SPECIAL NOTICE
R -- Risk Analysis and Assessments
- Notice Date
- 6/8/2004
- Notice Type
- Special Notice
- NAICS
- 561990
— All Other Support Services
- Contracting Office
- DHS - Direct Reports, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Office of Procurement Operations, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Washington, DC, 20528
- ZIP Code
- 20528
- Solicitation Number
- Reference-Number-risk-analysis-assessment
- Response Due
- 6/30/2004
- Archive Date
- 7/15/2004
- Point of Contact
- Paul Attorri, Contracting Officer, Phone 2024013099, Fax 2027729730,
- E-Mail Address
-
paul.attorri@dhs.gov
- Description
- This is a Request for Information (RFI). It is not a solicitiation, not an anoouncement of a solicitation, and not a notice of intent to later issue a solicitation. Do not attempt to request or register to receive a solicitation at this time as that is not the purpose of this announcement. No vendor(s) will be selected for a contract award based on their response to this RFI, it is for market research and procurement planning purposes only. The Protective Security Division in the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security is requesting white information from organizations that have demonstrated capability in the area of risk analysis and assessments. Since there are multiple, diverse risk models and approaches for assessing risk, PSD would like to make an initial assessment of the utility of the various approaches to supporting DHS decisions through a review of white papers. This inquiry may or may not lead to procurement, depending on the results of the review and possible subsequent requests for proposals. Each approach will be evaluated by a team of DHS personnel and/or contract support on the basis of the approach?s utility for supporting DHS policy and operational decisions, those of sector specific agencies, those of local authorities, and those of owners and operators. It is not expected that approaches will meet every need, but accurate, meaningful communication of risk factors among these partners will be an end result of our efforts, and the utility of each approach to meeting this need should be accentuated and defended. We anticipate that each approach has a developmental history that can help us understand its utility and constraints. Please provide a brief history and how you have adapted it to consider the presenting problem of an intelligent, coordinated, non-state adversary. Description of the Methodology: The white papers should discuss the following topics as they apply to the field of counterterrorism: How is risk defined? How is risk measured? What type of decisions was the analytic approach designed to inform? Examples of what is meant by types of decisions include: o Distribution of resources or costs. o Single authority assuming responsibility to enact best policy decisions. o Single authority assuming responsibility to enact best operational decisions. Does the analytic approach incorporate scenarios? o How are scenarios determined? o How is the likelihood of any one scenario occurring determined? o Does the methodology allow comparisons among tactics for a given target, targets for a given tactic? What general knowledge and information about the threat does the methodology require? What educational level and experience does the methodology require? What are the measures of consequences used by the methodology and how are they determined? How is the issue of the likelihood of the event handled? How are the effects of countermeasures and mitigations considered? How long does it take to complete an assessment? How does the assessment update based in the implementation of new measures? What is the durability of this assessment? (How frequently should it be redone, or does it allow rapid updating, and if so, how, and by whom?) How does the methodology deal with uncertainties? What do the inputs and outputs of your analytic approach represent? Examples of inputs: o Workman?s comp insurance data o Expert judgment on interdependencies o Decision authority?s qualitative assessment of value o Security personnel?s assessment of ________ Examples of outputs: o Hard figures related to consequences o Scaled ?bins? of consequences o Scores that represent __________ Please indicate your capability of providing risk factors in disaggregated forms, i.e.: What types of consequences can be reported? A measure of adversary intent (and its association with a tactic, a target, or the combination.), A measure of adversary capability, The effect of existing protective measures, The likelihood that adversaries could overcome the protective measures. Example Problems as a Demonstration: Describe hypothetically how the methodology would have worked in June of 2001 in order to assess the risk of the coordinated attack of 9/11 either as a single event, or within the range of alternative competing scenarios. (Please document your assumptions). What intelligence/knowledge about the threat would have been required for the successful application of the approach? What information about the US infrastructure, key assets, and critical functions would the successful application of the approach required? Using the same process, describe more briefly how the methodology would work in May 2004 in order to assess the risk of two other landmark skyscrapers (your selection) to a similar airborne scenario. Constraints: Please limit your description of the approach to 7 pages, and to 4 pages each for the 2 sample problems, or a total of 15 pages. Papers that exceed this limit by the inclusion of attached documentation about knowledge assumptions are welcome as well. PROVIDE YOUR RESPONSE TO SUSAN SMITH OF DHS, SUSAN.SMITH@DHS.GOV.
- Record
- SN00599770-W 20040610/040608211523 (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 |