written would include line 1 entry and appears would double the proposed price in cell (D53 labeled “total evaluated price.”	CLIN 0001 shall include all efforts to fulfill the SOO for 1 (one) cohort (defined as up to 25 people) Other CLINs are indeed components of that sought in CLIN 0001 but will facilitate the ordering of one or more components at a later date if found to be in the Government's interest. Offerors may insert pricing as they see fit; lines 2-8 need not sum to line 1. The formula as demonstrated is intentional and consistent with FAR 15.404-1 "Proposal Analysis Techniques." As stated in the RFP, a price must be provided for each of the green cells.
Attch. D	85. Item 3, Curriculum Design Adjustments is described as “up to 80 hours.” So we can be evaluated properly, should the entry we make for price be for a block of 80 hours or a per hour rate for this service.	Offerors should propose this as block, not per hour.
Attch. D	86. The SOO (para 5.1) requires the effort to develop and make recommendations for the program. Should the efforts for this be captured in line 2, Curriculum Design or in another line?	The Government cannot dictate how the Offeror allocates its costs. Also see answer to questions 69 and 84.
Attch. D	87. Line 9, Enriched (Additional) ECQ-based Training and Line 10, Continuing Learning Seminars are to be priced ea. To price these, do you want a bidder to assume these to be 4 hour duration or eight modules? Are they to be priced as face-to-face sessions held at TEI?	The Government welcomes vendor proposals for all elements of the SESCDP, including the duration and delivery of any enriched ECQ-based training.
Question 12	88. The response to Q 12 indicated that you want a detailed curriculum as part of the RFP. The Statement of Objectives effort, supported by an item number in the pricing format, is for the design of the curriculum. Would you clarify if the requirement for a detailed curriculum is part of the effort once under contract or if you want one submit as part of a bidder’s proposal to the RFP? The strict limitation to 25 pages for the technical proposal would be inadequate for a comprehensive presentation of a curriculum covering a one week orientation and the 80 additional hours of instruction for the envisioned program. If the requirement is to present this curriculum in a bidder’s proposal, can you provide further guidance for the content and length restriction currently placed on the technical proposal?	See answer to question 64.
Question 25	89. The response to Q25 indicated the possibility of two cohorts with up to 25 individuals could start the program in the first year. The SOO reads that the contractor shall “complete one session of the SES CDP program referred to as Cohort #1. ” As this is a two year effort,

1) Would there be any additional cohorts starting in the second year?

2) Should we design our curriculum and the other program elements so that a cohort would normally complete all elements of the program in a year?

3) For a cohort beginning the CDP in the second year, can the 4 month developmental assignment addressed in Implementation plan extend beyond the end of the contract or should those be completed by the two year mark?

4) Should we structure our proposal / bid assuming your intent is that each cohort will go through each program element separately; that is each cohort will have its collective events such as orientation week, 80 hour onsite instruction periods?

5) What do you expect might be the number of cohorts over the two year period of performance as well as the maximum participants in the CDP at a single time?

6) How do you want a bidder to price a second, third or additional “cohort” given the current format of the pricing spreadsheet?

1). See answer to question 65. 2). The Government welcomes all proposals for curriculum design that are consistent with the regulations governing SES CDP programs. 3). Candidates must complete all required elements listed in the regulations within 24 months of program start, which is typically orientation. 4). The Government anticipates that all candidates will attend all elements; that is, candidates will move through the elements as a cohort. 5-6) See answer to question 65.
Question 22	90. Response to Question 22 reads, “…the Government anticipates all participants will be required to have a coach during the SESCDP process.” Are these coaches to be provided by the contractor?	See answers to questions 71 & 72.
	91. Can the Government clarify it is NOT looking for a separate price quote for CLIN 0001? Rather, CLIN 0001 is the sum of CLINS 0002-0018.	See answer to question 84
	92. Does the Government expect the price of developing course materials to be included in CLINS 0002 and 0003 which reference designing materials?	The Government cannot dictate how the Offeror allocates its costs. Also see answer to question 84.
SOO	93. Can the Government clarify what activities it requires related to mentor administration and monitoring (CLIN 0012; SOO 3.1b)	The Government welcomes proposals to meet the training and administration of CDP mentors, as required under the OPM regulations.
SOO	94. Does the Government have a specific number of hours of continuing learning seminars/enriched (additional) ECQ-based training that it would like to include in the program (CLINS 0008 and 0009; SOO 3.1f)	The Government welcomes vendor proposals for all elements of the SESCDP, including the duration and delivery of any enriched ECQ-based training and continuing learning seminars.
SOO	95. Does the Government have a specific number of hours of executive coaching it expects to provide for SES CDP participants (CLIN 0013; SOO 3.1g)?	See answer to question 23.
SOO	96. Does the Government anticipate the ECQ Statement Coaching to be done on an individual or group basis (CLIN 0014; SOO 3.1h)?	The Government welcomes proposals on either or both methods.
SOO	97. For CLIN 0015, “Executive Development Plan Design”, is the Government looking for a new template for a plan other than the one included in Attachment C or is this CLIN referring to assisting an SES CDP participant with his/her individual plan? If the latter, what role does the Government expect the contractor to have in the development as the guidance SES CDP Implementation Plan states that a candidate’s mentor and supervisor of record will be the ones consulted in plan development.	The latter. The Government welcomes vendor proposals on the proper level of involvement given the guidance in the Implementation Plan.
Attachment D	98. What services does the Government expect the contractor to provide under CLIN 0017 “Document Management”? What documents are expected to be controlled under this CLIN?	The Government anticipates a proposal that addresses the management of documents that is typical for an SES CDP program. At a minimum, the proposal should address management of the documents required by OPM regulations governing the CDP; the Treasury Issuance Notice dated May 1, 2011 (TN-11-007); and the Department of the Treasury

Multi-Agency SES Candidate Development Program Implementation Plan.

Attachment D	99. Does the Government anticipate evaluation activities aside from the final implementation plan following the delivery of cohort 1 under CLIN 0018?	The Government welcomes proposals on intermittent and final evaluation solutions.
SOO	100. Does the Government expect to review and approve recommendations for 360 assessments as part of the program design (SOO 3.1)? If so, can pricing for the 360 assessment be included separately as a range or NTE amount given the possibilities and their various costs?	Yes. Offerors may caveat (e.g. NTE) firm-fixed prices offered if chosen. However, see highly relevant answer to question #69.
SOO	101. Will the Government consider utilizing the OPM Leadership 360 which is designed specifically for the ECQs and is purchased through inter-agency agreements?	The Government will consider all proposals from vendors to meet the assessment requirement under the OPM regulations.
SOO	102. What contractor support is required related to the developmental rotational assignments? Does the Government simply require the contractor is tracking completion of these activities?	The Government welcomes vendor proposals on the proper level of involvement for rotational assignments given the vendor's past experience with this element and the Implementation Plan.
SOO	103. Section 5.1 of the Statement of Objectives at page 2 states “The recommendation [of the contractor] shall identify components [of the Treasury SES CDP program] that could be managed and implemented by federal staff as well as those components that should be outsourced by contractor support.” Which, specific components/portions, if any, of the Treasury SES CDP Program or the Department of the Treasury Multi-Agency SES Candidate Development Program Implementation plan have already been implemented?	The Government has completed the Merit Staffing component, meaning all candidates have been selected through the competitive process and are awaiting training.
SOO	104. SOO 5.5, p. 3 states, "The contractor shall recommend performance metrics for each component in order to successfully measure the contractor's performance." 5.2. Curriculum Development, states, "The Contractor shall develop a detailed curriculum that identifies how each component (also referred to as module) will be implemented? Does this mean the Performance Metrics (a-g as listed in 5.5) are only to be applied to the learning modules?	No. See also answer to question #44.
RFP	105. The Department of the Treasury Multi-Agency SES Candidate Development Program Implementation Plan, Developmental Assignments at page 6 states, “The cross-functional ERB will recommend developmental assignments or concurs with the Bureau/Agency ERB . . .” “Or concurs” is not clear in the context of the sentence. Please clarify.	Each bureau has its own ERB. The cross-functional (cross-bureau) ERB convened specifically for a cohort will either make its own recommendations or concur with the recommendations of the bureau-specific ERB.
RFP	106. Department of the Treasury Multi-Agency SES Candidate Development Program Implementation Plan, Cross-Functional ERB(5) at page 1states that the Cross-Functional ERB will “serve as the final approval prior to the OPM QRB submission . . .” In contrast, Treasury Office of Executive Resources (2) at page 5 states the Treasury Office of Executive Resources will “review all candidate requests for QRB certification.” Which is correct?	Both. Executive Resources will review and the ERB will serve as the final approving body.
RFP	107. The Request for Proposal #A15054, Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Program at page 6, Proposal Preparation General Instructions, states the “Maximum proposed page count, not counting title page, table of contents, acronym list, tabs, and provided price spread sheet is 25 pages.” Page 8 of the same document states the Executive Summary “is not included in the page count.” Should page 6 be amended to exclude the Executive Summary from the page count?	The Executive Summary is not included in the page count.
RFP	108. The Treasury SES Candidate Development Program, paragraph C(4) at page 3 states the Bureau Executive Resources Board will approve “Executive Development Plans for SES candidates.” In contrast the “B” Department of the Treasury Multi-Agency SES Candidate Development Program Implementation Plan, Cross-Functional ERB(2) at page 1 states, the cross-functional ERB will “approve candidates executive development plans.” Which is correct?	Bureau ERBs can approve EDPs, usually in consultation with the cross-functional ERB. If an agency/bureau does not have its own ERB, the cross-functional ERB will serve as the sole approving body.
RFP	109. The Executive Service Candidate Development Program, 5.1(i) states the contractor recommendation shall address “ECQ statement development.” Are candidates required to prepare an ECQ statement and resume in connection with their application to the SES CDP Program?	Yes. However, this requirement relates to the candidates' final ECQ statement submission to OPM. Vendors will not participate in the Merit Staffing component of the CDP. See answer to question 103.
RFP	110. Exhibit E to the Treasury SES Candidate Development Program requires “ECQ Documentation (Traditional Narrative, or QRB Template w/ supporting materials.” Which option will be used with Cohort 1?	The Government welcomes vendor proposals on the best method of delivery.
Question 13	111. The first released Q&A (#13) indicates “Treasury has an Implementation Plan approved by OPM, but no existing program beyond that described in the Implementation Plan.” As such, is it fair to interpret the SOW 5.2 Curriculum Development to be “Program Development”?	The overall Program includes elements in which a vendor will not participate, such as Merit Staffing (see questions 103 and 109).
SOO	112. The SOW (5.3 SES CDP Implementation) indicates a request to provide all support to include, but not be limited to, staff and material to fully implement the Department of the Treasury SES CDP plan in accordance to the contractor created curriculum, supporting Cohort 1 for ~25 SES CDP candidates. The first released Q&A (#25) indicates the first year’s participation to include “25 participants per cohort and up to 2 cohorts in the first year, the Government anticipates up to approximately 50 participants in the first year.” Please confirm that contractor scoping and pricing should be limited to just Cohort 1 and approximately 25 participants.	See answer to questions 65 and 84.
SOO.	113. The first released Q&A (#27 and #28) indicates the Department of Treasury has not used either OPM’s Assessment Center or the FEI’s ECQ Training Program – and that neither solution is “consistent with the program objectives.” Further (#19), you indicate that “the Government currently does not require a specific assessment to meet the OPM regulatory requirements.” Please clarify why these two existing options are not consistent with the program objectives and please clarify if the Department of Treasury is open to a 360 instrument that specifically assesses the OPM ECQs or if it prefers a 360 instrument that does not specifically assess the OPM ECQs.	The Government believes its answers to questions 27 and 28 are sufficient. See answer to question 101 regarding 360 assessments.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Nov 14, 2017.