PRESOL | R | Net Assessments and the Long-Term Competition Project: Diagnosis of the US Position and Competitive Strength; Analytic Methods in Support of Long-Term Competition; and Strategic Approaches for the Future.

FBO DAILY ISSUE OF APRIL 23, 2005 FBO #1244
SOLICITATION NOTICE

R -- Net Assessments and the Long-Term Competition Project: Diagnosis of the US Position and Competitive Strength; Analytic Methods in Support of Long-Term Competition; and Strategic Approaches for the Future.

Notice Date: 4/21/2005
Notice Type: Solicitation Notice
NAICS: 541611 — Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services
Contracting Office: Defense Contracting Command-Washington(DCC-W), ATTN: Policy and Compliance, 5200 Army Pentagon, Room 1D245, Washington, DC 20310-5200
ZIP Code: 20310-5200
Solicitation Number: W74V8H-05-R-0037
Response Due: 6/9/2005
Archive Date: 8/8/2005
Small Business Set-Aside: N/A
Description: Statement of Work Project Title: Net Assessments and the Long-Term Competition Control # NA-05-30 Project COR: Rebecca C. Bash Acquisition and Financial Advisor OSD Net Assessment 1920 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301 Phone: 703-697-1312, Ext. 113 FAX: 703-695-3810 Email: Rebecca.Bash@osd.mil 1. BACKGROUND The idea of the long-term competition the notion that powers are engaged in a long running contest for position and influence in geostrategic affairs has for more than 30 years stood at the center of thinking about diagnostic net assessments and the de fense strategies these assessments support. As an analytic framework, the long-term competition perspective threw into sharp relief some of the most important questions about the overall U.S. position in the cold war; questions about how the U.S. was fari ng in those areas of military competition that were most crucial in the political-military contest with the Soviets. Now we face questions about how well this analytic framework can serve in a new competitive environment: what does the emerging long-term competition look like? What sub-competitions are most important? How can we measure U.S. performance in these competitions in the absence of a high-end competitor? How well do related ideas about strategies for competing over the long term ideas like cost-imposing strategies bear up in the new emerging competitive environment? The goal of the proposed project is to answer these and other related questions extensive analytic work on the changing competitive environment and the adaptation of traditional analytic methods and strategies to the new position, goals, and defense strate gy of the United States. 2. OBJECTIVE The objective of the proposed project is to assist the Director, Office of Net Assessment, in developing analytic approaches, intellectual frameworks, and strategic concepts related to adapting the long-term competition perspective to the emerging competit ive environment. 3. DESCRIPTION OF TASKS AND DELIVERABLES The approach for this proposed project is to undertake, in close coordination with the Director and others in the Office of Net Assessment, a thorough review of new approaches for analyzing U.S. performance in the long-term competition and the suitability of new strategies for success in this competition. The analytic and research program can be broken into three tasks: 1. Diagnosis of the U.S. Position and Competitive Strengths 2. Analytic Methods in Support of the Long-Term Competition 3. Strategic Approaches for the Future Task 1: Diagnosis of the U.S. Position and Competitive Strengths One of the first things to address is the problem of analyzing U.S. performance in the long-term competition. What is the new competition about? What sort of competitive position does the U.S. stand in today? What areas of military competition are likel y to be the most important in the decades ahead? How can we measure U.S. performance when the U.S. lead is so great and there is no identifiable high-end competitor? Answering these questions will begin with a diagnostic analysis of current competitive position of the United States. It is evident that the U.S. stands far ahead of the rest of the world in many if not most areas of military competitionthis is a legacy of decades of investment over the course of the cold war as well as the collapse of the Soviet Union. Any assessment of the competitive position of the United States must then take account of where these strengths are most pronounced: in what areas of mil itary competition is the United States most dominant? What are the military competences in areas such as training, or large-scale joint operations that are the real keys to U.S. military pre-eminence? There will also be consideration of more basic, structural advantages. A legacy of high investment during the cold war is not the whole of the story; the U.S. also possesses some set of unique competitive advantages cultural, social, political, geographic that have helped translate large-scale investment into military strength. What are these sources of U.S. military advantages? Finally, any complete diagnosis will have to address the matter of strategic fit: as we look across the advantages and competitive strengths that the United States brings to the competition, we will need to consider how well these are suited to the kinds o f missions the U.S. military will undertake in the decades ahead. Through a combination of discussions with subject-matter experts and independent research and analysis, the contractor will address these and related questions. The deliverable for this Task will be a written report not to exceed 20 pages as well as other memoranda, briefings, and short papers requested by the client over the course of the period of performance. Task 2: Analytic Methods in Support of the Long-Term Competition The work on this Task will focus on the development of new or adapted analytic approaches appropriate to evaluating U.S. performance in the long-term competition. One of the central questions regarding a greater emphasis on assessing areas of U.S. military advantage is how defense analysts might go about tracking the relative strength of these advantages over time. If we determine, for example, that the United Stat es has benefited from a history of organizational and technological innovation, how we can devise metrics or methods for chronicling the real depth of that strength as it changes over time? Addressing this question will entail serious thought about the ki nds of assessments that the measures and metrics will support, and about the problem of tracking slight but significant change over time. There is related work already underway in other parts of DOD, primarily related to the effort to develop approaches to Capabilities-Based Planning. This approach to defense planning is predicated on the notion that as the security environment has change d the U.S. should now place greater emphasis on understanding and exploiting its own strengths rather than planning reactively to the threats posed by opponents. The deliverables for this Task will include a series of memoranda and briefings for the Director, Office of Net Assessment, and other interested officials within the Department of Defense. Task 3: Strategic Approaches for the Future Task 3 will center on the development or revision of strategic concepts for the long-term competition relevant to the competitive position of the United States and the nature of the future security environment. How relevant are the kinds of strategic appr oaches initially developed during the long-term competition with the Soviets? At least two different strategic approaches will merit particular attention: " Cost-Imposing Strategies: Competitors have long sought opportunities to force their opponents to expend disproportionate resources in areas that appear unpromising or unthreatening. The U.S. may have a particular opportunity to pursue such a strategy gi ven the central role the country currently plays in international military competition. Considerable thought must be given to how, if at all, the concepts related to cost-imposing strategies have changed in light of the overwhelming U.S. superiority in av ailable defense resources and the wide array of potential opponents the country must take into account when trying to develop such strategies. " Dissuasion Strategies: The U.S. may also have the opportunity to drive opponents entirely out of some select areas of military competition. It is possible, through considerable investment in areas of comparative efficiency, that the U.S. may so raise th e barriers to entry that other countries simply abandon the notion of competing in that area. While this is an appealing concept, it clearly requires greater thought: What areas are most promising Have such strategies worked in the past? What are the consequences of failure? What are the metrics for success? The deliverables for Task 3 will consist of a written report not to exceed 30 pages examining various strategic approaches, as well as other memoranda, briefings, and hort papers requested by the client. Deliverables The Deliverables for this project will be: Task 1: A written report not to exceed 20 pages as well as other memoranda, briefings, and short papers may be requested by the client over the course of the period of performance. Task 2: A series of memoranda and briefings for the Director, Office of Net Assessment, and other interested officials within the Department of Defense. Task 3: A written report not to exceed 30 pages examining various strategic approaches, as well as other memoranda, briefings, and short papers requested by the client. 7. PLACE OF PERFORMANCE Due to of the evolving nature of this project and need for close collaboration, the Contractor shall provide on-site support for the duration of the period of performance. 8. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS Personnel cleared at the Top Secret/SCI level are required for the performance of this effort. A DD Form 254 will be provided. 9. SHIP TO Deliverables should be sent to: Rebecca C. Bash OSD Net Assessment 1920 Defense Pentagon Room 3A930 Washington, DC 20301 10. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE Base Period: The period of performance for this effort is 12 months from date of contract award. A 12-month option period will be included in the contract. Option Periods (if applicable): 52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT 11. PERFORMANCE REQUIRED BEYOND STANDARD WORK DAY The government expects a regular 40-hour workweek during the performance of this contract. 12. INVOICES Invoices, with the applicable deliverable, must be submitted to the COR named below: Rebecca C. Bash OSD Net Assessment 1920 Defense Pentagon Room 3A930 Washington, DC 20301 Information on proper submission of invoices may be found in the DFAS Contractor Payment Information Handbook at the following website: http://www.dfas.mil/commpay/contractorpayment/handbook.pdf The Government intends to use price and technical considerations in making award of this contract.
Place of Performance: Address: Defense Contracting Command-Washington(DCC-W) ATTN: Policy and Compliance, 5200 Army Pentagon, Room 1D245 Washington DC; Zip Code: 20310-5200; Country: US
Record: SN00793537-W 20050423/050421212023 (fbodaily.com)
Source: FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)

| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |

Loren Data's SAM Daily™

R -- Net Assessments and the Long-Term Competition Project: Diagnosis of the US Position and Competitive Strength; Analytic Methods in Support of Long-Term Competition; and Strategic Approaches for the Future.