HERE IS THE RESPONSE FROM THE PROGRAM 1. Mandatory Standardized Test Battery The RFQ specifies that each incumbent “must complete a standardized test package,” including specified questionnaires and standardized personality/psychopathology measures. The IACP guidelines provide that test selection must be determined by the examiner based on the referral question and clinical judgment (Guideline §9.1.1–§9.1.2). Clarification requested: • Are examiners permitted to modify the mandated battery, a requirement of administering specific testing would be in violation of best practices and guidelines. A: Modification to the battery is permitted as it pertains to the referral, however, must include present day standards and validated measures. 2. Required Collateral Information The RFQ does not specify the collateral documentation to be provided with each referral. The IACP guidelines require access to job-relevant records, including performance evaluations, disciplinary actions, triggering events, IA findings, and related materials (Guidelines §7.4). Clarification requested: • Will USMS provide all required collateral materials for each FFDE case? • If limited information is supplied, how should examiners note constraints or limitations in their reports? A: The Agency will furnish all collected evidence that triggered a referral for the FFDE. In rare situations when disclosure of specific evidence is restricted due to sensitivity, a summary of the underlying information will be provided. 3. References to “Suitability” Determinations The RFQ states that the contractor will “assess the psychological suitability of incumbents.” “Suitability” is an entry-level screening construct, whereas FFDEs, per IACP §3.1, focus solely on the employee’s ability to perform essential job functions, not personality-based suitability judgments. Clarification requested: • Should the contractor’s determination be limited to functional fitness vs. unfitness as defined under FFDE guidelines? • Or is the agency expecting suitability constructs similar to preemployment processes? I raise these questions solely to ensure that my proposal and any work performed under the award aligns with: • the IACP FFDE Guidelines referenced in the RFQ, • ADA Title I requirements for medical examinations, • relevant APA practice guidelines, and • accepted forensic and occupational evaluation standards. END A: Strike suitability, replace with fitness. The contractor should limit their conclusions to the functional fitness determinations outlined in the proposal: Fit, temporarily unfit for duty, unfit for duty. 4. Only question I would ask at this point is if the USMS would be open to feedback regarding the PAR and open to modifying practice to be consistent with standards/legal parameters? Program’s Question: Could they identify what about the PAR is inconsistent with standards and legal parameters? Vendor’s Response: This is an excellent question that may be best described over meeting yet here is the summary. These would be incumbent employees, not candidates for employment; thus, employment law applies and the content included is more restricted than say a pre-employment psychological evaluation. Several federal and other generally accepted cases have influenced this. Pettus V Cole and McGreal V Ostrov come to mind. ULtimately the PAR should include limited information to answer the questions at hand with other information redacted/protected. That is, unless relevant to the reason for the psychological fitness for duty concern, then it is generally not included. More overt examples of this would include background, childhood, even education history. Other factors may include specifics about relationship history, of course GINA, and other factors. This is not to say that the content isnt touched upon during the interview yet the document that is formalized has the potential to be highly scrutinized thus should be highly considered, especially with FOIA for the employee. I co-authored the IACP police psychological services section FFDE guidelines, and you will find a diversity of practices by experts nationally; however, it is FFDEs that can be particularly litigious thus the USMS needs an expert who consistently applies considerations such as above to protect all involved without compromise of the task at hand being completed. A: Content referenced above is expected to be touched upon during interview. Content is to remain between the examiner and examinee unless found to be directly relevant to the presenting issue. Any sensitive personal disclosures that do not connect to the referral question shall remain between the examiner and examinee. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: IS CLOSED. This procurement due date has been extended to 18 DECEMBER 2025,11:00 EST Response to questions are forthcoming. Thank you Please see attached SF1449 for Technical Specifications/Statement of Work NOTE in Subject of email: FY26-28 A45 Psychological fit for duty exam - 15M10226QA4700012 Email Completed quote to
[email protected] by 11 DECEMBER 2025 1100 AM EST