Tab_26d_SP470221R0003001_Attach_3_Q-A.pdf

SP4702-21-R-0003-001 Attachment 3: Vendor Questions and DLA Responses.

1) Question: Anticipated start date of the program?

a) Answer: February 26, 2021

2) Last day to ask question on this RFP?

a) January 21st, 2021 at close of business.

3) Which 360 type assessment is being used by the third party (e.g. Campbell Leadership Index-360)?

a) 360 Multi-Source Feedback

4) Reference: PWS page 12 of 22, Section 7: technical Capability; A. Staffing Plan, a. Leadership Coaches, i. 2. A post-undergraduate degree from an accredited university. (Also in the SF 1449 page 65 of 70, 1) Factor 1, Subfactor 1 – second bullet.)

Would the government consider modifying this requirement to include Minimum Education/Experience Equivalencies since your requirement for the undergraduate and post-undergraduate degrees are not degree specific? Modify the requirement to read:

“A post-undergraduate degree from an accredited university, or a BA/BS degree from an accredited university plus 4-years related experience in leadership or management.”

a) Both Section L and the PWS have been updated to require an undergraduate degree, rather than a post-undergraduate degree.

5) Reference: PWS page 12 of 22, Section 7: technical Capability; A. Staffing Plan, a. Leadership Coaches, i. 3.

Certification from an accredited international coach Federation (ICF) training program in leadership coaching at a minimum level of Associate Certified coach. (Also in the SF 1449 page 65 of 70, 1) Factor 1, Subfactor 1 – 3rd bullet.)

Would the government consider modifying this requirement to read:

“Certification from an established training program or coaching certification provider for leadership/executive coaching principles and techniques; and experience and training that provides a solid background of leadership and organizational development principles and techniques”.

The current requirement appears highly exclusionary. Other highly regarded coaching certifications exist today.

Many leadership/executive coaches have certifications other than ICF and have coached at the highest levels of the government, industry, non-profit, and military sectors. To limit coaches for this contract only to those with ICF certifications would be equivalent to saying you must have graduated from one single institute of higher learning otherwise you are disqualified. For the government to exclude qualified leadership/executive coaches without an ICF certification would be tantamount to saying that only one university or college would be acceptable to do business with the government.

Many of our certified coaches have decades of experience as a leadership/executive coach, have earned one or more certifications in leadership/executive coaching, have written books on leadership and coaching, have trained other coaches, have lectured to MBA/graduate students, and have advised organizational leaders, yet they are not ICF certified coaches.

To exclude certified leadership coaches without an ICF certification appears to be extremely irregular and limiting to the intent of your program.

a) Both Section L and the PWS have been updated to state the following:

SP4702-21-R-0003-001 Attachment 3 - Vendor Questions and DLA Reponses Page 1 of 5

i) “Certification from an accredited International Coach Federation (ICF) training program, or a nationally recognized equivalent in leadership coaching.”

6) [Reference: PWS, Page 7, Section C.] Introduction: The PWS states “The Level 2 program utilizes an in-house pre-assessment survey for its foundation, while the Level 3 and Level 4 programs are based on the Multi-Source Feedback survey conducted by a third-party vendor.”

a) Question: Does the in-house pre-assessment survey already exist?

i) Yes

b) Question: What third-party vendor multi-source feedback survey is currently used?

i) In house survey for Level 2, 360 Multi-Source Feedback survey for Levels 3 and 4.

c) Who is the third-party vendor?

i) DLA will not be releasing these details in response to RFIs to this RFP.

7) [Reference: PWS, Page 7, Section C.] Introduction: The PWS states “At the end of Phase 2 and Phase 4, each Level 3 supervisor participates in a leadership development survey (hereafter referred to as the Multi-Source Feedback or MSF survey). This instrument is a 360 degree leadership competency assessment. Administration of this instrument is coordinated between DLA and the 3rd party MSF survey provider. The MSF survey complements the culture survey that DLA periodically administers enterprise wide.”

a) Question: What 360 evaluation tool are you currently using?

i) The 360 Multi-Source Feedback

8) [Reference: PWS, Page 5, Section B] Introduction: The PWS States “With the assistance of the leadership coach, the Team/Work Lead will consider the responses of the Program Pre-Assessment in light of a bigger discussion focused on the organization's strategic goals and objectives, as well as the Lead’s most significant business/work challenges.

a) Question: Will coaches receive the pre-assessment survey results in advance of the first coaching session?

i) No.

9) [Reference: PWS, Page 7, Section B. c. ii. And iv.] Introduction: The PWS states “1-on-1 leadership coaching, approximately 6 hours, Four 1-hour leadership coaching sessions (with an optional fifth hour to be performed at the Level 3 participant’s discretion)”

a) Question: Please clarify total number of available coaching hours for Level ELDP program participants. Is it 6 hours plus 4/5 or is either 4 OR 6 hours?

i) Four hours per participant with the option of 1 additional hour at the DLA Program Manager’s discretion.

10) [Reference: PWS, Page 7, Section D] Introduction: The PWS states “The purpose of the first MSF survey is to provide the supervisor with feedback on his or her leadership strengths and areas for continued growth. The results of the MSF survey are an important source of information to begin the supervisor's four l-on-1 leadership coaching sessions. At the end of the 2- year Level 3 program (Phase 4), the supervisor participates in MSF for a second time to gauge how perceptions of his or her leadership behavior have changed over time.”

a) Question: Will coaches have access to the first and second MSF survey results?

SP4702-21-R-0003-001 Attachment 3 - Vendor Questions and DLA Reponses Page 2 of 5

i) The participants receive both result reports and may choose to share with the coach but are not required to.

b) Question: Will the coaches have received a personalized MSF survey debrief from the instrument vendor prior to the first coaching session or just the general group debrief?

i) DLA is unclear as to the question being asked so we will try to address both interpretations:

(1) If the question is about receiving a debrief from DLA to the coaches on the instrument being used in the MSF survey, then the successful offeror may request that DLA provide an overview of the MSF survey during a post-award meeting.

(2) If the question is about the vendor’s role in the Information sessions that DLA holds for the participants, these Information sessions are held quarterly. The 360 MSF survey vendor, the coaching vendor, and the DLA Level 3 PM all participate to brief to the Level 3 participants. The coaching vendor is expected to be a presenter at all the Information sessions, which take place every quarter and are covered in one day (schedule to be provided after award).

11) [Reference: PWS, Page 16, Section G.b] Introduction: The PWS states “The DLA program managers will arrange for an orientation session for the ELDP Level 3 and 4 supervisors/managers to discuss the MSF 360 survey. The DLA ELDP Level 3 and 4 program managers will host/schedule information sessions with leadership, coaching and MSF vendors.”

a) Question: At what frequency will the DLA ELDP Level 3 and 4 program managers host information sessions and are coaches required to attend those meetings?

i) Information sessions are scheduled quarterly and the vendor’s PM shall attend to provide an overview of the coaching program that participants will undertake after the 1st MSF survey is completed.

12) How is coaching perceived (punitive and/or to drive effective leadership)?

a) Coaching is perceived as a learning tool for leadership development.

13) How is "arm of strategy" perceived within the organization?

a) This term is used to show that coaching is one of several tools to improve/grow leadership.

14) How is success measured during and after the coaching session(s)?

a) The coach’s knowledge of the agency and understanding the challenges facing leadership and supervisors. Was the coach able to provide useful, proven tools to overcome challenges and grow as a leader.

15) At what level of involvement can be expected by the supervisor(s) of the person being coached?

a) Coaching sessions are with the program participants only, there is no involvement by the participant’s manager. Managers understand that the program is required and provide time for participants during duty hours to complete requirements.

16) Page 64 - Section L - 1a and identifies evaluation factors being: technical qualifications, technical approach, past performance and price. This section identifies "technical approach" as being an evaluation factor; however, under Section M, "technical approach" is not identified as being evaluated. Please confirm if "technical approach" is required and if so, how it will be evaluated.

a) Technical approach is not part of the evaluation criteria, and its mention has been removed.

SP4702-21-R-0003-001 Attachment 3 - Vendor Questions and DLA Reponses Page 3 of 5

17) Page 65 - 66 - Section L 2.b. identifies evaluation factors being: technical qualifications, technical approach, past performance and price. This section identifies "technical approach" as being an evaluation factor; however, under Section M, "technical approach" is not identified as being evaluated. Please confirm if "technical approach" is required and if so, how it will be evaluated.

a) Technical approach is not part of the evaluation criteria, and its mention has been removed.

18) What is the difference between Factor 1 (Sub Factor 3: Prior Experience) and Factor 2 Past Performance?

a) Prior Experience measures an offeror’s relevant work history. Past performance measures the quality of the contractor’s relevant work history

19) Who is currently providing the Leadership Development Formalized Training? What is their contract #? Are they eligible to compete for this opportunity? Level 2? Level 3? Level 4?

a) This requirement is for leadership coaching services, not Leadership Development Formalized Training.

Any vendor who meets all qualifications of the RFP is eligible to propose.

20) Who is currently providing coaching support for DLA? What is their contract #? Are they eligible to compete for this opportunity?

a) DLA will not be releasing details regarding any predecessor contract in response to RFIs to this RFP. Any vendor who meets all qualifications of the RFP is eligible to propose.

21) What is the planned approach for integrating the learning activities for work and team lead development with the coaching program.

a) IAW PWS Section 6.c.b.iv.4, coaches shall work with program participants to create action plans for when the coaching sessions are completed.

22) What leadership assessments are currently being used and/or preferred? By level?

a) ELDP Level 2 uses an DLA unique assessment (the 'in-house' assessment referred to in PWS [reference];

while ELDP Levels 3 and 4 use the Multi-Source Feedback 360 Survey.

23) We are certified in multiple leadership assessments, will DLA also require/be opened to adding this as an additional/optional requirement?

a) Not at this time.

24) Could you please tell me if this is a new requirement, or if there is a current or previous contractor who has performed similar services? If available, can you please send along the incumbent contract or task order number?

a) DLA will not be releasing details regarding any predecessor contract in response to RFIs to this RFP.

25) [Is there] an incumbent contract or contractor associated to the requirement. If any, please provide the contractor's name and contract number.

a) DLA will not be releasing details regarding any predecessor contract in response to RFIs to this RFP.

26) Who is the incumbent? What is the incumbent contract number?

a) DLA will not be releasing details regarding any predecessor contract in response to RFIs to this RFP.

27) What is the historic throughput for annual coaching hours at each level?

SP4702-21-R-0003-001 Attachment 3 - Vendor Questions and DLA Reponses Page 4 of 5

A) The best representation of throughput for the period of performance for the requirement being solicited is as described in the PWS.

28) Is there a deadline for questions for the above mentioned solicitation?

A) January 21st, 2021 at close of business.

29) In going through the Solicitation for SP4702-21-R-0003- DLA; Leadership Coaching Services, I didn't see a cutoff date for asking questions. If there is a cutoff date could you let me know?

A) January 21st, 2021 at close of business.

SP4702-21-R-0003-001 Attachment 3 - Vendor Questions and DLA Reponses Page 5 of 5