STRI BAA Amendment 7 for HDTRA122S0004 -20230920_Final.pdf

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT

HDTRA1-22-S-0004

AMENDMENT 07

This amendment updates Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) HDTRA1-22-S-0004 as specified below. Please refer to the BAA for all other guidance and requirements.

GENERAL INFORMATION

NAICS CODE: This section is replaced with the following.

a. 541715

b. 541611

c. 541690

d. 541713

e. 541714

f. 541715

g. 541720

h. 541990

FEDERAL AGENCY NAME. This section remains current. Please refer to the General Information, Federal Agency Name section of BAA HDTRA1-22-S-0004.

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT TITLE: This section remains current. Please refer to the General Information, Broad Agency Announcement section of BAA HDTRA1-22-S-0004.

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: This section remains current. Please refer to the General Information, Broad Agency Number section of BAA HDTRA1-22-S-0004.

I. Program Description

1. Statement of Objective and Need. This section is replaced with the following:

a. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) enables the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), the U.S. Government (USG), and international partners to counter and deter weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and emerging threats. When referring to WMD, the Agency is specifically focused on nuclear, chemical, and/or biological weapons. When referring to emerging threats, the Agency is focused on the development of materials or methodologies with the potential to create new, or increase the impact of, existing forms of traditional WMD. The weaponization and/or employment of known or previously undiscovered pathogens, the advancement of a new means to deliver chemical or biological weapons more efficiently, or the novel use of traditional WMD material in previously unknown ways, for instance, are all examples of such threats.

b. The Strategic Integration Directorate (SI), Strategic Trends Office (SI-ST)’s primary responsibility is to generate timely, credible, actionable insights and recommendations into emerging threats within DTRA’s mission space in order to enable and guide warfighter understanding of the range of military operations in the next five (5) to ten (10) years. DTRA SI-ST serves an advisory role. Its activities focus on characterizing the future battlespace to inform future DTRA and DoD operations, activities, and investments, particularly in areas most relevant to DTRA’s mission space. This five (5) to ten (10) year timeframe was specifically chosen to allow DTRA, DoD, and the countering WMD community an appropriate amount of time to mitigate the anticipated threats.

c. Given the complexity of the challenges/topic areas and the need to consider and incorporate a range of viewpoints and analyses, DTRA SI-ST seeks to partner with the expert community to achieve mission success. This is achieved by sponsoring analytic research efforts through the Strategic Trends Research Initiative (STRI). STRI delivers analytic research products that not only provide insight into the future battlespace in mission-relevant areas but also identify credible/timely recommendations for how (in priority order) DTRA, DoD, and, more broadly, the USG can address the identified challenges, threats, and issues, including in cooperation with allies and partners.

d. DTRA SI-ST is announcing its intent to solicit white papers and proposals for analytical research through this BAA. This approach provides a flexible acquisition tool to solicit unclassified white papers and proposals from the external expert community and make awards for expert-driven analytic research efforts that meet present, emerging, and future needs. While analytic research can take many forms, DTRA prioritizes the development of analytic research reports resulting from international dialogues and strategic studies. DTRA will provide guidance and direction throughout the life of awarded projects to ensure they meet DTRA’s needs.

e. The awarded research efforts constitute applied research and development rather than assistance and advisory services. DTRA is soliciting independently produced deliverables that are designed to identify and answer specific research questions using a specific research methodology that the applicant proposes. These methodologies (or approaches) can involve the conducting of events (for example, a strategic dialogue, a workshop/roundtable, or a tabletop exercise) as a mechanism to answer the specified research question. The event itself is not the sole expected output from the research project. Rather, it is the analysis of the findings from those events to inform a broader analytic research effort. The rigorous analysis will result in research products, which will inform DTRA’s and DoD’s thinking and advance applied scientific and technical knowledge in the specified topic area.

2. Anticipated Open Period.

a. This section remains unchanged. Please refer to Section I.2.a of BAA HDTRA1-22-S-0004.

b. This section is replaced with the following:

i. For priority FY 2024 funding consideration, please submit white papers by 11:59 p.m. Monday, October 16, 2023. Papers received by this date will be reviewed concurrently.

ii. DTRA accepts submissions on a rolling basis, but institutes priority review periods as a planning and work management mechanism. To that end, submissions received after 11:59 p.m. Monday, October 16, 2023, will be reviewed on an as-received basis, but not until those submitted by the suspense have been reviewed.

iii. DTRA will not consider submissions that cannot begin until FY 2025 (October 1, 2024). For priority FY 2025 funding consideration, please monitor SAM.gov for forthcoming amendments outlining research priorities for FY 2025.

c. This section remains unchanged. Please refer to Section I.2.c of BAA HDTRA1-22-S-0004.

3. Explanation of Research Interests. This section remains unchanged. Please refer to Section I.3 of BAA

HDTRA1-22-S-0004.

4. Research Thrust Areas. This section is replaced with the following:

a. While the research thrust areas are enduring for the life of this BAA, the specific priorities within each thrust may be modified at any time due to evolving mission needs and changes in the geopolitical environment. Changes to these thrusts, and specific priorities within each, will be articulated in BAA amendments that are issued at least once per fiscal year (FY).

b. In FY 2023, DTRA eliminated “Thrust Area 3: WMD-Relevant Tabletop Exercises” identified in Section I.4 of the BAA to simplify the program and eliminate confusion. The revised thrust areas are as follows:

i. Thrust Area 1: WMD-Relevant Track 1.5 and Track 2 Strategic Dialogues

ii. Thrust Area 2: WMD-Relevant Research Studies to Characterize the Future Battlespace

While no longer a separate thrust area, DTRA considers tabletop exercises (TTXs) (or “wargames”) to be a possible analytic approach or methodology used to conduct research studies and to develop and refine key findings and recommendations. TTXs can also be included in dialogues. However, DTRA does not consider TTXs to be a stand-alone deliverable.

c. Track 1.5 and Track 2 dialogues are bilateral or multilateral unofficial meetings that provide an opportunity for American experts to discuss important, and sometimes sensitive, strategic issues with their foreign counterparts in a private, welcoming environment, outside of official diplomatic channels.

i. Track 2 dialogues involve non-governmental expert representatives, to include former government officials. Current government officials do not participate unless they are providing a keynote address or are observing, which may be appropriate depending on the specific dialogue.

ii. Track 1.5 dialogues involve a mix of government officials—who participate in an unofficial capacity—and non-governmental experts. Track 1.5 discussions include government personnel on panels and in keynote speaker slots alongside non-government experts.

d. Thrust area descriptions:

i. Thrust Area 1: WMD-Relevant Track 1.5 and Track 2 Strategic Dialogues: Research projects that involve the execution and analysis of findings from bilateral and multilateral Track 1.5 and Track 2 strategic dialogues that provide a venue and engagement framework for structured, but informal discussions among subject matter experts, held under the “Chatham House Rule.” These dialogues can help provide the United States with strategic insights necessary to develop deeper, more meaningful relationships with existing allies and partners and/or establish new relationships with non-traditional partners as a mechanism to address mutual security challenges.

ii. Thrust Area 2: WMD-Relevant Research Studies to Characterize the Future Battlespace:

Analytic research studies that explore specific WMD-relevant threats, challenges, and issues of concern to the U.S. military. The studies should explore not only what the threat, challenge, or issue is and why it is strategically important, but also consider the impact on regional and global stability, and the implications for the U.S. military to maintain operational advantage. Each study—whether regionally or functionally-oriented—should specify actions the United States can take, including potentially in cooperation with allies and partners, to address the challenge, threat, or issue.

e. DTRA does not prioritize specific approaches or methodologies over others. The applicant should choose the method that best suits their particular topic area. Applicants shall review the BAA to ensure all submissions meet the general requirements listed therein.

f. During review, the evaluators will consider whether the proposed approach is an appropriate option or “good fit” for the research objective/problem statement.

g. DTRA may modify specific research priorities to meet evolving mission needs. To that end, we have updated the following information regarding our research priorities for FY 2024: 1) areas of general interest (see item I.4.k below); 2) areas specific to Thrust Area 1 (see item I.4.l below), and 3) areas specific to Thrust Area 2 (see item I.4.n below).

h. These specific topics and priorities remain in effect until replaced by another amendment outlining research priorities. These FY24 priorities supersede the research priorities identified in previous amendments.

i. Consistent with SI-ST’s mission, we seek insights and recommendations on future WMD and emerging technology trends that will challenge the United States and its allies and partners to defend against aggression, promote regional and global stability, reduce risk, and respond to crisis. To allow DoD and the U.S. Government (USG) adequate time to consider research findings and (as appropriate) implement recommendations, we appreciate proposed research efforts that are focused five (5) to ten

(10) years in the future. We understand this may not always be possible; however, DTRA will prioritize efforts that anticipate and mitigate serious challenges before they happen. We will also prioritize efforts that:

i. Apply to existing National Defense Strategy (NDS) priority countries.

ii. Explore compelling challenges that are not yet reflected as priorities in strategic guidance but may pose a serious challenge to U.S. interests in the next five (5) to ten (10) years.

j. All proposed efforts will be non-partisan.

k. Areas of general interest: The following areas may be addressed in either thrust area.

i. Future concepts and approaches related to working with allies and partners on WMD-associated topics including:

(1) Anticipating threats;

(2) Building capability and resilience;

(3) Crafting collective crisis response options;

(4) Preventing unintended or accidental escalation during crisis and conflict; or

(5) Creating, sustaining, and enforcing international norms regarding CBRN (including efforts with the Biological Weapons Convention, Chemical Weapons Convention, Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, etc.).

ii. Impacts of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and data science on the pursuit or advancement of WMD programs, employment options for WMD, and associated risks. This may include impacts of high performance and quantum computing. This may also apply to autonomous systems.

iii. Approaches to improve how the United States assures allies and manages alliances.

iv. Future trends related to biological warfare, biodefense, and bio preparedness including:

(1) Naturally occurring diseases;

(2) Accidental release of biological material; or

(3) Deliberate release of biological material by any actor or entity.

This may include options for improved collective biodefense (i.e., preparation, resilience, monitoring, and response) with allies and partners.

v. Future trends related to chemical warfare including accidental and deliberate releases.

vi. Approaches to crisis communications, crisis management, and crisis response in circumstances where CBRN could be or has been utilized.

vii. Potential future attacks on critical CBRN-related infrastructure as a method of warfare (e.g., kinetic strikes on a nuclear reactor or biological containment laboratory to cause a release).

viii. Future concepts and challenges to long-held assumptions related to deterrence theory, practice, and implementation.

ix. Changing or evolving drivers of leadership decision calculus regarding the pursuit of WMD and recommendations for how the international community can address those challenges.

x. Emerging disruptive technologies (EDT) that will:

(1) Change the characteristics of WMD;

(2) Shorten timelines associated with pursuing WMD programs;

(3) Increase opportunities to use and employ WMD;

(4) Pose proliferation concerns;

(5) Erode approaches to deterrence;

(6) Negatively impact escalation management; or

(7) Confound attempts to attribute WMD activities to specific actors.

This may also include existing technologies utilized in non-standard or innovative ways to change exiting WMD efforts. Technology may be considered in any discipline that impacts WMD research, design/development, production, or use, including novel delivery technologies or systems.

xi. Attempts and activities focused on eroding international WMD norms including efforts to:

(1) Avoid attribution; or

(2) Impede efforts by international organizations to minimize WMD proliferation (e.g., non-proliferation and counter-proliferation).

This may include foreign malign influence (“FMI,” or information operations by foreign countries to spread disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation) to complicate public and elected leaders’ understanding of issues related to WMD.

xii. The nexus of cyber and space domains with WMD and its effect on future conflicts.

xiii. Future trends related to:

(1) Nuclear warfare regardless of yield, delivery mechanism, domain of use, or actor;

(2) Over-the-horizon (OTH) challenges with countries beyond current NDS prioritization. Over-the-horizon challenges are generally characterized as those that can be reasonably anticipated as future challenges but not yet directly observed;

(3) Proliferation of materials of concern, technology, and expertise that can be utilized for designing, creating, storing, or employing WMD; or

(4) Radiological warfare regardless of scale of release.

xiv. The retention of operational advantage in a multi-polar, geographically dispersed, and/or overlapping crisis or conflict involving WMD.

xv. Future challenges, considerations, implications, and recommendations related to risk reduction and arms control including:

(1) Analytical gaps in technological verification capabilities, confidence-building measures, and operational concepts to strengthen international non-proliferation commitments;

(2) Priority risk areas and novel risk mitigation approaches including potential non-treaty, norms-based arms control efforts, particularly those related to space, dual-capable nuclear weapons systems, and biodefense;

(3) Risk reduction and confidence-building measures that could help ensure effective detection, reduction, or elimination of nuclear, radiological, and biological weapons; or

(4) Potential verification measures to support accountability within internationally recognized arms control or risk reduction regimes.

xvi. Future areas of strategic competition with Russia, China, or other adversaries in any domain, region, or technology area that may impact the ability of the United States to:

(1) Deter strategic attack against the United States and its allies and partners;

(2) Prevent, reduce, and counter WMD and emerging threats; and

(3) Prevail against WMD-armed adversaries in crisis and/or conflict.

xvii. Characteristics of future warfighting—domains, environments, and capabilities—that the joint warfighter may face and the implications thereof. This includes non-traditional qualities and attributes of technologies and weapons systems that could impact U.S. defense capabilities.

xviii. Characteristics of WMD modernization and/or expansion by any current WMD-possessing nation or non-state actor and how that change could impact regional and global stability, increase options for aggression, and present increased risks for crisis or conflict.

l. Priorities specific to Thrust Area 1: WMD-Relevant Track 1.5 and Track 2 Strategic Dialogues

i. WMD, defense, and military-relevant challenges and potential solutions related to China, Russia, the Democratic Republic of Korea (DPRK), and/or Iran.

ii. Science and technology enabling the research, development, storage, and employment of traditional WMD and non-traditional chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats.

iii. Measures to avoid or shape WMD use and conflict termination after WMD have been employed.

iv. Extended and integrated deterrence in the Indo-Pacific and/or Europe.

v. Future opportunities for arms control initiatives related to WMD.

vi. Courses of action for coordinated deterrence and defense between the United States and its Indo- Pacific allies and partners against potential WMD threats or use in a Taiwan conflict scenario.

vii. Methods to enable the United States and its allies and partners to prevail in a wider range of Indo- Pacific contingencies across multiple domains beyond a cross-strait conflict involving Taiwan.

viii. Measures to improve cooperation on deterrence and counter-WMD-related efforts between U.S.

Indo-Pacific allies and partners including, but not limited to, Japan, the Republic of Korea, India, and Taiwan.

ix. Future arms control challenges and potential opportunities for pursuing novel paths to address gaps in verification capabilities, confidence-building measures, and the establishment of international norms (especially related to space, dual-capable nuclear weapons systems, and biodefense).

x. Options to avert nuclear arms racing in the Indo-Pacific.

xi. Trends in Africa and South America that could lead to WMD crisis and conflict.

xii. Opportunities for the United States to collaborate with allies and partners to illuminate future trends related to biotechnology, biosurveillance, advanced missile technology, autonomous systems, space, cyber, and digital technologies and investigate the potential impact to countering WMD efforts.

xiii. Potential roles of U.S. European allies in deterring and responding to crisis and conflict in the Indo-Pacific.

xiv. New approaches to allied defense cooperation and coordination in a multipolar environment to support U.S. extended deterrence alliances in Europe and the Indo-Pacific.

xv. Approaches to encouraging deterrence and counter-WMD collaboration with U.S. partners in the Middle East.

m. Associated guidance for dialogues:

i. Please refer to Section I.4.c of this amendment for further information on what constitutes a dialogue for the purposes of STRI research. Expert roundtables or working groups that involve non-U.S. participants may not always meet the STRI definition of a dialogue. For example, projects that include roundtables or workshops intended to elicit expert feedback on analyses the project team is developing may be better suited for Thrust Area 2.

ii. The dialogues and accompanying analysis shall primarily focus on identifying and analyzing points of convergence and divergence in threat perspectives, obstacles, and opportunities for further collaboration and cooperation in military relevant (and especially WMD-relevant) areas, and potential activities that might be undertaken in support of shared security objectives.

iii. Each research project should generate a list of insights and recommendations at the conclusion for DTRA, DoD, and the CWMD community to consider.

iv. The insights and recommendations generated at the dialogue meetings should serve as the basis for the final technical report along with any additional analysis of the topic. The final technical report should not constitute a meeting summary, but rather an analysis of the discussion findings in order to answer the specified research question(s).

v. DTRA does not dictate which countries participate in the solicited dialogue-based research.

However, nation pairing ideally will allow for discussion on:

(1) Shared security objectives and/or threat considerations;

(2) Interoperability and desire to work together on defense and military-related issue sets for maintaining regional stability, enhancing deterrence, and reducing WMD threats;

(3) Defense and military-related topics, including those related to DTRA’s mission to safeguard the United States and its allies and partners against WMD and initiate cooperative activities aimed at improving regional stability and security;

(4) Assessing specific WMD and related emerging threat topics that are not addressed sufficiently in other dialogues (including Track 1 dialogues) and identifying innovative, cooperative responses to those threats; or

(5) Addressing the future of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, related technology development, and the impact of continued technology advancement on future CBRN crises or conflicts.

vi. DTRA is primarily interested in international dialogues rather than U.S.-only efforts, which can be better proposed as workshops, roundtables, or some other gathering in support of a study (Thrust

Area 2).

vii. We will not consider submissions that do not identify specific countries or fail to justify their inclusion in the engagement. Applicants should be specific about who they propose to invite and why.

viii. We will not consider dialogues that do not include a primary, concerted focus on WMD and related topics (e.g., deterrence, escalation, enabling science and technology, counterproliferation, etc.).

Dialogue events that are unlikely to include much, if any, detailed discussion of these topics are not a priority at this time.

ix. Applicants who propose dialogues involving experts from countries that do not traditionally consider WMD and related threats and issues should explain in their proposal how they will overcome obstacles related to participant interest in the topic and/or availability of experts.

x. Applicants who propose dialogues that address technology transfers and/or collaborations between the United States and allies and partners should detail the mutually beneficial impacts of any defense acquisitions on countering WMD and/or maintaining regional security and stability.

Specificity is highly encouraged.

xi. We are not interested in dialogues that primarily address economic, commercial, and trade-related topics between nations or corporate entities.

xii. If awarded, dialogue leads are expected to:

(1) Identify salient research questions and conduct preliminary research to inform the development of the dialogue’s agenda in coordination with DTRA and other stakeholders.

(2) Develop, vet, and coordinate the invitation list and agendas for all meetings connected to the dialogue with DTRA SI-ST. Careful selection of participants (including those in non-speaking roles) is needed to ensure the dialogue addresses and answers critical questions. Leads should promote balance in participation along ideological, gender, age, technical/policy, and organizational affiliation lines to avoid bias. Dialogue events are non-partisan. Panelists should be selected to ensure parity among all delegations (e.g., seniority and experience).

(3) Keep the sessions on track with the agreed agenda, introduce new concepts, challenge assumptions of the audience, and pose questions that generally do not allow for simple answers or solutions, all while building rapport between participants.

n. Priorities specific to Thrust Area 2: WMD-Relevant Research Studies to Characterize the Future Battlespace

i. China’s or Russia’s emerging strategic capabilities including nuclear, chemical, and biological threats, dissemination/employment systems, or emerging disruptive technology in the WMD arena, and the potential implications and solutions for the United States, in cooperation with allies and partners, to maintain strategic and operational advantage in key regions and disciplines.

ii. Levels of ambiguity and associated dilemmas for the battlespace posed by non-strategic and dual-capable systems that may challenge crisis stability.

iii. Emerging technology trends that could potentially impact future arms control initiatives related to space, dual-capable nuclear weapons systems, and biodefense.

iv. Possible adversarial intentions and strategies and the implications for U.S. strategy and policy related to:

(1) China’s nuclear modernization, expansion, and related strategies and plans as well as implications for China’s ability to project power and influence regional stability and global relations, or

(2) Iran’s potential nuclear and WMD intentions, posture, doctrine, and strategies.

v. Strategies, impacts, and implications of adversarial WMD disinformation and FMI campaigns in Africa (e.g., Kenya, Nigeria) and Southeast Asia (e.g., Philippines, Indonesia).

vi. Strategies and mechanisms the Iranian government uses to influence domestic and foreign opinion with regard to its nuclear program.

o. Associated guidance for strategic studies:

i. DTRA SI-ST will not consider any studies that do not include a clear focus on WMD issues/topics.

It welcomes studies that address the nexus with other warfighting domains (e.g., cyber or space), but those studies should be oriented in a way that aligns with DTRA’s WMD-focused mission.

ii. Studies can involve a variety of approaches to develop the analytic report, including (but not limited to) workshops, subject matter expert (SME) interviews, and TTXs. Approaches should be integrated to produce a cohesive analytic output. DTRA does not prioritize studies where the primary output is a workshop and the resulting technical report is a summary of the workshop proceedings.

iii. DTRA will consider studies that involve conducting SME interviews but is less likely to fund studies that heavily depend on the availability of a specific person or group of people, including in government. This is because external factors (e.g., schedules and real-world events) can impact access. Applicants proposing studies that involve a substantial interview component should detail alternative approaches as a risk mitigation measure.

iv. As necessary, applicants should explain how they will navigate challenges associated with the availability of, and access to, credible information to conduct research and offer a risk mitigation plan as appropriate.

5. Requests for Information/Industry Days: This section is replaced with the following:

a. DTRA SI-ST will hold a virtual Research Topic Information Session (RTIS or “industry day”) regarding STRI on Wednesday, October 4, 2023 from 2:00 PM to 3:30 PM EDT. The RTIS will highlight FY 2024 research priorities, submission deadlines for white papers, and other administrative updates to the BAA. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions about research priorities and other BAA-related contractual and administrative topics.

b. The intended audience for the RTIS includes prospective principal investigators (PIs) and research staff. We anticipate both procedural and substantive questions during the session.

c. To register for the RTIS, please email the STRI group inbox dtra.belvoir.si.mbx.hdtra1-stri-adm@mail.mil no later than 11:59 p.m. Monday, October 2, 2023. Please put “STRI RTIS Registration” in the email subject line. In the body of the email, please include the participant’s full name, title, citizenship, organization, phone number, and email address. On Tuesday, October 3, 2023, DTRA will send a link for the virtual session on the Zoom for Government platform to registered participants. The Zoom for Government platform does not require download or purchase. It will work through your Chrome or Edge browser.

d. Any questions before or after the event should be directed to the email address above. Please do not contact DTRA SI-ST personnel directly with questions, inquiries, or registration requests.

6. Deliverables: This section is replaced with the following:

a. All research projects awarded under this BAA will result in the same core deliverables as follows:

Item Deliverable Requirements 1 Monthly technical and financial progress report

• Use DTRA SI-ST template

• Submit no later than 15 calendar days following every 30-day period upon award

• Submit at the same time as the monthly labor mailto:dtra.belvoir.si.mbx.hdtra1-stri-adm@mail.mil mailto:dtra.belvoir.si.mbx.hdtra1-stri-adm@mail.mil invoice unless otherwise specified in the contract award

2 Communications and Engagement Plan

• Relay how the project will engage with specific USG leadership at the one-star or above level (SES, GOFO) as well as regional and functional offices within DoD and DoS specifically. This includes coordination (briefings, calls, meetings) and engagement with officials pre-, during, or post-project

• Detail engagement with specific senior foreign and non-government individuals in support of studies, dialogues, workshops, etc.

• Ideally submit with Kickoff meeting, but within 30 days of start of project

3 Draft Technical Report and Corresponding Executive Summary

• Use DTRA SI-ST template

• Submit no later than 30 days prior to the end of the period of performance for Government review

• Ensure language, tone, and level of detail is suitable for a diverse U.S. Government audience, especially DTRA and DoD

• Includes key findings and recommendations

• Align with page requirements, not including cover material, table of contents, and appendices o Technical Report – 12 to 15 pages o Executive Summary – No more than 3 pages

4 Final Technical Report and Corresponding Executive Summary

Same as above with the following changes:

• Submit no later than one week prior to the end of the period of performance for Government review

• Incorporate and address feedback on draft report and ensure the text is properly copy edited and formatted

5 Briefings • Kickoff briefing no later than 30 days post award

• Communication and engagement plan review (IPR) no later than 30 days post kickoff briefing

• Midpoint in-progress review (IPR) briefing

• Outbrief within the last month of the period of performance 6 Closeout Report • Use DTRA SI-ST template

• Submit no later than the end of the period of performance

• Cover both technical and financial elements in a single document

b. DTRA SI-ST will not accept alternative deliverables other than those specified above. Should an applicant desire to propose supplementary deliverables, they shall be represented as research tasks in the proposal and corresponding Statement of Research Work (SoRW).

c. If appropriate, DTRA SI-ST will pursue an unlimited distro/public release determination of the technical reports and executive summaries to provide the greatest flexibility to share in Government channels and, as applicable, with other researchers. Reports may be posted on the public-facing DTRA website. Potential sensitivities that would hinder or prevent the publication of a fully releasable report should be identified at the earliest opportunity to develop options. DTRA Public Affairs requires 15 business days to provide a release determination on reports DTRA SI-ST recommends for unlimited distro/public release. This timeframe includes a security review.

d. Performers are permitted to develop other reports and articles for public consumption based upon their DTRA SI-ST-sponsored research. However, DTRA SI-ST must receive and approve the technical deliverables before those documents are published in accordance with DFARS 252.204-7000 (Disclosure of Information).

II. BAA Process. This section remains unchanged. Please refer to Section II of BAA HDTRA1-22-S-0004.

III. Eligibility Information. This section is replaced with the following:

1. All qualified applicants from the following organizational types are eligible to submit unclassified white papers in response to this BAA.

a. U.S.-based, industrial and commercial entities, including small businesses;

b. Accredited, degree-granting public and private colleges and universities in the United States;

c. U.S.-based, not-for-profit research organizations, including think tanks;

d. University Affiliated Research Centers (UARC) unless precluded by their UARC contract (submit sponsor authorization with proposal submission); and

e. Federally Funded Research & Development Centers (FFRDCs), including U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories, unless precluded by their contract (submit sponsor authorization with proposal submission)

2. Foreign research organizations, including colleges, universities, and think tanks, in U.S. treaty ally countries (specifically NATO members, Australia, Japan, The Philippines, and Republic of Korea) are permitted to submit unclassified white papers in response to this BAA provided they meet the requirements to receive a USG contract award. However, as the research is primarily focused on generating insights for the USG, and specifically DoD/DTRA, they are encouraged to collaborate, partner with, or involve U.S.-based institutions or U.S. personnel to conduct the research. However, DTRA will only issue a single contract for each individual research project awarded under this BAA. The responsibility for sub-contracting and/or partnering agreements rests with the prime contractor (i.e., recipient of the contract).

3. A corresponding Government Call is being made available via email upon request to U.S. professional military educational institutions, U.S. military laboratories and research centers, and other federally-affiliated research institutions that are precluded from submitting to a BAA. Please contact the following email address with any questions or requests for the Government Call: dtra.belvoir.si.mbx.hdtra1-stri- Adm@mail.mil.

4. White papers and proposals from U.S. Federal Agencies and foreign governments, including sub-contracting efforts, will not be considered under this BAA.

5. Principal Investigators (PIs) are limited to U.S. citizens, U.S. green card holders, and citizens of U.S.

treaty ally countries (specifically NATO members, Australia, Japan, the Philippines, and Republic of Korea). Subordinate research team members may include non-U.S. citizens from ally or partner nations.

However, foreign nationals’ access to Government facilities, including the DTRA Headquarters, may be restricted for meetings and briefings. Access to unclassified data or information that has not been approved for public release may also be restricted. Requirements for access to other than publicly releasable, unclassified information will need to be discussed.

IV. Award Information.

1. Anticipated Funding. This section remains unchanged. Please refer to Section IV.1 of BAA HDTRA1-22- S-0004.

2. Number of Awards: this section is replaced with the following:

a. There is no set limit to the number of white papers or proposals an organization, team, or individual may submit under this BAA; however, the level of effort for each PI and project team member shall not reasonably exceed one (1) annual full time equivalent (FTE). PIs are allowed to pursue multiple, distinct projects concurrently, but shall take care to ensure each project can be performed to completion, meeting all requirements and timelines. The white papers and (if invited) proposals shall explain how this can be accomplished.

b. DTRA defines “multiple, distinct projects” as those projects that do not have a common research objective or cannot reasonably be expected to inform the completion of another. PIs interested in pursuing a research effort that includes multiple activities that require similar or overlapping analysis should consider proposing them in a single white paper and, if requested, proposal.

c. There is no set limit to the number of awards a single organization or individual may receive. All proposals that meet the technical criteria will be further evaluated based on mission need and resource availability. Each proposed project will be evaluated individually and all funding decisions will be made on a per-project basis.

d. DTRA reserves the right to request that related white papers involving the same PI be combined into a single proposal for funding consideration.

e. The number of awards resulting from this BAA will vary from year to year based on mission need and resource availability. There is no minimum or maximum number of awards.

3. Award Type. This section remains unchanged. Please refer to Section IV.3 of BAA HDTRA1-22-S-0004.

4. Period of Performance: this section is replaced with the following:

a. The base period of performance (PoP) for all projects should not exceed twelve (12) months. Ideally, we prefer shorter timelines to allow for quicker orientation to future WMD and emerging threat challenges. To that end, DTRA welcomes projects that are of shorter durations so long as they can be completed in the proposed timeframe. While DTRA prioritizes the completion of timely research, all products must also be thorough and credible.

b. To ensure year-by-year advancement of the research agenda and maximize efficiencies, DTRA will consider up to two contract option periods of no more than twelve (12) months each if proposed by the applicant. The white paper and, if requested, proposal shall clearly state what will be accomplished in the proposed option periods, why they are needed, and the additional value it will provide to the Government if approved. Proposals shall clearly detail the costs associated with each. DTRA reserves the right to award contracts without option periods. Applicants are not required to propose option periods. Projects that include proposed option periods and those that do not will be evaluated equally.

c. All required deliverables outlined in Section I.6 of this amendment shall be submitted at the end of each period (e.g., base or option period).

V. Phase 1 – White Paper Submission. This section remains unchanged. Please refer to Section V of BAA

HDTRA1-22-S-0004.

VI. Phase 2 – Proposal Submission. This section remains unchanged. Please refer to Section VI of BAA

HDTRA1-22-S-0004.

VII. Evaluation & Selection Process

1. White Papers (Phase I): This section is replaced with the following:

a. Starting in FY 2024, DTRA SI-ST will leverage a secure web-based collaboration platform to facilitate and streamline the internal evaluation process for white papers received under the BAA. This is an internal system used by DTRA staff only. In addition, while the evaluation criteria detailed in BAA Section VII (Evaluation & Selection Process) remain current, DTRA SI-ST will sharpen its focus on assessing the applicability of white papers to the DTRA mission, including applicability to the DTRA Director’s Strategic Intent and Strategic Initiatives.

b. White Papers (Phase I): A technical evaluation panel—comprised of at least two (2) DTRA SI-ST government civilians and/or military personnel with the appropriate subject matter expertise—will evaluate each white paper that meets the eligibility requirements outlined in Section III and include the information specified in Section V of the BAA. The panel composition will be based on the individual paper. STRI staff will consolidate the panel’s evaluations and associated recommendations for the Selection Board (SB, comprised of the Strategic Trends Research Manager and Project Manager (PM)) and the Selection Authority or SA (Chief, DTRA SI-ST).

c. Personnel “acting” as the Chief of SI-ST may perform the Selection Authority (SA) and Selection Board (SB) duties.

d. The Strategic Trends Research Manager or personnel designated as “acting” in that capacity will serve as one half of the Selection Board. “Acting” personnel are limited to certified STRI Project Managers and Contracting Officer’s Representatives (PM/CORs) that support STRI.

i. All white papers will be placed in one of two categories:

(1) Successful: White papers that meet the established criteria and will result in an invitation to submit a proposal.

(2) Unsuccessful: White papers that do not meet the established criteria and will not result in an invitation to submit a proposal.

ii. All eligible, complete, and properly formatted white papers will be evaluated based on the following four (4) baseline criteria. If the baseline criteria are not met, the paper will automatically be placed in the unsuccessful category. If the baseline criteria are met, the paper will be subject to further evaluation to determine whether it will ultimately be placed in the successful or unsuccessful category.

(1) Alignment with the proposed research thrust

(2) Applicability to the DTRA mission

(3) Applicability to the DTRA SI-ST mission

(4) Potential of research output to provide additional value to DTRA and DoD

iii. If the paper meets the previous criteria, it will be evaluated further based on the following additional criteria to determine if it is placed in the successful or unsuccessful category:

(1) Whether the problem statement is well-conceived and informed by an understanding of USG and DoD priorities and strategy

(2) Whether the proposed technical approach is suitable to address the specified problem

(3) Qualifications of the organization and the proposed PI to perform the research based on evidence of appropriate knowledge, experience, and capabilities (performance on past DTRA SI-ST contracts will be considered as applicable and appropriate)

iv. DTRA SI-ST defines a successful white paper as one that meets all four (4) baseline criteria and three (3) additional criteria.

v. All applicants will be notified regarding their white paper status via email.

(1) Successful white papers will result in an invitation to submit a proposal in accordance with the instructions outlined in Attachment 1 of the BAA. The email will highlight any suggested changes to incorporate into the proposal based on the technical evaluation panel and ST leadership’s input, as well as any requested clarifications. Such recommendations may include but are not limited to: (1) adding or eliminating a task; (2) reducing the scope and associated cost to align with resource allocations better; or (3) reorienting the problem statement and technical approach. The email will also include a proposal due date. Applicants may ask for clarification via email using the specified email address but DTRA is unable to provide additional information via phone calls or meetings.

(2) Unsuccessful white papers will result in an email notification that the submission is no longer being considered with a brief explanation. Requests for additional information about why DTRA is no longer considering the paper will not be considered.

2. Proposals (Phase II): This section is replaced with the following:

a. Starting in FY 2024, DTRA SI-ST will leverage a secure web-based collaboration platform to facilitate and streamline the internal evaluation process for proposals received. This is an internal system used by DTRA staff only. This will focus evaluations on assessing the applicability of proposals to the DTRA mission, including applicability to the DTRA Director’s Strategic Intent and Strategic Initiatives.

b. A technical panel—comprised of at least two (2) DTRA SI-ST government civilians and/or military personnel with the appropriate subject matter expertise—will evaluate all proposals based on the criteria outlined below. The panel for each proposal will remain the same as for the corresponding white paper. However, in the event any panelist is unable to perform these duties, the PM will assign a replacement with the same or similar subject matter expertise to evaluate the proposal. STRI staff will consolidate the technical panel’s recommendations for SB review/recommendation and SA decision.

i. Proposal evaluation will be based on the three (3) criteria listed below, which will each be assigned one of the following adjectival ratings: Outstanding (O), Good (G), Acceptable (A), Marginal (M), or Unacceptable (U). Any criterion scored as “Unacceptable (U)” will render the applicant’s proposal “Unawardable,” and the proposal will not be considered further. Panelists will be required to provide a written explanation of their rating for each criterion.

ii. Evaluation criteria to be used to evaluate and select proposals are listed below. All are weighted equally. Additionally, pursuant to FAR 35.016(e) fund availability shall be a consideration during evaluation.

(1) Applicability and Relevancy: Considerations include the applicability of the proposed research to the DTRA and DTRA SI-ST mission and the extent to which it has the potential to result in a timely and valuable product for DTRA and the DoD more broadly. This includes a consideration of whether the proposed research will result in actionable recommendations for not only DoD, but also DTRA specifically. DTRA SI-ST will also consider whether the expected benefit of the research to DTRA and DoD will exceed the associated cost.

(2) Technical Merit: Considerations include the appropriateness and suitability of the proposed technical approach for the specified research problem; whether the research is likely to result in a credible product; and whether the research problem statement and objective is well conceived. Other considerations include the potential for innovation or a unique output that will advance thinking on the topic, especially within DTRA and the DoD. DTRA SI-ST will also consider the level and type of risk associated with the specified approach and the extent to which the proposal identifies any risk mitigation measures.

(3) Qualifications and Staffing: Considerations include the extent to which the applicant provides demonstrated evidence of relevant knowledge, experience, and capabilities to perform the research as stated. DTRA SI-ST will evaluate the PI’s credentials as well as well as whether the proposed research team is suitable to perform the work as stated to the level required within the proposed period of performance. This may include a consideration of labor categories, number of personnel, and associated hours. As applicable, DTRA SI-ST will also consider past performance on DTRA SI-ST contracts.

Rating Description Outstanding (O) The proposal is a technically exceptional submission that is pertinent to program goals and objectives. The proposal contains multiple strengths that will provide significant benefit to the Government, and that far outweigh any weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good (G) The proposal is a technically thorough submission that is pertinent to program goals and objectives. The proposal contains at least one strength that will provide benefit to the Government, and that outweighs any weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable (A) The proposal is a technically adequate submission that is pertinent to program goals and objectives. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

The risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal (M) The proposal is a technically weak submission that is pertinent to program goals and objectives. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable (U) The proposal does not meet requirements or is not pertinent to program goals and objectives and contains one or more deficiencies.

The proposal is unawardable.

3. Proposal Costs Analysis and Negotiations. This section remains unchanged. Please refer to Section VII.3 of BAA HDTRA1-22-S-0004.

4. Basis of Selection. This section remains unchanged. Please refer to Section VII.4 of BAA HDTRA1-22- S-0004.

VIII. Administrative Information. This section remains unchanged. Please refer to Section VIII of BAA

HDTRA1-22-S-0004.

IX. Specific Rights Reserved For the Government. This section remains unchanged. Please refer to Section IX of BAA HDTRA1-22-S-0004.

X. Agency Contacts

1. This section remains unchanged. Please refer to Section X.1 of BAA HDTRA1-22-S-0004.

2. This section is replaced with the following:

Thrust Area Email Address Strategic Dialogues dtra.belvoir.si.mbx.hdtra1-stri-ta1@mail.mil Studies dtra.belvoir.si.mbx.hdtra1-stri-ta2@mail.mil

3. This section remains unchanged. Please refer to Section X.3 of BAA HDTRA1-22-S-0004.

4. This section remains unchanged. Please refer to Section X.4 of BAA HDTRA1-22-S-0004.

5. This section remains unchanged. Please refer to Section X.5 of BAA HDTRA1-22-S-0004.

6. This section remains unchanged. Please refer to Section X.6 of BAA HDTRA1-22-S-0004.

XI. Other Information. This section remains unchanged. Please refer to Section XI of BAA HDTRA1-22-S-0004.