FFRDC MITRE JA - Final Fully Signed_Redacted.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

DLA has significant litigation and disclosure requirements including litigation before courts and administrative boards, Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests, investigation requests, Privacy requests, and Congressional Requests. Managing DLA’s work in compliance with contractual requirements generates a significant amount of legal actions. These disputes can lead to administrative litigations representing billions of dollars at issue.

DLA needs independent and unbiased advice and expertise that demonstrates improved litigation and disclosure results through the formulation of program office maturity assessment and readiness, development of litigated information governance strategy, supply chain and in the acquisition and implementation of solutions. DLA also needs independent and unbiased advice and expertise for reviewing the current state of the Privacy Program and to ensure that the program continues to be well positioned as a strategic risk management function for the agency. Tasks will include advising on electronically stored information (ESI) disclosure, information governance and Privacy.

MITRE is uniquely situated as an FFRDC to provide technical expertise and advice for DLA to determine the best approach to structure its procurements to obtain eDiscovery and ESI disclosure capabilities. For instance, as an FFRDC, MITRE will conduct investigatory findings of a technical nature regarding DLA’s current capabilities and make recommendations regarding future capabilities. Further, MITRE will provide technical advice on forthcoming DLA procurements, but will not compete for eDiscovery solutions and services ultimately procured through contracting methods.

Utilizing MITRE is required to avoid conflicts of interest that would occur if these services were to be obtained through the private sector. For instance, DLA cannot seek advice on procuring services and solutions from a vendor and then go out to procure those services and solutions from that vendor without creating inherent conflicts of interest. Further, notwithstanding potential conflicts of interest, only MITRE has the expertise required by DLA for these specific services based on MITRE’s experience advising other federal agencies in the same area.

DLA does not have in-house resources available to do this work so it seeks the enduring strategic partnership with an FFRDC consistent with the IRS contract strategic management support along with procurement support functional areas. This work will require access to certain highly sensitive DLA privileged, proprietary planning and budget information that is only appropriate for an FFRDC. MITRE will not perform any inherently governmental responsibilities. DLA needs to engage with the IRS FFRDC for their strategic management expertise, unique access to proprietary information, ability to work across Government, and deliver independent conflict-free advice.

Services will be provided primarily at Fort Belvoir, VA, but can also support actions at other DLA Major Subordinate Command (MSC) locations. Only an FFRDC can provide the independent, unbiased technical advice DLA requires. The proposed procurement action will result in the award of a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) task order.

The tasks required in this requirement are not sufficiently defined to allow for a fixed-price

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 type contract. In this scenario when a cost reimbursement contract is necessary in accordance with FAR 16.301-2, the Contracting Officer may use a cost contract type in accordance with FAR 16.3. Per 16.302, “A cost contract may be appropriate for research and development work, particularly with nonprofit educational institutions or other nonprofit organizations.”

Since FFRDC MITRE is a non-profit research institution which conducts research and development work, DLA’s use of a cost contract in this context is appropriate.

A CPFF contract is appropriate considering the requirements of FAR 16.306 and pursuant to the sponsor agreement between the IRS and MITRE. As stated above, the conditions in FAR 16.301-2 are present, and the task order is “for the performance of research or preliminary exploration or study, and the level of effort required is unknown.” Specifically, the precise level of effort for the FFRDC research and strategy tasks listed in the Statement of Objectives (SOO) is not known to the specificity required for a fixed price contract.

3. A DESCRIPTION OF THE SUPPLIES OR SERVICES REQUIRED TO MEET

THE AGENCY’S NEEDS (INCLUDING THE ESTIMATED VALUE):

The period of performance will be for 12 months from date of order. The estimated cost of this requirement is and services are detailed below and provided in more detail in the Statement of Objectives:

Task #:

Task 1 – Project Management:

This effort will be managed via a Project Work Plan (PWP) developed by MITRE and approved by the Government Task Manager (GTM) personnel and Contracting Officer Representative (COR). Upon award MITRE will host a kick-off meeting to review the task order approach, receive clarifying requirements, initiate exchange of government furnished information, establish a rhythm of weekly project status reviews, and identify key stakeholders that will lead to the development of the PWP. MITRE will deliver monthly progress reports to the COR or GTM personnel ensure its expenditure of resources is consistent with and focused upon the successful completion of all task activities within the projected cost and schedule limitations. Monthly progress reports will describe the accomplishments for the month, anticipated activities for the upcoming month, any risks or issues including recommendations, and financial status.

Task 2 – Electronically Stored Information Disclosure and Discovery (ESIDD)

Advisory Support:

DLA seeks an eDiscovery/ESIDD solution that provides enterprise-level, end-to-end capabilities that are cost-effective and scalable without placing an unreasonable burden on employees. MITRE will provide advice, guidance, and subject matter expertise in support of the Electronically Stored Information Disclosure and Discovery (ESIDD) solution implementation.

Task 3 – Privacy Program Strategy:

MITRE will provide advice, guidance, and subject matter expertise in support of

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 developing and implementing a Privacy Program strategy to achieve compliance with the requirements of OMB A-130 and the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA). The strategy will position the program as an integral part of DLA risk management activities, including DLA implementation of the Risk Management Framework (RMF), and ensure the program addresses its compliance obligations under applicable laws, regulations, and policies (e.g., the requirement to develop a Privacy Program Plan under OMB A-130). MITRE will analyze DLA privacy program activities, governance structure (including available tools) and recommend a roadmap for advancing the program. To make recommendations regarding DLA’s strategy and roadmap, MITRE will conduct two primary activities to understand the current state of privacy activities

1) Interviews with the DLA Chief Privacy Officer, the Chief of DLA Cybersecurity, Policy and Oversight, information security managers, and others that support privacy efforts within the Agency; and

2) A review of DoD’s and DLA's existing privacy-related policies and procedures.

Task 4 – Information Governance:

A successful Information Governance program requires Records and Information Management (R.I.M.), eDiscovery, Privacy, and Security to work together. Having the right tools in place to collect, analyze, review and dispose of electronically stored information is of critical importance for effective information governance, but is no longer enough to position DLA at the forefront. DLA needs to address the people, principles and processes that are integral to proactive Information Governance.

MITRE will provide subject matter expertise to support DLA in establishing the oversight and performance of the IGC that can include supporting compliance with IGC decisions, recommending information governance stewardship, understanding the growing number of sources for data, and guiding cross-functional cooperation. MITRE recommendations that will assist DLA with developing effective information governance is an outcome of this task.

MITRE will evaluate appropriate frameworks to achieve an accountable Agency-level maturity of Information Governance.

4. AN IDENTIFICATION OF THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY PERMITTING

OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION:

The statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition is 10 U.S.C.

2304(c)(3), as implemented by FAR 6.302-3 “Industrial mobilization; engineering, developmental, or research capability; or expert services.”

Specifically, the FAR permits sole source contracting to “establish or maintain an essential engineering, research, or development capability to be provided by an educational or other nonprofit institution or federally funded research and development center.” FAR 6.302-

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

3(a)(2)(ii). Specifically, this section is permitted for use in the contracting of services incident to “engineering or developmental work calling for practical application of investigative findings and theories of scientific or technical nature.” Id. Under this task order, MITRE will be making investigative findings of a technical nature and recommendations to DLA regarding DLA’s eDiscovery and ESI disclosure programs and related future procurements.

The development of these capabilities is an essential requirement in order for DLA to meet its legal obligation to conduct eDiscovery and disclose ESI in accordance with law.

FFRDC’s are permitted to be used pursuant to FAR Part 35.017 where a “special or long-term need” and the FFRDC has “access, beyond that which is common to normal contractual relationship, to Government and supplier data, including sensitive and proprietary data . . . .”

FAR 35.017(a)(2). The FFRDC operates in the “public interest with objectivity and independence, to be free from organizational conflicts of interest.” Id. The FFRDC “may perform work for other than the sponsoring agency [here, DLA utilizing MITRE’s sponsor agreement with the IRS] under the Economy Act . . . when the work is not otherwise available from the private sector. The technical unbiased work and advice DLA requires is not available from the private sector.

DLA has the special need of independent and unbiased advice and expertise that demonstrates improved litigation and disclosure results through the formulation of program office maturity assessment and readiness, development of litigated information governance strategy, supply chain and in the acquisition and implementation of solutions.

DLA does not have in-house resources available to do this work so it seeks the enduring strategic partnership with a FFRDC consistent with the IRS contract strategic management support along with procurement support functional areas. This work will require access to DLA proprietary planning and budget information that is only appropriate for an FFRDC.

Additionally, this work requires access to Government and contractor information that is only appropriate for the independence of an FFRDC. Therefore, DLA needs to engage with the IRS FFRDC for their strategic management expertise, unique access to proprietary information, ability to work across Government, and deliver independent conflict-free advice.

DLA initially sought services through other Department of Defense FFRDCs, but was instructed by the Department of Defense’s Strategic Initiatives Program that such resources were not available through the Department. MITRE is the only known FFRDC that can provide the required services that will meet DLA’s requirement.

5. A DEMONSTRATION THAT THE PROPOSED CONTRACTOR’S UNIQUE

QUALIFICATIONS OR THE NATURE OF ACQUISITION REQUIRES USE OF

CITED AUTHORITY:

As discussed above, only FFRDC MITRE CEM can perform this work. DLA requires unbiased technical advice, unique to an FFRDC.

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

6. DESCRIPTION OF EFFORTS MADE TO ENSURE THAT OFFERS ARE

SOLICITED FROM AS MANY POTENTIAL SOURCES AS IS PRACTICABLE,

INCLUDING WHETHER A NOTICE WAS OR WILL BE PUBLILCIZED AS

REQUIRED BY SUBPART 5.2 AND, IF NOT, WHICH EXCEPTION UNDER 5.202

APPLIES:

As discussed above, only FFRDC MITRE CEM can provide the services to meet DLA’s need. For this reason, this action will be processed as a directed award to MITRE, and no additional sources will be solicited. The proposed contract action is made under the terms of an existing contract; therefore, FAR exception 5.202(a)(11) applies.

7. A DETERMINATION BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT THE

ANTICIPATED COST TO THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE FAIR AND

REASONABLE:

The Contracting Officer will use the proposal analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1 to determine the proposed cost to be fair and reasonable prior to award. This will include techniques at FAR 15.404-1(4) (cost analysis) and 15.404-1(b)(2)(v) (comparison to the IGCE) at a minimum.

8. A DESCRIPTION OF THE MARKET RESEARCH CONDUCTED AND THE

RESULTS OR A STATEMENT OF THE REASON MARKET RESEARCH

WAS NOT CONDUCTED:

This work requires access to Government and contractor information that is only appropriate for the independence of an FFRDC. DLA needs to engage with the IRS FFRDC for their strategic management expertise, unique access to proprietary information, ability to work across Government, and deliver independent conflict-free advice. Specifically, only FFRDC CEM has the availability, expertise and the unique relationship with government to provide the unbiased technical legal advice DLA requires. DLA initially sought services through other Department of Defense FFRDCs, but was instructed by the Department of Defense’s Strategic Initiatives Program that such resources were not available through the Department’s FFRDCs.

Commercial entities cannot provide the kind of unbiased technical advice the Government is seeking from MITRE as outlined in the Statement of Objectives. For instance, the Government cannot consult eDiscovery contractors as their advice could be biased towards their products or services that DLA may wish to procure at a future date pursuant to competitive procedures.

FFRDC MITRE CEM has advised many other federal agencies regarding their eDiscovery and legal disclosure capabilities and assist in developing requirements for future procurements, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Social Security Administration, and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

9. ANY OTHER FACTS SUPPORTING THE USE OF OTHER THAN FULL AND

OPEN COMPETITION, SUCH AS:

Legal support for the use of this authority has been provided above.

10. A LISTING OF THE SOURCES, IF ANY, THAT EXPRESSED, IN WRITING, AN

INTEREST IN THE ACQUISITION:

As described above, MITRE FFRDC CEM is the only source who can meet DLA’s requirement. No other vendors have expressed written interest in this acquisition.

11. A STATEMENT OF ACTIONS, IF ANY, THE AGENCY MAY TAKE TO

REMOVE OR OVERCOME ANY BARRIERS TO COMPETITION BEFORE

ANY SUBSEQUENT ACQUISITION FOR SUPPLIES OR SERVICES

REQUIRED:

DLA has and continues to exercise competition as often as possible and is required to conduct on-going reviews to keep abreast of new technology, both in industry and in the Government as a continuing effort within DLA. DLA always uses a variety of vendors, manufacturers and contracts to fulfill its requirements and will continue its practice of surveying the market to ensure future full and open competition. However, due to the unique nature of this requirement for unbiased expert technical advice related to eDiscovery, this requirement could not be competed. However, one of the main objectives of this program is to develop the ability to proceed with competitive acquisitions of eDiscovery solutions that will be developed by

MITRE.

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

12. CONTRACTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION THAT THE JUSTIFICATION IS

ACCURATE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF THE CONTRACTING

OFFICER’S KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF:

REQUIREMENTS / TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the information contained in this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief, Program Manager DLA Information Operations, J62K

CONTRACTING CERTIFICATION

I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Contracting Officer DLA Contracting Services Office

I have reviewed and approve this justification.

Competition Advocate DLA Contracting Services Office