Attachment 1 Statement of Objectives.docx

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES (SOO)

AI Legal Assistant Platform

1. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND

DOJ is conducting market research pursuant to FAR Part 10 to identify commercially available AI legal assistant platforms capable of supporting agency legal operations. This Statement of Objectives (SOO) describes the Government's objectives for a time-limited evaluation of such a platform prior to any production procurement decision. The evaluation can be conducted in the Offeror's FedRAMP authorized or commercially available cloud environment using synthetic or publicly available test data only. However, if conducted in the Offeror’s commercial environment, no real agency data, personally identifiable information (PII), or controlled unclassified information (CUI) may be used during the evaluation period.

The agency's legal operations require capabilities across four functional areas: (1) autonomous end-to-end execution of high-volume legal tasks without step-by-step attorney direction; (2) bulk analysis and cross-document synthesis of large document sets; (3) AI-powered legal and regulatory research; and (4) integration with the agency's existing document management and productivity platforms. This RFI solicits information from vendors offering platforms that address one or more of these capability areas.

2. EVALUATION OBJECTIVES

The Government's objectives for this evaluation period are:

• Autonomous task execution: Validate the Offeror's capability to execute end-to-end legal tasks autonomously - including regulatory analysis, contract review, and document synthesis - against representative agency workflow scenarios using synthetic document sets, without requiring step-by-step attorney direction.

• Bulk document analysis: Demonstrate bulk cross-document analysis and synthesis performance at scale (minimum 5,000 synthetic documents) within acceptable timeframes, including the ability to extract structured data, synthesize findings across documents, and generate cited outputs.

• Legal research: Evaluate the platform's AI-powered legal and regulatory research capability, including the quality of citations, coverage of relevant legal sources, and integration with agency-licensed legal research databases where applicable.

• Platform integration: Assess feasibility of integration with the agency's document management system (DMS) and Microsoft 365 environment, including read/write access and workflow continuity for agency attorneys.

• User adoption and usability: Evaluate attorney adoption, usability, and perceived productivity impact across a representative pilot user group through structured use case scenarios and post-evaluation survey.

• Security and compliance posture: Obtain and assess the Offeror's security documentation (SOC 2 Type II, FedRAMP status and roadmap, data residency controls, AI-specific data handling commitments) to inform production ATO planning.

• Implementation readiness: Identify configuration requirements, integration complexity, training needs, and implementation timeline estimates to inform a production deployment decision.

3. CAPABILITY AREAS OF INTEREST

Offerors are encouraged to describe how their platform addresses each of the following capability areas. Platforms need not address every area; partial responses are welcome. The Government is particularly interested in understanding the maturity, scalability, and security posture of each offered capability.

4. CONSTRAINTS AND GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED INFORMATION

Offerors shall adhere to the following constraints during any evaluation period:

• All evaluation activity is limited to UNCLASSIFIED synthetic, anonymized, or publicly available test data. No agency operational data, PII, CUI, law enforcement sensitive information, or attorney-client privileged information from active proceedings may be uploaded to or processed in the Offeror's evaluation environment.

• The Government will furnish: a list of 20–30 named pilot users; IT contacts for DMS/M365 integration coordination; and synthetic document set(s) requirements representative of agency legal use cases.

• The Offeror shall contractually guarantee that no evaluation session data, prompts, outputs, or uploaded documents are used to train, fine-tune, or improve any underlying AI model.

• The Offeror shall confirm in writing that all evaluation data is stored and processed within US-based infrastructure.

• The Offeror shall notify the Government within one (1) business day of any suspected or confirmed security incident affecting Government evaluation data.

5. EVALUATION USE CASES

The Government will define a minimum of four (4) evaluation use cases. Offerors should describe how their platform supports each of the following representative scenarios, and identify which capability areas (Section 3) each scenario exercises:

UC-5

(optional)

6. EVALUATION SUCCESS CRITERIA

Any evaluation period will be assessed against the following criteria. Offerors should describe how their platform would be measured against each criterion:

7. SECURITY AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

Offerors responding to this RFI shall provide information addressing the following security and compliance requirements. These requirements will form the basis of security provisions in any subsequent evaluation or production contract:

• FedRAMP status: Describe current FedRAMP authorization status (Authorized, In Process, or not initiated). If not yet authorized, provide planned timeline and approach. FedRAMP Moderate or High authorization will be a prerequisite for any production award.

• Data handling: Confirm US data residency enforcement, data isolation from other tenants, and that Government evaluation data will not be used for AI model training, fine-tuning, or any other commercial purpose.

• Security documentation available: Identify which of the following are available for Government review: SOC 2 Type II report; ISO 27001 certificate; ISO 42001 certificate; Security Addendum/Platform Agreement; FedRAMP Package Summary (if authorized); data processing architecture diagram.

• AI-specific controls: Describe controls preventing hallucinated outputs from being presented as factual legal authority; audit logging of all AI queries and outputs; and AI model change notification procedures.

• Access controls: Confirm support for SAML SSO, MFA, IP allow-listing, role-based access control, and audit logging of all user sessions.

• Incident response: Describe security incident notification procedures and SLAs.

8. REQUIRED VENDOR RESPONSE CONTENT

In response to this SOO, vendors are requested to submit a written response addressing the following. This is a market research exercise only - responses will not be evaluated as offers and will not result in a contract award. Responses inform the agency's acquisition planning.

• Company overview: Name, address, point of contact, CAGE code/UEI (if registered in SAM.gov), and a brief description of your AI legal platform.

• Capability matrix: For each capability area (CA-1 through CA-8 in Section 3), describe your platform's current capability, maturity level (GA / Beta / Roadmap), and any limitations.

• Use case approach: Describe how your platform would support each evaluation use case (UC-1 through UC-4 in Section 5). Include sample outputs or screenshots if available.

• Integration capability: Describe current integrations with iManage, NetDocuments, SharePoint, Microsoft Word, Outlook, and Teams. Identify any integration limitations.

• Security posture: Address each item in Section 7. Attach available security documentation.

• FedRAMP status and roadmap: Current authorization status; if not yet authorized, describe timeline and approach to achieving FedRAMP In Process or Authorized status.

• Pricing model: Describe your pricing structure for a 20–30 user evaluation period and an estimated range for a full agency production deployment. Pricing need not be binding.

• Evaluation proposal: Propose a draft evaluation plan - including timeline, use case configuration approach, training program, and success measurement approach - that would satisfy the Government's objectives in Section 2.

• References: Provide two or more federal government agency references (current or prior customers), if available.

• Differentiators: Describe what distinguishes your platform from other AI legal assistant platforms in the market.

9. RFI SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

This Request for Information (RFI) is issued for market research purposes only under FAR Part 10. It does not constitute a solicitation for offers, a commitment to issue a solicitation, or an obligation to award a contract. The Government will not reimburse respondents for any costs associated with preparing or submitting a response.

• Submission deadline: [Insert date - recommended 21–30 days from RFI release]

• Submission format: PDF or Word document; maximum [XX] pages

• Submission address: [Insert agency procurement email or SAM.gov posting reference]

• Point of contact: [Contracting Officer Name, Title, Email, Phone]

• Questions: Submit written questions to [CO email] no later than [Insert date]. Responses will be provided to all parties via amendment to this RFI posting.

10. APPLICABLE REFERENCES

• FAR Part 10 - Market Research

• FAR Part 6 - Competition Requirements

• OMB M-25-21 - Accelerating Federal Use of AI through Innovation, Governance, and Public Trust (February 2025)

• OMB M-25-22 - Driving Efficient Acquisition of Artificial Intelligence in Government (February 2025)

• NIST SP 800-37 - Risk Management Framework for Information Systems

• NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 - Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems

• FedRAMP Program Requirements - marketplace.fedramp.gov

• GAO-26-107859 - Artificial Intelligence Acquisitions: Agencies Should Collect and Apply Lessons Learned (April 2026)

• Agency IT Security Policy - [Insert agency-specific reference]

• Agency AI Governance Policy - [Insert agency-specific reference]