LIMITED SOURCES JUSTIFICATION

Based on the followingjusti?cation, I hereby approve the use of restricting consideration of the
proposed contractual action to a single source pursuant to FAR 8.405-6.

JUSTIFICATION

1. AGENCY AND CONTRACTING ACTIVITY: 

Agency:

Department of Defense

Of?ce of the Secretary of Defense Of?ce of Military Commissions
4800 Mark Center Drive

Suite llF09-2

Alexandria. VA 22311?2100

Contracting Activity:

Department of Defense

Washington Headquarters Services Acquisition Directorate
1225 S. Clark Street

Arlington, VA 22202

2- DESCRIPTION OF ACTION (S): 
Approval of a sole source award to SRA International, Inc. The total estimated value for the

requirement is approximately $4,987,942 for a six month period of performance from I 1
November 20l5 to 10 May 2016. This will be contracted as a modi?cation to contract 
l4-F~0142. The current period of performance eXpiI'es on 10 November 20i5.

3. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES: 
OMC was established in 2001 to process military combatants via military commissions. This

requirement supports enerny combatant trials at US. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba.

OMC requires Security Advisers, intelligence Security Specialists, Security Officers,
and Investigators to assist case preparations for military commissions convened under the
Military Commissions Act of 2009. The services performed by the contractor personnel are vital
to the prosecution, defense andjudicial components of the mission. Ail contractor
personnel require a Top Secret security clearance eligible for Sensitive Compartmented
information (SCI) to support all aspects of the OMC mission. These services are provided in the
National Capital Region, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay Cuba, and various overseas
locations.

Section 2 from the current contraet?s performance work statement provides some details
concerning the scope and breadth of the services required by OMC. These services are described
in the below excerpts from the current PWS:

Analysis oflaiv enforcement and national intelligence data to develop leadsfor investigative
activity or further investigative/data anah'sis.

Data research and analvsis to support (tilOt?ttL?J? products.

Assist prosecutors and defense counsel in Military Commissions cases in all aspects ofprentrial
investigation.

Search. review. segregate, and analvze any and all records of interrogations. interviews.
statements. and other evidence either provided by or ohtained?'om current and former detainees
held by US. or coalition forces.

ldent?r and locate information contained on classified databases stored by various Government
agencies relevant to defense cases.

A shall search through information regarding al Qaeda and the alleged terrorist acts ofal
Qaea?a contained in numerous investigations conducted outside ofthe Commissions cases.
Etamples include the till i Commission. which involves millions cn?doeuments and over l.200
i-vitnesses; the investigation into the attacks on the US. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that
occurred in August 1?998. which was the largest investigation conducted abroad by the and
the investigation of the attacles on the United States of September . 2001. i-vhich involved more
than 1,000 FBI employees to support the investigation.

shall search records resulting?om US. Government interrogations ofdetainees held at
GTliiO. This assistance should talre the form ofsearching. reviewing. segregating. and analycing
any and all records of interrogations. intewiews. statements. and other evidence either provided
by or obtained from current andformer detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. as well as locating
information contained on classi?ed databases.

Anah'sts shall gather information from other US. agencies that have also participated in the
interrogation and investigation ofdetainees held at GTMO. Assistance is required in locating
information contained in classified databases maintained by US. and foreign agencies involved
in detainee interrogations and Operations. Did. FBI. CIA, and the FBI Joint Terrorism Task
Force have all been involved.

investigators shall assist de ense counsel in Military Commission cases in multiple areas of
investigation, including the following: allegations related to the case: 
history ofthe accused; (3) Government conduct of the investigation, interrogation.
and prosecution ofthe accused: expert witnessesfor and against the accused; (5) cultural
issues relating to the accused: (6) any other area ofimrestigation deemed necessary by counsel
for the accused

Investigators shall investigate factual allegations detailed in charges against the accused, most
ofwhich allegedlv occurred in. foreign countries. Investigation may involve facts alleged to have
occurred over the past several _vears and require detailed investigation of people and documents
located throughout the t-vorld.

Investigators shall investigate methods of interrogations used against the accused, as well as
against other witnesses whose statements might be used against the accused. Investigations of
other Government witnesses will he required.

As part of their duties, investigators shall identt?' additional prosecution and defense 1witnesses.
including. but not limited to, alibi witnesses.

and investigators shall he provided on a privileged lJasis (meaning 
privilege is protected) to counsel litigating militarv commission cases.

Court Information Security Q?icers shall act as principal security advisors to the Chief
Trial Judge; the Director. Trial .Ittdiciarv Sta?} and the sitting trialjudges. (7305' shall provide
expertise in advising trial judges on protective orders, proceduresfor using classified evidence
in trial proceedings. and all other aspects ofsecuritv requirements presented to the trial judges
for determination. shall worlc the (.?hiefClerlt of'the Trial JudiciaryT (?Chief
Clerk) 

CSOs shall ensure classified or protected information is not disclosed during Military
Con-unission sessions. CSOs shall examine allfilings, opinions, orders. and other materials
lcollectivelv ??ling" or ?filings filed with the Chief'Clerlt. to the
Department ofDefense Securitv Review Team ?Review
Teat-n and any appropriate nttn-DoD_ federal department or agencyfor classi?cation review.

Litigation Securitv Specialists (LSS) talso known as Court Security O?icers in the Federal Court
susteth shall serve as Q??icers ot'the Court in support ofthe Chief of the Q??ice ofCourt
Administration (OCA). OMC. The LSS shall serve in a neutral capacity. providing security
support and guidance to the OCA. the Court. as well as to the parties to the case with regard to
classi?ed information. LSS shall provide security support at the trial level. throughout the
appeals process. and tjfnecessatfv. to the United States Supreme Court. The LSS shall ensure the
proper handling and storage ofclassified im?orination??om the Commissions trials throughout
the appellate process to finalitv ol?the cases. These positions require extensive travel throughout
the United States and to wal Station Guantanamo Bav. Cuba with little or no advance notice.
On occasion. the work will require tr net to other overseas locations.

OMC-South Security Specialists shall perform a broad range ofSensitive Compartmented
Information (SCI) and collateral security administration work in support ofthe Q??icer?in-
Charg and Special Security Q?icer at US. Nm'al Station Guantanamo Bay 

ulna that includes Personnel Security. Information Security. Physical Security, Communications
Security, and Security Education and Awareness. Overall responsibilities include monitoring
policies, procedures. standards. and methods ofidenti?ting and protecting classh?ied
information. such as that related to personnel. property. facilities. and operations or other

materiai??om unauthorized disclosure, misuse, the?, espionage, sabotage or ioss. ilafusr have
proper courier documentation. Controls the maintenance ofandil t'raiisfor receipt, distribution
and processing control afaii official correspondence.

Defense Securinr Qf?trers (i330) perform a broad range of Sensitive Comparimenied
information (SCI) and collateral securitiv administration worir in support ofihe Chief Defense
Counsel ofiire O?iee Commissions or hisfher designee, specifically as it
reiares to the cases of United States v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad er. ai., United States v. ai
Nashiri. This includes information securiiv and implementation ofproreciive orders as directed
by the Military Judge. as applicable. Overall responsibilities include implementing policies.
procedures. standards, and methods of identifying andproieciing classified information.

4. AUTHORITY AND SUPPORTING RATIONALEHFAR sans?smoke)

A. Authority
In accordance with FAR ?only one source is capable of providing the
supplies or services required at the level of quality required because the supplies or services are
unique or highly Specialized." WHS, for the reasons outlined below, must award. the sole source
extension of the above contract for six months. The underlying MOBIS GSA contract contains
clause 52217-3 authorizing the Government to unilaterally extend the contract for six months.
Because the option to extend services was not evaluated when the current contract was awarded,
the extension, under applicable guidance from the Government Accountability Of?ce, is
considered a new sole source award and must be awarded under FAR 8.406-5.

B. Rationale
The limited sourco For this acquisition isjustified because, as explained in detail below, the
current comractor?s experience and expertise, in combination, make it the only source capable of
satisfying the Government?s unique and specialized needs. An award to any contractor other than
the incumbent would severely disrupt the Government's mission, delay upcoming trials for
various enemy combatants and cause the Government to incur needless and wasteful additional
costs. Thus, for the reasons set forth below. the sole source contract extension to SRA is justified
and in the Government?s best interest.

i. Acquisition Background

The requirements were initially awarded to ERA in 2007 via a task order issued under the GSA
MOBIS contract. Since the initial award to SRA, there have been two follow?on awards
(HQ-00344 l-F-0042 and Each time, ERA has been the awardee. SRA is
currently performing under task order which includes 45 FTEs and expires
on November 10, 2015..

On 5 May 2014, WHS issued a Limited Source Justi?cation under FAR 8.405-6 awarding 
current contract through November 10, 20d 5. The outlined WHS's intent to provide an 1
month base period plus a six month period for "transition." The plan was to compete the
requirement during the base period and then, if there was a new awardee, utilize the six month
transition period to allow SBA and the new contractor to work together to facilitate the transition
to the new contract without interrupting service to OMC. As explained below, the competition
for the new award was not held and there was no transition to a new contractor. The below
events made it imperative that the same contractor now providing the above analytical
and investigative services remain constant. Otherwise. there would be substantial interruption to

4

OMC's mission. Critical analytical and investigative skills would be lost through a chartge~over
in workforce to a new contractor. the resulting loss ot?subStantive factual and procedural
knowledge would substantially slow, and cause confusion to, the entire document review
process. Although incumbent personnel could be hired by a replacement contractor, there is
signi?cant risk that not all incumbent personnel. including critical management personnel. would
be retained by a new contractor. in addition. even if some incumbent personnel were retained.
there would be substantial delay, as explained below, due to security requirements applicable to a
new contractor.

ii. Events Competition

Numerous unexpected events occurred since May 2014 that made competing the requirement or
performing the requirement with any contractor other than SRA impossible without signi?cantly
interrupting mission and further delaying the military commissions. in addition, the
events changed the requirements in ways that are still evolving, such that it would be impractical
to conduct a competition based on uncertain requirements. These developments include:

a.

    

The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2014 (PL. 1 13-66}. Section 1037tc).
requires the "equitable resourcing" oi?both the prosecution and defense of?ces. Additionally,
a memhrandum From the Deputy Secretary of Defense, dated May 7, 2014, reiterates this
requirement to ensure equitable resourcing for the prosecution and defense. This new
requirement is best met by continued work performance by expert SRA contracth personnel
supporting all sections to include defense, prosecution, and the trial judiciary. The
expert SRA support to each of these sections is a critical element of the equitable resourcing
requirement mandated by Congress and directed by DOD.

In April 2014. various motions caused the militaryjudge in the 1 case- to stop holding
hearings until the issues raised in those motions were resolved. On 26 October 2015. the
Judge ruled that the hearings could now move forward since the issues raised in those
motions had been decided. The decision has changed the dynamics of the pretrial process
with deadlines imposed by the court. particularly in the 9/ 1 case. moving toward resolution
over the next few years.

Although the provision ofmateriais through the discovery process was known in May 2014,
it is of paramount importance now, given court rulings during the hearings that occurred after
May 2014. OCP. due to matters outside its control, has not been able to meet court ordered
discovery requirements in a timely manner. OCP has worked aggressively over the iastyear

Us

to establish and refine a process for equity review that considers the material?s usefulness to
both the prosecution and defense. Equity review must be done with precision and
consistency, two critical skills that would be lost with the change-over in a workforce. A
change in workforce at this point would obviously and substantially slow, and cause
confusion to, the entire document review process.

f. There also might be security-related delays even if some incumbent personnel were retained
by a new contractor. Should the current-contract lapse after November 10. the largest hurdle
to removing and then reinstating the current contractors would be loss of access. incumbents
would lose their common access cards with anticipated two week delay (at a minimum) to
get the cards reissued. it would also taite several weeks after that (also, at a minimum) to get
incumbent personnel?s and special access reinstated. All total, it would take at least
several months, to return to the "security" (but not the expertise) status quo ifthe current
contract expires or lapses.

Continued impediments to Competition (After the Sole Source Extension)
in addition to the above recent developments that precluded completion for the current

requirement and utilizing the. transition period for a new contractor as intended in May 2014. the
fact is that the support personnel provided by SRA are integral to the mission. The
contractor personnel are not mere file clerks and paralegals. As outlined above and in the PWS,
the contractor personnel provide critical support and substantive analysis that help shape trial
strategies for both the prosecution and defense, and inform the military tribunals concerning
proper procedure. conduct, and rulings during the criminal processes. Although a new contractor
might be able to retain some incumbent personnel during a transition, the potential risk and
disruption caused by departing contractor personnel will likely interrupt the proceedings, cause
signi?cant delay and significantly increase cost to the Government that greatly outweigh
potential cost savings through competition. These impacts include the following:

a. The prosecution requires the expert/experienced SRA personnel to continue
viewing, cataloging, and indexing those materials so as to comply with court-
ordered discovery. At this juncture. and for the foreseeable future, only BRA
experts can provide the Off] cc of the Chief Prosecutor (0C P) with the experts
who have the institutional knowledge and unique capabilities by covering the past
eight years or more case preparation. Moreover, the SRA proprietary
software that stores voluminous case documents that has been used for many
years is nonuduplicable; its continued use is absolutely crucial to continue the
OCP mission without significant disruption and delay.

13. Many of the expert SRA investigators and potentially know as much case
details and case history from working for many years (at least 8, not including the
time under a contract where they were performing the same work for the HS.
Army Criminal investigation Task Force (CITFD on these cases as the assigned
case attorneys for both the prosecution and defense.

c. The defense counsel for high value detainees consider the SRA investigators.
and defense security officers assigned to the defense as a part of the

6

defense team. Breaking up those teams will cause substantial delay in trying to
re-assernble the requisite knowledge in order to be prepared for these capital trials
in the coming months and years.

The litigation requirements are voluminous and complex. Only expert SRA
personnel have the unique capabilities and highly specialized skills now to
address the voluminous (potentially millions of pages) case details that have been
assembled for the past 8 years. SRA investigators and for both the
prosecution and defense have hundreds of years of combined experience that
cannot be replicated in any reasonable fashion in the near ?iture without
substantially disrupting the trial process. For example. the two CSOS who support
the Trial Judiciary are the primary protection against the in?court release of
highly-classi?ed information.

SRA is now (as oppoSed to a future contractor) able to properly handle the
extensive documents that will be assessed and processed before and during the 9?
ll and USS Cole trials. SRA employees have helped gather evidence and
intelligence from all over the world. They have analyzed massive amounts of
written documents, rnade visits OCONUS to many locations (some of which are
now no longer accessible). and have been present for hundreds or" interviews with
potential witnesses. The knowiedge is relied upon heavily by the
prosecutors to provide a factual level of detail far beyond what any one individual
attorney could manage. Mere summaries of evidence accessed by new personnel
are o?en not as beneficial to trial and defense as the personal memories of the
incumbent interviewers themselves. This crucial historical and institutional
knowledge will be lost to both prosecution and defense if the ERA team is
replaced.

Alter long delays. the hearings are progressing again. The loss of 45 ERA
personnel would cause any momentum by the prosecution and defense to come to
an immediate halt. The replacement of SRA by another contractor at this stage
could add years of trial delay.

There would be substantial duplication of costs to retrain new personnel; these
costs would substantially exceed costs recovered through competition.

There would also be substantial duplication of costs to the Government in other
areas. The security clearance process would need to begin for new personnel. and
the current backlog has substantially increased since the situation with the Office
of Personnel Management?s compromised databases occurred in summer 2015.
Background investigations. as well as "read-offs? and ?tendons? that would need
to occur with a break in service even if the current personnel are maintained (and
which can only be executed individually) are time consuming and labor intensive.
Such a delay would have real, meaningful consequences for the litigation.

i. There would be substantial down-time to accomplish this task as well as the
painstaking re-education of the workforce. Given the millions ofdocuments and
thousands of witnesses involved. it will take years for new contract employees to
approach the level of knowledge and expertise that the personnel now performing
the duties currently possess.

SRA has developed propriety software to process the mass volumes of evidence
and this too will cause a stoppage if ERA does not continue as the service
provider. Even if the .SRA software is sold to the government and many of the
same personnel are rehired by the new vendor, this would pose an unacceptable
delay For all court proceedings. OMC cannot assume that the current personnel .in
question would agree to the terms and conditions of employment prescribed by a
new vendor. Losing all of the expert SRA personnel {potentially en masse) stops
the hearings and trials by military commissions on Guantanamo Bay for a
minimum of 6-12 months.

5. REPRESENTATION 0F BEST VALUE: 
The Contracting Of?cer will ensure that the final negotiated price under this task order is
fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR [5.4044 procedures in accordance with
DPAP Deviation 214?0001] dated. March 13. 20M.

6. DESCRIPTION OF MARKET RESEARCH: 
WHS AD released a sources sought synopsis which generated several reSponses.

Although some ?rms contributed to missions having some similarities with OMC. none
contributed to OMC hearings as subcontractors or employees of prime or subcontractors.
This lack of direct experience with OMC hearings prevents these firms from being found
capable for market research purposes.

Additionally. WHS posted a notice of intent to sole source. which generated new
reSponses. Speci?cally capability statements. The second group of respondents Spoke
more to intelligence support than case (trial) preparation and conduct. and. again. none
listed any direct experience with OMC hearings. either as a subcontractor or employee of
a prime or subcontractor. Although some responders exhibited some capabilities and
experience necessary to support the OMC mission, none had the current expertise,
eaperience and institutional knowledge necessary to support the OMC mission without
signi?cant interruption and duplicative cost to the Government.

7. ANY OTHER SUPPORTING FACTS: 
None.

8. ACTIONS TAKEN TO REMOVE BARRIERS TO COMPETITION: 8.405

in addition to the level of support provided by this extension to 
OMC has a new requirement for document review that can soon be performed by a
different contractor without disrupting the OMC mission. Unlike the current requirement.

8

the new requirement can be competed without interrupting mission because the
new requirement involves document review, summary and cataloging new documents
that have not yet been reviewed; not current case preparation and analysis supported by
the SRA personnel. The new contractor?s work product is intended to be utilized by,
among others, SRA personnel to further develop case strategies. support and analysis.
Thus, the new requirement does not require specific or extensive familiarity with current
trial strategies, cases, documents, witnesses and analyses and. consequently, can be
ef?ciently competed as a separate requirement.

The ?rst ?new requirement" task order is anticipated to be 25 document reviewers for one
year, however, additional support may also be required. The market responders who
cannot support the current mission due to their lack of Speci?c knowledge, experience
and expertise with the current process and case strategies can effectively compete for this
new requirement.

9. REQUIREMENTS CERTIFICATION: sacs-again?

Fab-t.

certi?/ that the facts and representations under my cognizance which are included in this
justi?cation and which form a basis [or this justi?cation are complete and accurate.

Signature:

gmseme?ixteggeitpfm
ta M-?out mum 1:423:55

Wendy A. Kelly
Chief Operations Department

 

 

Of?ce of Military Commissions 571?3 72-3 724

10. CONTRACTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION

i have reviewed this justi?cation and find it to be accurate and complete to the best oflny
knowledge and belief.

Signature

Digitally signed by michael.fanizzo.civ@whs.mii
DN: anmichael.fanizzo.civ@whs.mil

Date: 201 5.1 1.05 -05'00'

michael.fanizzo.civ@whs.mil

 

 

Michael John Fanizzo, 

Contracting Of?cer AD 703-545-399l

11. COMPETITION ADVOCATE APPROVAL

1 have reviewed this justi?cation and ?nd it to be accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

 

Signature:
Digitally signed by PRICE.DAVID.L.1048850037
  DN: Government. ou=DoD, 
7 
3 Date: 2015.11.06 10:02:08 -05?00'
David L. Price

Competition Advocate WHSI AD 703-545?0 87