Amendment_1_W912ES15T0147.pdf

W81G6752039014

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

See the "Summary of Changes" section for the purpose of this amendment.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 10-Sep-2015

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W912ES-15-T-0147

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

04-Sep-2015

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

10-Sep-2015

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

USACE - ST. PAUL

180 5TH STREET E SUITE 700

ST. PAUL MN 55101-1678

W912ES 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912ES-15-T-0147

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001

The purpose of this amendment is to answer questions from vendors as follows:

1. Question (Q): Is there an incumbent and if so, what was the previous awards?

Answer (A): Yes, however, this requirement may not be exactly the same as the previous requirement. The incumbent was Evans and Associates Consulting, located in Oneida, NY. The total award amount as modified was $211,501.10 for a base period and 4 one year option periods.

2. Q: What is the final date for receipt of inquiries by you?

A: Inquires or questions can be received up until the solicitation closing due date and time as amended (if applicable). However, questions or inquiries that are not received at least 24 hours prior to the solicitation closing due date and time may not be answered.

3. Q: By what date will answers be sent back?

A: Answers will be provided as soon as we can provide them.

4. Q: Will all answers to all questions from all contractors be posted to FBO?

A: No, only answers to questions that change the solicitation terms and conditions will be answered via an amendment on FBO. General questions that do not change the terms of the RFQ will be addressed to the vendor asking the question only.

5. Q: BASIS of AWARD: The government will award the contract based on best-value as indicated by past performance, key personnel qualifications, experience, and price. How are these four factors weighted?

A: This Request for Quotes is being conducted using the Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) detailed in FAR Part 13. IAW FAR 13.106-1(a)(2): When soliciting quotations or offers, the contracting officer shall notify potential quoters or offerors of the basis on which award will be made (price alone or price and other factors, e.g., past performance and quality). Contracting officers are encouraged to use best value. Solicitations are not required to state the relative importance assigned to each evaluation factor and subfactor, nor are they required to include subfactors.

6. Q: Will the District have the LDP participants (either Tiers II or III) visit MVD HQ in Vicksburg or participate in field trips to District projects as part of the LDPs?

A: They will probably not travel to Vicksburg. They will likely go to a district project site, however, this will be done outside of the contract and is not a responsibility of the contract facilitator nor is the facilitator expected to visit the project sites.

7. Q: Will debriefing be provided post-award to contractors whose proposals were not selected? By what date must a contractor request a debrief?

A: No. This is a request for quotes under FAR Part 13 not a request for proposals under FAR Part 15. This RFQ is being conducted using simplified acquisition procedures in which the goal is to reduce administrative burden for you as well as the Government; we are not required to provide a debriefing IAW FAR 13.106-3(d):

Request for information. If a supplier requests information on an award that was based on factors other than price alone, a brief explanation of the basis for the contract award decision shall be provided (see 15.503(b)(2)). The following is from FAR 15.503(b)(2): Upon request, the contracting officer shall furnish the information described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section to unsuccessful offerors in solicitations using simplified acquisition procedures in Part 13. And finally from the above reference of (b)(1): Within 3 days after the date of contract award, the contracting officer shall provide written notification to each offeror whose proposal was in the competitive range but was not selected for award (10 U.S.C. 2305(b)(5) and 41 U.S.C. 3704) or had not been previously notified under paragraph (a) of this section. The notice shall include--

(i) The number of offerors solicited;

(ii) The number of proposals received;

(iii) The name and address of each offeror receiving an award;

(iv) The items, quantities, and any stated unit prices of each award. If the number of items or other factors makes listing any stated unit prices impracticable at that time, only the total contract price need be furnished in the notice. However, the items, quantities, and any stated unit prices of each award shall be made publicly available, upon request; and

(v) In general terms, the reason(s) the offeror’s proposal was not accepted, unless the price information in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section readily reveals the reason. In no event shall an offeror’s cost breakdown, profit, overhead rates, trade secrets, manufacturing processes and techniques, or other confidential business information be disclosed to any other offeror.

Therefore, we intend to provide insight if your quote did not represent the best value and we will provide the following if requested to do so:

The number of quotes solicited The number of quotes received The name address of each offeror receiving an award Total award price In general terms the reason the quote was not accepted, unless the price information readily reveals the reason.

You can request a “debrief” at any time but you will not receive one for the above mentioned reasons. In normal circumstances we would provide a “debrief” though we are not required to do so, in an effort to provide you feedback for use on future acquisitions. As noted above and due to the anticipated volume of quotes expected to be received in response to this RFQ we do not have the time or resources and it is not in the taxpayer’s best interest to provide debriefings in response to this solicitation. Again, the goal of SAP procedures is to reduce the administrative burden for all parties.

8. Q: In section 3.3.3, the RFQ lists 7 diagnostic tools to be used in the LDPs and notes that the Organizational

Climate Survey would be used in Tier 3 only. We are assuming, and based on extensive experience recommend, that 3 of the assessments would be used in Tier 2 and 4 of the assessments (including the Organizational Climate Survey) would be used in Tier 3, in order to avoid “assessment fatigue” and confusion by participants. Please let us know whether our assumption is correct, since this has implications not only for the quality of the program, but also for the budget.

A: It is not the intent that all of the tools be used. Section 3.3.3 has been revised-changes are highlighted in yellow. It is the contractor's responsibility to recommend the appropriate tools necessary to facilitate the program.

9. Q: In 3.1.2, what is meant by “comprehensive educational assessments?” Do you perhaps mean instead “leadership assessments”?

A: “Leadership Assessments” would be a more appropriate term.

10. Q: Is there an expectation of the number of months that the LDP should run in a given FY?

A: The program consists of the orientation, the workshop, and 6 training sessions. At one per month, that's 8 months. In the past the program has run from Nov through Sep (so obviously we skip months).

11. Q: 3.8 states that the written evaluations of the LDP should “include the results of any testing/evaluations that have been completed.” Would the testing/evaluation results include those from 3.3.3, Diagnostic Tools? If participants know that the results of the diagnostic tools will be shared with senior leadership, they may not provide accurate answers to the diagnostic tools, but may “fake good” in order to present themselves in the best light. How has the District managed this in the past?

A: The individual results of any diagnostic tools used (e.g., MBTI, 360-deg feedback) are not shared with senior leadership.

12. Q: Is the ½ day orientation (3.3.1) typically held on the same day as the first day of the one and a half day workshop (3.3.2)?

A: No. The 1/2-day orientation is not intended to be held at the same time as the 1-1/2 day workshop. The first half day of the 1-1/2 day workshop is set aside for the Corps to facilitate, but is to be observed by the contract facilitator.

13. Q/A (in bold): For the District’s FY’11 – FY’15 LDPs, the RFQ called for administration of the Clifton

Strengths Finder Assessment. We notice that in the current RFQ, the Strengths Finder is not mentioned in section 3.3.3. Is the District still interested in having the Strengths Finder presented? We do not plan to use the Clifton Strengths Finder Assessment for this contract. As with the other diagnostic tools, we assume that the cost would be borne by the contractor, although in FY’11-FY’15, the government bore the cost per LDP participant of the Strengths Finder. This question has no bearing on the current solicitation. See number 3 in the “Instructions to Quoters” section; the costs for all assessment/diagnostic tools are the responsibility of the contractor.

14. Q: Numerous organizational climate surveys exist. In 3.3.3, are you referring to the one published by the Hay

Group?

A: The contractor may propose any organizational climate survey they wish.

15. Q: In 3.4.8, the RFQ states that “the contractor shall review each of the monthly journals entries and provide feedback to the participants regarding content, application of skills learned, performance in program activities, and progress on the ILDPs. Feedback shall be provided to each LDP participant.”

a) Does the term “monthly” mean only the months during which and LDP class meets for its 8-hour session or does it mean the span of all months of the LDP, which for example could be 11 months.

A: Journal entries are to be reviewed for all of the months, even those in which there is not a formal session.

b) Let us suppose that the contractor is to provide reflective journal feedback in each of 10 months. Given our past experience, it takes a minimum of .5 hours to read and respond to each journal. Thus the number of contractor hours for 3.4.8 would be 12 participants x 10 months x .5 hrs = 60 hours. Are we correct that the Corps is requiring the contractor to spend more hours in reading and responding to journals than in facilitating the classroom sessions (i.e., 48 hours)?

A: As noted in the Performance Work Statement under section 3.4.8, the contractor is to read and respond to journal entries for all participants.

16. Q: In 3.5, the RFQ describes the mentoring program. Does the external contractor have any responsibilities associated with the mentoring program?

A: As noted in 3.6, the contract facilitator is to provide a training session for mentors and LDP participants during the 1-1/2 day workshop. The contractor has no other responsibility for the mentoring program.

17. Q: In 3.5, the RFQ mentions that the mentor training session may be held during the 1-1/2 Day Workshop described in 3.3.2. What is the length of the mentor training workshop?

A: Whatever time the contract facilitator deems necessary to "to outline the mentoring process; roles, responsibilities and expectations; goals and objectives; associated benefits for both parties, etc."

18. Q: 4.4, Option Years, states that “If exercised, options will be awarded at the original price quoted by the Contractor.” Does that mean that if we quote $100 for an item for the base year, we must also quote $100 for the item in option years? OR does this mean we may quote $100 during the base year, $103 during option year 1, $106 during option year 2, etc. and be paid those amounts since they are in the original price proposal from the contractor?

A: You may escalate or increase your price for each option as you note above in your example. The statement you reference doesn’t’ mean the price for the base period and each option shall be the same-it simply means that you don’t get to increase your price after contract award.

19. Q: In 4.5, Meetings and Appearances, the RFQ states that “Forty hours of these meetings per year is estimated.”

Shall we include the price of these 40 hours in the price proposal or not?

A: You shall price all line items, however you may price a line item as zero if you choose to do so-see line item number 0001AG (Meeting and Appearances), 1001AG, 2001AG, 3001AG, and 4001AG.

20. Q: What is the start date of the LDP?

A: See “Delivery Information” on page 28 and 29 of the SF 1449 (RFQ Document).

21. Q: The start date for this acquisition is listed as 11/01/2015. My question is whether this will be the start date of actual work or does the work forecast to start sometime after 1 NOV?

A: The actual start date will be after 1 November 2015.

22. Q: Based on approved content (topic areas) and perceived degree of mastery required, is USACE open to altering Mandatory Program Elements to honor a program design that incorporates more on-the-job practice and application of new skills and behaviors taught in the program? For example, the current elements provide for roughly 66 hours on “contact time” per per participant (with 48 hours of classroom learning). Included in that there are roughly 3 hours of individual contact time (assessment debrief and counseling sessions). Would USACE consider changing that to include significantly more individual coaching time where participants would be required to practice skills and behaviors? For example 4 training sessions (32 classroom hours) with 16 hours of individual coaching? The philosophy and experience being that far more change/impact occurs as a result of the personalized learning/coaching than formal classroom environment. This gives USACE better return on investment overall. What’s more important, the impact or the CEU?

A: The model outlined in the Performance Work Statement has served us well and we will continue to use it.

23. Q: Can coaching time be included in the CEU?

A: No.

24. Q: What caliber of speakers is USACE expecting - are these meant to be qualified contractor staff with a specific area of expertise and backgrounds, just outside (business, government, etc.) experts or branded experts (i.e. book authors) as this significantly impacts program costs.

A: As noted in section 3.4.6, the speakers “should be experienced in public speaking and shall represent a mix of professionals from business, Government, industry and universities. Past speakers have primarily been leaders from the local business community and Government.

25. Q: Are multiple speakers of the same caliber required for both Tier programs?

A: Both programs require 6 speakers, at least 3 from outside of the USACE. There is no prohibition on a speaker presenting to both tiers.

26. Q: Does USACE already have it’s own ILDP document/template/format? Or is this something we can/are expected to have or design?

A: The Contractor is expected to design the ILDP.

27. Q: At what point does the LDP Coordinator or Steering Committee want to approve diagnostic tools? Should samples be provided as part of our response in the RFQ if we have credible alternatives to the list provided?

A: The Steering Committee will approve diagnostic tools after the contractor is selected.

28. Q: If USACE is open to incorporating a more personalized learning design with the inclusion of more one-on-one coaching, can that substitute for Personal Reflective Journaling? Reflection and documentation is automatically part of every coaching session we would provide.

A: The model outlined in the Performance Work Statement has served us well and we will continue to use it.

29. Q: Will contractor have any insight or be privy to Team Projects in order to generate stronger alignment and support with critical skills and behavioral learning/ program topic and content? Or are those designed based on the content we propose?

A: The Contractor will be kept informed of the Team Project.

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

Performance Work Statement (PWS)

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ST. PAUL DISTRICT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

(LDP)

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 PURPOSE

The St. Paul District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) seeks the professional services of a consultant to develop and administer two part-time leadership/management development programs. The first program is a Tier 2 program targeting employees who typically come from a variety of career fields including science, engineering, trades and administration, and who are mostly at early or mid-career (GS-9 through GS-12). The second program is a Tier 3 or Executive Leadership Development Program targeting supervisors and managers typically at the GS-13 or GS-14 level or wage grade equivalent. Only one program will be run per year. The specific program to be run during the base and option years will be determined by the Corps of Engineers. The number of participants in each program will vary, but will typically be 8 to 12. The overall objective of the Tier 2 program is to help these employees become self aware and to learn, grow, and develop into effective leaders/managers within the Corps of Engineers, and the St. Paul District (MVP) in particular. The Tier 3 program focuses on individuals understanding and applying skills as current leaders that promote self awareness and accountability, while challenging their comfort zones to lead people successfully in a complex environment.

1.2 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

1.2.1 Overview: The LDP (note that the term “LDP” hereafter refers to both the Tier 2 and Tier 3 programs) is a part-time, year long, multi-faceted leadership and management development program. The program includes an analysis of one’s leadership style, structured leadership training, guided preparation of an Individual Leadership Development Plan (ILDP), and a mentoring relationship with a senior manager.

1.2.2 Background: The LDP was designed in direct response to the need to systematically develop and/or enhance the leadership and management skills of the District’s current and future leaders and managers. The LDP is based on the premise that, while some people are “born leaders”, the vast majority of leaders are grown and developed. The commitment of the Commander and District executives to leadership and management development is reflected in the direct involvement of these leaders in many components of the LDP. The transfer of the success-oriented, organizational culture and interrelationships, which our current leaders have cultivated over a period of years, is facilitated through various LDP activities.

1.2.3 Goals

• Identify and develop a pool of high potential leaders and managers for the Corps to draw upon in the future.

• Develop awareness and understanding of the visions and values of current Corps of Engineers leaders and managers.

• Increase awareness of the culture and protocol of the District.

• Assist LDP participants in clarifying and establishing their own values.

• Provide a forum for future leaders and managers to exchange ideas, understandings and appreciation for organizations and disciplines within the District.

• Foster group dynamics among LDP participants, which will improve communication within the District across organizational lines.

• Provide a district-wide, focused approach to effective management methods and standards of competence.

• Provide career enhancement through increased self-awareness, improved skills and a broadened understanding of District activities.

• Differentiate between leadership and management skills and understand the need for both sets of skills.

• Foster the goals of the District’s Equal Employment Opportunity Program.

1.3 KEY FACTORS FOR PROGRAM SUCCESS

1.3.1 Flexibility to capitalize on opportunities and additional learning experiences, which occur throughout the year, although, not anticipated in the original design of the year's developmental activities. Additionally, flexibility is needed to be able to address the specific needs of the selected LDP participants.

1.3.2 Continuity from one learning activity to another, to be provided by the CPF by personally participating in all of the key LDP activities and bringing together learning from separate activities into a cohesive whole. Lessons learned from one session to the next help overcome program design weaknesses and build on LDP strengths.

1.3.3 Development, to occur simultaneously at three levels, shown with desired outcomes:

• Level 1: Internal Development (internal to the person)

- to provide a heightened awareness of one’s strengths and weaknesses as they pertain to leadership and management

• Level 2: Interpersonal Development (among classmates and project teammates)

- to develop and refine skills necessary to be an effective leader-manager; such as leadership philosophy, emotional intelligence, team building and dynamics, interpersonal communication, management of time, multiple priorities, relationships and change; decision making and execution, budgeting, performance measurement and other related topics

- to provide enhanced knowledge of how to be an effective team player

• Level 3: Organizational Development (throughout the St. Paul District and within the Mississippi Valley Division)

- to provide participants with greater insight into the visions, values, missions, and culture of the Corps of Engineers; specifically, the St. Paul District.

2.0 DEFINITIONS & ACRONYMS

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers): This federal agency is responsible for a wide range of civil and military engineering missions, including water resources management and design, plus construction of a variety of structures.

Mississippi Valley Division (MVD): The St. Paul District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports to the MVD, located in Vicksburg, Mississippi. The MVD in turn reports to Headquarters in Washington, DC.

St. Paul District (MVP): The St. Paul District is an engineering and water resource agency dedicated to maintaining a proper and healthy balance of the varying uses of the heartland's waterways. The District supports the needs of the community and the environment through many civil works missions, to include flood risk management;

maintenance of nine-foot navigation channel on the Upper Mississippi River, recreation, environmental restoration, environmental river engineering, emergency responses to natural disasters, and regulatory oversight (issuance of permits and wetland delineation).

Commander: The Chief Executive Officer for the St. Paul District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is known to District staff as “Commander” and to the general public as “District Engineer” or “District Commander.”

Senior Executive Team (SET): This group is made up of the District Engineer, the Deputy District Engineer, the Executive Assistant, the Deputy for Programs and Project Management, and Chiefs of various St. Paul District divisions and departments (i.e., Chief, Engineering & Construction Division; Chief, Planning Division; Chief, Operations Division; Chief, Office of Counsel, Chief, Contracting etc.)

Contract Program Facilitator (CPF): Employed by the Contractor, this individual administers all aspects of the day-to-day operation of the LDP for the Contractor. The CPF is responsible for: program planning, development, and administration; coaching, counseling and advising participants; facilitating LDP activities; organizing the mentoring program; maintaining liaison with the LDP Steering Committee and the LDP Coordinator; and evaluating the effectiveness of LDP activities.

Mentors: Each LDP Participant selects a mentor who is a District Manager or leader. The primary objective of the mentoring program is to assist the LDP Participants in broadening their knowledge of the culture of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, including formal and informal channels of communication and influence. Mentors are also available to listen and to provide advice, assistance, moral support, and consultation to LDP Participants.

LDP Steering Committee: This committee consists of representatives from throughout the St. Paul District, who develop the overall goals, objectives, and guidelines for the LDP. The LDP Steering Committee is the primary point of contact for, and provides advice and assistance to, the CPF. The LDP Steering Committee serves as the link between the Senior Executive Team, LDP Participants, and the LDP Facilitator; provides advice and assistance to LDP Participants; and evaluates all phases of the LDP Program.

LDP Coordinator: A St. Paul District employee who serves as a liaison between the CPF and the LDP Steering Committee on all key LDP activities. The Coordinator will also provide input and assistance to the LDP Contract Programs Facilitator, LDP participants, mentors and supervisors of LDP participants, and LDP Steering Committee members.

LDP Participants: These St. Paul District employees currently serve in, or have been identified as having high potential for promotion to, leadership/management positions. Additionally, these individuals have applied for, and have been competitively selected for, the LDP Program. It is anticipated that LDP Participants will come from a variety of career fields including science, engineering, trades and administration.

ILDP (Individual Leadership Development Plan): The purpose of the ILDP is to improve participants’ leadership skills. The participants’ leadership strengths and weaknesses will be determined through use of diagnostic tools at the initial orientation and workshop. The ILDP should identify areas of improvement; define specific actions for improvement; and identify desired results. The ILDP is intended to be a tool that will enable participants to improve leadership skills throughout their careers.

LDP Announcement: The LDP is announced to all St. Paul District employees as a competitive training opportunity.

The announcement describes the program and application procedures.

CEU (Continuing Education Units): Certification of class attendance for demonstrating continuing education for employees with professional licenses.

3.0 MANDATORY PROGRAM ELEMENTS

The MVP LDP is executed through the following contractor led activities:

A one-half day orientation session.

A One and a Half Day Facilitated Workshop

Six 8-hour classroom training sessions

Four 30-minute counseling sessions

3.1 CONTRACTING ORGANIZATION QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

USACE preferred experience requirements for the Contracting Organization (Contractor):

3.1.1 Experience and credentials for managing a minimum of two long-term graduate-level training programs for mid-career adults.

3.1.2 Experience in designing and delivering high quality, comprehensive graduate-level programs related to leadership development for businesses, non-profit, academic organizations, and/or government agencies that include all of the following elements:

• Design and implementation of various diagnostic testing procedures related to leadership. Design and implementation of instructional systems

• Planning and implementation of comprehensive educational assessments

• Design, development, and implementation of instructional materials related to leadership

• Writing curricula

• Teaching theories and adapting them to real-life situations

• Instruction and critique of oral presentation skills

• Evaluation of effectiveness of participants’ leadership style

• Ability to relate and communicate with all levels of supervisors/managers in the organization

• Ability to be effective in defining and resolving the needs and deficiencies of class participants

• Equipped to address issues of human resource sensitivities and dynamics

• Ability to coach/counsel class participants in development and achievement of their Individual Leadership Development Plan (ILDP)

• Ability to equip participants with dispute resolution techniques and group interaction skills

• Skills to assist class participants in reflecting and learning from their own experiences, and in applying management theory to their work

• Curriculum covering topics such as diversity, decision-making, leadership/management skills, managing change, coaching/mentoring, interpersonal communications, performance evaluation, building effective team skills, conflict management and resolution, ethics, systems thinking, and customer service.

• Flexibility to capitalize on opportunities and additional learning experiences which occur throughout the year and to address the needs of the individual participants.

• Continuity from one learning activity to another.

3.2 CPF

3.2.1 The CPF is of paramount importance to the success of the program.

3.2.2 The CPF shall have, at a minimum, a Bachelors Degree, and preferably has trained as a counselor, facilitator, and/or trainer or similar disciplines.

3.2.3 The preferred experience for the CPF is at least 3 years of experience working closely with leaders, serving as coach, consultant, and counselor or other similar disciplines in order to assist them in defining and meeting established goals.

3.2.4 The preferred experience and credentials for the CPF is managing one or more long-term graduate-level training programs for mid-career adults. The individual should have experience in developing, designing, and delivering a graduate-level training program for businesses, non-profit, academic organizations, and/or government agencies, which included the following elements:

• design and implementation of evaluation procedures

• design and implementation of instructional systems

• planning and implementing comprehensive educational assessments

• design and development of instructional materials

• writing curricula

• teaching theories, and adapting them to real-life situations

• program implementation & assessment

• oral presentation skills

3.2.5 The CPF should have demonstrated experience and success in the following:

• Success in mentoring leaders

• Effectiveness of leadership style

• Ability to relate and communicate with all levels of supervisors/managers in the organization.

• Ability to be sensitive to and effective in defining and resolving the needs and deficiencies of individual LDP participants.

• Equipped to address issues of human resource sensitivities and dynamics, coaching/counseling LDP participants in their ILDP development and achievement, dispute resolution, and group interaction.

• Skills to assist the LDP participants in reflecting and learning from their own experiences and apply management theory to their work at the Corps of Engineers.

3.2.6 Consultation Sessions: The CPF will team with Corps of Engineers mentors, supervisors, LDP Steering Committee, and the Senior Executive Team to develop and implement a comprehensive leadership program. The CPF shall meet with Corps staff at the St. Paul office a maximum of 12 hours to develop and assess the program.

Allow consultation time for a program review meeting with the LDP Steering Committee at least two weeks prior to the student orientation session. At this review meeting, the Contractor shall provide the proposed diagnostic tools, agenda for contractor facilitated sessions (for the half-day orientation, one and one-half day workshop, and six classroom sessions), class topics (including proposed books), oral presentation improvement plan, list of proposed class speakers and their credentials,, and schedule for the program. The Contracting Officer has final approval on these items. On a periodic basis, the CPF is expected to meet with the LDP Steering Committee at the St. Paul District office, to provide a status report on LDP activities and to address concerns, resolve problems, or obtain guidance from the LDP Steering Committee.

3.3 ORIENTATION AND WORKSHOP

3.3.1 A half-day LDP orientation/goal-setting session shall be held to initiate the program. The orientation/workshop and all other LDP meetings and training sessions shall be held in the District Office in St.Paul, Minnesota located at 180 E. 5th St. The St. Paul District LDP Coordinator will make arrangements for the meeting room.

The CPF and the LDP Coordinator conduct the orientation and workshop jointly. The Contractor shall provide any necessary audiovisual equipment (overhead projector, computer and computer projector, flip charts). No Contractor-provided speakers are required for the orientation.

Topics to be covered by the LDP Coordinator during the orientation include:

• Introduction of LDP participants, CPF, LDP Coordinator, and LDP Steering Committee Representatives

• Explanation of roles and responsibilities of the LDP participants, LDP Coordinator, CPF, and LDP Steering

Committee

• Calendar of events - time commitments

• Background on team projects

Topics to be covered by the CPF during the orientation include:

• Dynamics of being a member of a learning group

• Background information on diagnostic tools to be used in the workshop.

• Background on individual leadership development plans

• Objectives of the workshop

• Objectives of the mentoring program (list of potential mentors shall be provided by the Government,)

• Explanation of the Class Reading requirements (for the Tier 2 class only).

The LDP Coordinator and CPF shall jointly participate in a question and answer session.

3.3.2 One and a Half Day Workshop: The initial workshop should start at noon on the first day and shall end by 5:00 pm on the second day. It will be preceded by a Government-facilitated meeting from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

The CPF shall be present to observe the Government-facilitated meeting in order to gain an understanding of St.

Paul District leadership expectations of the LDP participants and their non-contract LDP activities. Time at the contractor-facilitated workshop shall be devoted primarily to lectures; small group discussions; icebreaker activities;

review of personal diagnostic tests (tests may be distributed in advance and taken by the LDP participants before the workshop); personal introspection; and self-analysis on leadership effectiveness (which will be presented by the CPF). Under the guidance of the CPF the LDP participants shall explore the components of leadership, analyze individual leadership styles, and begin preparing an Individual Leadership Development Plan (ILDP). The purpose of the ILDP is to improve participants’ leadership skills. The participants’ leadership strengths and weaknesses will be determined through use of diagnostic tools at the initial workshop. The ILDP should identify areas of improvement; define specific actions for improvement; and identify desired results. The ILDP is intended to be a tool that will enable participants to improve leadership skills throughout their careers. The workshop also provides the LDP participants and the CPF with an opportunity to get better acquainted, start to bond as a group, and to plan many facets of the year’s activities. The Contractor shall provide any necessary audiovisual aids including flip charts, overhead projector, projector screen, computer and computer projector, digital video camera and tripod, and any other similar equipment.

3.3.3 Diagnostic Tools for Workshop and Throughout the Year At the initial workshop and/or the formal training sessions, the Contractor shall, at a minimum, provide; score; and provide individual feedback and instruction for at least 3 of the diagnostic tests listed below, or similar tests as approved by the Contracting Officer. The Contractor shall also provide an assessment tool to assist LDP participants in determining how their leadership knowledge, skills, and behaviors improve throughout the year.

At the program review meeting (3.2.6), the Contractor shall submit a brief description (two or three pages is adequate) of the methods to be used to assess the leadership and leadership development training needs of the LDP participants during the workshop and throughout the year. The information submitted shall also cover how the Contractor will structure and administer learning activities to meet the participants’ needs. The Contractor shall identify the diagnostic tools to be used. Minimum diagnostic tools include the following or similar:

• Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

• Learning Styles Inventory (LSI)

• FIRO-B

• Social Styles Preference

• Thomas-Kilman Conflict Mode Instrument

• 360 degree feedback (Required for Tier 2 and Tier 3)

• Organizational Climate Survey (Required for Tier 3 only)

• Contractors are encouraged to propose the use of other effective diagnostic tools.

3.4 CLASSROOM TRAINING

3.4.1 The Contractor shall provide 48 hours (six 8-hour sessions) of formal graduate-level classroom training to present a variety of contemporary leadership and management concepts, presented by leading professionals in their fields. The Tier 2 training shall emphasize classroom style lectures with large and small group discussions. The Tier 3 training shall include classroom style lectures, but substantial time should be devoted to facilitated group discussion with the participants sharing their experiences. At a minimum, the Contractor shall provide certification of CEUs or contact hours for each class session.

3.4.2 Class Schedule Contractors are encouraged to provide a schedule that best meets the need of each class session. The six 8-hour class sessions should be distributed throughout the year. Each session should be spread across two days, with four hours held during the afternoon of the first day and the final four hours held the morning of the second day, similar to the following:

Day 1 12:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. Instruction Day 2 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Instruction

3.4.3 Classroom Facility: Classes shall be conducted in the District Office in St. Paul, located at 180 E. 5 th

St. The MVP LDP Coordinator will determine the classroom location and make necessary reservations. The Contractor shall provide all audiovisual aids including flip charts, overhead projector, projector screen, computer and computer projector, digital video camera and tripod, and any other similar equipment.

3.4.4 Meals/Lodging: Contractor and Government Employees shall provide their own meals and lodging.

3.4.5 Class Topics The major LDP class topics from previous years are listed below. The Contractor shall cover a minimum of 6 of these topics or equivalent topics, to make up the required 48 hours of classroom instruction.

Contractor will work with LDP Steering Committee to identify 6 required courses each year. The Contractor is encouraged to provide alternative applicable leadership topics. Innovation in developing the LDP curriculum is highly encouraged. The curriculum shall avoid duplication of material, and shall provide a logical progression of material that builds upon knowledge gained from one topic to the next. The material for each topic shall be presented with a balance between lecture, group discussion, and small group or individual activities. A dynamic, interactive class environment shall be provided. Topics may be combined as needed or warranted by the curriculum design. Suggested topics include the following:

• “Philosophy of Leadership and Emotional Intelligence”

• “Team Building and Dynamics”

• “Understanding Office Dynamics

• “Managing Change”

• “Understanding Culture and Diversity in the Workplace”

• “Focus on the Customer – Relationship Management, Measuring Satisfaction and Success”

• “Decision-Making and Execution”

• “Leadership/Management Skills”

• “Leadership in a Technical Organization”

• “Strategic Planning and Leadership”

• “Coaching/Mentoring”

• “Delegating”

• “Interpersonal Communications”

• “Performance Evaluation/Management”

• “Conflict Management and Resolution”

• “Interest-based Problem Solving”

• “Organizational Management”

• “Learning Organization”

• “Managing Multiple Priorities, Projects, Objectives and Deadlines”

Actual topics can be adjusted, if needed, based on the needs of the LDP participants and on current trends related to management. Class dates will be negotiated for the convenience of the Government and the Contractor-the Contracting Officer will determine the final dates if no mutually beneficial dates can be agreed to. LDP participants shall not be scheduled/enrolled into regularly scheduled university classes. Length of formal classroom modules will vary depending on subject coverage, time required for mastery, beneficial mix of developmental methodologies, and scheduling preferences of the LDP participants and CPF. LDP activities shall be designed in a manner that provides sufficient time for group process development for varying personality styles to gather and synthesize information and experiences; and for practice in using new behaviors and/or techniques. The Contracting Officer shall have final approval of the final list of classroom topics. For each class, the Contractor shall obtain written feedback from participants regarding class topic(s), materials, and speaker; and shall provide such to the Contracting Officer on a monthly basis.

3.4.6 The Contractor shall provide speakers for all class sessions, except as specified above. A minimum of 6 speakers shall be provided. Up to 3 of those speakers may be St. Paul District or other USACE senior leaders.

Speakers shall be utilized as part of the curriculum to achieve program objectives. They should be experienced in public speaking, and shall represent a mix of professionals from business, government, industry, and universities.

The Contractor shall provide the professional credentials of potential speakers to the LDP Steering Committee for review and approval prior to their participation in the class sessions. This information may be provided at the program review meeting (3.2.6), if available at that time.

3.4.7 Class Readings/Book Applications (For Tier 2 LDP Class Only): Readings from classic and contemporary literature on leadership and effective management shall be provided by the Contractor. Participants shall be required to read at least one book each and provide to the LDP Class an oral presentation summarizing the material. The Contractor shall provide the copy of each book to be used. All books will become the property of the Government at the conclusion of the program.

At the program review meeting (3.2.6), the Contractor shall provide a list of the books to be used, with a brief synopsis of each book. The Contractor shall describe where and how these books would be inserted into the program. The Contracting Officer shall have final approval of materials for the program.

3.4.8 Personal Reflective Journals: Each LDP participant is required to submit a monthly reflective journal entry to the CPF. The purpose of these monthly journal entries is for the participant to reflect on the month’s activities, how the individual has applied or will apply what has been learned in his/her personal and professional life, and to help participants to gain insights into their progress on their ILDPs. The Contractor shall review each of these monthly journal entries, and shall provide feedback to the participants regarding content, application of skills learned, performance in program activities, and progress on the ILDPs. Feedback shall be provided to each LDP participant.

Feedback should lead to development of long-term goals and objectives for continued improvement after completion of the program.

3.5 MENTORING

Each LDP participant shall participate in a mentoring relationship with a mid-level or senior District employee and shall meet with their mentor on a monthly basis. The mentor will serve as a counselor, information provider, friendly critic, interpreter of organizational policies and politics, sounding board and link to the pulse of the organization. At the orientation session, the LDP Coordinator shall provide a list of District employees that have expressed a willingness to be a mentor. The LDP participants shall select their mentors based on guidance provided by the CPF.

After selections are made, the CPF shall provide a training session for the mentors and LDP participants to outline the mentoring process; roles, responsibilities and expectations; goals and objectives; associated benefits for both parties, etc. The mentor training session may be held during the 1-1/2-Day Workshop (refer to 3.3.2)

3.6 TEAM PROJECTS

The Contractor is not involved in this element – this paragraph is provided for information only: Leadership "theory" and "practice" meet face-to-face as LDP participants form teams to work on projects, which focus on the District’s Strategic Goals. LDP participants will be assigned to individual District Strategic Goal Champions.

Projects will be identified by the Strategic Goal Champions and will include assisting with the duties of each of the Champions and periodically reporting to the Senior Executive Team Other projects may be assigned by the LDP Steering Committee.

3.7 GRADUATION CEREMONY

A graduation ceremony shall be held at the conclusion of the final training session to recognize the achievements of the LDP participants, and to celebrate the success of the year's activities. The CPF shall facilitate the ceremony. The ceremony will be held in conjunction with the final training session and no additional travel is required. No outside speaker is required for the final event--only the CPF must attend.

3.8 INTERIM AND FINAL WRITTEN EVALUATION OF LDP PROGRAM

The CPF shall furnish the LDP Steering Committee with written reports evaluating the effectiveness of LDP components and activities, and providing recommendations for changes and improvements. At a minimum, the Contractor shall provide an interim and a final written evaluation of the program. The interim evaluation shall be provided five months after initiation of the program, and the final evaluation shall be provided within 14 days after graduation. Contractors are encouraged to be innovative in developing an effective evaluation system for the program that provides concrete information regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the program and specific recommended changes to improve the program. The written evaluations should include the results of any testing/evaluations that have been completed to show how LDP participants have improved in leadership skills and knowledge. All aspects of the program shall be covered in the evaluations, including effectiveness of books, online classes, speakers, class topics, diagnostic testing, counseling sessions, mentoring program, etc.

3.9 ILDP Counseling Sessions

The CPF shall meet with each participant for a minimum of 30 minutes each four times during the year (typically at the one-fourth points of the class) to review, discuss, and refine the participants ILDP. These sessions shall be used to aid the participant in developing actionable goals, monitoring progress, identifying actions, and encouraging success.

4.0 MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS AND ISSUES

4.1 CHANGES IN CONTRACT PROGRAM FACILITIATOR

Once a contract has been awarded, and a CPF has been accepted, it is the expectation that the designated CPF will remain the same person throughout the program year. Continuity in CPF is considered critical to the effectiveness of the LDP.