Q&A_Diversity.docx

First Set:

1 Would ARMY MICC accept except qualifications and experience for work that is similar scope and size that is non-military or DOD? (referencing the following excerpts from the PWS)

Section 1.6.8 Special Qualifications:

“Demonstrated expertise and accreditation in the domain of scientifically validated Cultural Intelligence Research coupled with expertise and experience in applying cultural intelligence in military contexts.”

RESPONSE: NO. We do not have time to familiarize a vendor with our specific domain.

Section 7.2 Experience:

“Teaching or taught at “all” levels (Undergraduate, Masters, MBA, EMBA, and PhD). Assessment model must be peer- reviewed that consistently predicts effectiveness working across cultural difference in the last 5 years. Previously have work with other DoD elements, experience as Cultural Advisor and as a cultural engagement instructor.”

RESPONSE: Response: That was an editing error. There should be nothing about five years. I apologize there were so many additions and tweaks I made an error when editing it. 8.2 Experience should have read:

"8.2 Experience. Teaching at “all” levels (Undergraduate, Masters, MBA, EMBA, and PhD). Assessment model must be peer-reviewed that consistently predicts effectiveness working across cultural difference. Previously have work with other DoD elements, experience as Cultural Advisor and as a cultural engagement instructor."

Note: While the development of the Assessment Instrument itself should have been led by a Ph. D. level scientist, competent in the scientific methods appropriate to such an endeavor (e.g., Psychologist, Social Scientist...possibly a Cultural Anthropologist) The person presenting the CQ training course would not absolutely require a doctorate. An assessment of the experience level of a Graduate Student would be necessary e.g., a professional who has a master's degree and significant experience in the field of cultural assessment and has returned to study for a doctorate may be acceptable as a Trainer and or Facilitator.

2. Assessment model must be peer-reviewed that consistently predicts effectiveness working across cultural difference in the last 5 years.

RESPONSE: This is a requirement for the underlying theoretical basis of the assessment instrument and is definitely necessary.

3. Previously have worked with other DoD elements, experience as Cultural Advisor and as a cultural engagement instructor.

RESPONSE: Again...this is someone's specific experience. It is certainly desirable that the instructor provided by the selected Vendor have experience of this general sort....but I would not have absolutely required that they have been a "Cultural Advisor" (that's pretty specific) but would require that they have experience addressing with DoD/Military groups.

2 in the RFQ it mentions the work is contingent upon a finish date of Sept 19th. It is in my expertise that this level of assessment would need 60-90 days to complete to be cautious of any adverse impact for validity purposes.

Is there a way to submit the proposal and recommend adjustments to their timeline?

RESPONSE: No the assessment is expected to be given on the finish date - The "finish" date is being misinterpreted. What we were asking for is the ability to field the CQ instrument, with the demographic changes we need and group analysis specifications, in time for the scheduled data collection. This presupposes that the instrument already exists, is validated and can have the minor modifications in place in time. We are not suggesting that a vendor start designing and validating in the time we have available.

Second Set:

Q1. Is there an incumbent? If so, what is the name and contract number for that vendor?

A1. See the solicitation

Q2. Modification of any item of a current assessment instrument can change its reliability. For clarity, will the government conduct its own validity and reliability tests after the instrument is modified or is that the contractor's responsibility?

Response: Yes, as needed, for specific modifications although most will involve the collection and organization of the data by specified demographics/groups

Q3. On page 11, under PART 7 QUALIFICATIONS, it states, "Experience. Teaching or taught at “all” levels (Undergraduate, Masters, MBA, EMBA, and PhD) ..." Is the government willing to make an exception to allow for a doctoral candidate with teaching experience as an undergraduate adjunct professor with an accredited college to satisfy this requirement?

Response: That was an editing error. There should be nothing about five years. I apologize there were so many additions and tweaks I made an error when editing it. 8.2 Experience should have read:

"8.2 Experience. Teaching at “all” levels (Undergraduate, Masters, MBA, EMBA, and PhD). Assessment model must be peerreviewed that consistently predicts effectiveness working across cultural difference. Previously have work with other DoD elements, experience as Cultural Advisor and as a cultural engagement instructor."

Note: While the development of the Assessment Instrument itself should have been led by a Ph. D. level scientist, competent in the scientific methods appropriate to such an endeavor (e.g., Psychologist, Social Scientist...possibly a Cultural Anthropologist) The person presenting the CQ training course would not absolutely require a doctorate. An assessment of the experience level of a Graduate Student would be necessary e.g., a professional who has a master's degree and significant experience in the field of cultural assessment and has returned to study for a doctorate may be acceptable as a Trainer and or Facilitator.

Q4. On page 11, under PART 7 QUALIFICATIONS, it states, "Experience...Assessment model must be peer- reviewed that consistently predicts effectiveness working across cultural difference in the last 5 years ..."

Will a detailed statement about the validity and reliability outcomes for the current assessment instrument satisfy this requirement?

Or

Is the government asking for a list of peer-reviewed articles pertaining to the specific assessment model?

Response: Peer reviewed articles relevant to the development and underlying theoretical basis of the assessment instrument are required in addition to detailed descriptions of validation and reliability studies (methodology, populations, results, which have been conducted.

Q5. Is the government asking for raw data from SPSS for the current assessment tool to be included for evaluation in the RFQ response?

Response: No.....not the data itself, but the nature of the data, the methodology and sample size and descriptions....and results in terms of Validation and Reliability.

Q6. Is the government interested in assuming the copyright to a preexisting cultural diversity assessment owned by the contractor that can be modified for use by the government?

Response: Not at this time