Government Solicitation QA - Final.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 48 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- CSOP-BP-GS-25-0001
About this file
This document is a Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) solicitation from the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for a Trade Solutions Pilot (TSP). The solicitation seeks innovative commercial technologies and services across three capability pillars: AI-enabled trade solutions, automated entry generation and validation, and an international customs platform. CBP is specifically looking for solutions that can improve tariff classification, supply chain tracing, risk management, entry filing for small/medium businesses, and data exchange between customs agencies, with a focus on non-EDI data transmission methods.
The solicitation follows a two-window submission process, with Window 1 submissions due by July 7, 2025, and Window 2 submissions accepted through June 30, 2026. The evaluation will be conducted in phases, with an initial assessment of solution briefs using criteria such as capabilities approach, transition potential, and vendor experience. Successful submissions may be invited to provide oral presentations or technical demonstrations. The pilot is expected to run for 12 months, with potential for expanded feature development and training. CBP emphasizes that solutions must operate outside its IT firewall, not require CBP data input, and comply with data security requirements, including keeping data within U.S. boundaries and accessible only to U.S. citizens.
View the file
Other files
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
Questions
| No. | Original Sorting Order | Solicitation Document | Applies to both CSOP and SOW | Document Section | Page Number | Question | Government Response | |
| 1 | 1 | CSOP | 2.0 | 6 | The RFI expresses a strong interest in exploring "alternative methods other than CBP’s existing Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) standards of electronic data transmission". What are CBP's specific expectations and preferred technical standards for secure API-driven data exchange between a new government cloud solution and the existing ACE environment? | CBP is open to exchanging messages in alternate open and non-proprietary standards but ACE is currently implementing an API capability with JSON payloads however this should not be a limitation on proposed solutions. | ||
| 2 | 2 | CSOP | 8.1.2 d | 8 | Given the requirement that "ground-truthing or tuning of systems will be performed only on CBP systems and not on contractor networks unless specifically authorized", how does CBP define a "CBP system" in this context? Specifically, would a dedicated, secure environment within a government cloud instance, separate from the primary ACE production environment, be considered a "CBP system" for such data processing activities in a potential future phase? | Not applicable since for the pilot the system will not run in the government environment. A CBP system is any information system that CBP transmits, stores, or processes data or information and is (1) owned, leased, or operated by CBP, (2) operated by a contractor on behalf of CBP, or (3) operated by another Federal, state, or local Government agency on behalf of CBP. | ||
| 3 | 3 | CSOP | 3.2.1 | |||||
| Section 1 | 9 | The RFI states that the proposed technology solution "cannot operate behind the CBP IT firewall" for the initial pilot, while also indicating development "via a test environment within ACE". Given that the existing Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Portal already operates in a FedRAMP High Government Cloud environment hosted by its provider, how does CBP specifically define "behind the CBP IT firewall" in the context of cloud-based solutions? Does this imply a new, entirely separate government cloud environment, or is a distinct logical environment within the same government cloud provider's ecosystem (where ACE resides) considered "outside" for the initial pilot phase? | Not applicable since for the pilot the system will not run in the government environment. ACE will only be ingesting data provided by the proposed solution in a test environment. | |||||
| 4 | 4 | CSOP | 3.2.1 | |||||
| Section 1 | 9 | To fulfill the requirement that the proposed technology solution "cannot require any CBP data input to achieve the capability" for initial demonstration, what specific types or categories of non-CBP data are considered acceptable and preferred for showcasing the capabilities? For example, would the use of publicly available export data from foreign customs agencies or other types of private sector trade compliance data be sufficient and meet this criterion for the initial pilot demonstration? | This requirement refers to the fact CBP is not providing solution providers with access to the data housed within CBP systems, and therefore, any solutions should not rely on access to such data to fulfill one or more of the described capability pillar objectives. The examples provided in the question would be sufficient. | |||||
| 5 | 5 | CSOP | 3.2.1 | |||||
| Section 1 | 9 | When the RFI specifies that the development and implementation of private sector solutions will be conducted "via a test environment within ACE", does this mean a logical test environment within the existing ACE production instance, or can it encompass a separate, dedicated government cloud environment that is architecturally distinct but designed for eventual integration with ACE? | There is no requirement to host the pilot system in the ACE test environment. Information sent by the vendor will be ingested into ACE test environment. | |||||
| 6 | 6 | CSOP | 3.2.1 | |||||
| Section 2 | 9 | What are CBP's estimated operational requirements in terms of typical transaction volumes, concurrent users, data processing loads, and desired throughput for a fully operationalized solution? | CBP anticipates this will vary significantly and is unique to the solution provider. CBP does not have plans at this time to mandate trade community use of any solution(s) that may be selected for awards. As such, details around typical transaction volumes, data processing loads, and the like will be informed by the amount of data the solution providers are prepared to share with CBP. This may be based on the solution providers existing importer clientele, for example, among other factors. | |||||
| 7 | 7 | CSOP | 3.2.1 | |||||
| Section 2 | 10 | Are there any specific API management platforms or data integration patterns that CBP prefers or currently uses for non-EDI based data exchange? | No, all solutions will be considered for evaluation for this solicitation. | |||||
| 8 | 8 | CSOP | 2.0 | |||||
| Pillar 1 | 5 | AI Enabled Solutions: Tariff classification – are you interested in validating tariff classification or classifying tariffs numbers based on the description and other information? | All solutions will be considered for evaluation for this solicitation. | |||||
| 9 | 9 | CSOP | 2.0 | |||||
| Pillar 1 | 5 | AI Enabled Solutions: What sort of validations would apply to the country of origin? e.g. would this be for goods possibly substantially transformed inside another country? | CBP is seeking solutions that can address all current as well as emerging tariff requirements, including innovative and expedient methods of handling substantial transformation requirements. | |||||
| 10 | 10 | CSOP | 2.0 | |||||
| Pillar 1 | 5 | AI Enabled Solutions: What other items could fall under “etc.”? e.g. would this include validating PGA data? | All solutions will be considered for evaluation for this solicitation. | |||||
| 11 | 11 | CSOP | 2.0 | |||||
| Pillar 1 | 5 | Earlier Tariff Collection: Do you envision this process working through service providers or directly with other international government’s postal services? | All solutions will be considered for evaluation for this solicitation. | |||||
| 12 | 12 | CSOP | 2.0 | |||||
| Pillar 1 | 5 | Supply Chain Tracing: What are the requirements for this? In other words, how far back in the supply chain would you like to track? Back to the original manufacturer, or somewhere else in the supply chain? | Ideally from origin to end user. | |||||
| 13 | 13 | CSOP | 2.0 | |||||
| Pillar 1 | 5 | Supply Chain Tracing: Are we talking about pre-departure planning, after departure shipments bound to the USA and actors involved in them, but also higher up the chain stages such as manufacturer logistics/MRP planning or even higher up such as manufacturer CRM (Customer Relationship Management), SCM (Supplier Relationship Manager), etc.? | Any or all of these as part of a solution could be considered for evaluation for this solicitation. | |||||
| 14 | 14 | CSOP | 2.0 | |||||
| Pillar 2 | 6 | Are you envisioning an importer portal for filing entries, such as the ACE AES Direct portal, or collecting data from a third-party provider that would file directly with the ACE system? | The solicitation is not limited in either aspect and is open to consider all viable solutions. | |||||
| 15 | 15 | CSOP | 2.0 | |||||
| Pillar 2 | 6 | Would any of the elements of Pillar 1 come into play for Pillar 2 e.g. AI tariff classification, etc. | Yes, solutions that reach across Pillars are acceptable. | |||||
| 16 | 16 | CSOP | 2.0 | |||||
| Pillar 3 | 6 | Is this a system intended to work with the WCO’s “Smart Customs Community Portal”, adjacent, alternative or something different? | Something different. | |||||
| 17 | 17 | CSOP | 2.0 | |||||
| Pillar 3 | 6 | What services would such “international customs platform” provide? | An international customs platform may be built in an interoperable manner for ease of integration and allow carriers to share import and export data with customs agencies | |||||
| 18 | 18 | CSOP | 3.2.1 | 9 | In reference to Requirement #3, if the proposed solution uses a commercial platform already in use by the government (such as Amazon Web Services) and the vendor has cleared personnel, will the government allow testing within the CBP firewall? Use of existing commercial solutions will save the government significant funds and enhance the evaluation of the pilots if vendors are allowed to configure existing licenses within the CBP firewall. | No. | ||
| 19 | 19 | CSOP | 3.2.1 | 9 | In reference to Requirements #3 and #5, will the pilots be run entirely within the technology providers environment? If so, can the government provide additional requirements/specifications for transmitting data to CBP? | The pilots will involve the technology provider transmitting data from their environment to CBP's test environment in ACE, without going behind CBP's firewall. | ||
| 20 | 20 | CSOP | 2.0 | 6 | It is our understanding that pilots must run without any access to CBP data. Will the government consider providing data to solution vendors to enhance the evaluation of the pilots? | The Government will not formally transmit data to solution vendors to enhance the evaluation of the pilots. The Government may give feedback in other forms regarding the quality of the data received and other measures of success. | ||
| 21 | 21 | CSOP | 3.1 | 7-8 | The Government requires a minimum font size of 12 pt. in Times New Roman. Would the Government allow the use of 8 pt. font size in tables, graphics, and figure/table captions? | The Government will allow the use of 8 pt. font size in tables, graphics, and figure/table captions. | ||
| 22 | 22 | CSOP | 8.0 | 19 | Depending on the nature of the solution, the SOW compliance requirements have the potential to lack proportionality and specificity in certain areas. For example, if the solution is cloud service based, there are a number of requirements that would not be applicable. Please confirm there will be flexibility to negotiate these requirements at a subsequent stage to ensure alignment with standard commercial cloud terms. | Yes, Section 5.7 of CSOP Solicitation states " Based on the Phase 1 and 2 evaluations, the government may enter directly into negotiations with each submitter to make a resultant award. | ||
| 23 | 23 | CSOP | 3.2.1 | 9 | The CSOP states that "the technology solution cannot operate behind the CBP IT firewall and cannot require any CBP data input to achieve the capability." Is this requirement limited to the demo/orals, or will it apply to the pilot and the final implementation? | At the conclusion of this procurement process, CBP may select several candidates to proceed with as part of an ongoing pilot via a test environment within CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). |
The intended awarded pilot may ultimately inform minimum security criteria and certifications for vendors to transmit data to CBP systems beyond the pilot phase.
| 24 | 24 | CSOP | 5.5 | ||||
| C.1 | 16 | The CSOP references two models for the Phase II evaluation process: "Award of a contract can only be made to a submitter: 1) Whose proposal is technically acceptable or represents the best value;" Please confirm the Government will use the "Best Value" and not "Technically Acceptable" evaluation model during Phase II. | Awards will be made to a submitter whose proposal is technically acceptable or represents the best value. However, in terms of best value, proposals will not be compared with each other to determine best value, as each submitter will be evaluated on their own individual merit. Trade-off evaluation procedures will not be utilizes since each solution swill be evluated on its own merit. | ||||
| 25 | 25 | CSOP | 3.2.1 | 9 | Does the government have a definition for “CBP data” as defined in the CSOP, Section 3.2.1? | "CBP data" in this context refers to data housed within CBP's systems, such as trade data CBP receives from importers via ACE. The intent of this compliance question is to ensure the solution provider understands there will be no access to such information protected behind the CBP firewall. | |
| 26 | 26 | CSOP | 8.5 | 20 | Please confirm that Section 8.5 of the CSOP, "Title," is not applicable to commercial services provided as part of the solution which will be government by commercial IP terms. | The full language in question reads as follows, "Unless specified elsewhere in this contract, title to items furnished under this contract shall pass to the Government upon acceptance, regardless of when or where the Government takes physical possession." This is standard language used in CSOP Solicitations. For this particular solicitation, it is not CBP's intent to suggest CBP would take title of commercial services. | |
| 27 | 27 | CSOP | 2.0 | 7 | Section 2.0 of the CSOP seeks solutions that address "earlier tariff collection and payment to the U.S. Government, especially in the international mail environment." Does the international mail environment include both postal and commercial carriers (i.e., express carriers)? | Yes, in this context. | |
| 28 | 28 | CSOP | 2.0 | 6 | Regarding the risk management requirements in CSOP Section 2.0, does the government have data management principles you would be willing to share in order for vendors to provide robust AI driven risk management and supply chain tracing solutions? Or would this be shared during the pilot? | We would like to better understand what AI driven risk management and supply tracing solution your company is capable of delivering. | |
| 29 | 29 | CSOP | 2.0 | 5-6 | Regarding Pillars 1 and 2 requirements in CSOP Section 2,0, what are the scaling requirements (Avg. and Peak) on number of clearances and number of products within each clearance? | Scaling abilities will depend on the particular solution offered for consideration. | |
| 30 | 30 | SOW | 8.1.1 | 7 | A number of the CSOP solicitation and SOW compliance requirements reference government policies and standards that offerors appear to be unable to access. For example, it appears DHS’s Artificial Intelligence System Security Guide (March 2025 - version 3.0) is unavailable online. Please confirm that offerors will be provided with access to all referenced documents and provided a future opportunity to submit questions. | A copy of DHS’s Artificial Intelligence System Security Guide may be provided to submitters that advance to Phase II. | |
| 31 | 31 | SOW | 8.1.4 | 9 | Section 8.1.4(a) references FIPS 140-2 validation. Given that FIPS 140-3 replaced FIPS 140-2 as the current federal standard and represents enhanced security requirements aligned with modern threats, will CBP accept cryptographic modules that have been validated under FIPS 140-3 | Yes | |
| 32 | 32 | CSOP | 3.2.1 | 9 | Please confirm if bidders can exclusively submit PDF submission of their response. | Submitters may exclusively submit their responses in Adobe PDF Format | |
| 33 | 33 | CSOP | 8.19 | 28-29 | The CSOP solicitation and SOW contain conflicting requirements about US Persons (and/or US Citizens). These requirements are generally not aligned with commercial solutions. Please confirm the applicability and scope of any citizenship requirements and how those requirements align to the broad range of solutions that could be offered under this CSOP. | Please note the below terms are required for inclusion in all CSOP Solicitations and would apply if an offeror would be providing a foreign national to work as a contractor for CBP under a potential contract award from the CSOP solicitation. CSOP section 8.19 outlines Foreign Nationals: |
A. For purposes of this clause, foreign nationals are all persons not citizens of, not nationals of, nor immigrant aliens to, the United States of America. Nothing in this clause is intended to waive any requirements imposed by any other U.S. Government agency with respect to employment of foreign nationals or export control.
B. The contractor acknowledges that the technical data generated under this contract may be subject to export control, including disclosure to foreign nationals, whether such data is provided orally or in written form.
C. The contractor agrees to obtain written approval from the CO before assigning any foreign national to perform work under this contract or before granting foreign nationals access to data related to this contract, whether such data is provided by the Government or generated under this contract.
| 34 | 34 | CSOP | 3.1.1 | 8 | In consideration of the Independence Day holiday, we would like to request a two week extension to a due date of 7/21/2025 for Window 1 submissions. | The Government does not intend to extend Window 1. Written solution briefs as described in section 3.2 of this solicitation submitted after Window 1 (07/07/2025) must be submitted electronically by 3:00 pm Eastern Standard Time, June 30, 2026, to the following e-mail boxes: peter.a.giambone@cbp.dhs.gov & joshua.bedregal@cbp.dhs.gov. | ||
| 35 | 35 | CSOP | A | 2.0 | 10 | Regarding the use of AI with government data (SOW Pillar 1, Solution Brief Q7), can CBP clarify its position on data ownership and usage rights? Specifically, will the Government retain exclusive ownership of all data, AI models, and algorithms trained on its data, FAR 52.227-14 to contractually prevent vendor use of this data or the resulting models for any other purpose, including training other commercial or government models? | CBP will have ownership and usage rights for all data transmitted by a solution provider to ACE. It is not CBP's intent to own the rights of the AI models or algorithms trained on trade data, as CBP will not be providing data to the solution provider to train the algorithm (only feedback). | |
| 36 | 36 | SOW | A | 8.2.1 | 13 | Regarding the use of AI with government data (SOW Pillar 1, Solution Brief Q7), can CBP clarify its position on data ownership and usage rights? Specifically, will the Government retain exclusive ownership of all data, AI models, and algorithms trained on its data, FAR 52.227-14 to contractually prevent vendor use of this data or the resulting models for any other purpose, including training other commercial or government models? | CBP will have ownership and usage rights for all data transmitted by a solution provider to ACE. It is not CBP's intent to own the rights of the AI models or algorithms trained on trade data, as CBP will not be providing data to the solution provider to train the algorithm (only feedback). | |
| 37 | 37 | SOW | 8.1 | 7-13 | The SOW references handling sensitive data. To clarify the required security posture, does CBP anticipate that solutions may need to handle Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) that would necessitate a FedRAMP High environment? If so, what evaluation preference will be given to vendors whose cloud offerings already possess a standing FedRAMP High authorization? | a. Potentially, but not for the pilot. B. Evaluation criteria is as stated in the solicitation. | ||
| 38 | 38 | CSOP | B | 2.0 | 10 | Regarding SOW Pillar 1 and Solution Brief Question 7, does CBP envision a solution that primarily provides AI-driven analytical insights for offline analysis, or is the priority a solution that orchestrates the entire end-to-end trade process (e.g., data ingestion, validation, human-in-the-loop review, decision, and action) with AI embedded at each step to automate and augment the live workflow? | To be determined based on the particular solution offered for consideration. | |
| 39 | 39 | SOW | B | 2.0 | ||||
| Pillar 1 | 5 | Regarding SOW Pillar 1 and Solution Brief Question 7, does CBP envision a solution that primarily provides AI-driven analytical insights for offline analysis, or is the priority a solution that orchestrates the entire end-to-end trade process (e.g., data ingestion, validation, human-in-the-loop review, decision, and action) with AI embedded at each step to automate and augment the live workflow? | To be determined based on the particular solution offered for consideration. | |||||
| 40 | 40 | CSOP | 2.0 | 6 | Regarding ACE integration (Sec 2.0) and the call for non-EDI methods, are solutions that connect to existing data sources in-place preferred, or solutions that require replicating ACE data into a separate vendor database? To best align with CBP's long-term technical vision for ACE, does the Government have a preferred modern data transmission standard (e.g., RESTful APIs) for this pilot? | Open to all solutions | ||
| 41 | 41 | SOW | 2.0 | 5 | To facilitate accurate solution design, can CBP provide technical specifications for the ACE pilot test environment referenced in Section 2.0, such as API documentation, data format standards, or required authentication methods? | Specs are still under development and will be provided once approved. For API authorization must support OAuth 2.0 Client Credentials based authentication. | ||
| 42 | 42 | CSOP | 5.4 | 15 | Section 5.4 requires a "total price to complete the project." To ensure proposals are responsive and accurately priced, could the Government provide an anticipated scope for the 12-month pilot, such as the expected number of users, transaction volume, or a not-to-exceed budget? | We ask that you propose a comprehensive solution based on your understanding of our scope. Please provide the best possible pricing structure you can including any assumptions made regarding users, scale or service levels. | ||
| 43 | 43 | SOW | 2.0 | |||||
| Pillar 1 | 5 | Are there existing API endpoints in ACE for the purpose of receiving tariff classifications, or would it be necessary to develop new endpoints? | ACE APIs are under development. There is not a current API for tariff classifications. | |||||
| 44 | 44 | SOW | 2.0 | 5 | What are the current API specifications and data formats that ACE accepts for the ingestion of real-time data? | ACE APIs are under development. | ||
| 45 | 45 | SOW | 2.0 | |||||
| Pillar 1 | 5 | Are there specific product categories or trade scenarios that the CBP wishes to prioritize during the pilot program, such as e-commerce, mail, or specific countries and ports? | Please carefully read through all solicitation documents, but particularly the Background and Scope sections in the SOW that further clarifies CBP's ask. | |||||
| 46 | 46 | SOW | 7.0 | 20 | How does the CBP currently assess classification accuracy, and what accuracy threshold would be regarded as successful for the pilot program? | These will be determined at contract award and requirements creation, depending on each solution awarded | ||
| 47 | 47 | SOW | 7.0 | 20 | What are CBP's current processing times for manual classification, and what improvement targets are expected? | Current manual processing times vary. We are looking for AI-enabled tariff classification of products. | ||
| 48 | 48 | SOW | 5.0 | 6 | How will the CBP assess the return on investment (ROI), such as reduced processing times, increased revenue collection, and improved compliance rates? | CBP will not conduct a ROI analysis at this time | ||
| 49 | 49 | SOW | 2.0 | 5 | Are there any existing risk scoring models employed by CBP that our solution should integrate with or complement? | For the purposes of this solicitation, solution providers should focus on presenting the risk scoring models within their solutions as they currently exist. | ||
| 50 | 50 | SOW | 2.0 | 5 | What types of entity validation are deemed most critical, such as manufacturer verification, importer screening, and freight forwarder compliance? | Any or all of these as part of a solution could be considered for evaluation for this solicitation. | ||
| 51 | 51 | SOW | 2.0 | 5 | How often must the CBP conduct updates on supply chain risk assessments—on a real-time basis, daily, or per shipment? | The solicitation is not limited in either aspect and is open to all viable solutions. | ||
| 52 | 52 | SOW | 2.0 | 5 | What is the anticipated scope of the pilot project, specifically regarding the number of transactions, the duration, and the designated ports or trade lanes? | Please carefully read through all solicitation documents which explain the scope of the pilot . | ||
| 53 | 53 | SOW | 3.0 | 6 | What key milestones does CBP anticipate during the pilot phase? | CBP will assess: The interoperability of the proposed commercial solutions with CBP’s IT infrastructure, allowing seamless ingestion of the information CBP needs to execute its enforcement mission. |
• Feasibility of the proposed commercial solutions to test one or more of the below services:
• U.S. Government collection of international mail data prior to shipment arrival
• At-scale pre-vetting of customers, products, and/or the physical security of goods
• Accurate AI-enabled tariff classification of products
• Enhanced supply chain tracing and insight into parties, production methods, and the movement of goods
• Improved CBP risk management to better manage the volume of small packages
• Self-filing of entry/entry summary information for small / medium sized companies via business-to-government solutions
• Secure third-party receipt of data that seamlessly allow publicly available export data from foreign customs agencies to be ingested by CBP.
| 54 | 54 | SOW | 3.0 | 6 | Should the pilot prove successful, what is the timeline and process established by CBP for full-scale implementation? | To Be Determined |
| 55 | 55 | SOW | 8.0 | 7 | What are the requirements set by CBP concerning data residency and the processing location for sensitive trade information? | CBP will not be sharing this information at this time. |
| 56 | 56 | SOW | 8.1.1 | 7 | Does an AI Governance committee currently exist for CBP? Are there any specific AI guidelines, policies, or policies that must be adhered to beyond the DHS’s Artificial Intelligence System Security Guide (March 2025 - version 3.0)? | Any solution presented that includes artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), or large language model (LLM) components must adhere to guidance outlined in DHS’s Artificial Intelligence System Security Guide (March 2025 - version 3.0). |
| 57 | 57 | CSOP | 4.2 | 8 | Could the Government please clarify the dates for Window 1 and Window 2? It appears that window 2 has a due date of June 30, which precedes the due date for Window 1 on July 07. | Submission Window 1: Written solution briefs as described in section 3.2 of this solicitation must be submitted electronically by 3:00 pm Eastern Standard Time, July 7, 2025 to the following e-mail boxes: peter.a.giambone@cbp.dhs.gov & joshua.bedregal@cbp.dhs.gov. Submission Window 2 Written solution briefs as described in section 3.2 of this solicitation submitted after Window 1 (07/07/2025) must be submitted electronically by 3:00 pm Eastern Standard Time, June 30, 2026, to the following e-mail boxes: peter.a.giambone@cbp.dhs.gov & joshua.bedregal@cbp.dhs.gov. The second submission window encompasses a 1 year rolling submission period. |
| 58 | 58 | CSOP | 5.4 | 15 | Section 5.4 Price Information States " The Submitter must submit the total price to complete the project and shall provide any other data or supporting information that the parties agree is necessary for the determination of a fair and reasonable price. A milestone schedule shall be included which clearly indicates the completion of the priced tasks and/or priced deliverables that are required to meet each of the milestones. For Firm-Fixed-Price agreements, the milestone schedule will serve as a payment schedule for any subsequent award." |
| We recommend that the requirement be updates to state "The Submitter must submit the total price to complete the project and shall provide any other data or supporting information that the parties agree is necessary for the determination of a fair and reasonable price. The price shall include all anticipated operations and maintenance costs and any costs that would be passed on to a third-party, the trade community or other non-governmental stakeholders as a condition of the solution. A milestone schedule shall be included which clearly indicates the completion of the priced tasks and/or priced deliverables that are required to meet each of the milestones. For Firm-Fixed-Price agreements, the milestone schedule will serve as a payment schedule for any subsequent award." | This is only required for Submitter that advance to Phase II. At that time, the submitter would provide the best possible pricing structure based on your understanding of our price information requirements. | |||||
| 59 | 59 | CSOP | 0.0 | Are respondents to this Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) able to submit multiple responses, each highlighting a different solution set? | Yes. Please refer to Section 3.2, Written Solution Brief Requirements, in the CSOP Trade Solutions Pilot Solicitation document for guidance on responding to more than one pillar. | |
| 60 | 60 | CSOP | 0.0 | I’m writing to request clarification regarding the two submission deadlines listed in the solicitation for the Trade Solutions Pilot. Specifically, I’d like to better understand the distinction between Window 1 deadline: July 7, 2025 and Window 2 deadline: June 30, 2026. |
| Could you please confirm whether Window 2 is intended as a rolling submission period for additional solution briefs beyond the initial evaluation phase? Additionally, are there any differences in how submissions received in Window 2 will be evaluated or considered for award compared to those submitted by the Window 1 deadline? | Yes, Submission Window 2 is intended as a rolling submission period for additional solutions briefs beyond the initial evaluation phase. There are no differences in how submissions received in Window 2 will be evaluated or considered for award compared to those submitted by the Window 1 deadline. | ||||||
| 61 | 61 | CSOP | 0.0 | Does CBP have an approved budget for this initiative? If so would the agency be willing to share? | CBP will not be sharing this information at this time. | ||
| 62 | 62 | CSOP | 2.0 | 5 | Is there specific funding allocated to each Pillar? | CBP will not be sharing this information at this time. Solution providers are encouraged to submit responses for the pillar/pillars they feel best positioned to support. | |
| 63 | 63 | SOW | 2.0 | ||||
| Pillar 1 & 2 | 4 | Integration Interfaces: What integration options will the ACE test environment support for this pilot? Given that ACE CERT currently supports limited HTTPS XML interfaces such as DIS and AES WebLink, will there be web service APIs or other modern endpoints available for sending data to ACE (entries, manifests, or AI outputs), or are participants expected to use the existing ABI EDI channels and traditional CATAIR standards even in the test environment? We note the requirement for common data formats following WCO UFF standards, but clarity on whether we should build an API-based integration or plan on wrapping our data back into EDI formats would guide our architectural decisions. | Participants are not expected to send data in existing EDI formats. ACE is currently implementing REST apis however this is not a limitation on what solutions may be proposed. | ||||
| 64 | 64 | SOW | 2.0 | ||||
| Pillar 1 & 2 | 4 | Data Access and Volume: Understanding the requirement that all data must remain within US boundaries and be accessed only by US citizens, what sample or live data will CBP provide to test our solution within these constraints? To effectively train and test our AI models for classification and risk scoring, we would benefit from historic or anonymized trade data, particularly non-EDI formats such as unstructured documents or images. Can CBP furnish any anonymized entry data, manifest lists, or past inspection results for training purposes? Additionally, for the operational test, will we receive streaming data feeds in real-time, or will testing proceed with batch test cases? | CBP will not be sharing this information at this time. | ||||
| 65 | 65 | SOW | 2.0 | ||||
| Pillar 1 & 2 | 4 | Technical Performance Requirements: Having reviewed the security framework outlined in DHS 4300A and related policies, we seek clarification on CBP's current processing capacities and acceptable latency requirements for real-time data ingestion and AI inference within the ACE environment. What are the specific performance benchmarks that pilot solutions must meet to demonstrate viability for production deployment? | CBP encourages solution providers to respond to the solicitation based on what they are able to provide, and CBP will determine whether additional information is required from the solution provider for purposes of ascertaining ability to integrate with ACE and viability for production deployment. | ||||
| 66 | 66 | SOW | 2.0 | ||||
| Pillar 1 & 2 | 4 | International Mail and E-commerce Data Scope: Regarding the international mail environment and small e-commerce packages (de minimis), we understand CBP ingests USPS AED prior to loading per 19 CFR 145.74. Will that inbound AED feed be exposed in the test environment, or should participants acquire parallel data directly from foreign posts while keeping processing inside U.S. boundaries? | To be determined. | ||||
| 67 | 67 | SOW | 2.0 | ||||
| Pillar 1 & 2 | 4 | Success Metrics and Evaluation Criteria: How will CBP measure the success of the pilot solutions? Understanding CBP’s key performance indicators (KPIs) will help us focus our demonstrations appropriately. For example, if automated classification is a focus, will success be measured by classification accuracy against a benchmark (and if so, will CBP provide test cases or let us compare to customs rulings)? If risk assessment is a focus, is there a metric like “increased detection rate of violations” or a qualitative assessment by officers? Also, for the SME filing solution, is success measured in terms of time saved for the trader or error reduction in filings? | If awarded a contract, over the course of this intended CSOP piloting program, CBP will assess: |
- The interoperability of the proposed commercial solutions with CBP’s IT infrastructure, allowing seamless ingestion of the information CBP needs to execute its enforcement mission.
- Feasibility of the proposed commercial solutions to test one or more of the below services:
o U.S. Government collection of international mail data prior to shipment arrival o At-scale pre-vetting of customers, products, and/or the physical security of goods o Accurate AI-enabled tariff classification of products o Enhanced supply chain tracing and insight into parties, production methods, and the movement of goods o Improved CBP risk management to better manage the volume of small packages o Self-filing of entry/entry summary information for small / medium sized companies via business-to-government solutions o Secure third-party receipt of data that seamlessly allow publicly available export data from foreign customs agencies to be ingested by CBP.
| 68 | 68 | SOW | 2.0 | ||||
| Pillar 1 & 2 | 4 | Testing and User Engagement: Will evaluators include CBP import specialists and OFO officers, or will tests be run by the Office of Trade Innovation team only? If we provide a dashboard of AI-driven alerts, will CBP officers use it in simulated operations and give structured feedback? Understanding whether the pilot involves active operational testing or serves more as a proof-of-concept demonstration will influence our user interface design and training material development. | This is to be determined. | ||||
| 69 | 69 | SOW | 2.0 | ||||
| Pillar 1 & 2 | 4 | Additional Constraints: Beyond the requirements specified in the compliance documentation, are there specific operational constraints or areas we should avoid? For example, are there restrictions on the types of historical CBP data that can be used for model training, limitations on external data source integration, or specific business processes that should not be modified during the pilot phase? | No current restrictions to note. | ||||
| 70 | 70 | CSOP | 5.4 | 15 | Are you looking for a narrative summary of cost categories or an estimated cost? | This is only for Submitters that advance to Phase II. The Submitter must submit the total price to complete the project and shall provide any other data or supporting information that the parties agree is necessary for the determination of a fair and reasonable price. A milestone schedule shall be included which clearly indicates the completion of the priced tasks and/or priced deliverables that are required to meet each of the milestones. For Firm-Fixed-Price agreements, the milestone schedule will serve as a payment schedule for any subsequent award. | |
| 71 | 71 | CSOP | 0.0 | Do you require proposed cloud-based services to be FedRAMP approved? | FedRAMP certification is not required for the pilot. | ||
| 72 | 72 | CSOP | 0.0 | Are commercial solutions assessed for an existing presence in CBP or is it understood that the majority of the proposed solutions will represent commercial solutions that don't yet exist within CBP? | Commercial solutions that don't yet exist within CBP | ||
| 73 | 73 | CSOP | 2.0 | 5 | Where does the tariff, country of origin, and international mail data reside? Is this data in document form? If so, can CBP provide examples or descriptions of the document types currently used in tariff classification, valuation, and country-of-origin determinations (e.g., invoices, bills of lading, entry summaries)? | CBP will not be sharing this information at this time. | |
| 74 | 74 | CSOP | 2.0 | 5 | Will CBP provide representative data for AI/ML training and inference during the pilot? If so, can you clarify the expected data formats, language types, and variability across industries or commodities? Are redacted samples or mock datasets available to support evaluation and development in a pilot environment? | CBP will not be sharing this information at this time. | |
| 75 | 75 | CSOP | 2.0 | 5 | For AI-based tariff classification, does CBP plan to provide a ground-truth benchmark or test dataset against which classification accuracy can be measured? What level of precision is required to demonstrate success? | CBP will not be sharing this information at this time. | |
| 76 | 76 | CSOP | 2.0 | 7 | Regarding services and the expectation that the pilot solutions can integrate with ACE, do the potential services include integration with ACE? Currently listed services include training and expanded feature development. | Training and feature development are the services identified at this time. A tailored Statement of Work may be drafted if CBP chooses to proceed to the next phase with a software provider, and that tailored Statement of Work could include additional services depending on the particular solution offering. | |
| 77 | 77 | CSOP | 3.2.1 | 9 | Regarding the statement, "...the technology solution cannot operate behind the CBP IT firewall...," does this refer to the pilot stage only or pilot and production of selected to progress to the next stage? | At this time, there are no plans to integrate a solution behind the CBP IT firewall at any stage. | |
| 78 | 78 | CSOP | 3.2.1 | 9 | Regarding the statement, "...CBP may select several viable candidates to proceed with as part of an ongoing pilot via a test environment within CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment (ACE)," will CBP clarify if the referenced test environment is within or outside the CBP firewall. | Solution providers will transmit data that will be ingested in CBP's ACE Test environment, and these transmissions will occur from outside the CBP firewall. | |
| 79 | 79 | CSOP | 4.2.1 | 13 | What metrics or KPIs will CBP use to evaluate pilot success (e.g., time reduction, accuracy improvement, integration readiness)? Will qualitative feedback (e.g., analyst workload reduction) also be considered? | CBP will assess: |
• The interoperability of the proposed commercial solutions with CBP’s IT infrastructure, allowing seamless ingestion of the information CBP needs to execute its enforcement mission.
• Feasibility of the proposed commercial solutions to test one or more of the below services:
• U.S. Government collection of international mail data prior to shipment arrival
• At-scale pre-vetting of customers, products, and/or the physical security of goods
• Accurate AI-enabled tariff classification of products
• Enhanced supply chain tracing and insight into parties, production methods, and the movement of goods
• Improved CBP risk management to better manage the volume of small packages
• Self-filing of entry/entry summary information for small / medium sized companies via business-to-government solutions
• Secure third-party receipt of data that seamlessly allow publicly available export data from foreign customs agencies to be ingested by CBP.
| 80 | 80 | SOW | 7.0 | |||||
| A | 6 | Pillar 3 references World Customs Organization (WCO) members, how many individuals will need access to the international customs platform, a range is acceptable? | To be determined based on the particular solution offered for consideration. | |||||
| 81 | 81 | SOW | 8.1.2 | 8 | Will CBP please confirm the pilot work is outside the CBP network and thus any air-gap requirements are not relevant in this stage. | Under the pilot, solution providers will transmit data that will be ingested in CBP's ACE Test environment, and these transmissions will occur from outside the CBP firewall. | ||
| 82 | 82 | SOW | 8.1.7 | 10 | Will CBP please confirm that the Information Assurance (IA) tools used in the commercial offering do not need to align to existing CBP products at this stage. | Any such tools will be evaluated during future stages. | ||
| 83 | 83 | SOW | 8.1.7 | 10 | As a follow up to the question above, will CBP please clarify whether the evaluation of the Pillar solution(s) is impacted by use of existing CBP IA tools | To be determined based on the particular solution offered for consideration. | ||
| 84 | 84 | SOW | 8.2.1 | 13 | Will CBP please provide a full copy of the DHS Artificial Intelligence System Security Guide (March 2025 - version 3.0) | A copy of DHS’s Artificial Intelligence System Security Guide may be provided to submitters that advance to Phase II. | ||
| 85 | 85 | SOW | C | 2.0 | 6 | "Will CBP please clarify what, if any, pricing or cost information is required as part of the 10 page response. The solicitation states, ""upon notice to proceed to Phase II, each proposal submitted shall consist of three sections responding to the Government’s SOW: |
• Section 1: Technical Information
• Section 2: Proposal Solution
• Section 3: Price Information
| However, on page 6 of the SOW, ""Responses to this solicitation should: not exceed 10 pages; indicate which of the above capability pillar(s) the services are intended to address; identify how the proposed services meet the objectives of the pillar(s); and clearly disclose all anticipated costs to the Government."" Will CBP please clarify if the response should describe the cost elements as opposed to price information." | Pricing information is not required as part of the 11 Page response. If CBP evaluates the 11 page response and determines the agency would like to proceed with the next phase of the evaluation, the agency will develop a tailored Statement of Work for the solution provider to respond to. At that time, the response must include the three sections identified in the question. The Statement of work was updated to delete the conflicitng 10 page language. | ||||||
| 86 | 86 | CSOP | C | 5.1 | 14 | "Will CBP please clarify what, if any, pricing or cost information is required as part of the 10 page response. The solicitation states, ""upon notice to proceed to Phase II, each proposal submitted shall consist of three sections responding to the Government’s SOW: |
• Section 1: Technical Information
• Section 2: Proposal Solution
• Section 3: Price Information
| However, on page 6 of the SOW, ""Responses to this solicitation should: not exceed 10 pages; indicate which of the above capability pillar(s) the services are intended to address; identify how the proposed services meet the objectives of the pillar(s); and clearly disclose all anticipated costs to the Government."" Will CBP please clarify if the response should describe the cost elements as opposed to price information." | Pricing information is not required as part of the 11 Page response. If CBP evaluates the 11 page response and determines the agency would like to proceed with the next phase of the evaluation, the agency will develop a tailored Statement of Work for the solution provider to respond to. At that time, the response must include the three sections identified in the question. The Statement of work was updated to delete the conflicitng 10 page language. | ||||||||
| 87 | 87 | CSOP | 3.1 | 8 | The solicitation states "Solution briefs are limited to a page count of 11 letter size pages (8.5” x 11”), per Pillar (as described above in section 2) submitted..." We understand this to mean that if a company can meet multiple pillars, then the page count increases to a max of 33 pages (11 pages per pillar) -- is that a correct understanding? | Correct. | |||
| 88 | 88 | SOW | 2.0 | 6 | The second to last paragraph within Section 2.0 of the SOW states, "Responses to this solicitation should: not exceed 10 pages; indicate which of the above capability pillar(s) the services are intended to address; identify how the proposed services meet the objectives of the pillar(s); and clearly disclose all anticipated costs to the Government." Can CBP please clarify this against the 11 pages per pillar as stated in the Solicitation document? | Solution providers may submit per pillar: up to 10 pages in response to the Solution Briefing Questions in Section 2 on Page 9 in the CSOP Solicitation Document, and no more than 1 page in response to the Compliance Questions in Section 1 on Page 9 in the CSOP Solicitation Document. This is a total of 11 pages per pillar. The Statement of work was updated to delete the conflicitng 10 page language. | |||
| 89 | 89 | SOW | D | 7.0 | 6 | Both the solicitation and the SOW contain the following: "Services, if applicable, which may include: 1. Expanded Feature Development (Product development features to support CBP operations). Government may require the contractors support in expanding CBP's capability by helping it develop additional add on features or enhancements as the need arises. 2. Training to support deployment, use, and upgrades." Would CBP like for responders to include this in each Pillar response? If not, can CBP provide more guidance on where to address the Services elements described? | Respondents should indicate services applicable for each Pillar response. | ||
| 90 | 90 | CSOP | D | 2.0 | 5 | Both the solicitation and the SOW contain the following: "Services, if applicable, which may include: 1. Expanded Feature Development (Product development features to support CBP operations). Government may require the contractors support in expanding CBP's capability by helping it develop additional add on features or enhancements as the need arises. 2. Training to support deployment, use, and upgrades." Would CBP like for responders to include this in each Pillar response? If not, can CBP provide more guidance on where to address the Services elements described? | Respondents should indicate services applicable for each Pillar response. | ||
| 91 | 91 | CSOP | 2.0 | 5 | If a vendor intends to propose two distinct and independent solutions, each addressing a different Pillar, should each solution be submitted in a separate Solution Brief, or should both be included within a single consolidated submission, provided each stays within the 11-page limit per Pillar? | Solution briefs are limited to a page count of 11, per Pillar submitted | |||
| 92 | 92 | CSOP | 2.0 | 5 | Could CBP provide an estimate on the anticipated daily volume of transactions or user queries to be consumed per pillar? | Details around typical transaction volumes, data processing loads, and the like will be informed by the amount of data the solution providers are prepared to share with CBP. This may be based on the solution providers existing importer clientele, for example, among other factors. | |||
| 93 | 93 | CSOP | 2.0 | 5 | Is interoperability between solution pillars considered an advantage, for example a platform that can provide a holistic solution for the requirements of pillars 1,2 and 3? | The solicitation is not limited in either aspect and is open to all viable solutions. | |||
| 94 | 94 | CSOP | 2.0 | ||||||
| Pillar 1 | 7 | Is the required solution expected to operate via API to existing CBP system, or allow manual search and analysis of specific shipment data? | All solutions will be considered for evaluation for this solicitation. | ||||||
| 95 | 95 | CSOP | 2.0 | ||||||
| Pillar 1 | 7 | Should the proposed solution support the intake and processing of key shipment documents such as the Bill of Lading, Manifest and Commercial Invoice? | All solutions will be considered for evaluation for this solicitation. | ||||||
| 96 | 96 | CSOP | 2.0 | ||||||
| Pillar 1 | 7 | Should the proposed solution support all entry form types? | All solutions will be considered for evaluation for this solicitation. | ||||||
| 97 | 97 | CSOP | 2.0 | ||||||
| Pillar 1 | 7 | Should the proposed solution provide intelligence based on global data sources, including structured and unstructured data sources? | All solutions will be considered for evaluation for this solicitation. | ||||||
| 98 | 98 | CSOP | 2.0 | ||||||
| Pillar 1 | 7 | Should the proposed solution offer risk management and targeting based on OSINT data? | All solutions will be considered for evaluation for this solicitation. | ||||||
| 99 | 99 | CSOP | 2.0 | ||||||
| Pillar 1 | 7 | Should the proposed solution flag suspected cases of undervaluation based on real time global pricing reference data? | All solutions will be considered for evaluation for this solicitation. | ||||||
| 100 | 100 | CSOP | 2.0 | ||||||
| Pillar 1 | 7 | Should the proposed solution flag risk of mis classification and mis declaration based on mis match between exporter scope of business and declared shipment items. | All solutions will be considered for evaluation for this solicitation. | ||||||
| 101 | 101 | CSOP | 2.0 | ||||||
| Pillar 1 | 7 | Should the proposed solution flag suspected country of origin fraud by analyzing exporter scope of business and supply chain links? | All solutions will be considered for evaluation for this solicitation. | ||||||
| 102 | 102 | CSOP | 2.0 | ||||||
| Pillar 1 | 7 | Should the proposed solution identify transactions potentially linked to fentanyl or fentanyl precursor substances based on exporter profiles and trade patterns? | All solutions will be considered for evaluation for this solicitation. | ||||||
| 103 | 103 | CSOP | 2.0 | ||||||
| Pillar 1 | 7 | Should the proposed solution flag products suspected to be public safety risk of substandard or poor quality, including medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, and food? | All solutions will be considered for evaluation for this solicitation. | ||||||
| 104 | 104 | CSOP | 2.0 | ||||||
| Pillar 1 | 7 | Should the proposed solution provide real-time alerts for the presence of dangerous or restricted goods such as hazardous materials, explosives, or weapons? | All solutions will be considered for evaluation for this solicitation. | ||||||
| 105 | 105 | CSOP | 2.0 | ||||||
| Pillar 1 | 7 | Should the proposed solution detect exporters engaged with, or sourcing – whether directly or indirectly – from companies practicing forced labor? | All solutions will be considered for evaluation for this solicitation. | ||||||
| 106 | 106 | CSOP | 2.0 |
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 .