QA_RFP 15F06722R0000005.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 36 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 15F06722R0000005
About this file
This request for proposals solicits a commercial off-the-shelf software solution to provide 5,000 licenses for social media exploitation capabilities to the Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Headquarters Division. The software must provide access to multiple social media platforms and data sources, including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Telegram, and enable keyword-based searching, geo-location filtering, link analysis, and translation of foreign language data returns. Offerors must provide all required capabilities upon contract award and support the licenses through ongoing maintenance, training, and technical assistance. Proposals are due by January 18th. The FBI intends to award a single contract for a one-year base period and four one-year options.
View the file
Other files
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question # | Category | RFP Reference | Question | Answer | |
| 1 | Target Logins | SOW, Section 2.0, Para 1 | Is the Government willing to authorize logins by non-attributable personae to access Open Web and Public Sites (e.g. social media and messaging platforms)? | No, the Tactical SOMEX envisioned in this RFP is not intended to be used by mis/non-attributable personae. | |
| 2 | Legal Authorities | SOW, Section 2.0, Para 1 | If the target uncovered through Open Web research, is determined to possess a Deep Web (non-indexed URLs, etc.) presence, does the Government want the ability to extend the research and collection to the Deep Web? | Yes, the Government requries the ability to extend the research and collection to the Deep Web. The SOW has been modified as such. | |
| 3 | Data Sources | SOW, Section 2.0, Para 1 | Does the Government seek to possess access to the data source websites, apps, and platforms upon contract award, or is the Government willing to accept a reasonable transition period to integrate & deploy all data sources? | The Government seeks to possess access to the data source websites, apps, and platforms upon contract award. However, the Government is willing to accept a two week transition period. The awardee shall provide the data source websites, apps, and platforms within two weeks from the date of award. | |
| 4 | Languages | SOW, Section 2.1, Para 14 | Does the Government seek to possess access to all languages upon contract award, or is the Government willing to accept a reasonable transition period to integrate & deploy all language translation services? | The Government seeks to possess access to all languages upon contract award. However, the Government is willing to accept a two week transition period. The awardee shall be capable of providing all language translation capabilities within two weeks from the date of award. | |
| 5 | N/A | SOW P. 5, Retention of Data Returns | In the reference paragraph, both exporting and downloading are mentioned, will the Government elaborate on what format(s) are required (or desired) for download, for example .csv? | The Government anticipates the following formats for download, .csv, .pdf, .xlsx, .docx, .html, .jpg, .png, as well as industry standards for documents, pictures, and movies. | |
| 6 | N/A | SOW P. 5, Advanced Filtering Capabilities | Will the Government provide examples of "various metrics" that the permanent filter would be based on? The specification is very vague. | The term "metrics" in section 2.1 of the SOW would better be called selectors, data sources, and/or keywords. This is meant to enable the data returns to be filtered in various ways. | |
| 7 | N/A | SOW P. 5, Aggregated Data Source | Will the Government please clarify any meaning of etc. in the statement in the reference paragraph? | The Government requires the need to search multiple data sources at one time rather than individual searches for each data source. For example, if the company captures data from message boards, blogs, and websites, the Government is asking for those to all be searched at one time. | |
| 8 | N/A | SOW P. 3, Para 2, regarding Sources and Platforms | The reference paragraph uses both shall and "such as" in the same statement and leads to a confusing interpretation for a prospective bidder. Are the platforms and sources listed in the second paragraph of Page 3 of the SOW to be interpreted as the minimum required platforms and sources, or will the Government consider a solution that provides a subset of the sources listed? It is understood that the sources above and beyond may be seen as a strength. The question is specific to the listed sources. | The listed platforms and sources in the second paragraph of Page 3 of the SOW shall be interpreted as the minimum required platforms and sources. | |
| 9 | N/A | RFP Section L.2.6 | If a qualified Small Business Prime bidder is using Software from a Software Manufacturer, does the Government consider the Software Manufacturer to be a "subcontractor" or merely a vendor? | A Software Manufacturer would be considered a supplier, not a subcontractor. | |
| 10 | N/A | SOW P. 8, Section 7 | Will the Government please provide clarity as to why DoD standards like DD 411, DD Form 254, when the FBI is not a DoD Agency and verify if Section 7 is correct as written? | The requirement to be fulfilled by this solicitation does not require access to classified information. As such, a DD-254 is not applicable. The SOW has been modified as such. | |
| 11 | N/A | SOW P. 5, regarding Timeline Creation | Will the Government be able to produce a mocked-up graphic of what this timeline wouldl ook like? The terms "create a picture of events as they unfold" seems vague to this prospective bidder without a more specific representation. | The Government is unable to provide a mock-up. If an Offeror does any time-line tracking of chronilogical results, they may explain that in the response. | |
| 12 | N/A | SOW P. 3, regarding other open platforms deemed necessary by the FBI | How will the Government communicate that those other platforms are deemed necessary, and what timeline expectations does the Government have for the addition of such? | The Government will inform the Contractor POC of desired sites through email. The Contractor will be asked to pursue those sites with urgency and report back on progress. | |
| 13 | N/A | SOW P. 3, regarding other open platforms deemed necessary by the FBI | Since source additions beyond the required source list given may be requested to be added, and each source is unique and needs to be evaluated to determine the resources required to add the source, is the expectation of the Government that these sources will be required to be added at the sole cost of the awardee or will additional funds be made available during the term of the contract to suport source additions? | The Government expects that the awardee will provide new social media platforms as they become available at no additional cost to the Government. However, on a case-by-case basis, the Government will review a request for equitable adjustment if submitted by the Contractor. | |
| 14 | N/A | SOW P. 3, regarding the FBI DIOG | For the avoidance of doubt, will the Government provide this document and/or a link to the most current and updated version? | The current DIOG is not publicly available. An earlier, redacted version is available at vault.fbi.gov (search for DIOG). The Government will conduct ongoing discussions with the contractor to ensure compliance with legal and policy requirements. | |
| 15 | N/A | SOW P. 5, regarding Geo Capabilities | Custom geo-fencing bounding boxes are described. Will the Government consider modifying this from "boxes" (which seem to denote squares or rectangles) to "boxes and/or circles" (to support identification within a radius from a main point)? | By "custom geo-fencing bounding boxes", the Government means any manner to set a boundary (whether by radius or not) around a particular area. | |
| 16 | N/A | N/A | Due to the Q&A's estimated release of answers, will the Government consider a 10-business day extension to the RFP due date? | No. | |
| 17 | N/A | SOW P. 3, Section 2.0 | Voat.co and 8kun (8chan) are no longer available. Please confirm these sources are not required sources. | 8kun is still required as it is still active. The SOW has been revised to remove Voat.co. | |
| 18 | N/A | SOW P. 2, Section 1.2 | Please provide an estimate of how many licenses will be using the tool concurrently. | Out of 5,000 total, the Government estimates 500-1500 would be usde concurrently on a busy day. | |
| 19 | N/A | SOW P. 5, Section 2.1 | Please advise how many persistent searches should be supported? | Up to 1,000 | |
| 20 | N/A | SOW P. 5, Section 2.1 | Please advise how many concurrent persistent searches should be supported? | The Government estimates 500 - 1500 for peak times. | |
| 21 | N/A | SOW P. 4, Section 2.1, regarding Control of Searches | "The software shall provide the ability for a user to create, modify, and adjust queries and search terms when needed and on-the-fly. This would include most search parameters, such as being able to edit/modify target, data sources searched, and timeframes of the searches." Please elaborate if search term should save as template or allow the user to use such template to re-run it again? How is that different from persistent searches? | Yes, it is expected a person's account will enable them to save single searches and use them again. Persistent searches are searches that can be turned on vs. run once, and which are collecting continually, for example, for a week, and a user can log back in and find the results that have been returned. It is possible in many cases that the results returned after a week in a single repeat search may be the same as those that have been running continually for a week, but policy only allows searches to run unmonitored for 90 days before being restarted. | |
| 22 | N/A | SOW P. 4, Section 2.1, regarding Alerting Capabilities | This requirement states "Real-time or close to real-time, is defined as providing information within 8 minutes of it being posted on the open web". Please confirm the term "open web" is limited to posts published on the surface web? | Yes. | |
| 23 | N/A | SOW P. 4, Section 2.1, regarding Retention of the Data Returns | This requirement states "Users should be able to access information within their accounts for periods of time, up to 90 days…" Is it the Government's intention for the vendors to delete content automatically after 90 days, or is this a minimum storage requirement? Also, please advise if a longer storage period would be considered preferable? | By policy after 90 days a search criteria must be terminated. It may be renewed by the user, if required, and if the company can store old searches under a user's account to make that process simpler, then please indicate that. | |
| 24 | N/A | SOW P. 4, Section 2.1, regarding Keyword-Based Search | The requirement states "Keywords shall be a basic form used to collect data (e.g., usernames, email addresses, hashtags, demographic information, mentions, etc.). This shall include advanced search." Is "demographic information" intended as a search term or as a result? If the former, can the Government provide an example or greater detail on searchable demographic information? | As mentioned in this section, it is intended as a result. However, demographic information may be used for search terms as well. | |
| 25 | N/A | SOW P. 4, Section 2.1, regarding Keyword-Based Search | The requirement states "Emoticons and similar internet functions shall be searchable entities in the tool." Please clarify and elaborate on what the Government means by similar internet functions to Emoticons. | Emoticons, hearts (love), thumbs up (likes), and so forth. Offerors' should indicate what capabilities they have to search on a myriad of popularly used symbols in today's interent. | |
| 26 | N/A | SOW P. 5, Section 2.1, regarding Geo Capabilities | The requirement states "This shall be possible by location information that the user has made publicly available." Please elaborate if the definition of "by location information" means that user post included location tagging that would be the trigger to retrieve such posts? | Depending on the settings user's have on their data that is being returned, they can indicate lat/long, GPS coordinates, IP addresses used for Wifi, etc. Offeror should indicate what capabilities they have to capture data within a post/picture/message. | |
| 27 | N/A | SOW P. 5, Section 2.1, regarding Persistent Search | The requirement states "System shall provide the ability to monitor feeds without having to actively run multiple searches through many different platforms." Please confirm the Persistent Searcdh requirement includes monitoring mobile device location data from geo enabled advertising sources? | Adware and is not what is intended. Persistent searches that are monitoring feeds from a website/platform should be established and hits that meet search criteria should be received as they occur. We are not asking for Adware tracking of mobile devices, however. | |
| 28 | N/A | SOW P. 2, Section 2.0 | Please confirm all hosting should be at data centers located in the United States. | The Government confirms all hosting should be at data centers located within the United States. | |
| 29 | N/A | SOW P. 2, Section 2.0 | Please advise the name and contact details of any incumbent(s) tools currently providing any of the requested capabilities. | The incumbent contractor is Babel Street, Inc. | |
| 30 | N/A | SOW, Section 2.1, regarding Predictive Analytics | Should tool be capable of fusing behavioral analytics and sentiment analysis from current data/postings to predict potential events or just predicting what topics are trending based on postings and interactions. | The Government's intent is to analyze past events. However, if an Offeror has the capability of predicting potential events, the Offeror may provide an explaination of that as well. | |
| 31 | RFP | N/A | Please confirm the incumbent BPA contract (1,500 licenses) with contract number, value, and incumbent contractor name. | The incumbent Contractor is Babel Street, Inc., BPA number is DJF-16-1200-S-0009106, and the BPA does not have a ceiling in accordance with the FAR. | |
| 32 | N/A | SOW P. 5, Section 2.1 | Please confirm how many regular user licenses and number of super user licenses are required concurrent access. | Please refer to the answer to questions 18, 19, and 20. | |
| 33 | N/A | RFP L.9, Capabilities Demonstration | Only one offeror will have the opportunity to demonstrate capability with a Pass/Fail outcome. In the spirit of competition, will the Government allow a down select to the leading 3-5 offerors to deomonstrate capability instead. This improves competition, but more importantly helps the Government confirm true best value. | The capabilities demonstration has been removed from the requirements. | |
| 34 | Technical | SOW, Section 1.1, Para 4 | When the Government says "additional tactical requirements" does it mean that these requirements are not part of this proposal (e.g., data aggregation that leads to social network analysis, geospactial mapping, and image analytics)? If not, is it added value to the Government if the contractor has these capabilities? | Refer to Section 2.1 of the SOW for a description of the Tactical Requirements. | |
| 35 | Performance | SOW, Section 1.2 | Do all 5,000 licenses need to be provided on Day 1 of the contract? Will the number of licenses vary over time? | All 5,000 licenses need to be available for use on day 1 of the contract. However, please refer to the answers to questions 18, 19, and 20 for a more detailed explanation of the expectation for daily usage. | |
| 36 | Technical | SOW, Section 2.0, Para 1 | What data types are considered mobile messaging data? Does this mean telegram? | Types of mobile messaging include but are not limited to messaging in FB, messaging in other social media platforms and Telegram, or any other mobile messaging data considered by industry standards. | |
| 37 | General | SOW, Section 2.0, Para 1 | Can the government provide a digital copy of the DIOG? This version on fbi.gov is a scanned version and not searchable: https://vault.fbi.gov/FBI%20Domestic%20Investigations%20and%20Operations%20Guide%20%28DIOG%29 | Please refer to the answer to question 14. | |
| 38 | General | SOW, Section 2.1, Para 5 | In the paragraph titled "Simple graphic user interface (GUI) and presentation," is the Government asking for screenshots to be provided in the RFP response or is this asking for screenshots in another form before contract award? Please clarify. | The Government is asking for the screen shots to be provided in the RFP response. | |
| 39 | Technical | SOW, Section 2.1, Para 6 | Can the Government clarify this statement: "Where possible, FBI users shall be able to log in with generic accounts which do not indicate name or affiliation of the users. At the same time, each user shall have their own log-in which can be tracked to know number of accounts and which persons have accounts." Is the Government asking for admin type accounts? Out of the 5,000 licenses how many would need to be able to view the "number of accounts and which persons have accounts?" | The Government envisions a set of licenses/account names (5,000) that will be set aside for only FBI use and that will be trackable by the company for verification purposes. However, the account names should be generic and in no way contain reference to users' actual names or FBI affiliation. | |
| 40 | Technical | SOW, Section 2.0 | Are there specific commercially available data sources that the Government does not want as part of the solution? For example, any "off-limits" data types? | Adware and adtech are not being requested and should be turned off if normally provided by the company. | |
| 41 | Technical | SOW, Section 2.0, Para 3 | Does the Government expect users to enter their searches manually through the website or is there any expectation that the solution seed searches from Government systems? If the contractor has the capability to engineer this is that added value to the Government? | The Offeror will not be connecting their system to any Government system. Users shall have access to the Offerors system through the internet. Users will be entering data search criteria themselves, though perhaps in spreadsheet or similar formats. | |
| 42 | Background | SOW P. 1 | How is the FBI defining "publicly available?" For example, is a post on a Facebook account that is only visible to connections of that account considered "publicly available" per the FBI's definition? | The Government defines publicly available information as information that has been published or broadcast for public consumption, is available on request to the public, is accessible on-line or otherwise to the public. To be considered publicly available information, the online content must be available to the Government end user in the same manner it is available to the general public. | |
| 43 | Background | SOW P. 1 | Are messages sent via peer to peer messaging apps (WhatsApp) considered publicly available? | Please refer to the answer of question 42 for the Government's definition of publicly available information. | |
| 44 | Background | SOW P. 1 | To what extent do the Terms of Service (TOS) for each network factor into the definition of publicly available? For example, Twitter's restriction on programmatic access for public sector, law enforcement. | Please refer to the answer of question 42 for the Government's definition of publicly available information. Terms of Service compliance is an obligation of the Offeror/Contractor. | |
| 45 | Background 1.1 | SOW P. 1, Para 4 | From this paragraph, the FBI needs the ability to search against relevant social media sources "where threat activity occurs." Can you define what constitutes threat activity? | Threat activity comes in myriad forms, but there are known websites where threat actors may spread their messages, such as those listed in the RFP. As this environment is ever-changing, it is impossible to list all sources, and it is envisioned that through time the contract will ask for new media sources to be added . | |
| 46 | Background 1.1 | SOW P. 1, Para 4 | What is the strategic tool referenced in 1.1 Background at the end of the fourth paragraph? | ZeroFOX | |
| 47 | Background 1.1 | SOW P. 1, Para 4 | Will the FBI entertain more than one award? | No. | |
| 48 | Background 1.1 | SOW P. 1, Para 4 | Is there an incumbent for this procurement? | Please refer to the answer to question 29. | |
| 49 | Background 1.1 | SOW P. 1, Para 4 | Did the FBI use a vendor to write or to define the requirements for this RFP? If so, will they be allowed to bid on this opportunity? | The Government did not use or involve a Contractor to write or define the requirements of this RFP. | |
| 50 | Requirements/Specifications 2.0 | SOW P. 2 | What "legal authorities" are available for an FBI "assessment"? Can you provide a specific reference in the DIOG or other set of guidelines? | An earlier, redacted version is available at vault.fbi.gov (search for DIOG) if a general understanding of assessments is sought. Please note that the Government is asking for Open Source information and sources to the maximum that the company can provide. It is incumbent upon Government personnel to ensure that they are abiding by legal and policy requirements. Government personnel are trained to comply with legal and policy requirements. No substantial buildout to satisfy compliance with those requirements is expected. It is expected that the vendor will supply only publicly available information. The Government will work with the awardee to ensure compliance. | |
| 51 | Requirements/Specifications 2.0 | SOW P. 2 | Is it expected that the COTS PAI "research software solution" will be "functionally" DIOG compliant, as a stand-alone solution? Or does DIOG compliance need to be built in and/or accommodated on a case by case basis, for example by requiring a compliance entry or case code before a user can create a new search? | Please refer to the answer to question 50. | |
| 52 | Requirements/Specifications 2.0 | SOW P. 2 | Do keywords and topics include protected groups like activist organizations? What about domestic extremist groups? | The Government will need the ability to conduct keyword searches based on potential national security issues and criminal activity associated with protecting the American citizens and upholding the U.S. Constitution. | |
| 53 | Requirements/Specifications 2.1 | SOW P. 1 | Compliance is generally achieved through a combination of people, process and technology. Will the FBI be willing to collaborate with the vendor to ensure a cost-effective and streamlined approach to DIOG compliance? | Please refer to the answer to question 50. | |
| 54 | Requirements/Specifications 2.0 | SOW P. 2 | Can the vendor solution rely on FBI file number or other data entry for DIOG compliance? If yes, what kind of data would be entered and/or how many different fields are needed? | The Government will ensure data searches and subsequent retention of searches will be conducted in compliance with DIOG. It is incumbent upon Government personnel to ensure that they are abiding by legal and policy requirements. Government personnel are trained to comply with legal and policy requirements. No substantial buildout to satisfy compliance with those requirements is expected. It is expected that the Contractor will supply only publicly available information. The Government will work with the awardee to ensure compliance. | |
| 55 | Requirements/Specifications 2.0 | SOW P. 2 | FBI does not want attribution of use of a social network back to its users. Is attribution back to the vendor okay? | The Government's requirement, as it relates to annonyminity, is that the searches/licenses/accounts will not be attributed back to the FBI or any end user. | |
| 56 | Requirements/Specifications 2.0 | SOW P. 2 | How does the FBI define a "Generic Account?" | By "Generic", the Government intends for the account to be unattributable. | |
| 57 | Requirements/Specifications 2.0 | SOW P. 2 | How will the vendor be able to monitor and ensure compliant use of the solution if all FBI users have "generic accounts"? Is the vendor solution supposed to maintain an auditable connection between "generic" FBI users within the platform, and specific users at the FBI, to support compliance reporting/accountability? | Please refer to the answers to questions 39 and 56. | |
| 58 | Requirements/Specifications 2.0 | SOW P. 3 | How will use/misuse of the tool be monitored if all FBI users can log in with generic accounts? Can a generic account be associated to a specific FBI user? is the vendor expected to capture log data to provide accountability for the actions of individual users? | Please refer to the answers to questions 39 and 56. | |
| 59 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 3, regarding Licenses | Is the expectation that each of the 5000 users will have an FBI email account attached to their user login, so that they can receive email alerts? | The expectation is that each of the 5,000 licenses that are assigned to a user will have a Government email account attached to their user login, so that they can receive email alerts. However, the link to the Government email account shall remain annonymous. | |
| 60 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 3, regarding Maintenance | In the phrase, "...where software can be modified and improved based on reasonable requests," who determines what constitutes a reasonable request? | What constitutes as a reasonable request will be a collaborative conversation between the Government Contracting Officer, Government customer, and the Contractor. | |
| 61 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 3, regarding Keyword-Based Search | What features (inclusion, exclusion, boolean operators) are expected in regard to an advanced search? | Expected features in regard to an advanced search include, but are not limited to, inclusion, exclusion, boolean operators, time constraints (beggining and ending), originating data language (if not English), return IP addresses, emails, or phone numbers. | |
| 62 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 3, regarding Keyword-Based Search | In reference to emoticons, are you specifically seeking 4 byte UTF-8 support when performing a search? | Yes, in addition to any other types of emoticon symbols that may be used in today's market. | |
| 63 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 4, Keyword Search | Can you provide some examples of “other important markers” for ordering search results? | There may be several others, such as by data source, by return type (message, photo, post, for example), or those commonly used in this market. | |
| 64 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P.4, regarding Anonymity | Is the intent for searches to be cached for the length of the search session; for the 90-day maximum; or for the life of the contract? | The Contractor shall cache searches for a minimum of one year but preferably for the life of the contract. | |
| 65 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P.4, regarding Anonymity | Is it acceptable to be anonymous up to the following point - If the FBI user logs into a vendor platform using a generic account, and then decides to click through on their own (past a warning screen) to further examine a link, they will expose themselves as coming from the FBI network. | The Government's requirement is to remain annoynmous at all times. | |
| 66 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 4, regarding Control of Searches | The platform can allow the user complete latitude with respect to searching within the pool of data that is being collected and cached for the FBI. However, is the FBI suggesting that each user has latitude to freely create any new search (for new collection)? We would differentiate between how searches are configured (and constantly expanded/updated/tuned) for ongoing collection/ingestion into the system, and how searches are defined by individual users within the system for a specific task. | Users must be able to create their own searches. That should be true for every source that the company provides. We are not sure what "new collection" means; the searches should be able to touch and query every data source and for materials that are up-to-date as stated in the SOW all at the same time. | |
| 67 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 4, regarding Alert Capabilities | What timeframes are anticipated for searches, given that there is an implied maximum retention of 90 days? We assume that timeframes will fall within the stated 90-day window. Is that correct? | Timeframes for searches should be possible for information in the past as well. For example, if the Government were to search data for early 2021, the Government would be interested in that information as well. While not required, an Offeror may receive a strength for this capability.The 90-day search window is for persistent, current searches, and are separate from searches being conducted on historical data. | |
| 68 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 4, regarding Alert Capabilities | How are we to do predictive analysis and threat trending if we are required to delete data after 90 days? | The data in the company systems does not need to be deleted after 90 days. The searches set up by Government users must end after 90 days, and be re-set to start again. That data would be for on-going and current materials most likely. | |
| 69 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 5, regarding Geo Capabilities | Our experience is that the vast majority of data made publicly available on the required networks does not include information that would allow the location of the posting user to be programmatically ascertained. Is it valid to derive the location of the posting user based on hashtags contained in the body of the post? | The Government will not require location of a posting to be derived in a particular fashion. If the Contractor is capable of providing accurate location data, that is expected. | |
| 70 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 5, regarding Foreign Languages | Are human language translation services of value in the effort (for validating machine language results)? | The Government has no preference in the manner in which an Offeror provides translation of data returns provided it is accurate and within the timeframe covered under the alerting capabilities section of the SOW. | |
| 71 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 5, regarding Foreign Languages | Will the foreign language users require all content in the tool to be written in the language? | No | |
| 72 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 5, regarding Foreign Languages | Is the foreign language requirement to only translate data that has been collected in the language? | An Offeror's solution shall be capable of translating search returns in foreign languages to English. An Offeror's solution shall also allow end users to search in foreign languages, which would subsquently be translated into English. | |
| 73 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 5, regarding Foreign Languages | Is the foreign language requirement for the search functionality? | Please refer to the answer to question 72. | |
| 74 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 5, regarding Foreign Languages | Is this for translating into English? Or translating English into any of the languages listed? | Please refer to the answer to question 72. | |
| 75 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 5, regarding Link Analysis | Is it required for the link analysis capability to reside within the platform or can it be delivered as an export, that can then be further manipulated? | It would be preferable to have the capability within the platform, but having ability to export is also a requirement, so that could be done if deemed necessary. | |
| 76 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 5, regarding Persistent Search | Vendor is interpreting Persistent Searches as something that the vendor would configure for the user or user community, consistent with terms of service, and that populates the data lake. Then users can search in whatever fashion they desire. Is this an appropriate understanding? | The Government's requirement is for the end user to be able to set up their own searches, even in the persistent search function. A persistent search would be one turned on by the user, and a week later that user can log back in and find results from the past week ready to view. The data lake envisioned for those searches is the entirety of the websites/data sources that the company can offer. | |
| 77 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 5, regarding Advanced Filtering | Can you provide an example of metrics that would be used for filtering? - Filtering what type of data? Is it Alerts, Intelligence or other? | Please refer to the answer to question 6. | |
| 78 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 5, regarding Timeline | Does the FBI have a preferred timeline visualization format? Would a vertically oriented 'log event' style view with the date and time stamp data for each event be sufficient to meet the requirement or is the preferred approach to plot events on a horizontally oriented fixed scale timeline? | The Government will not dictate the format for the time-line. | |
| 79 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 5, regarding Timeline | Does the FBI require that timeline data be exportable in PDF format? | No, as long as there is another compatable format for exporting. | |
| 80 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 5, regarding Timeline | Does the FBI require that timeline data be exportable in CSV format? | No, as long as there is another compatable format for exporting. | |
| 81 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 6, regarding Bot Detection | What are the use cases around identifying social media bot accounts? Monitor, takedown, etc. | The Government cannot predict the use cases around identifying social media bot accounts. The Government is interested in identifying false and automated accounts, such as bots. | |
| 82 | Technical Requirements 2.1 | SOW P. 6, regarding Networked Searches | Does this requirement refer to scanning or collecting content from all the people who liked a collected post? | The Government's requirement does not include that type of vacuuming of data. However, if an Offeror can provide that type of information, they may describe that in their response. | |
| 83 | SOW, Data provider Compliance | SOW P. 2 | Does the government require a solution that is compliant with the Terms of Service and data use policies of the mainstream US social media platforms that are listed in Section 2 of the Statement of Work? | The Government requires access to as many useful sources of data as possible. Terms of Service compliance is an obligation of the Offeror/Contractor. | |
| 84 | SOW, Data provider Compliance | SOW P. 2 | If an Offeror proposes a solution that utilizes data from the mainstream US social media platforms identified in Section 2 of the SOW, is an Offeror required to attest that its solution is compliant with the Terms of Service and data use policies of the social media platforms? | Terms of Service compliance is an obligation of the Offeror/Contractor. The Government does not require an explicit attestation. | |
| 85 | DIOG Compliance | SOW P. 2 | 3a) As the DIOG prescribes standards for government actors in the conduct of law enforcement investigations, which provisions of the DIOG does the Government assert to be applicable to the prospective Contractor? 3b) Does the government intend to assert that Offerors/Contractors are regulated by the DIOG? 3c) How does the government intend to certify an Offeror’s/Contractor’s compliance with the DIOG? | Please refer to the answer to question 50. | |
| 86 | Capabilities Demonstration | RFP P. 23 | 4a) What specific evaluation criteria will be applied for this assessment? 4b) What features and capabilities of an Offeror will adequately demonstrate compliance with the Privacy Act, First Amendment and FBI security standards? 4c) Which FBI specific security standards are applicable? | Please refer to the answer to question 33. | |
| 87 | SOW, Retention of the data returns | SOW P. 4 | What specific types of information shall not be retained? | An Offeror's solution shall provide data returns or types of information that are a direct result of the FBI end users search criteria. The Government does not wish to dictate what information an Offeror should not retain as part of their business model. | |
| 88 | SOW | SOW, Section 2.1, regarding Primary/Required Capabilities | If the Government requires a solution that is compliant with the Terms of Service and data use policies of the mainstream US social media platforms that are identified in Section 2 of the SOW, would the Government consider rewriting the RFP to exclude the requirement of capabilities and features that violate the Terms of Service and data use policies of such platforms? For example, to be compliant with the Terms of Service and Data Use policies of the mainstream US social media platforms identified in Section 2, a vendor would be prohibited from offering to the FBI a solution that enables the following: 1) Investigating or tracking individual social media users for any intelligence or surveillance purpose; 2) Link Analysis; 3) Network based search; 4) Geospatial Analysis that enables the viewing of all Social Media Posts in a given area; 5) Keyword based search of raw social media posts/feeds; 6) collecting information/data from online sources, retaining such information in vendor systems, and making such data available through user queries; and 7) social media user analytics on individual targets, including sentiment analysis to determine the attitude of targets. | Please refer to the answer to question 83. | |
| 89 | Inspection and Acceptance | RFP P. 2 | Please confirm that the government does not anticipate any classified information or security clearance requirements to be applicable to the contemplated contract. | The Government does not anticipate any classified information or security clearance requirements to be eligible for the contemplated contract. | |
| 90 | SOW | SOW | Does the government intend to require the successful Offeror’s solution to offer a mobile application? | The Government's requirement does not include a mobile application. However, if an Offeror's solution offers a mobile application, they may describe that in their response. | |
| 91 | RFP | RFP, L.8 | 9a) Does the Government have an estimated timeframe for implementation of the successful solution? 9b) Is such implementation to be priced separately in Offerors' proposals? | The implementation of the COTS solution shall be implemented in accordance with the period of performance, the solution shall be fully operational on the first day of the period of performance. | |
| 92 | RFP | RFP, Section L.8 | Where in the proposal should the Offeror include any applicable end user license agreements? If the end user license agreements are to be included in the Price Volume, please confirm the end user license agreements do not count against the page count. | The Government is not interested in receiving a copy of end user license agreements. | |
| 93 | SF1449 | 52.227-19 Commercial Computer Software License (Dec 2007) | The solicitation incorporates FAR 52.227-19, a non-mandatory clause that grants the Government rights in commercial computer software that are different from those normally granted in a commercial license. Would the government please consider removing FAR 52.227-19 and identify the specific license terms that necessitate the Government’s inclusion of FAR 52.227-19? | The Government agrees to removing FAR 52.227-19, the SF-1449 has been revised. | |
| 94 | SOW | SOW | Is there a current incumbent for this set of requirements? | Please refer to the answer to question 29. | |
| 95 | Administrative | RFP P. 16, Section L.6.4 | Paragraph L.6.4 references instructions for submission of PPQs in Attachment F. The PPQ is Attachment D. Please confirm this is a typographical error or provide the missing Attachment F? | The PPQ is Attachment D, the Government confirms this is a typographical error and the error has been corrected in Amendment 1. | |
| 96 | Technical | SOW P. 3, Section 2 and SOW P. 6, Section 2.2 | Regarding Social Media access, would the Government please confirm requirements are based only on publicly available information? | The Government confirms the requirements are based only on publicly available information. | |
| 97 | Administrative | Attachment A, P. 74 | To allow for the best possible value solution, would the Government consider removing FAR 52.219-33, Nonmanufacturer Rule (Sep 2021) (15 U.S.C. 657s) from its incorporated clauses under FAR 52.212-5(b), given that pursuant to FAR 19.507(h), the Nonmanufacturer Rule is not supposed to be used in solicitations utilizing services NAICS codes like 519130 as is the case in the subject solicitation? | The Government agrees to removing FAR 52.219-33 from its incorporated clauses under FAR 52.212-5(b), the SF-1449 has been revised. | |
| 98 | Contract Type | RFP, Section L.2.3 | Will other NAICS Codes be considered for this task order? | No. | |
| 99 | Contract Type | RFP, Section L.2.3 | Is this requirement fully funded for FY22? | This requirement will be fully funded in the fiscal year in which it is awarded. | |
| 100 | Contract Type | RFP, Section L.2.3 | As a small business we recommend the government consider small business set aside categories such as SBA 8a, HUBZone for this solicitation. The current NAICS distinguishes small business status by employee head count of 1000, but unlimited revenue size, making the competition extremely lopsided to larger organizations. Will the government consider small business economic disadvantage categories such as SBA 8a, HUBZone, and minority owned businesses? | The Government will not be restricting competition any further than a total small business set-aside. | |
| 101 | Proposal Submissions | RFP, Section L.3.2 | This RFP was released over the holiday season, will the government grant an additional 45 days to submit proposals past the January 18th submission date? | No. | |
| 102 | Proposal Submissions | RFP, Section L.3.2 | Will the government accept proposals submitted in Adobe Acrobat PDF format? This format allows for compression of files that may contain images/graphics that would potentially exceed typical file size and email size limitations set by government email servers. | Offerors may submit their proposals in Adobe Acrobat PDF format, this change has been made in Amendment 1. | |
| 103 | Cover Page | RFP, Section L.3.8 | Item #6 states that the offeror shall indicate whether their size of business is large or small, per the SF-1449, this is 100% small business set aside, can you please clarify your intention on item 6 of this section? | The intention of item 6 of the cover page is for the Offeror to self-certify that they are a small business in accordance with NAICS code 519130. | |
| 104 | Technical Requirements | L.5.3, M.2.2 | Will the government look unfavorably on solution offerings that are comprised of more than one technology solution? | The Government anticipates Offerors offering a solution that is comprised of only one technology solution. The Government is not prohibiting Offerors from offering a solution that is comprised of more than one technology solution. However, the Government may evaluate the complexity, user-friendliness, and administrative burden to the end user to utilize multiple technology solutions rather than the preferred offering of a single technology solution. | |
| 105 | Requirements/Specifications | RFP, Section L.5.3 and SOW, Section 2.0 | The government is requesting access to query data from multiple social media sites. Aggregators of social media data require the government to comply with use of data agreements in accordance to the Social Media provider’s agreements. Has the government reviewed these agreements and agreed to their terms before deciding which social media platforms to include in this solicitation? | Please refer to the answer to question 83. | |
| 106 | Requirements/Specifications | RFP, Section L.5.3 and SOW, Section 2.1, regarding Geo Capabilities | Since incidents/events can occur anytime 24x7 – it is recommended Geographic capabilities should be mandatory, FBI analysts can create GEO-FENCING/TAGGING dynamically in real-time via the GUI. Will this recommendation be amended into the current technical requirements? | The Government feels the requirements in the SOW are sufficiently general to include various forms of Geo capabilities. If an Offeror has a specific dynamic geo-fencing and tagging capability, they may describe that in their response. | |
| 107 | Requirements/Specifications | RFP, Section L.5.3 and SOW, Section 2.1, regarding Geo Capabilities | How much data consumption and how many unique searches does the FBI anticipate from the 5,000 user group on an annual basis? | It is hard to predict and depends greatly on use of foreign language searches, if done on keywords. However, it is easy to envision, roughly, 20,000/month keywords being searched. The number of actual searches used for that many keywords is unattainable, 20,000/month is merely an estimate. | |
| 108 | Technical Requirements | RFP, Section L.5.3 and SOW, Section 2.1 | The government is requesting 5000 licenses, is it the government’s plan to have 5000 unique employees access the platform or 5000 workstations which may have multiple users accessing the platform with a common workstation login? | Please refer to the answers to questions 18, 19, and 20. | |
| 109 | Technical Requirements | RFP, Section L.5.3 and SOW, Section 2.1 | The government has requested a 5000-user license, will a capacity model for licensing be considered in addition to a user license model? | The Government is interested in 5,000 user licenses. | |
| 110 | Training | RFP, Section L.5.3 and SOW, Section 2.1 | A 5000-person user community requires a significant amount of management hours to coordinate and conduct training. What is the government’s proposed timeline to have all 5000 users trained and using the platform? | The Government would like to train all users as quick as possible. However, the Government expects at least 2,000 users to be trained within the first two weeks after contract award. | |
| 111 | Technical Requirements | RFP, Section L.5.3 and SOW, Section 2.1 | Will the proposed solution be standalone or require to be integrated into an existing government system? If interfacing into a government system, can you please indicate the integration points to those applications? | No integration will be done, the tool should be accessible through the internet. | |
| 112 | Technical Requirements | RFP, Section L.5.3 and SOW, Section 2.1 | Has the government conducted any pre-solicitation proof of concept of any platform that provides Social Media Exploitation that meet the government requirements? If so, which applications/platforms has the government tested or piloted? | The Government has not conducted any pre-solicitation proof of concept on any platorms that provide Social Media Exploitation. | |
| 113 | Past Performance | RFP Sections L.6 and M.2.3.1, regarding Recency Assessment | Can projects that are currently being implemented be used as past performance or does the base period of performance have to be exercised in full before the project can be used as past performance? | Any project with a period of performance within 5-years preceding the date this solicitation was released will be determined to be relevant. If any part of the performance falls within this five-year period, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. | |
| 114 | Past Performance | RFP, Sections L.6.1 and M.2.3 | Will the government accept past performance of the technology provider (OEM)/team partner or is the past performance experience limited to the Prime contractor only? | Two (2) of the past performance examples are limited to the Prime Contractor only and one (1) example may be as the technical provider (OEM) or teaming partner, this has been clarified in Amendment 1. | |
| 115 | Travel | SOW, Section 5.0 | Will the contractor be permitted to bill actual travel and expenses in accordance to government rates? | Should travel be needed and approved ahead of time, the contactor would be permitted to bill actual travel and expenses in accordance with the JTR/FTR. | |
| 116 | Background | SOW P. 1 | The SOW specifically calls out the expectation that all data returned in service of the contract will be ‘publicly available’, however posts made on many of the networks listed as required, for example Facebook and Telegram, do not seem to meet the criteria of publicly available. Facebook uses user based tokens to allow the end user to put privacy-based access controls around posted data, and Telegram uses end-to-end encryption to ensure posts remain private. Does the contract require the selected vendor to treat such data as ‘publicly available’? | Please refer to the answer to question 43. | |
| 117 | Background | SOW P. 1, Section 1.1, Para 4 | Where "the FBI must identify a new tool, or suite of tools, that satisfy these gaps while also complimenting the strategic tool." is stated: What is the strategic tool referenced, or what are the key features of the strategic tool (for compatibility)? | Please refer to the answer to question 46. | |
| 118 | Requirements/Specifications | SOW P. 2, Section 2.0 | What does it mean for the vendor to remain compliant with the DIOG? The DIOG is hundreds of pages long and is specific to FBI behavior. What specific concerns or sections are at issue? | Please refer to the answer to question 50. | |
| 119 | Requirements/Specifications | SOW P. 2, Section 2.0 | How can the Contractor maintain compliance with the FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide while supporting generic accounts for FBI users? | Please refer to the answer to question 50. | |
| 120 | Requirements/Specifications | SOW P. 2, Section 2.0 | Are all of the sources named in this section required? If other comparable sources are available does that provide a counterweight if not all are covered? | Please refer to the answer to question 9. | |
| 121 | Requirements/Specifications | SOW P. 2, Section 2.0 | Can the FBI provide its definition of a "generic account"? The terms seems in conflict with Terms of Service for several of the social networks, where each user account is expected to be validated back to a named human being with email address, likeness/image, location, etc. | Please refer to the answer to question 40. | |
| 122 | Requirements/Specifications | SOW P. 2, Section 2.0 | Regarding the requirement to use generic accounts to access social media data, the terms of service provided by Meta covering the Facebook service, section 3 part 1, specifically disallow the use of generic accounts. The same section also specifically disallows a single user accessing multiple Facebook accounts. Given the conflict between the SOW requirements and the network terms of Service, will the use of generic accounts still be required for all sources? | Please refer to the answer to question 40. | |
| 123 | Requirements/Specifications | SOW P. 2, Section 2.0 | We are confused about the use of the term "generic accounts." If users are logging in with a generic account, how can we send email alerts to specific users as requested? | Please refer to the answers to questions 40 and 60. | |
| 124 | Technical Requirements | SOW 2.1, P. 3, Licenses | Does each of the 5000 licenses equate to an individual user? Will an FBI email be assigned to each license? | Please refer to the asnwers to questions 18, 19, and 20. | |
| 125 | Technical Requirements | SOW P. 3, Section 2.1, regarding Keyword-Based Search | What types and/or sources of data are you looking for via the keyword-based search? | The Government would be searching for all data that fits either a Pre-Assessment or an open Government investigation. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .