Question_and_Answers.pdf

Question and Answers

On October 30, 2018, the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Geospatial Research Laboratory (GRL) in Alexandria, VA posted a Request for Quote (RFQ) for its LDP Phases I & II and Supervisory training classes.

For the past few days, our contracting team has been fielding, researching and compiling answers to all of your questions related to the RFQ. A document with all Questions and Answers has been posted with the corresponding amendment on FedBizOpps. Several changes have been made to the RFQ PWS section as a result of the responses received from Industry. Please make sure you are viewing and using the most current version of the attachments from the amendment.

1) Who is the incumbent?

Answer: The incumbent for GRL’s LDP Phase I training is Knowledge Advantage Inc., under contract W9132V18P0001.

2) Is there a possibility the closing date will be extended?

Answer: Yes, the closing date has been extended to Tuesday, November 13th, at 08:00am, CST.

3) Is there a date by which questions would be asked or answered?

Answer: Questions can be asked until 24 hours before the closing date and time. The Government will make every effort to answer the questions as quickly as possible, however some questions may lead to a solicitation amendment and/or extension. As such, please do not wait until the last minute to ask your questions. Also keep in mind November 12th is a federal holiday and the contracting team may not be available to answer questions.

4) How many students will attend per session?

Answer: Changes have been made, please see the amended RFQ. In particular, each Phase will have the following maximum participants:

Phase I – maximum twenty (20) participants Phase II – maximum six (6) participants Supervisory – maximum five (5) participants

5) Section 3.1.1 indicates there will be 7 people in the DiSC/MB assessment class so are there only going to be 7 students for that class?

Answer: Seven was not an indicator of quantity, the requirement for a DiSC or Myers Briggs assessment will be revised in the PWS to clarify. The DiSC/MB class is only required for Phase I LDP which has a maximum of twenty (20) participants.

6) PWS, Section 4.1, "Draft versions of the course materials (see section 5.3 below) shall be provided to the COR for approval no later than fourteen (14) days after award. The COR will review and either approve or deny, materials within fourteen (14) days of submission."

PWS, Section 5.3 "The contractor shall provide the COR and GRL LDP Coordinator with course materials at least four weeks before session to allow for review, comments and/or edits."

Requiring two tiers of review for course material seems a bit excessive and repetitive. If materials are reviewed and approved per 4.1, why do they need to be reviewed again per 5.3? If they are reviewed four weeks before session per 5.3, why do they need to be reviewed beforehand per 4.1? We believe that having just one review is sufficient and will reduce time, costs, and inefficiencies in the process. We respectfully request consideration of removing the 4.1 review process, and keeping just the 5.3 review process.

Answer: Changes have been made, please see the amended RFQ. In particular, Section 4.1 has been removed.

7) Can GRL provide further clarification regarding the class make-up of the LDP 1 cohorts, the LDP 2 cohorts, and the supervisory cohorts? Useful information would include, but not be limited to: GS level, occupation, tenure at USACE/GRL. Having such information will allow our master facilitators and curriculum designers to develop and deliver the most effective learning modules that are specifically tailored to the unique profile of each cohort.

Answer: Phase 1 & 2 - GS 9-13, Supervisory - GS 14

8) PWS Section 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 all include the following clause -- "facilitated leadership courses that COULD include the following" -- before enumerating the topics for LDP I, LDP II and LDP Supervisory. Does repeated use of the word "could" signify that the topics enumerated under each of the LDP levels are suggested or proposed topics, and not strictly required? As indicated in our question/comment above, having information about the composition of each LDP cohort will allow our master facilitators and curriculum designers to develop effective learning modules tailored specifically for that cohort.

Providing offerors flexibility in suggesting topics for each cohort will allow better configuration of learning modules that are appropriate for the experience levels and background of the class participants.

Answer: That is correct, the word ‘could’ signified these were proposed topics, and not strictly required. While the themes covered offer suggested topics, the number of classes for each LDP level shall remain unchanged. Changes have been made, please see the amended RFQ.

9) Since some of the course topics include copyrighted material, is this intended to restrict competition to specific companies? Or can we propose alternatives to the suggested topics?

Specifically, the inclusion of the "7 Habits of Effective Leaders" module, given that the curriculum is propriety to Franklin Covey (https://www.franklincovey.com/the-7-habits.html). According to their Senior Business Partner, Franklin Covey has a contract https://www.franklincovey.com/the-7-habits.html https://www.franklincovey.com/the-7-habits.html with the federal government that stipulates the government must contract with them in order to access the 7 Habits. Do you know what bearing that contract has on this solicitation (if any)?

Answer: Changes have been made, please see the amended RFQ. In particular, due to the copyrighted material, this class is no longer required but similar themed covered classes are requested.

10) Does this RFQ have any page limitations or specific formatting guidelines?

Answer: No page limitations nor formatting guidelines but only relevant responses are requested.

11) The PWS for the subject solicitation requires the creation of 16 courses. That said, does the Government think it unreasonable to allow a week’s prep time each for the development of these courses?

Answer: These are commercial leadership courses that are essentially already developed. They may need to be tweaked for the audience or other reasons, but they certainly are not expected to be developed from scratch for this contract. As such, the Government does believe that a week to develop a response to our solicitation was appropriate.

12) Will the contractor be selected from GSA Schedule holders, or is this a general solicitation?

Answer: No, this solicitation is posted to FBO not GSA. So it will not be awarded against a GSA schedule. If you have a GSA schedule and would like to quote GSA pricing you are more than welcome to do so.

13) PWS 1 states the purpose of the LDP and says that it provides employees with the opportunity to “apply those skills through direct interaction with ERDC leadership” and “by participation in ERDCs management related functions.” How does the “direct interaction” occur and is this part of the work required within the RFQ. How do employees “participate in ERDCs management related functions?” Is this part of the work required within the RFQ?

Answer: The LDP involves more than just the courses being solicited for this award, and the PWS simply tried to describe the intent of the program for the purposes of providing a frame of reference for where the courses being procured fit into the bigger picture. This contract will just be to conduct the training described, and does not include the Contractor’s involvement in any other aspect of the program.

14) Are you planning to start the base year at the beginning of FY’20? In Section 8, does “YEAR” refer to the government’s fiscal year?

Answer: The base year of the contract will start with contract award date, which is anticipated for Nov 2018.

15) Does the next to last paragraph on page 26 of the RFQ repeat the first paragraph on page 27?

Answer: Yes, this has been corrected in the amended RFQ.

16) Scope of Work (3. On page 26, states that the SMT will rate Phase 1 applications and select a cohort of up to 20 participants. How many people will be in Phase 2 and in the Supervisory LDP? Will there be different people in each of the Phases or will the same people be in all of the Phases during a FY?

Answer: There will be participants from Phase I in the Phase II class, and more than likely different students in the Supervisory LDP class.

Phase I – maximum twenty (20) participants (GS 9-13) Phase II – maximum six (6) participants (GS 9-13) Supervisory – maximum five (5) participants (GS 14)

17) RFQ Section 5.3 Task 4 mentions the DISC or MBTI. Is this just for Phase 1? Are other assessments required for Phase 2 or the Supervisory LDP? We strongly suggest the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Inventory for Supervisors.

Answer: Yes, a strengths/constraints assessment (such as the DiSC or Myers Briggs) is only required for Phase I. No such assessments are required for Phase II nor Supervisory LDP but vendor may provide optional pricing for the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Inventory for Supervisors or other similar assessments.

18) For RFQ Section 5.3 Task 6, does the government want an evaluation for each individual session or for each Phase as a whole?

Answer: Each course should conclude with a survey evaluation.

19) Section 7.4 mentions a survey to distribute to participants after the facilitation of each course. We are assuming this is an evaluation of the course. Does “course” mean each individual session within a Phase, or does course refer to the entire Phase within a FY?

Answer: Correct, the survey is to evaluate the individual course. As such, each individual course that is facilitated will need to conclude with a survey of that course. This does not refer to the entire Phase of courses for that phase of the LDP.

20) Do participants compete to be in the LDPs or are they required to participate?

Answer: The participants apply and are selected to participate from leadership. It is not a requirement to participate.

21) In the Security Requirement section, item H states that the contractor shall brief all employees on the USACE IWATCH program. Are “all employees” the program participants? Or are they the contractor’s employees?

Answer: The contractor’s employees need to be briefed prior to coming on the Government installation/facility.

22) Will all questions and answers be provided to all interested vendors listed on the FBO site?

Answer: Yes, questions and answers will be provided to all vendors through the FBO site.

23) Is this a new program, or have ERDC and GRL offered these programs in the past? If yes, who is the incumbent?

Answer: See question 1

24) What are the GS levels associated with participants in Phase 1, Phase 2, and the Supervisory LDP?

Answer: Phase I (GS 9 – 13), Phase II (GS 9 – 13) and Supervisory (GS 14).

25) Will the Supervisory LDP include only Section supervisors, or will it also included supervisors at higher levels? If the latter, at which levels?

Answer: The Supervisory LDP will only include Branch Chiefs or Section Supervisors who are at the GS 14 level.

26) Will the Program Manager consider a Sole Source Woman Owned Small Business with past experience in developing and executing a Professional Development Program to include Organization Development/Change Management and Executive Coaching?

Answer: No, this solicitation will not be sole sourced. It will remain competed as a Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) set-aside.

27) Will a Wage and Determination be provided?

Answer: Yes, a Wage and Determination will be provided.

The DATE quotes are due has been changed to November 13, 2018 at 0800am, CST.

Offerors are reminded, “Failure to acknowledge receipt of this amendment may result in rejection of your offer.”