19AQMM26Q0468 QA.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 36 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Cultural Property Prototype
- Solicitation number
- 19AQMM26Q0468
About this file
This is a consolidated Questions and Answers document addressing 89 vendor inquiries regarding RFQ 19AQMM26Q0468 for a Cultural Property Prototype development effort. The file clarifies technical, contractual, and procedural requirements for the solicitation.
The procurement seeks a standalone artificial intelligence-powered cultural property identification prototype for proof-of-concept testing by U.S. law enforcement, with a nine-month period of performance and firm-fixed pricing below the simplified acquisition threshold. Key clarifications include: the requirement applies to Ukraine and at least one additional country restricted under 19 CFR 12.104g; vendors must source representative test data and negotiate data-sharing arrangements independently at no additional Government cost; the Cultural Heritage Center will coordinate introductions to CPEOC experts and law enforcement testers but the contractor bears responsibility for arranging most logistics and travel within the fixed price; small business primes may demonstrate required qualifications collectively through committed subcontractors provided they comply with FAR 19.505 limitations on subcontracting; compliance with FAR 52.227-11 (patent rights) and FAR 52.227-14 Alternate IV (data rights) applies only to software developed under contract, not pre-existing components; the Secure Software Development Attestation (Attachment 3) is required unless the prototype uses only commercially available products listed on page 3 of the attestation form; DOSAR 652.239-71 (ICT security accreditation) has been deleted and does not apply to the standalone prototype; monthly progress reports are priced at nine units matching the nine-month base period; and vendors should propose technical approach, acceptance thresholds, test coverage metrics, hardware specifications, and staffing levels organized by month for Government review and approval. Volume 2 is limited to 15 pages inclusive of the draft Quality Assurance Plan, with no cover pages or table of contents required.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 2 C-SCRM Questionnaire_001.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 19AQMM26Q0468-0001.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3 - Software Producer Attestation Form.pdf | ||
| 19AQMM26Q0468.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 - SOW-Cultural Property Prototype.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 2 C-SCRM Questionnaire.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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
| Vendor Question | Government Response | |
| 1 | Reference: RFQ §§1.5 and 2.1 (pp.19–21); Attachment 3 pp.2–4 Please clarify the attestation required at quotation for a new prototype that will be developed after award. Does Factor 1 require a producer attestation for all proposed software, or only software meeting the RFQ's critical-software definition? Please identify how the Attachment 3 exclusions for incorporated third-party components apply, and whether the documented mitigation/POA&M route in Attachment 3 can receive a Go rating or whether a complete current attestation is required without exception. | A finalized Software Producer Attestation form is not required for initial prototype but it will be required for the eventual end product. If the offeror is using only commercially available products as listed in page 3 of Attachment 3, no attestation is required. Offerors should note that the Government will not accept a final custom developed product without the signed Attestation. Therefore, it behooves offerors to adhere to these standards when developing the prototype, even if it will not yet be connected to DoS Systems. Offerors may state their exeptions/objections to Factor 1 in their submissions. |
| 2 | Reference: RFQ 652.239-71(a)–(d) (pp.10–11); SOW §§1, 3 and Task 4 The SOW requires a standalone prototype with no connection to Government systems and no nonpublic Government training data, while 652.239-71 requires an ICT Security Plan within 30 days and accreditation within six months. Please specify which clause requirements apply to this prototype, the accreditation/authorization deliverable and accepting authority, and whether any current FedRAMP authorization or Government system connection is required during this order. Please also distinguish the SOW prohibition on State information in the prototype from contract-generated reports and audit records that H-020 makes Government-owned, and identify whether such records trigger the clause’s operated-for-DOS or information-access provisions. | Clause 652.239-71 deleted |
| 3 | Reference RFQ §§1.5–1.6 (pp.19–20); SOW §§1 and 3 May a small-business prime demonstrate the listed technical and subject-matter qualifications through the combined qualifications of the prime, committed subcontractors or institutional collaborators, and named key personnel? If so, what evidence of team commitment and attributable experience is required? Please identify any qualifications that must be demonstrated by the prime entity itself. | Small business primes must adhere to the Limitations on subcontracting rule laid out in FAR 19.505(b)(1). So long as the prime adheres to this rule, it does not matter how the qualifications are distributed between prime and subs. The RFQ does not require evidence beyond a description of how your team meets the qualifications laid out in the SOW. |
| 4 | RFQ H-020 (p.14), FAR 52.227-14 Alternate IV (pp.15–19); SOW §10.2 Please reconcile H-020's exclusive Government ownership and publication restrictions with the SOW's Government Purpose Rights and contractor commercialization provisions. Please clarify the controlling license, the five-year conversion to unlimited rights, and the apparent conflict between permission to distribute nonsoftware data publicly and the Government-purposes definition excluding public release. What rights and delivery obligations apply separately to privately developed background platforms, unmodified commercial/open-source components, source code developed under this order, trained weights, embeddings, prompts, reference data, and associated documentation? May offerors identify background technology and proposed license terms in a separate rights schedule? | H-020 applies only to documents produced for the Government for the performance of work under the contract such as reports and presentations. It does not apply to the prototype itself. 52.227-14 IV applies to software first produced under this contract - not to privately developed background platforms or commercial software. "The Government's license under this section shall remain in effect for a period not to exceed five (5) years from the date of this designation, or as otherwise negotiated and specified in the contract's Schedule, after which the Government's rights shall convert to unlimited rights, unless otherwise agreed by the parties." If you do not agree with these terms, please state your objections in your proposal. These terms do not apply to any background technology used in the production of the prototype. |
| 5 | RFQ FAR 52.227-13 (pp.8–10); SOW §10 Please confirm whether FAR 52.227-13, Patent Rights—Ownership by the Government, is intended for this small-business development procurement, or whether FAR 52.227-11 or another patent-rights provision should apply. Please clarify how rights in subject inventions and pre-existing inventions are to be treated alongside the contractor commercialization contemplated by the SOW. | Updated to 52.227-11. Again - these clauses have no jurisdiction over pre existing inventions. |
| 6 | Attachment 2 instructions and worksheet; RFQ Factor 1 (pp.20–21) Attachment 2 directs responses to column D, but the visible Vendor Response fields are in column C and column D contains NIST references. Its hidden scoring worksheet also contains #REF! references and appears not to include item 2.1. Please provide a corrected workbook or confirm the intended response cells and whether evaluation will rely on the seven item responses rather than the broken calculated score. Please confirm whether a supplier meeting its existing commercial contractual terms can satisfy items 2.3 and 2.4 when those terms address the offeror's documented SCRM requirements. For a software-only offeror that holds no ICT supply-chain inventory, how must item 3.2 be answered and documented to meet the all-Yes rule? The Section 2 no-supplier instruction does not expressly cover this item. | Attachment 2 has been updated to reference column C. CO is not using any hidden scoring worksheet. Answers must all be Yes or Not applicable for a valid reason to pass Go/No-Go. |
| 7 | Reference: RFQ SF18 block 6 (p.1), CLIN 002 (p.2), §1.1 (p.3); SOW §§5–6 Please confirm the anticipated start and nine-month period of performance, correct the SF18 deliver-by date of August 30, 2026, and reconcile CLIN 002's quantity of 12 monthly reports with the nine-month SOW. Please specify the quantity offerors should price and whether any travel, equipment, data-access fees or optional periods must be separately identified. | Quantity has been updated to 9. Unit prices must reflect all inputs required. There are not optional periods. |
| 8 | For Ukraine and the additional country covered by 19 CFR §12.104g, are there minimum object categories, cultures/periods, sample counts, identification granularity or 3D-data requirements that must be priced before stakeholder scope validation? Will the Government provide introductions, public reference collections or authorized data-use arrangements, or must the contractor secure all access? Please clarify whether third-party license fees may be included in the fixed price and what dataset/model delivery rights any negotiated data-sharing agreement must permit. | The publicly available designated list for each country covered by 19 CFR §12.104g provides the minimum object categories, culture and periods. Minimum counts, granularity, etc. are not specified and should be proposed by the vendor. The Government does not anticipate providing introductions. Vendor must secure access. Third-party license fees are not anticipated. If Vendor believes these are needed, they should include in the fix price. Any negotiated data sharing agreement should convey with the prototype. |
| 9 | Reference: SOW Tasks 4–6 and §§7–8; RFQ §1.5 Please identify any required quantitative accuracy, CPEOC-concordance, open-set rejection, latency, workload or usability acceptance thresholds. If these are to be established during requirements validation, please confirm how they will be bounded and approved in the QAP/QASP incorporated at award. For the 90% code-test coverage requirement, please specify the coverage measure and confirm how modified portions of pre-existing software will be counted. | Vendor should propose these based on industry bast-practice for review and approval by CHC and the CHCC. As noted in the SOW, the 90% code-test coverage spans all code developed under this contract. |
| 10 | Please specify required target hardware, operating systems, user count and connectivity conditions for the standalone application, including whether disconnected operation is mandatory. Are contractor-managed commercial cloud hosting or external model APIs permitted for public and representative non-case data? Please identify any mandatory data-residency, Section 508, interface, equipment or travel requirements for this prototype. | Per SOW Task 4, Vendor is being requested to develop a prototype with sufficient scope, functionality and traceability of outputs for simulated field testing. If Vendor believes it should specify target hardware, etc. to achieve this task it may do so. |
| 11 | Will CHC coordinate access to Government users and the CPEOC program, and what level of participation, testing locations, sessions and expert assessment effort should offerors assume? Are CPEOC-affiliated institutions or experts eligible to participate on an offeror's team, and what separation is required between development, independent validation and source-selection activities? | CHC will coordinate introduction to Government users and the CEPEOC program to a level needed to be determined by CHCC. Testers should not have been involved in development. |
| 12 | Reference: RFQ §§1.1 and 1.5; CLIN schedule Please confirm the intended simplified-acquisition authority cited as FAR 13.2 and any applicable limitation-on-subcontracting provision for this total small-business order. For the required three separate volume files, please specify how the editable C-SCRM workbook and signed attestation should be packaged within Volume 1, accepted file formats, whether a signed SF18 is required, and whether cover pages and contents count toward Volume 2's 15-page limit. | Updated to RFO 13.2. Vendors must comply with 19.505 limitations on subcontracting. No specifications for packaging. No cover pages or table of contents required. The SF18 must be signed if using it to complete reps and certs. |
| 13 | CLIN 002 units vs. period of performance. Monthly progress reports (CLIN 002) are priced at 12 monthly units, while the base period of performance is 9 months. Should quoters price CLIN 002 at 12 units or 9? | Updated to 9 |
| 14 | DOSAR 652.239-71 scope. To what extent does clause 652.239-71 apply to a standalone prototype that will not connect to Department networks or systems? We see two possible scenarios: (a) the prototype processes no non-public Government data, and (b) the Government furnishes data (including CPEOC expert assessments) for the concordance evaluation. Which specific artifacts (e.g., ICT security plan, accreditation documentation) would be required in each case? | Clause 652.239-71 deleted. |
| 15 | Application form factor and test group size. Is a browser-based responsive web application acceptable, or is a native mobile application required? Approximately how many law-enforcement testers are expected to participate in field testing? | Vendor should propose and explain / justify their proposed technical approach. The number of testers will be determined by CHC in collaboration with the CHCC at a later time based on operational considerations at the time. |
| 16 | Test data and expert access. Who is responsible for sourcing representative (non-case) test data and arranging CPEOC expert assessments for the concordance evaluation - will the Government provide access to the CPEOC network, or should the contractor arrange expert access independently? | Per the SOW, the Vendor is responsible for sourcing data. CHC will coordinate introduction to Government users and the CEPEOC program to a level needed to be determined by CHCC. |
| 17 | Early delivery. If the Task 4 Prototype Application is completed ahead of its Month 6 delivery date, will the Government accept early delivery and accelerate acceptance and invoicing of the associated delivery-based CLIN(s), or is the Section 5 delivery schedule fixed as written? | Yes |
| 18 | Field testing logistics. Will simulated field testing and stakeholder engagement activities be conducted in person or remotely, and should any travel be priced into the quote? | Vendor should propose the kind of testing and stakeholder engagement to occur and price accordingly. |
| 19 | Should quoters price twelve monthly progress reports, or nine? Either way, would the Government like the quantity left as printed on the schedule? | Updated to 9 |
| 20 | Clause 52.227-13, Patent Rights - Ownership by the Government, provides that "the Contractor shall assign to the Government title to each subject invention." SOW Section 10.2 provides that the Government receives Government Purpose License Rights for five years, converting to unlimited rights thereafter, and that "the contractor retains the right to commercialize the software outside of the government." Would the Government confirm which of the two governs the software and any inventions arising under this purchase order, so that quoters price to the same data rights? | clause updated to 52.227-11. Please note the distinction between data rights and patent rights. |
| 21 | Attachment 3, the Secure Software Development Attestation Form, asks in Section I for the software product name, version number and release date. It also offers a company-wide attestation, an individual product attestation, or a multiple products attestation. The prototype is developed under this purchase order and has no released version at the time of quoting. Would the Government like quoters to submit the company-wide attestation, or an individual product attestation naming the prototype, with version and release date supplied at delivery? | Either is acceptable as long as you specify which route you are taking. |
| 22 | Clause 652.239-71(a) states that the clause applies to information technology resources "connected to a Department network or operated by a contractor for the Department." Paragraph (d) requires "written proof of accreditation in accordance with NIST SP 800-37 within six (6) months of contract award." SOW Section 1 requires "a standalone application, not connected to Department of State or other U.S. Government systems or networks." Would the Government confirm whether paragraph (d) applies to a standalone prototype that connects to no Department network, and if so, which system boundary is to be accredited? | Clause 652.239-71 deleted |
| 23 | Section 1.5 sets "a size limitation of fifteen (15) pages total for the Volume 2 - Technical Quote, inclusive of any charts, tables, pictures, and diagrams." It also requires the draft Quality Assurance Plan described in SOW Task 4 to be included in the technical proposal. Do a cover page and a table of contents count against the fifteen pages, and does the Quality Assurance Plan count against them as well? | no cover pages or table of contents required. QAP counts toward the page limitation. |
| 24 | SOW Task 6 calls for simulated field testing with "law enforcement or other relevant end-users." Section 8 measures success by the "concordance rate between the prototype's identification outputs and Cultural Property Experts On Call (CPEOC) subject-matter expert assessments during simulated field testing." Will the Cultural Heritage Center facilitate the participation of CPEOC experts and law enforcement end-users in that testing, or should quoters price arranging and compensating those participants directly? | The Cultural Heritage Center will coordinate introductions to CPEOC and law enforcement users and facilitate participation in testing. |
| 25 | SOW Task 3 asks the contractor to "negotiate data-sharing arrangements with relevant cultural institutions, at no additional cost." Does that mean no cost to the Government beyond the firm-fixed price quoted, with any licensing or access fees carried inside that price, or that arrangements are to be secured without any fee being paid at all? | Licensing and or access fees are not anticipated, however if the Vendor believe these are needed they should include this information and detail in their firm-fixed price. |
| 26 | SOW Section 6 establishes a base period of nine months from award, and the delivery schedule ends at Month 9, but CLIN 002 is priced at twelve monthly progress reports and Block 6 of the SF-18 shows a delivery date of 08/30/2026. Can the Department confirm the intended period of performance and the quantity to price under CLIN 002? | Updated to 9. |
| 27 | SOW Task 3 directs the Contractor to prefer Creative Commons 0 training data and, where that is not possible, to negotiate data sharing arrangements with institutions or governments "at no additional cost." We read that as no additional cost to the Government, meaning any licensing or access fees are borne by the Contractor within the firm fixed price. Is that correct? If so, does the Department have an expected range for such arrangements based on its prior consultations, or should quoters price this risk on their own assumptions? | Third-party license fees are not anticipated. If Vendor believes these are needed, they should include in the fix price. Any negotiated data sharing agreement should convey with the prototype. |
| 28 | SOW Task 6 requires simulated field testing with U.S. law enforcement, other agencies, and the Cultural Property Experts On Call program at Month 8. Will CHC or the CHCC arrange the participation of those testers and CPEOC experts, or is identifying and recruiting them the Contractor's responsibility? The same question applies to the stakeholder engagement in Task 2. | The Cultural Heritage Center will coordinate introductions to CPEOC and law enforcement users and facilitate participation in testing. |
| 29 | Clause 652.239-71 requires an ICT Security Plan within thirty days after award and NIST SP 800-37 accreditation within six months. The SOW specifies a standalone prototype that does not connect to Department networks and does not process or store Department information, consistent with 5 FAH-11 H-413.3 and 12 FAH-10 H-312.2-1. Does the Department confirm that the accreditation requirement in 652.239-71 is not triggered by that architecture? If it does apply, we would appreciate guidance on reconciling a 6 month accreditation with a 9 month period of performance, as it materially affects Volume 3. | 652.239-71 deleted. |
| 30 | Volume 1 directs offerors to include the C-SCRM Software Producer Attestation Form, while the Factor 1 rating criteria condition the attestation on "suppliers offering critical software." Should every quoter submit Attachment 3, or only those whose offered software meets the critical software definition? If the determination rests with the quoter, we would prefer to submit the completed form in either case and would welcome confirmation that doing so is acceptable. | self attestation is not required for any product listed on page 3 of the attachment. If none of these apply to what you are offering, then the attestation is required. |
| 31 | Volume 2 is limited to fifteen pages inclusive of charts, tables, pictures, and diagrams, and SOW Task 4 requires a draft Quality Assurance Plan as part of the technical proposal. Does the draft QAP count against the fifteen pages? Relatedly, may key personnel resumes be provided as an appendix outside that limit, or should they be omitted from Volume 2? | no cover pages or table of contents required. QAP counts toward the page limitation. There are no key personnel on this contract. |
| 32 | Award Ceiling? | Award total is anticipated to be below SAT. |
| 33 | RFQ 2.1 awards a Go only where the questionnaire 'contains Yes answers for all questions in Sections 2 and 3', but the questionnaire's own response list offers Yes, No, Not Applicable and Alternative. Where Not Applicable is the truthful answer for a small business, for example the ICT supply chain inventory tampering item for a firm holding no hardware inventory, will a Not Applicable or Alternative response be treated as a Go, or does any response other than Yes produce a No-Go? | RFQ language updated to say Yes or Not Applicable for a valid reason. |
| 34 | Three Section 2 items carry the parenthetical 'if you do not have suppliers, answer Yes'. For a quoter that uses commercial cloud, open-source libraries and AI model providers but holds no hardware or reseller supply chain, please confirm whether those providers are 'key suppliers' for this questionnaire, or whether the no-suppliers instruction applies. | If you do not hold a contract with these model providers then it is not applicable. |
| 35 | The attestation form is required 'for suppliers offering critical software'. Does the Government consider this standalone, non-Department-connected prototype to be critical software under OMB M-22-18 and its successors, and if it is not, does omitting Attachment 3 with a short statement of non-applicability preserve a Go rating under Factor 1? | If the prototype advances, it will become critical software. If the offeror wants their eventual prototype to be viable for further development, it should be prepare to adhere to these security standards now. |
| 36 | Volume 3 requires firm-fixed prices 'for every line item listed in the RFQ CLIN section', and the CLIN section of the posted RFQ contains no line items, showing only Base, Exercised Options and Unexercised Options totals of $0.00. Will the Government post an amendment carrying the CLIN structure, or should quoters propose their own CLIN breakdown against the eight SOW deliverables? | The CLINS have always been located in Section A of the PDF. Please reference them there. |
| 37 | Volume 3 states that some CLINs are priced monthly or quarterly and others as a single lot on delivery of a final end product. Please identify which deliverables the Government intends to pay on a recurring basis and which on acceptance, so that quoted prices and the payment schedule align. | Quantities are indicated in the CLIN strucutre. |
| 38 | Volume 3 requires the quote to 'clearly detail the level of effort and the mix of labor'. Does the Government have an estimated level of effort, labor categories, or a staffing profile in mind for a 9 month prototype of this scope, and should the labor categories and hours be shown by SOW task or by month? | No recommendations. Please organize them by month to clearly align with CLIN pricing. |
| 39 | Task 3 requires the Contractor to negotiate data-sharing arrangements with institutions or governments 'at no additional cost'. Please confirm whether that phrase bars a separate reimbursable line only, or whether it also means the Contractor bears the cost of any licensing fee, access fee or royalty a contributing institution demands. If the Contractor bears it, is there a ceiling the Government expects, since an open-ended obligation cannot be priced firm fixed price? | Third-party license fees are not anticipated. If Vendor believes these are needed, they should include in the fix price. Any negotiated data sharing agreement should convey with the prototype. |
| 40 | Tasks 2, 6 and 8 require stakeholder consultations, simulated field testing with U.S. law enforcement and a final out-briefing. Please state the expected travel: the number of trips, the destinations, and whether travel is a separate reimbursable other direct cost or must be included in the firm fixed price. If travel is included, how many on-site days should quoters assume? | Travel should be included in the FFP. |
| 41 | Beyond travel, please identify any other direct costs the Government expects the Contractor to carry within the firm fixed price, specifically cloud compute for model training, commercial AI model or API usage fees, image licensing, and static, dynamic and Software Composition Analysis scanning tool subscriptions, and confirm who bears the cost of each. | The contractor should propose the necessary inputs it will need to accomplish the required task. |
| 42 | Will the Government furnish any data, systems, credentials or facilities, specifically any government-furnished imagery or object records, access to the Cultural Property Experts On Call program roster, introductions to CBP or HSI testing participants, or workspace? Please list all government furnished property, equipment and information the Contractor may rely on, since the quote must otherwise price sourcing all of it. | No. Per the SOW the Vendor is expected to secure data. The Cultural Heritage Center will coordinate introductions to CPEOC and law enforcement users and facilitate participation in testing. |
| 43 | The SOW does not state a place of performance. Please confirm that all work may be performed remotely at contractor facilities, and identify any task, meeting or testing event that requires an on-site presence at a Department of State or law enforcement facility, together with who furnishes workspace, badges and equipment for it. | Vendor should propose place or places of performance; some testing may occur on or in government facilities. |
| 44 | Does the Government designate any key personnel for this effort, for example a Project Manager, an AI or machine learning lead, or a cultural property subject-matter expert? If so, please identify the roles, state whether a resume is required with the quote, whether resumes count against the 15 page limit for Volume 2, and any minimum qualification, citizenship or residency requirement. | This is a deliverables based requirement. There are no Key Personnel. |
| 45 | Does any person performing under this purchase order require a security clearance, a public trust determination, a Department of State badge, or a background investigation? Given the prototype is expressly standalone and processes no Department information, please confirm whether the Contractor's own background check policy is sufficient. | Correct. There will be no access to sensitive or classified information and no unescorted access to DoS facilities. |
| 46 | The ICT Security clause requires an ICT Security Plan within 30 days of award and written proof of ICT security accreditation within six months, including a final security plan, risk assessment, security test and evaluation, and disaster recovery and continuity of operations plan. The SOW requires a standalone prototype that connects to no Department system and stores no Department information. Please confirm whether the accreditation requirement applies to this prototype, and if it does, what accrediting body and what scope apply within a 9 month period of performance, so that the effort can be priced. | 652.239-71 has been deleted |
| 47 | The SOW requires architecture 'reasonably extensible to future FedRAMP authorization'. Please confirm that no FedRAMP authorization, agency authority to operate, or third-party assessment is required within this period of performance, and describe how extensibility will be evaluated. If the Government expects a target FedRAMP impact level and a described authorization boundary for the future full-scale system, please state the level so that the design and the report address the right boundary. | Please refer to the SOW which answer this question. Vendor is welcome to include in its technical approach suggested target levels and boundaries for future sull-scale systems if Vendor believes this information strengthens their technical approach. |
| 48 | Task 4 requires a minimum of 90 percent test coverage for all code developed under the contract, excluding pre-existing commercial frameworks, development platforms, cloud infrastructure and unmodified AI orchestration technologies. Please confirm whether the 90 percent threshold applies to model training scripts, data curation and vectorization pipelines, and exploratory notebooks, or only to the delivered application code, and state the coverage metric the Government will measure, for example statement or branch coverage. | Vendor should propose these based on industry bast-practice for review and approval by CHC and the CHCC. As noted in the SOW, the 90% code-test coverage spans all code developed under this contract. |
| 49 | Code must show clean tests 'from a static testing SaaS and from open-source web application security scanners or other Department approved solutions'. Please identify the Department approved solutions, state whether the Government furnishes licenses or the Contractor procures them, and confirm the acceptance threshold is no medium or high findings with documented false positives. | Vendor should propose these based on industry bast-practice for review and approval by CHC and the CHCC. As noted in the SOW, the 90% code-test coverage spans all code developed under this contract. |
| 50 | Attachment 3 refers to Plan of Action and Milestones content. Are there existing POA&M items, open defects or an inherited backlog from prior Cultural Heritage Center or Cultural Property Experts On Call work that transfer to this contractor, and will open items identified during testing under Tasks 5 and 6 be tracked on a POA&M the Government reviews? | No there are no inherited backlogs. |
| 51 | Section 10.2 grants Government Purpose Rights for a period not to exceed five years, 'after which the Government's rights shall convert to unlimited rights'. Conversion to unlimited rights is inconsistent with the stated intent that the Contractor retain the ability to commercialize the prototype. Will the Government negotiate the Government Purpose Rights period in the Schedule at award, and will it consider the rights remaining Government Purpose Rights rather than converting? | Please state your objections or counteroffer to the solicitation terms in your proposal. |
| 52 | Please confirm that Contractor background intellectual property, pre-existing commercial frameworks, and third-party open-source components incorporated into the prototype are excluded from the Government Purpose Rights grant and are delivered under their own licenses, and confirm what the version-controlled repository must contain, for example whether trained model weights and the curated training dataset are deliverables alongside source code. | Government Purpose Rights only apply to the prototype developed under this contract. |
| 53 | The training dataset must cover categories of cultural property from Ukraine and at least one other country restricted under 19 CFR 12.104g. Does the Government have a preferred second country or object category, and is there a minimum number of object classes or images the prototype must cover for the Government to consider the scope sufficient? | No. Vendor should propose. |
| 54 | Success is measured partly by the concordance rate between the prototype's outputs and Cultural Property Experts On Call expert assessments. Is there a minimum concordance rate, accuracy or precision threshold the prototype must meet for acceptance, or is the rate reported for assessment without a pass or fail threshold? | No. Vendor should propose based on industry best practices in application development. |
| 55 | Who recruits and schedules the law enforcement and Cultural Property Experts On Call participants for simulated field testing, the Government or the Contractor, and how many participants and test sessions should quoters assume? Please also confirm the Contractor is not responsible for participant travel or compensation. | The Cultural Heritage Center will coordinate introductions to CPEOC and law enforcement users and facilitate participation in testing. The number of testers will be determined by CHC in collaboration with the CHCC at a later time based on operational considerations at the time. |
| 56 | The Statement of Work moves from Section 8, Metrics for Success, to Section 10, Copyright and Data Rights. There is no Section 9. Please confirm whether a section was omitted in assembly, and if so, post it. | No omission, just misnumbering. |
| 57 | Is there an incumbent or predecessor contract for this prototype work, or for the related consultations the Cultural Heritage Coordinating Committee has already conducted with subject-matter experts, cultural institutions and industry? If so, please provide the incumbent name, the contract number and the current annual value, and state whether the incumbent may compete for this award. | No incumbent |
| 58 | The Cultural Property Experts On Call program is managed by the University of Pennsylvania Cultural Heritage Center under a separate arrangement. Is that manager, or any incumbent, funded and required to provide knowledge transfer to the awardee during this period of performance, specifically access to the expert roster, prior consultation findings, and participation in Task 6 testing? If no such obligation exists, quoters should price the engagement effort from a standing start, so please confirm. | The Cultural Heritage Center will coordinate introductions to CPEOC and law enforcement users and facilitate participation in testing. |
| 59 | Past performance is not listed as an evaluation factor and no past performance questionnaire is required. Please confirm past performance will not be evaluated. If the Government does intend to consider it, may CPARS records be cited in place of a past performance questionnaire, to reduce burden on references? | Past Performance is not an evaluation factor but the Government will use CPARs to determine contractor responsibility. |
| 60 | Evaluation of the Technical Approach 'will include review of each Contractor qualification listed under SOW Section 3'. Section 3 lists nine qualifications spanning AI engineering, cultural property expertise and law enforcement familiarity. Is a quoter expected to hold all nine in-house, or may subject-matter qualifications be met through named subcontractors or consultants, and are their qualifications evaluated the same way? | The prime may use subcontractors to meet the required qualifications so long as it adheres to the limitations in subcontracting rule set out in FAR 19.505. |
| 61 | Does the Government permit the use of AI-assisted software development tools, for example GitHub Copilot or Claude Code, in producing code delivered under this contract? If permitted, please state any disclosure, review or provenance requirement that applies to AI-assisted code. | Vendor should propose based on industry best practices and be clear in its technical approach if and how it will use such tools. |
| 62 | The prototype is intended for field use by non-technical end users. Does Section 508 and the Revised 508 Standards apply to the prototype application and its deliverable documentation, and if so, is an Accessibility Conformance Report required at delivery? | 508 Standards will apply to the eventual end product but are not required for the current prototype. |
| 63 | Volume 2 is limited to fifteen pages inclusive of charts, tables, pictures and diagrams. Please confirm whether a cover page, a table of contents, an acronym list, resumes and the draft Quality Assurance Plan count toward that page limit, and state the required minimum font, font size and line spacing, including whether a smaller font size is permitted inside tables and figure captions. | table of contents, acronym list, cover page, and resumes are not required. The draft QAP does count torwards to the total page limit. |
| 64 | Please state the required file format and any file naming convention for the three volumes, confirm that the 20MB cap applies to the total of one email including all attachments rather than per file, confirm whether the three volumes may be sent in a single email as separate attachments, and confirm whether the Government will acknowledge receipt. | Files should reference the quote number. Each email the vendor sends has a 20MB cap. Government will acknowledge receipt of the total number of emails received. There are no required file formats. |
| 65 | Will the Government publish its answers to all interested parties by amendment before the quote due date, and if answers are issued within three business days of 5:00 PM EDT on September 21, 2026, will the Government extend the quote due date to allow the answers to be reflected in the quotes? | The Government will publish the consolidated Q&A and amended RFQ. |
| 66 | The RFQ states a Total Small Business set-aside under NAICS 541511 with a $34M size standard, while the 52.204-8 Alternate I provision in the posted document has the NAICS code and size standard fields left blank for the Contracting Officer to insert. Please confirm 541511 and $34M govern this set aside. | Confirmed |
| 67 | Performance is measured partly on 'responsiveness to Government coordination'. Please state any expected service level for the Contractor's response and resolution times on Government requests during the period of performance, the expected frequency of recurring coordination meetings with the Cultural Heritage Center, and whether any help desk hours or system uptime commitment applies to the delivered prototype during testing. | The vendor may suggest baselines in its technical approach based on inductry best practice. |
| 68 | Can the Government disclose the anticipated funding range or maximum available funding for the complete nine-month effort, inclusive of development, data sourcing and curation, specialist support, hosting, security, and testing? | This effort is not expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. |
| 69 | Task 3 calls for a sample of cultural-property categories from Ukraine and at least one additional country. Are there mandatory categories, minimum numbers of distinct objects or images, or a requirement to include 3D models? May offerors propose the additional country and category coverage based on relevant CC0/public-domain data availability, with scope validated through Task 2 stakeholder engagement? | The publicly available designated list for each country covered by 19 CFR §12.104g provides the minimum object categories, culture and periods. Minimum counts, granularity, etc. are not specified and should be proposed by the vendor. The Government does not anticipate providing introductions. Vendor must secure access. Third-party license fees are not anticipated. If Vendor believes these are needed, they should include in the fix price. Any negotiated data sharing agreement should convey with the prototype. |
| 70 | What level of identification is expected—for example, object category, likely cultural/geographic attribution, or identification of a specific object? Please identify any mandatory accuracy or CPEOC-concordance thresholds and evaluation-set requirements, or confirm that offerors should propose these for agreement in the final Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan at award. How will documented model limitations affect acceptance of this proof-of-concept? | Vendor should propose based on its understanding of the requested prototype and the field of cultural property law enforcement. |
| 71 | Is a contractor-hosted application in a U.S. commercial cloud, accessed over the internet and using managed AI services, acceptable, or is local/offline operation required? Please clarify the applicability of clause 652.239-71’s six-month ICT security accreditation requirement to the standalone prototype, including the required authorization boundary and deliverables, given the SOW’s description of FedRAMP authorization as a potential subsequent-phase requirement. | 652.239-71 has been deleted. It will only apply to the eventual end product, not the prototype. |
| 72 | Are there citizenship, residency, clearance, or place-of-performance restrictions for personnel performing software development, data curation/labelling, testing, or system administration? Specifically, may non-U.S. personnel working outside the United States perform these activities through controlled access to U.S.-hosted development environments, or must any or all work be performed by U.S. persons within the United States? | Any use of non U.S. personnel must adhere to the contract terms and conditions. |
| 73 | Please clarify how SOW §10.2 is reconciled with FAR 52.227-13, FAR 52.227-14 Alternate IV, and H-020. What rights and source-code delivery obligations apply separately to contract-developed software/models, curated datasets, existing independently developed proprietary components, and third-party components? Does the conversion to unlimited rights after the stated period apply only to the applicable contract-funded deliverables, rather than underlying existing platform technology? | All contract terms and conditions apply only to the software developed under this contract, not third party components or existing independently developed components. |
| 74 | What support will CHC provide in facilitating participation by CPEOC, law-enforcement personnel, and cultural institutions? Please clarify responsibility for securing and funding expert participation, providing representative evaluation inputs, and arranging simulated field testing, including any expected participant numbers or testing locations that offerors should price. | CHC will coordinate introduction to Government users and the CEPEOC program to a level needed to be determined by CHCC. |
| 75 | For a prime/subcontractor team, may the qualifications in SOW §3 be demonstrated collectively through the prime, committed technical subcontractors, and named cultural-property specialists? Please clarify which entities must submit the C-SCRM questionnaire and software-producer attestation. For a prototype to be developed after award, what company-wide or product-specific attestation is expected at quotation submission? | The prime is responsible for C-SCRM and self attestation. The prime may use subcontracts to meet the collective requirement but must adhere to the limitations in subcontracting laid out in FAR 19.505 |
| 76 | CLIN 002 specifies 12 monthly progress reports, while the stated period of performance is nine months. Please confirm the quantity to be priced. | Updated to 9. |
| 77 | Small Business Prime Structure: Regarding the Total Small Business set-aside under NAICS 541511, can the Government confirm if an eligible US Small Business prime contractor may utilize a foreign technical partner or foreign-owned LLC as a subcontractor to deliver the prototype, provided the prime maintains the required percentage of work and compliance with SBA affiliation rules? | As long as the subcontract operates within the terms and condiditions of the prime contract, yes. |
| 78 | Intellectual Property & Background IP: Under SOW Section 10.2, the Government receives Government Purpose Rights for 5 years. Can the Government confirm that the Contractor retains full ownership of any pre-existing background IP (e.g., proprietary base models, frameworks) used to build the prototype, and that the Government Purpose Rights apply only to the newly developed custom prototype application and data generated specifically under this contract? | confirmed |
| 79 | Data-Sharing Timelines: The SOW requires the training dataset to include cultural property from Ukraine and at least one other restricted country. If negotiating data-sharing agreements with foreign heritage institutions exceeds the 9-month period of performance, will the Government accept alternative open-source datasets to satisfy the training requirement? | Vendor needs to obtain data within the stated period of performance. |
| 80 | SOW Section 3 lists both technical AI/ML qualifications and cultural-property domain qualifications (illicit trafficking markets, legal frameworks, identification standards, customs/law enforcement operations). Will Factor 2 confidence ratings weigh these categories independently, or is a strong technical AI/ML approach sufficient if domain expertise is brought in through a named subcontractor or consultant rather than the prime's own past performance? | Factor 2 will be evaluated collectively. There is no separate weighting for the categories. |
| 81 | Is prior past performance specifically in cultural property, art crime, or trafficking enforcement required, or will analogous AI/ML computer-vision past performance in another regulated domain (e.g., customs, security screening) be considered responsive? | Please refer to the SOW for past performance and experience requirements. |
| 82 | Attachment 2 (C-SCRM Questionnaire) is referenced in Section 1.5 as a required Go/No-Go submission but was not included in the RFQ package we received. Can the Government provide this attachment or confirm it will be issued via amendment? | It's been in the announcement as an excel file. Please check again. |
| 83 | For the C-SCRM Software Producer Attestation Form (Attachment 3): if the prototype is built using a mix of the contractor's proprietary AI platform and open-source/commercial ML frameworks, does the attestation apply only to the contractor-developed code, or to the full stack including third-party model components? | Full stack unless the components meet the exceptions on page 3 of the attestation. |
| 84 | Given the standalone, non-FedRAMP architecture called for in this phase, is a Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) an acceptable substitute for a full SSDF attestation on any component the offeror cannot fully attest to at this stage? | attestation is only required for the work developed at this stage. |
| 85 | Section 10.2 grants the Government Purpose Rights for 5 years, after which rights convert to unlimited unless otherwise agreed. Can the Contractor negotiate an extension of the Government Purpose Rights period at time of award, given the commercialization value of the underlying model? | The contractor should note its objections/counteroffer to the solicitation terms in its offer. |
| 86 | For training data obtained through data-sharing arrangements with museums or archives that carry their own usage restrictions, how should the Contractor handle conflicts between those third-party restrictions and the Government Purpose Rights license described in Section 10.2? | Licensing and or access fees are not anticipated, however if the Vendor believe these are needed they should include this information and detail in their firm-fixed price. |
| 87 | Task 6 (Simulated Field Testing) references coordination with U.S. law enforcement and the CPEOC program. Will the Government facilitate these introductions, or is the Contractor expected to independently establish those relationships? | The Cultural Heritage Center will coordinate introductions to CPEOC and law enforcement users and facilitate participation in testing. |
| 88 | Is there a target concordance rate or minimum accuracy threshold between the prototype's outputs and CPEOC subject-matter expert assessments that the Government considers a pass/fail bar, or is this purely descriptive for the Final Assessment Report? | No. Vendor should propose based on industry best practices in application development. |
| 89 | Please confirm the full name and title of the Contracting Officer at diangelome@state.gov for our cover letter and point-of-contact block. | No cover letter required. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .