Q-A_Executive_Coaching_FY19.docx

CONTRACTOR QUESTIONS EXECUTIVE COACHING

1. Section 3.2 states...The Department of the Army, USAWC, and the ASEP Office requires that the selected Executive Coaching Organization be capable to facilitate development and execution of a comprehensive Executive Coaching program. All coaches interacting with General Officers must have completed an Accredited Coach Training Program (ACTP) be certified by the International Coaching Federation (ICF).Question...if coaches have a Ph.D. but are not currently certified by ICF, does this meet the instructor qualification requirement? NO

2. Question...how many coaching sessions are required for each participant in order to satisfy this requirement? A MINIMUM OF TWO SESSIONS FOLLOWING THE ASEP COURSE IS REQUIRED. FOLLOW ON SESSIONS ARE DEPENDENT ON THE COACHING RECIPIENTS DECISION (I.E., “IS THE EXECUTIVE COACHING HELPFUL?”)

1. Question...what is the expected start date and end date for the coaching sessions? AFTER THE INTIAL ASSESSMENTS AS OUTLINED IN PARA 4., THE FIRST COACHING SESSION/START DATE WILL TAKE PLACE AT THE ASEP-A OR ASEP-S COURSE WHEN THE EXECUTIVE COACH AND THE STUDENT MEET FOR THE FIRST TIME (PARA 7. DELIVERABLES). THERE IS NO STRICTLY DEFINED “END DATE”. IF THE STUDENT FINDS THE EXECUTIVE COACHING VALUE ADDED/HELPFUL/EFFECTIVE, THEN ADDITIONAL SESSIONS MAY TAKE PLACE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE STUDENT NO LONGER FEELS THE NEED TO CONTINUE.

3. Question...how many months are there between a participant going thru ASEP-A and ASEP-S? THE TIME BETWEEN ASEP-A (2-STAR COURSE) AND ASEP-S (3 STAR COURSE) IS WHOLLY DEPENDENT UPON THE GENERAL OFFICER/STUDENTS SELECTION FOR PROMOTION AND SENATE CONFIRMATION. IN SOME CASES IT MAY BE A YEAR, IN OTHER CASES IT MAY BE SEVERAL YEARS.

4. Section 3.5 states...The Executive Coaching Organization must, at the time of proposal, have existing contractual relationships with an adequate number of skilled coaches to support this work both initially and as it grows. The existence of said contractual relationship must be provided in writing and notarized and presented to AWC/ASEP. Question...does a signed and dated contract between the offeror and any coaches suffice as "notarized"? YES, THIS WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.

5. Section 3.6 states...The Executive Coaching Organization must, at the time of proposal, have a documented and practiced approach to the recruitment, hiring, on-boarding and continuing evaluation of their coaches. Evidence of this capability must be provided in writing and notarized and presented to AWC/ASEP. Question...is the Government's expectation to have a notary public "notarize" the offerors recruiting process document? THIS WOULD BE IDEAL. HOWEVER A SIGNED AND DATED CONTRACT BETWEEN THE OFFEROR AND COACHES WOULD ALSO BE ACCEPTABLE.

6. Is there an SF1449 or equivalent for the solicitation?

W91QFO-19-R-9001 is a combined synopsis/solicitation according to FAR 12.603. A formal SF1449 may not be published. The final PO will be on an SF1449. All clauses are specified in the combined synopsis/solicitation.

7. Is it a funded opportunity?

Currently it is Subject to Availability of Funds (SAF), but this is a high visibility action and funding is expected at time of award.

8. The quote date on FBO does not match the date due on the solicitation, can you confirm the correct date?

The correct date is the one on the combined synopsis/solicitation.

9. The solicitation calls for ICF credentialing for coaches. Would ASEP consider coaches certified by other organizations, such as BCC (Board Certified Coach), Co-Active, or PhD I-O Psychologists as well? ICF CERTIFICATION IS STRONGLY PREFERED. THIS CERTIFICATION ALLOWS THE AWC TO ENSURE A COMMONALITY OF CERTIFICATION STANDARDS WITH THE COACHING PROVIDER.

10. The solicitation calls for evidence of adhering to APA standards by asking for a written and notarized letter from the APA. This is highly unusual, as the APA does not typically endorse in this manner, nor would the APA have an ability to provide this type of endorsement. Can anything else satisfy this requirement other than a notarized letter from the APA? IF THE CONTRACTOR CAN OTHERWISE LEGALLY PROVE THAT THEIR EXECUTIVE COACHES ADHERE TO THE RELEVANT STANDARDS OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (APA) REGARDING ETHICS IN COACHING AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF DATA, THEN A NOTARIZED LETTER WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED.

11. The solicitation states “Proof of the ability to ensure privacy must be provided in writing to AWC/ASEP from organizations and individuals with whom the contractor has previously provided executive coaching services to”. Can this be done via reference in the response or does ASEP request a formal written and separate letter stating this from other clients? REFERENCES WITH POINT OF CONTACT INFORMATION FROM ORGANIZATIONS AND/OR INDIVIDUALS WHOM THE CONTRACTOR HAS PROVIDED EXECUTIVE COACHING SERVICES TO IN THE PAST IS ACCEPTABLE.

12. The solicitation states “The existence of said contractual relationship must be provided in writing and notarized and presented to AWC/ASEP.” Does this mean you need a notarized letter from the offeror that simply states this fact? SEE #10 AND 11 ABOVE.

13. The solicitation states “The Executive Coaching Organization must, at the time of proposal, have a documented and practiced approach to the recruitment, hiring, on-boarding and continuing evaluation of their coaches. Evidence of this capability must be provided in writing and notarized and presented to AWC/ASEP.” Does this mean you need a notarized letter from the offeror that simply states this fact? THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE, BUT YOU MUST ALSO PROVIDE REFERENCES WITH POINT OF CONTACT INFORMATION FROM ORGANIZATIONS AND/OR INDIVIDUALS WHOM THE CONTRACTOR HAS PROVIDED EXECUTIVE COACHING SERVICES TO IN THE PAST SO THAT AWC/ASEP CAN VERIFY EVIDENCE OF SAID CAPABILITY.

14. The solicitation states “The Executive Coaching organization must demonstrate that is has an established record of success in facilitating the professional and personal growth of senior executives and leaders, leading to improved performance. Written testimonials by organizations and individuals with whom the contractor has previously provided executive coaching services to must be provided to AWC/ASEP.” How many written testimonials are requested? A MINIMUM OF 3-5 WRITTEN TESTIMONIALS WILL SUFFICE. IT MUST BE NOTED THAT AWC/ASEP IS NOT LOOKING FOR A REVELATION OF ANY PERSONAL/CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FROM THE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH WHOM THE CONTRACTOR HAS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED EXECUTIVE COACHING SERVICES.

1. Are these meant to be the same systems or is the intent that there be multiple software programs available? THE INTENT IS THAT THERE BE MULTIPLE SOFTWARE PROGRAMS AVAILABLE.

2. Do you want one specific assessment or ability to provide multiple different assessments? AWC/ASEP WANTS THE CONTRACTOR TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE MULTIPLE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENTS.

18. Is ICF certification and the associated ethical policies and requirements associated with that sufficient to meet the APA ethics standards called for under Factor 1, Subfactor 4? YES

19. Factor 1, Subfactor 4 requires evidence be provided in writing and notarized regarding APA. Given the short timeline for this RFP and the potential difficulty with getting such language notarized, is certification by an executive coaching related entity that has its own ethical standard as part of this certification sufficient to meet this requirement? IF THE CONTRACTOR CAN OTHERWISE LEGALLY PROVE THAT THEIR EXECUTIVE COACHES ADHERE TO THE RELEVANT STANDARDS OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (APA) REGARDING ETHICS IN COACHING AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF DATA, THEN A NOTARIZED LETTER WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED.

20. To address Factor 1, Subfactor 5’s requirement of proof, is a letter of reference from former clients acceptable and if so can this letter also be used to address the written testimonial requirement under Factor 2, Subfactor 1? YES

21. Factor 1, Subfactor 7 calls for notary of the recruitment, hiring, on-boarding, and continuing evaluation capability. Is a bidder’s internal process and policy documents acceptable to meet this requirement and is the notary requirement truly necessary? Given the timing we would ask that if notary be required that it be something that is provided post-award. IF THE CONTRACTOR CAN OTHERWISE LEGALLY PROVE THAT THEIR EXECUTIVE COACHES ADHERE TO THE RELEVANT STANDARDS OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (APA) REGARDING ETHICS IN COACHING AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF DATA, THEN A NOTARIZED LETTER WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED.

22. For Factor 2 past performance is there a limitation to the number of references that can be provided?

NORMALLY 3 EXAMPLES OF RECENT, RELEVANT AND QUALITY PRODUCING PAST PERFORMANCE ARE REQUIRED.

23. Is there a format or template that must be used for Factor 3 Price?

NO FIXED TEMPLATE OR FORMAT. SUGGEST USING THE CONTRACT LINE ITEM STRUCTURE IN THE SOLICITATION TO REDUCE CONFUSION AND AVOID MISSING ANY ITEMS.

24. Are the reps and certs required if the entity bidding has an up to date SAM registration or is a statement to this effect sufficient?

PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS IN FAR 52.212-3. IF REPS AND CERTS ARE COMPLETED IN SAM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CLAUSE ARE SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED.

25. Is there a file size limitation for submission? Is the bidder required to submit a separate file for each tab within a volume or is only one file required for each volume?

THE TECHNICAL VOLUME SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO 25 PAGES WITH FONT SIZE NO LESS THAN 10 POINT. THIS REQUIREMENT EXCLUDES ANY SAMPLES OF COMPLETED WORK OR OTHER SUBSTANTIATING DOCUMENTS. EACH VOLUME SHOULD BE SUBMITTED AS A SEPARATE ELECTRONIC FILE.

26. Can you confirm this is being awarded using the best value award criteria as there is a reference to lowest price technically acceptable under Section 13 Qualifications of the PWS (page 10).

TECHNICALLY SPEAKING FROM A CONTRACTING PERSPECTIVE, BOTH LOW PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE (LPTA) AND FULL TRADE OFF EVALUATIONS ARE BEST VALUE TO THE GOVERNMENT. THIS WILL BE A FULL TRADE OFF EVALUATION. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT RESTRICTED TO SELECTING THE LOWEST PRICE PROPOSAL DEPENDING ON THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE EVALUATION.

27. How many days after award is the iWATCH training required as 12.3 has “YY calendar days” and a reference to [insert number of calendar days] in the solicitation doc.

The last sentence of 12.3 will be modified to read: "This training shall be completed within 30 calendar days of contract award and within 30 calendar days of new employees commencing performance with the results reported to the COR 35 calendar days after contract award"

28. Please confirm that the due date is January 17 at 7 AM EST as there is a reference for a deadline of January 15 in the document.

ALL PROPOSALS MUST BE RECEIVED NLT 7:00 EST, JANUARY 17, 2019. PROPOSALS RECEIVED AFTER THAT DATE AND TIME WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.

29. Are contractors required to get CAC cards? NO

30. What is the background check process for each contractor providing coaching services? Is this necessary for installation access or for contract work (Tier 1 only)?

This is standard text that only applies to contracts that are to be performed on a military installation, which this will not be. Without a CAC being issued, if a contractor needs access to Carlisle Barracks, information for that background check shall be provided at that time.

31. For ASEP secure server access, what information is expected to be provided (i.e., dates and completions of assessments only, and/or follow-on coaching)? DATE TIME GROUPS OF THE COACHING SESSIONS, LENGTH OF ENGAGEMENT, COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENTS AND SUBSEQUENT FEEDBACK TO THE STUDENT, METHOD OF ENGAGEMENT (FACE TO FACE, VTC, SKYPE, ETC.)

32. In lieu of ASEP server access, can the contractor provide weekly or timely updates to ASEP as to the status of coaches and subjects in the coaching process? NOT IN LIEU OF BUT IN “ADDITION TO” IN THE EVENT SAID SERVERS ARE DOWN.

33. Will the government provide privacy statements to be signed by executive coaches (EC) and executive subjects (ES)? IT IS EXPECTED THAT THE CONTRACTOR/SERVICE PROVIDER SUBSCRIBES TO THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION’S CODE OF ETHICS REGARDING THE USE OF AN INDIVIDUAL’S PERSONAL DATA FOR RESEARCH; THIS CODE IS PARTICULARLY CONCERNED WITH PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE PERSON.

34. The base year has 3 courses (2 x ASEP-A, 1 x ASEP-S). What are the total proposed course numbers and students for each year after the base ((Option 1 year (2020) and beyond))? (6 courses / 66-68?). ROUGHLY. THE FINAL NUMBERS ARE DETERMINED BY PROMOTION RATES, SENATE CONFIRMATION, AND STUDENT AUDIENCE AVAILABILITY.

35. Can the USG provide any information or background on what executive coaching contracts, vehicles, or programs have been used for ASEP up until now? SELECT GENERAL OFFICERS ARE SENT TO THE “LEADERSHIP AT THE PEAK” (LAP) PROGRAM CONDUCTED BY THE CENTER FOR CREATIVE LEADERSHIP. ASEP DOES NOT SELECT THESE OFFICERS FOR ATTENDANCE (THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMY DOES), BUT WE DO TRACK THEIR COMPLETION. EXECUTIVE COACHING IS A SMALL PORTION OF THIS COURSE EXPERIENCE. THIS PARTICULAR REQUIREMENT/SOLICITATION IS NEW, AND DESIGNED TO FACILITATE EXECUTIVE COACHING EARLIER IN A GENERAL OFFICER’S TENURE.

36. Can the contractor use 1-2 POCs (program manager and backup) to provide input for the ECMRA site for all executive coaches (vice all contractors)?

CMRA IS REQUIRED OF ALL SERVICE CONTRACTORS NLT OCTOBER 31 OF EACH YEAR. IT IS UP TO THE CONTRACTOR HOW IT IS ACCOMPLISHED.

37. Are all contractors required DTS training, to access DTS, be trained in DTS, and CAC sign documents in DTS? NO.

38. Does all contractor training include AT Level 1, iWatch, DTS, and OPSEC training? ONLY AS REQUIRED.

39. If all contact hours by contractors are not on military installations, is all this training still required by all contractors? NO.

40. Where is the ASEP-S Course being taught in the NCR? Is this on a military installation? THE MAJORITY OF THE COURSE IS CONDUCTED IN ARLINGTON, VA. ON A NON-MILITARY INSTALLATION.

41. For all Access and General Protection/Security Policy and Procedures, who is the POC for the contractors?

The POC is Adam Moorhouse, contact information to be provided upon award.

42. Will ES point of contact information be provided to the contractor or program manager 30 days prior to the start of ASEP? WE ASSUME THAT BY “ES” YOU MEAN “EXECUTIVE SUBJECTS”. IF THIS IS THE CASE, THE ANSWER IS YES.

43. Will ASEP-S executive subjects (who have not been assessed under this contract) be required to conduct the assessment prior to the face to face during ASEP-S? YES.

44. Based on this RFP, it appears as if each executive coach (EC) will have 5 contact hours with each ASEP-A executive subject (ES) and 3 contact hours with each ASEP-S ES. Is there a requirement that there will be additional follow up contact hours with each EC/ES other than these identified herein? THIS IS SOLELY DEPENDENT ON THE EXECUTIVE SUBJECT/ES. IF THE EXECUTIVE SUBJECT FINDS THE COACHING USEFUL THEY HAVE TO OPTION TO CONTINUE. IF THE ES DOES NOT FIND THE COACHING HELPFUL, THE ES HAS THE OPTION OF DISCONTINUING THE RELATIONSHIP.

a. If there are additional contact hours requested, should these hours be quoted as pay for fee service beyond the based fixed firm price proposal?

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT BUYING LABOR HOURS. THE GOVERNMENT IS BUYING A SERVICE TO BE COMPLETED ACCORDING TO THE PWS AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN. ONLY IF THERE IS A CHANGE TO THE PWS THAT CREATES A CHANGE IN LEVEL OF EFFORT TO THE CONTRACTOR MAY PRICING BE RE-NEGOTIATED.

45. Is there an assumption that the assessment taken during ASEP-A will be the basis of the FTF longitudinal coaching session during ASEP-S? YES.

46. If the assumption that there will be 3-9 ASEP-S courses with no assessment basis, will there also be a requirement for the on-line assessment and pre-assessment discussion (1 hour) prior to the ASEP-S 1-hour face-to-face assessment? YES.

a. Alternatively, have all ASEP-S students already completed an online assessment that will be made available to executive coaches? NO

47. We understand that price will be evaluated on a total price basis and will include base year and all options. What are the differences in the base year and options regarding requirements? (6 courses / 66-68 ES?). 66-68 IS A GOOD PLANNING FIGURE. THE FINAL NUMBERS ARE DETERMINED BY PROMOTION RATES, SENATE CONFIRMATION, AND STUDENT AUDIENCE AVAILABILITY.

48. PWS item 3.3: requirement of APA standards and notarization. APA has notified this vendor that they do not provide notarization of such standards. Will the government accept coaching certification by ICF, as per item 3.2, in lieu of requirement 3.3? YES.

49. Past Performance – can you please clarify if the Prime must hold the past performance or if the past performance of a subcontractor is can be used to meet this this requirement?

THE PRIME CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY SUBCONTRACTOR, SO IT IS THE PRIME CONTRACTOR THAT IS EVALUATED FOR PAST PERFORMANCE.

50. Office Locations – do these overseas office locations need to be office locations of the Prime contractor, or can a sub-contractor office locations suffice to meet this requirement? SUB- CONTRACTOR OFFICE LOCATIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE SO LONG AS THEY ARE U.S. OWNED, VICE FOREIGN NATIONALS.

51. 3.4 states that proof of privacy must be provided by the organizations AND individuals with whom the contractor has previously provided executive coaching services to. Would the Government accept a statement on privacy from our Government COR but drop the requirement for individual SES clients? Since our SES clients are very busy, our COR will not allow us to them individually. MUST HAVE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS. THE INPUT OF SES CLIENTS IS CRITICAL AS OUR CLIENT BASE (GENERAL OFFICERS) ARE THE UNIFORMED EQUIVALENTS. WE WANT THE INPUT OF THE GENERAL OFFICER EXECUTIVE PEERS.

52. 3.5 – please clarify if this requirement is for a notarized statement from the vendor submitting the proposal or if these statements are required to be signed and notarized by each individual coach? FROM THE VENDOR

53. 3.5 and 3.6 – It is highly unusual to require a notarized statement stating that the vendor meets a criterion or has a capability they provided in the proposal. The overall proposal is signed by the company executive. The notarized statement is just for non-repudiation (i.e. the person signing the document is who he/she says). Would it be adequate for the signed cover letter by an authorized executive that clearly states the information submitted in the proposal is accurate? ONLY IF CO-SIGNED BY AN ATTORNEY.

54. 3.9 and 3.10 – the requirement for written testimonials from organizations AND individuals. How many individual testimonials are required? 3-5 are required. Again, it is reasonable for us to ask for a past performance from our Government COR, but they would not allow us to request this information from our SES clients. Will the Government allow a past performance from the Government COR to be sufficient for meeting the past performance requirements under 3.9 and 3.10? NO. MUST HAVE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS. THE INPUT OF SES CLIENTS IS CRITICAL AS OUR CLIENT BASE (GENERAL OFFICERS) ARE THE UNIFORMED EQUIVALENTS. WE WANT THE INPUT OF THE GENERAL OFFICER EXECUTIVE PEERS.

55. Will the Government consider removing the requirement to have notarized statements from the APA verifying the vendors compliance with APA ethics? We have contacted the APA and the person we talked to was not familiar with a “company certification” process. IF THE CONTRACTOR CAN OTHERWISE LEGALLY PROVE THAT THEIR EXECUTIVE COACHES ADHERE TO THE RELEVANT STANDARDS OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (APA) REGARDING ETHICS IN COACHING AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF DATA, THEN A NOTARIZED LETTER WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED.

56. Courses Supported For the first year, of this contract there will be three courses with Executive Coaching integrated into the curriculum; 2 x Army Strategic Education Program-Advanced (ASEPA__16 students per class, 32 total), and 1 x Army Strategic Education Program – Senior W91QF019R9001

(ASEP-S__6 students per class, 6 total). Additional courses will be added based on the engagement assessments conducted jointly by the organization providing the Executive Coaching, and the Army War College, Army Strategic Education Program. The Director, Army Strategic Education Program (ASEP), will confirm course dates with the contractor three months prior to the scheduled dates. The contract award will serve as notification for the first projected course date. Fiscal Year 2019 (Base Year) projected course dates are as follows:

ASEP-A 19-02: 25 February - 14 March 2019 < calendar:T6:25 February - 14 March 2019 >

ASEP-S 19-03: 20 – 24 May 2019 < calendar:T2:24 May 2019 >

ASEP-A 19-03: 28 May - 13 June 2019 < calendar:T6:28 May - 13 June 2019 >

Can we get some clarification? For example, 16 students per class, 32 total. Does this mean 16 students per class and two classes for a total of 32 students? YES, 2 X CLASSES OF 16 STUDENTS EACH FOR ASEP-A. Or, does it mean 16 students per class and 32 classes? NO. Likewise, students per class, 6 total. Does this mean just one class of six students or six classes of six students? ONE CLASS OF SIX STUDENTS FOR ASEP-S.

57. Have there been any additional addendums issued since the RFP was released?

NO.

58. Is the expected deadline for the RFP to stay the same as issued within the RFP?

YES.

59. Has USAWC engaged external executive coaches previously?

NO.

61. Will these instruments be the same instruments an incoming vendor will be expected to utilize? USAWC DOES NOT CURRENTLY EMPLOY CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL COACHES.

62. What’s the level of use/integration that these assessments are receiving in the organization? THESE ASSESSMENTS ARE INTENDED TO REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE COACH AND THE COACHING RECIPIENT.

63. What worked or did not work about that assessment and/or process? N/A. WE HAVE NOT USED CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL EXECUTIVE COACHES IN THE PAST.

64. What, if any, are the organization’s concerns regarding barriers for change? i.e. aging workforce, cultural differences, millennial work ethic, generational differences, command and control leadership barriers, etc. THIS WILL VARY WITH EACH INDIVIDUAL COACHING RECIPIENT BASED ON WHAT SAID RECIPIENT SEES HAS HIS OR HER AREAS OF FOCUS, WHICH MAY BE RELATED TO THEIR PROFESSIONAL ROLE AS GENERAL OFFICER OR MAY NOT BE RELATED TO THEIR ROLE AS GENERAL OFFICER.

65. What are the measures of success for a successful executive coaching program?

66. What are the USAWC leadership competencies? WE DO NOT SEE THE RELEVANCE OF THIS QUESTION. MANY OF THE GENERAL OFFICERS/STUDENTS DID NOT ATTEND USAWC. THE FOCUS OF THIS EXECUTIVE COACHING EFFORT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE NARROWLY FOCUSED ON THE STUDENTS DOD/ARMY WORK. THIS IS ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL AND HIS OR HER NEEDS WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE DIRECTLY TIED TO THEIR MILITARY DUTY.

67. Are these leadership competencies fully deployed and integrated into the culture? If no, why not? SEE #66

68. Page 3, item 2 (Scope) - How many hours per month is each coach expected to spend with their assigned General(s) in an ongoing basis after the initial ASEP-A, ASEP-S courses? Is there a minimum or maximum requirement? THIS WILL BE DEPENDENT ON THE GENERAL OFFICER’S (GO) DISCUSSION WITH THE EXECUTIVE COACH. SOME GENERAL OFFICER’S MAY REQUIRE MORE THAN OTHERS, OR DECLINE ANY ADDITIONAL SESSIONS.

69. Page 8 item 11 (courses supported) - it appears that in the first year the contractor should plan to support / coach 38 Generals, and that there will be ongoing support for these 38 individuals for the duration of the contract term (level of monthly support per General was inquired about in Q1 above). Is this assumption regarding number of students correct? YES. Will 38 additional Generals be added each year of the contract, so for example, in option year 1, the contractor will be in "support mode" with the original 38 students and begin the EC process with an additional 38 students, having a total of 76 Generals assigned to Executive Coaches in option year 1, and so forth going forward? THIS WILL DEPEND ON THE FEEDBACK WE GLEAN FROM THE GENERAL OFFICERS WHO PARTICIPATE, AND THE DECISION OF SENIOR ARMY MILITARY AND CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP.

70. Page 9 item 11 (courses supported) - How many hours of EC hours are estimated for each of the 2 ASEP-A sessions and the 1 ASEP_S session? SEE UNDERLINED PORTION BELOW FOR THE NUMBER OF HOURS ESTIMATED FOR EACH OF THE ASEP-A AND ASEP-S SESSIONS:

4.3. DEVELOP AN INITIAL, FACE TO FACE ENGAGEMENT PLAN NOT TO EXCEED 3 HOURS WHICH WILL BE CONDUCTED DURING WEEK 2 OF THE ASEP-A COURSE. ADEQUATE NUMBER OF COACHES MUST BE AVAILABLE TO TRAVEL TO THE ASEP-A COURSE AND MEET WITH THE COACHING SUBJECT.

4.4. DEVELOP A POST ASEP-A COURSE ENGAGEMENT PLAN THAT WILL BE PRIMARILY WEB BASED VIA A SECURE PORTAL ON THE COACHING ORGANIZATIONS WEBSITE. TELEPHONIC OR FACE TO FACE POST COURSE ENGAGEMENTS ARE ALSO ACCEPTABLE IF THE STUDENT AND EXECUTIVE COACH ARE IN AGREEMENT. AWC ASEP WILL FUND THE POST COURSE ENGAGEMENTS.

4.5. DEVELOP A FACE TO FACE ENGAGEMENT PLAN NOT TO EXCEED 1 HOUR WHICH WILL BE CONDUCTED DURING THE ASEP-S COURSE, AS AGREED UPON BY THE EXECUTIVE COACH AND THE COACHING RECIPIENT.

Does the government know which installation will host the training sessions so that we can develop our travel cost model? PLEASE NOTE THE UNDERLINED PORTION.

EXECUTIVE COACHING IN THE CASE OF THE SECOND WEEK OF ASEP-A, ARE CONDUCTED ON A ROTATIONAL BASIS IN ONE OF THE THREE LOCATIONS AT WHICH THE SECOND WEEK OF THE COURSE TAKES PLACE. THESE LOCATIONS ARE:

- THE KEENAN-FLAGLER SCHOOL OF EXECUTIVE EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, NC.

- THE WHARTON SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN PHILADELPHIA, PA.

- THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY IN BOSTON, MA.

IN THE CASE OF ASEP-S, THE COURSE IS CONDUCTED IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION (ARLINGTON, VA.) UTILIZING FACILITIES AND LODGING IAW THE PUBLISHED GOVERNMENT RATE IN THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATION (JTR).

71. Page 9 item 12 (security training sessions) - How many hours are required for the 4 training items listed as requirements for the EC and contract support staff? (item 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4) They are required to have three: AT I, iWatch, and OPSEC, each is no more than 1hr/each, so 3 hours.

72. Who is the incumbent that currently provides coaching in support of the ASEP-A course?

SEE Q 35.

73. Regarding the coaching sessions to occur at both the ASEP-A and ASEP-S on-site course locations, will there be only one timeslot determined by the government to conduct the face to face session (for example only 9-10am EST for ASEP-S), or, does the contractor have flexibility over the entire day of each course to schedule timeslots with the executives? THE GOVERNMENT WILL DETERMINE THE TIME SLOT FOR THE FACE TO FACE SESSION.

74. In section 3.2, the RFQ states that “all coaches interacting with General Officers must have completed an Accredited Coaching Training Program (ACTP) and be certified by the International Coaching Federation (ICF)”. Would coaches who completed a non-ACTP program (such as all ivy-league and most university-based coaching programs), whose education was approved by ICF through their certification process also be eligible to deliver under this ASEP-S course? NO.

75. In Section 4.2a, can you expand on the level of security required for the server that will be hosting the web-based assessments? Are unique username & passwords for each participant sufficient or is there a higher-level of security required? THE SERVICE PROVIDER’S IT INFRASTRUCTURE AND SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS MUST PROVIDE SECURE DEPLOYMENT OF SERVICES, ENCRYPTED STORAGE OF BACK-UP DATA WITH END-USER PRIVACY SAFEGUARDS, ENCRYPTED COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN SERVICES, AND SAFE OPERATION BY CUSTOMERS. OUR EXPECTATION IS THAT ANYONE SOLICITING FOR THIS REQUIREMENT ALREADY HAS APPROPRIATE SECURE IT INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE.

76. In Section 4.4, can you expand on the level of security requirement for the portal that will host the ASEP-A course engagement plan? THE SERVICE PROVIDER’S IT INFRASTRUCTURE AND SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS MUST PROVIDE SECURE DEPLOYMENT OF SERVICES, ENCRYPTED STORAGE OF BACK-UP DATA WITH END-USER PRIVACY SAFEGUARDS, ENCRYPTED COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN SERVICES, AND SAFE OPERATION BY CUSTOMERS. Are unique username & passwords for each participant sufficient or is there a higher-level of security required? UNIQUE NAMES AND PASSWORDS ALONG WITH WHAT IS DESCRIBED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS QUESTION MUST BE THE STANDARD. OUR EXPECTATION IS THAT ANYONE SOLICITING FOR THIS REQUIREMENT ALREADY HAS APPROPRIATE SECURE IT INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE.

77. This is not mentioned in the RFQ – but are there any requirements for level of security for the email system that will be used to communicate with the participants? THE SERVICE PROVIDER’S IT INFRASTRUCTURE AND SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS MUST PROVIDE SECURE DEPLOYMENT OF SERVICES, ENCRYPTED STORAGE OF BACK-UP DATA WITH END-USER PRIVACY SAFEGUARDS, ENCRYPTED COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN SERVICES, AND SAFE OPERATION BY CUSTOMERS. OUR EXPECTATION IS THAT ANYONE SOLICITING FOR THIS REQUIREMENT ALREADY HAS APPROPRIATE SECURE IT INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE.

78. In Section 9, places of performance include Chapel Hill, NC; Philadelphia, PA and Boston, MA for ASEP-A and the National Capital Region for ASEP-S. Will the US Army War College in Carlisle PA also be a place of performance as listed in the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation? NO, NOT AT THIS TIME.

79. In Technical Evaluation Criteria, Subfactor 4 (must adhere to the relevant standards of the American Psychological Association (APA) regarding ethics in coaching and confidentiality of data) the RFP requests that “evidence of this must be provided to AWC/ASEP in writing and notarized by the APA that the contractor does in fact adhere to the aforementioned standards”. Does the firm need to provide this evidence or is the RFP asking that each coach have this done on an individual basis? THE FIRM/COMPANY MUST PROVIDE THIS EVIDENCE AND OUR EXPECTATION IS THAT WHAT YOU PROVIDE APPLIES TO EACH OF YOUR COACHES AS WELL.

80. In Technical Evaluation Criteria, Subfactor 6 (must have existing contractual relationships with an adequate number of skilled coaches to support this work both initially and as it grows), the RFQ requests that “the existence of said contractual relationship must be provided in writing and notarized and presented to AWC/ASEP”. Would a notarized letter from the CEO of the Executive Coaching organization suffice for this requirement? YES.

81. In Technical Evaluation Criteria, Subfactor 7 (must have a documented and practiced approach to the recruitment, hiring, on-boarding and continuing evaluation of their coaches), the RFQ requests that “evidence of this capability must be provided in writing and notarized and presented to AWC/ASEP”. Would a notarized letter from the CEO of the Executive Coaching organization suffice for this requirement? YES.

82. Section 13, Qualifications, states “ Under the provisions of a Low Priced Technically Accepted (LPTA) evaluation, each coach interacting with a General officer or student class, will provide hard copies of their ACTP and ICF certificates prior to the commencement of work, in order to provide proof that the aforementioned qualification skills are held by the coaches." We understood from reading the Evaluation Criteria that this award would be based on “best value” (neither lowest price nor necessarily highest technically rated), Would you kindly confirm whether this will be LPTA or Best-Value?

SEE Q26.

83. Understanding that this is a new requirement and that there is no incumbent in place, has any other contractor provided executive coaching services to this organization in the past? If so, who are they and how long have they provided services?

NO.

84. Has any contractor provided any input to this RFP?

NO. HOWEVER, INDUSTRY INPUT MAY INFLUENCE AMENDMENT TO THIS SOLICITATION.

85. Can the government provide any additional information clarifying the level of effort? For example, what involvement are you expecting from the coaches in the training session, if any? What briefing is the government expecting each coach to be provided to understand the organizational culture? Does the government have any perspective on the number of coaches that you are expecting to provide services under this agreement? WE EXPECT FILL INVOLVEMENT FROM THE EXECUTIVE COACHES IN THE TRAINING SESSIONS/FACE TO FACE ENGAGEMENTS. THE FOCUS OF THIS EXECUTIVE COACHING IS ON THE INDIVIDUAL IRRESPECTIVE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE. THE GOVT EXPECTS ONE COACH PER INDIVIDUAL RECEIVING COACHING.

86. We understand that this is a Total Small Business Set Aside. Will there be any additional consideration given for MBE/WBE firms?

NO.

86. Has a budget been established for this work?

YES.

87. Please clarify the due date and time: On p. 1 of the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation states that “Quotes are due No Later Than (NLT) 17 Jan 2019 at 7:30 a.m. EST.” and then on p. 14 ADDENDUM to 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO QUOTERS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2015) A.1. Quotes shall be submitted via email to… prior to 15 Ja 2019 at 7:30 a.m. EST.

PLEASE SEE Q28.

88. The solicitation makes several mentions of an Accredited Coach Training Program (ACTP). For instance, on page 10, Qualifications it states that all coaches must have completed an Accredited Coach Training Program (ACTP). Can the Government please provide details on what will be considered an Accredited Coach Training Program? ACTP’s ACCREDITED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COACHING FEDERATION (ICF).

89. The solicitation makes several mentions of the APA’s standards of ethics in coaching confidentiality, what will the government accept as proof of this requirement? A CERTIFICATE, NOTARIZED OR OTHER LEGAL DOCUMENT, OR LETTER FROM THE APA THAT REFLECTS YOUR ORGANIZATION MEETS THE APA’S STANDARD OF ETHICS.

90. Can the government confirm that the period of performance for this requirement is February 1, 2019 to October 31, 2019? Page 21, Can the government confirm the pricing should only include training for the base year (CLIN 0001, 0002, and 0003)? YES

91. Is it mandatory that all officers participate in the coaching, or is it optional? Factor 3: Price states “Price will be evaluated on a total price basis and will include base year and all options”, what is the period of performance for the options years? ALL OFFICERS ATTENDING THE ASEP-A AND ASEP-S COURSE WILL PARTICIPATE IN THE INTIAL FACE TO FACE SESSION CONDUCTED AT SAID COURSES. PARTICIPATION IS OPTIONAL AFTER THAT.

92. Will the government be responsible for the cost of the web-based assessment, such as the Hogan Assessment? Or is the contractor responsible for the web-based assessment? If the contractor is required to include pricing for the Hogan Assessment, will there be 32 General Officers that will receive the assessment during the entire period of performance? THE GOVT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST OF THE WEB-BASED ASSESSMENT. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONDUCT/EXECUTION OF THE WEB BASED ASSESSMENT, AND YES WE ANTICIPATE THAT APPROX 32 GENERAL OFFICERS WILL PARTICIPATE.

93. The PWS 4.4 refers to a post ASEP-A course engagement, how many hours does the Government require to be allotted for each General Officer? THIS WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE COACHING RECIPIENT AND THE EXECUTIVE COACH BASED ON MUTUAL SCHEDULES, ETC. How many coaching sessions does the Government require for each General officer during the post ASEP-A course engagement? THERE IS NO FIRM NUMBER OF REQUIRED SESSIONS. THIS WILL LARGELY BE DETERMINED BY THE COACHING RECIPIENT BASED ON HIS OR HER OPINION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EXECUTIVE COACHING.

94. When does the government plan to award the work?

CURRENT PLAN IS PRIOR TO JANUARY 31, 2019 SUBJECT TO SITUATIONAL CHANGE.

95. Section 11, Courses Supported in the RFQ indicates the contract will be for three courses in the base year, with the possibility of adding additional courses. Does the government have an estimate of the number of courses to be delivered in future years? IF THIS EFFORT RECEIVES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY APPROVAL THERE WILL BE A TOTAL OF 6 COURSES (3 EACH OF ASEP-A AND ASEP-S) PER FISCAL YEAR.

96. Following the initial, face to face coaching, is there a designated timetable for completing the follow up coaching with the coaching recipients? THIS WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE COACHING RECIPIENT AND THE EXECUTIVE COACH BASED ON MUTUAL SCHEDULES, ETC.

97. Following the completion of coaching with coaching recipients, does the government require that the contractor conduct an assessment of the coaching? YES. IN GENERAL TERMS SO AS TO NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVAVCY OF THE COACHING RECIPIENT.

98. Section 3.3, As a member in good standing with the APA for 30 years, and as an organizational psychologist, I’m unclear as to what should be notarized and by whom. PER THE PWS:

3.3. THE EXECUTIVE COACHING ORGANIZATION MUST ADHERE TO THE RELEVANT STANDARDS OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (APA) REGARDING ETHICS IN COACHING AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF DATA. EVIDENCE OF THIS MUST BE PROVIDED TO AWC/ASEP IN WRITING AND NOTARIZED BY THE APA THAT THE CONTRACTOR DOES IN FACT ADHERE TO THE AFOREMENTIONED STANDARDS.

3.5 THE EXECUTIVE COACHING ORGANIZATION MUST, AT THE TIME OF PROPOSAL, HAVE EXISTING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH AN ADEQUATE NUMBER OF SKILLED COACHES TO SUPPORT THIS WORK BOTH INITIALLY AND AS IT GROWS. THE EXISTENCE OF SAID CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP MUST BE PROVIDED IN WRITING AND NOTARIZED AND PRESENTED TO AWC/ASEP. FOR CONSISTENCY OF EXPERIENCE AMONG THE GOS, THESE COACHES MUST OPERATE ON A SHARED COACHING MODEL, AND THE EXECUTIVE COACHING ORGANIZATION WILL DESCRIBE THEIR MODEL IN THE PROPOSAL.

3.6 THE EXECUTIVE COACHING ORGANIZATION MUST, AT THE TIME OF PROPOSAL, HAVE A DOCUMENTED AND PRACTICED APPROACH TO THE RECRUITMENT, HIRING, ON-BOARDING AND CONTINUING EVALUATION OF THEIR COACHES. EVIDENCE OF THIS CAPABILITY MUST BE PROVIDED IN WRITING AND NOTARIZED AND PRESENTED TO AWC/ASEP.