AI Use Case_Cost Benefit Analysis SOW.pdf

Statement of Work (IDIQ) AI Use Case: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Strategic Considerations

Statement of Work

1. Introduction The AOUSC will conduct comprehensive analysis that uphold the judiciary’s policies and procedures surrounding the adoption of artificial intelligence platforms, as well as uphold our commitment to Congress, the Judicial Conference, the public and the AI Task force by exploring the cost impacts of implementing Artificial Intelligence (AI) solutions into Judiciary systems and operations. We will provide rigorous, documented analysis to ensure the judiciary will make informed decisions, based on evidence, before spending taxpayer funds.

2. Background

The Director of the AO is responsible under 18 U.S.C. § 3672 to “investigate the work of probation officers and make recommendations concerning the same to the respective judges … [and] promote the efficient administration of the probation system and enforcement of the probation laws in all United States courts.” In addition, under the purview of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3152, 3153 and the Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8A, Appendix 5A, the Director is responsible for the establishment of pretrial services in the courts and is authorized to access pretrial services information for technical assistance, assessments, or other reviews.

Under that authority, PPSO is responsible for overseeing and providing guidance for the federal pretrial and post-conviction supervision systems using an approach grounded on evidence-based practices. A major component of using evidence-based approaches involves adopting a supervision framework in which probation officers routinely assess the recidivism risk characteristics of the federal pretrial and post-conviction populations.

Moreover, an evidence-based approach involves the utilization of data to assess the effectiveness of various treatment, supervision, and monitoring programs funded by the federal probation and pretrial service offices.

The Administrative Office (AO) Director has tasked the Probation and Pretrial Services Office (PPSO) with evaluating each endorsed use case and reporting findings to the AI Task Force. This Statement of Work (SOW) establishes the requirements needed for a qualified vendor to conduct those evaluations, with cost-benefit analysis as the primary analytical focus, supported by governance and approval structure assessment and technical integration analysis. Together, these three pillars will provide the AO and PPSO with the information necessary to make informed investment, implementation, and policy decisions.

3. Scope of Work

Provide resources that will research, analyze and conduct technical and financial assessments that identify, evaluate, solution and prioritize Judiciary-wide artificial intelligence use cases, capable of improving operational efficiency, reducing costs, enhancing decision making, and supporting strategic mission objectives.

Services may include, but not limited to:

• AI Use Case Assessment

• AI Market Research

• AI Readiness Assessment

• Benefits Realization Planning

• Cost Estimating

• Cost Modeling

• Current State Assessment

• Cybersecurity and compliance reviews

• Data readiness evaluations

• Economic Modeling

• Executive briefing support

• Operational assessments

• Opportunity Identification

• Proof-of-Concept Support

• ROI Analysis

• Risk Assessment

• Strategic Planning

• Technology Assessments

• Total Cost of Ownership

4. Objective

The goal of this IDIQ Statement of Work (SOW) is to continually provide the Judiciary with expert guidance to properly develop and assess artificial intelligence (AI) use cases and identify the appropriate tool that solves each use case. Experts will analyze, evaluate and assess use cases and provide solutions that document costs, benefits, risks, and technical feasibility of implementing artificial intelligence (AI) into Judicial operations.

Deliver one (1) comprehensive report for the Judiciaries executive management team that combines all analysis and strategic recommendations of implementing and integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into the Judiciary.

5. Tasks

5.1. Task 1: Program Management

The Contractor shall support to PPSO by providing overall project management and coordination to maintain schedules, milestone and deliverable tracking. The contractor will conduct reoccurring status meetings, identify and manage risks/issues, submit monthly status reports, keep an use case inventory, and coordinate with the AI Task Force and other entities within the federal judiciary.

5.2. Task 2: AI Use Case (Research and Discovery)

The contractor shall research use case scenarios and provide findings by conducting literature review, market/industry analysis of tools/capabilities, functional benchmarking analysis, stakeholder interviews and data collection.

5.2.1. Use Case Identification and Refinement

a. The contractor shall collaborate with the AO to identify or define functional requirements, clarify use case goals, and provide structure documentation of the identified use case scenario.

b. The contractor shall conduct research and document each AI use cases, mission, alignment and operational value; priorities based on feasibility and impact; and expected outcomes and performance objectives.

c. The contractor shall analyze and refine the government’s initial Use Case findings and provide recommendations on each.

d. The contractor findings shall ensure each use includes the following:

i. Refined description of the operational objectives (e.g., What problem is being solved, who experiences it, what success looks like?).

ii. Identifies where AI adds business value.

iii. What is the current process and its limitations.

iv. Identifies data sources (internal systems, devices, third-party).

v. Identifies data types (structured, text, images, etc).

vi. Describe date sensitively.

vii. Address all stakeholders and mission impacts.

a. Describes how each use case aligns to the strategic business objectives.

b. Defines the estimated annual business impact if successful.

viii. Prioritization Matrix

5.2.2. Use Case Assessment Report (UCAR)

The contractors shall be responsible for creating an assessment for the various AI tools that inform the government that are capable of providing a FedRamp/NIST aligned security, strict data classification controls, responsible AI governance, auditability & traceability, complies with procurement, secure deployment architecture.

a. The contractor shall provide a report that consists of the following:

i. Technical Feasibility Assessments shall consist of assessing infrastructure compatibility, evaluate system integration requirements, assess technical maturity and scalability, evaluate interoperability constraints, and identify required technical resources.

ii. Data Readiness and Governance Assessments shall consist of assessing data availability and accessibility, evaluate data quality and completeness, identify governance stewardship requirements, assess privacy and retention considerations and identify data risk and migration strategies.

iii. Economic Modeling and Financial Analysis shall consist of analyzing the economic and affordability models, that calculate ROI, NPV and payback periods, conduct sensitivity and risk analysis, provide total costs of ownership estimates and sustainment considerations.

iv. Security, Compliance and Responsible AI Assessments shall consist of assessing security considerations, identifying appliable compliance requirements, evaluating responsible AI and ethical considerations, assessing information protection requirements and identifying security risks and mitigations recommendations.

v. Implementation Roadmap and Transition Planning shall consist of providing phased implementation strategies, identifying resources and staffing requirements, developing transition and change management recommendations, identifying operations dependencies and milestones and recommending governance structures.

vi. Proof-of-Concept (POC) Support shall consist of planning and evaluating POC activities, developing evaluation criteria and success metrics, assessing POC outcomes and lessons learned, identifying operational and technical risks and recommending next step actions.

vii. Risk Assessment – shall consist of an evaluation of the proposed tool that answers AI risk relates questions and scores the tool on the judiciary’s risk levels.

viii. Executive Briefings and Decisions Support shall consist of preparing executive-level briefing materials, developing strategic recommendations, presenting findings and recommendations and supporting leadership decision-making activities.

b. The contractor shall within 10 (ten) business days of award, provide the government with a project management plan and cost benefit analysis methodology for completing the UCAR’s.

5.3. Task 3: Cost Benefit Analysis

The contractor shall provide a comprehensive CBA for each use case.

5.3.1. Analysis Framework

The Contractor shall employ a structured Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) framework addressing costs, benefits (quantifiable and qualitative), compliance and regulatory assessment, security risk review, and risk-adjusted scenarios. The framework shall be documented for each use case.

At minimum, the framework shall:

1. Define a consistent base year and analysis period (recommended: 5-year lifecycle) for all use cases;

2. Apply the most suitable evaluation framework (e.g. net present value (NPV)) to provide best value recommendations on the return on investment (ROI) calculations where sufficient data is available;

i. For the selected evaluation framework, explain why it was chosen.

ii. Apply more than one evaluation framework, where necessary.

3. Identify operational savings opportunities;

4. Quantify anticipated efficiencies and benefits;

5. Clearly state all assumptions, data sources, and limitations for each estimate;

6. Use fully burdened labor rates for time-savings calculations, consistent with current

AO and PPSO salary data;

7. Distinguish between one-time costs, recurring costs, and scalable costs across 94 federal judicial districts;

8. Compare alternative implementation approaches; and

9. Produce three scenarios — optimistic, base case, and conservative — for each use case, with explicit rationale for each assumption set.

5.3.2. Cost analysis

a) The contractor shall prepare a comprehensive Total Cost of Ownership assessment that includes a cost analysis that provides direct costs (e.g. subscriptions/licensing fees, Cloud hosting costs, Data storage and compute usage, API integration and development, FedRAMP boundary adjustments, Continuous Monitoring support costs, etc); indirect costs (e.g., Security engineering labor, policy and governance updates, training and workforce adaption, change management, procurement and contract administration, etc);

and Long term lifecycle costs (e.g, Renewals/recertification expenses, model retraining costs, scaling and expansion costs, vendor tendency and exit transition costs).

b) The Contractor shall identify, estimate, and document all categories of cost associated with acquiring, implementing, and operating each AI use case. Cost categories shall include a realistic economic model that provides a defensible justification to help leadership understand the operational and financial benefits. Analysis should include, but are not limited to:

a. Implementation Costs (One-Time)

i. License, subscription, consumption, maintenance, and support fees

ii. Systems integration and cloud configuration (e.g. PACTS360, Legacy

PACTS)

iii. Infrastructure, cloud and hardware (if applicable)

iv. Development and customization (if applicable)

v. Data migration and preparation

vi. Initial staff training and change management

vii. Procurement and contracting overhead

viii. Pilot program costs

ix. Security and compliance

x. Integration Costs

b. Ongoing/Operational Costs (Annual)

i. License, subscription, consumption, maintenance, and support fees

ii. PPSO and district staff oversight time

iii. Ongoing training and refresher costs

iv. Technical support and helpdesk resources

v. Audit, monitoring, and compliance activities

vi. Vendor management and contract administration

vii. Periodic re-validation of AI model outputs

viii. Incident response and remediation (risk-adjusted)

ix. Data Handling and Security

5.3.3. Benefit Analysis

The contractor shall provide a quantitative and qualitative benefits analysis for each use case that documents efficiency improvements, cost savings, productivity gains, risk reduction and mission or operational effectiveness.

5.3.3.1. Quantitative Analysis

The Contractor shall identify and estimate all reasonably quantifiable benefits associated with each use case, expressed in dollar terms to the extent practicable.

Quantitative benefits shall include but not be limited to:

a) Staff Time Savings: Estimated hours saved per officer, per week or per month, multiplied by the fully burdened hourly rate and projected across the national officer workforce. Time savings estimates shall be grounded in structured interviews with district officers, officer surveys, or pilot data where available.

b) Error Reduction and Rework Avoidance: Estimated reduction in billing errors, documentation errors, or reporting errors, translated into avoided staff time and potential financial recoveries (particularly for billing validation use cases).

c) Training Cost Reduction: For VR and coaching-related use cases, estimated reduction in traditional training costs, travel, and instructor time.

d) Cost Avoidances: Anticipated reductions in costs that would otherwise be incurred, such as reduced litigation risk from improved documentation quality or reduced officer injury risk from enhanced safety tools.

e) Revenue Recovery: For billing validation use cases, estimated recovery of improperly billed treatment service charges.

f) Integrating AI and advance data science methods into research:

Anticipated benefits that could accrue with using AI and other methods for prediction of various outcomes (e.g., recidivism, revocations, employment, etc.) and analyzing unstructured data (e.g., officer chrono notes, polygraphs, mental health and substance treatment reports, presentence reports, bail reports, etc.).

g) Product Harvesting: Identify or list reusable opportunities from time savings achieved.

All quantitative estimates shall include confidence intervals or ranges and shall note whether they are based on comparable deployments at other agencies, vendor representations, expert judgment, or other sources. The Contractor shall not rely solely on vendor-supplied figures without independent validation or corroboration.

5.3.3.2. Qualitative Analysis

Not all benefits of AI implementation are readily monetizable. The Contractor shall identify and describe qualitative benefits for each use case, recognizing their importance to decision-makers even where dollar values cannot be assigned.

Qualitative benefits may include but not be limited to :

a) Improved officer safety and situational awareness (e.g., fieldwork route planning, VR firearms training);

b) Enhanced supervision quality and consistency of officer-client interactions (e.g., real-time coaching);

c) Improved accuracy and completeness of presentence reports and case documentation;

d) Reduced cognitive burden on officers, supporting officer wellness and retention;

e) Stronger compliance and audit readiness across districts;

f) Improved client experience and engagement with supervision conditions (e.g., ERS chatbot); and

g) Equity and fairness improvements, such as reduced bias in report language and risk scoring.

h) Enhanced ability to take advantage of AI tools for empirical research and data analysis.

Where qualitative benefits are widely recognized in analogous implementations at other criminal justice or federal agencies, the Contractor shall cite relevant precedents to inform the assessment.

5.3.4. Risk-Adjusted Scenarios

The contractor shall develop three (3) cost-benefit scenarios reflecting different implementation assumptions:

a) Conservative Scenario: Assumes higher costs, lower adoption rates, and slower time-to-value. Reflects realistic worst-case conditions, including integration complexity, staff resistance, and vendor underperformance.

b) Base Case Scenario: Reflects the Contractor's best estimate given available information, applying moderate assumptions and industry benchmarks where direct data is unavailable.

c) Optimistic Scenario: Assumes favorable implementation conditions, high adoption rates, and realization of full projected benefits within the analysis period.

Each scenario shall clearly state the key assumptions that distinguish it from the others.

The Contractor shall identify which assumptions most significantly drive variation in outcomes (i.e., key sensitivities) and shall note what conditions or decisions would push actual results toward each scenario.

5.3.5. Proof of Concept (PoC)

The contractor shall provide proof of concept to confirm cost projections on each Use Case AI Tool recommendation. The PoC shall demonstrate that the proposed AI solution can work in practice before recommending implementation.

5.4. Task 4: Implementation Analysis and Road Map

The contractor shall provide a structured analysis of how the recommended tools shall be integrated and used within the AO’s technology system.

5.4.1. Technical and Integration Requirements

a. The Contractor shall assess the technical feasibility and integration requirements for each use case within the AO technology ecosystem. Technical analysis informs cost-benefit findings by identifying integration complexity, infrastructure investment, security and risk factors that drive implementation costs, compliance restrictions and affect the probability of successful benefit realization.

b. For each use case, the Contractor shall assess:

i. Compatibility with current AO technology (e.g. PACTS360) architecture, APIs, and data models, and the degree of customization or development required for integration.

ii. Data requirements, including what data must be accessible to be generated by the AI tool, and whether current technology data structures support those requirements.

iii. Compliance complexities related to the tool’s origin and if the tool is free from detectable bias, AI hallucinations and improper terms of service.

iv. User interface and workflow integration — specifically, whether the AI capability can be embedded in existing officer workflows or requires separate system access; and

v. Impact on PACTS360 performance, availability, and maintenance windows.

vi. Alignment with relevant federal information security standards, such as:

• Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) and relevant National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) framework,

• FedRAMP authorization requirements for cloud-based solutions,

• Privacy Act and judicial branch data governance policies, and

• Any restrictions on the use of case data for AI model training.

5.4.2. Roles, Responsibilities, and Oversight Recommendation

a) The Contractor shall recommend a governance structure for post-implementation oversight of each use case which includes:

i. Program ownership at PPSO, including recommended staffing or resource requirements,

ii. Technical management responsibilities,

iii. Audit and monitoring mechanisms, including frequency and methodology for evaluating ongoing AI performance and accuracy,

iv. Escalation and incident response procedures for AI errors, bias findings, or security incidents, and

v. Vendor management and contract oversight responsibilities.

b) The Contractor shall note where governance complexity or resource requirements represent a meaningful cost or implementation risk and shall factor these into the cost-benefit analysis accordingly.

5.4.3. Cross-Use-Case Comparison and Prioritization Rankings

Upon completing individual use case analyses, the Contractor shall produce a comparative summary that ranks all evaluated use cases by cost, benefits, risk and provide recommendations for implementation. This comparative analysis shall include:

a) Present NPV, ROI, and payback period for each use case in a single summary table;

b) Identify which use cases offer the strongest financial case for near-term implementation;

c) Identify which use cases may be cost-effective only at scale, or only under favorable conditions;

d) Flag any use cases where costs are likely to exceed benefits under all scenarios;

and

e) Integrate governance complexity and technical feasibility ratings as weighting factors in an overall implementation readiness score.

f) The comparative analysis shall serve as the foundation for the Contractor's recommendations regarding implementation sequencing and resource prioritization.

5.4.4. Road Map

The contractor shall provide an Implementation Roadmap that provides a phased implementation strategy that identifies resources and staffing requirements. The road map shall include a transition plan and change management recommendations, identifying operational dependencies and milestones and recommended governance structures.

5.5. Task 5: Executive Briefing (Subgroup Briefing)

a) The contractor shall provide executive briefings and decision support by preparing executive or subgroup-level briefing materials, developing strategic recommendations, presenting findings and recommendations and supporting leadership decision-making activities. The reports shall:

i. Combine the key findings of the cost, benefits and implementation analysis and provide an overview of the recommended tools selected. Leadership content shall include Executive Summary, Background Objectives, Overview of AI Tools, Cost Analysis (Direct, indirect, hidden/intangible costs), Benefit Analysis (Quantifiable and Qualitative), Cost Benefit Comparison, Risk and Sensitivity Analysis, Implementation Considerations, Ethical and Compliance Considerations, and Final Recommendations.

ii. Be clear, evidence-based, decision-oriented and structured to help all stakeholders quickly understand whether adopting AI tools is beneficial to Judicial operations.

iii. Maintain a unified view of each Use Case.

5.6. Task 6: Final Executive Briefing

The contractor shall deliver a Final Executive Briefing for each Use Cases under this order.

The executive briefing shall provide one (1) unified report, that details all of AI use case findings, and the recommended solution. The final report shall include evidence-based artifacts to support research conducted for each use case. The report shall be formatted and structured to assist leadership in making an informed decision.

6. Deliverables

Item Name Item Description Task Project Management Plan A detailed project plan documenting the cost benefit analysis (CBA) framework, methodology for governance and technical assessments, data collection plan, and milestone schedule. Serves as the agreed analytical foundation for all subsequent deliverables

Monthly Status Report A detailed report of key and future accomplishments. 1

Meeting minutes Recorded minutes from meetings with stakeholders. 1

AI Use Case Inventory A tracking list of each evaluated use case that identifies each use case name, goal/purpose, stakeholders, priority, related requirements, business process and dependencies

AI Use Case Identification/Refinement

A completed Use Case Scenario that identifies operational objectives (e.g., What problem is being solved, who experiences it, what success looks like?), defines where AI adds business value, address current processes and its limitations, documents data sources (internal systems, devices, third-party)

i. Identifies data types (structured, text, images, etc)

ii. Describes date sensitively,

iii. Address all stakeholders and mission impacts.

a. Describes how each use case aligns to the strategic business objectives.

b. Defines the estimated annual business impact if successful.

Use Case Assessment Report

(UCAR)

A report that provides answers on whether an AI tool can be successfully implemented and what are the technical challenges to be addressed:

Content Criteria:

• Technical Feasibility Assessment - evaluation on each use case on whether the proposed solution can be realistically built/deployed and maintained with the available technology, data, infrastructure, architecture, budget and skills

• Integration Analysis - Asses how the AI solution will fit into existing systems. (e,g, Existing Applications involved, API’s and interface, Data pipelines, Authentication and access controls, workflow changes)

• Infrastructure Assessment - Determines technology and operational needs. (e.g, Compute requirements, Cloud/on- Premises considerations, Storage requirements, security requirements, scalability requirements)

• Data Readiness Assessment - Assess whether suitable data exists and is sufficient. (e.g., Data Sources, volumes, quality, accessibility, labeling requirements, privacy and compliance considerations)

• Data Governance Analysis – Assess whether the data used by an AI system is managed, controlled, and protected in a way that supports security, privacy, compliance, quality and responsible AI use.

• Performance Metrics Framework – Defines expected technical outcomes and provides accuracy targets, precision/recall (if applicable), latency requirements, throughput requirements and availability requirements)

• Data Risk Assessment – Identifies technical risks and mitigations plans. (e.g, poor data quality, model hallucinations, bias and fairness issues, security vulnerabilities, regulatory compliance risks, vendor lock-in)

• Resource and Skills Assessment – evaluate organizational readiness. (e.g. Required roles, skills gaps, training needs)

• Security Assessment – evaluation of the risk, vulnerabilities and security controls associated with an AI system throughout its lifecycle, from data collection and model training to deployment and ongoing operation.

• Compliance Review – Evaluation to determine whether an AI system complies with applicable laws, regulations, industry standards, internal policies, and ethical requirements.

• Risk Assessment - A evaluation of the proposed tool that answers:

o What are the risks if the AI produces incorrect outputs?

o What regulatory or compliance risks exist?

o What cybersecurity risks exist?

o What reputational risks exist?

o What human oversight is required?

o What fallback process exists if AI fails?

Proof Of Concept Assessment Report

A summary of the results of a demonstration that provides decisions makers with evidence on if a proposed solution is technically viable, delivers true business value and should be recommended for implementation.

Cost and Benefit Analysis Reports Each UCAR analysis shall contain: (a) a full cost-benefit analysis (life cost estimate, economic model), (b) three risk adjusted scenarios for each UC, (c) NPV/ROI analysis and calculations, (d) a governance and approval structure assessment, (e) comparative alternatives analysis, (f) a technical integration assessment (g) affordability assessment, and (h) Total Cost of Ownership report.

Implementation Analysis A structured analysis of how the recommended tools shall be integrated and used within the government’s technology system

Implementation Road Map A plan that provides a phased implementation strategy which identifies resources and staffing requirements. The road map includes a transition plan and change management recommendations, identifies operational dependencies and milestones and recommends the governance structures.

Implementation Final Recommendations

A comprehensive final report synthesizing all UCAR findings and the comparative analysis, with actionable recommendations for PPSO and the AO AI Task Force identifying which use cases should advance to pilot or full implementation, proposed sequencing, estimated resource requirements, and key conditions for success

Subgroup Briefings/Presentation Material

The package shall include an executive summary of each use case, a summary of the comparative cost-benefit analysis, and recommended next steps. This report will be written for a non-technical audience for publication in PPSO’s Federal Probation journal which is focused on conveying information to federal probation and pretrial services officers.

The Contractor shall present this material at a date and time coordinated with PPSO

Decision Support Packages Contains a structured set of information, analysis, recommendations and supporting documentation to assist leadership to make informed decisions about recommended solutions.

Final Executive Briefings Provides an overview and value on the initial investment, ai readiness, annual operating costs, annual benefits, annual net benefit, ROI (2-5 years), and the pay back period.

6.1. Deliverable Package

AI Use Cases documentation shall be delivered as a package to be considered complete and must receive acceptance from the COR.

Delivery Package Task Target Date

U se

C as e T itl e

U C

A R

-C B

A

Use Case Assessment Report (UCAR) 2

TBD

Cost Analysis 3 Benefit Analysis 3 Risk-Adjusted Scenarios 3 Proof of Concept 3 Technical and Integration Requirements 4 Roles, Responsibilities, and Oversight 4 Cross-Use-Case Comparison and Prioritization Rankings 4

Road Map 4 Executive Briefing (Subgroup Briefing) 5

Final Executive Briefing and Presentation 5 Consolidated report, incorporating each completed use case

6.2. Government Acceptance of a Completed UCAR

Each Delivered use case will be reviewed by government stakeholders and final acceptance will be provided by the COR.

The COR will ensue that each UCAR was reviewed and a complete report (All required deliverables) has been delivered. The COR can only accept when the following occur:

a. Each AI use case is clearly defined, including objectives, scope, stakeholders, and expected business outcomes.

b. A feasibility assessment is provided on whether the AI solution can be implemented using available technology, data and resources. (or developed)

c. A cost benefit analysis with implementation costs, operating costs, expected benefits, ROI and payback period.

d. Security, privacy, compliance and data governance risks are identified for recommended controls.

e. A risk rating and mitigation plan for identified issues are provided.

f. The report identifies required next steps, dependences and implementation considerations.

g. A road map and transition plan for recommended solutions are provided.

h. The final recommendation provides sufficient information for an executive or AO

Task Force committed decision.

i. UCAR Package has been reviewed and validated by appropriate business and technical stakeholders.

7. Contractor Qualifications Offerors shall demonstrate the following qualifications:

• Demonstrated experience conducting technology cost-benefit analyses or business case development for federal government agencies, preferably in law enforcement, corrections, courts, or related justice sectors;

• Expertise in financial modeling and economic analysis, including NPV, ROI, and lifecycle cost estimation;

• Knowledge of AI and machine learning technologies, including natural language processing, speech recognition, and predictive analytics;

• Familiarity with federal case management systems or demonstrated ability to develop working knowledge of PACTS 360;

• Experience assessing federal governance and procurement structures; and

• Demonstrated ability to present complex financial findings to non-technical senior leadership audiences.

8. Period and Place of Performance

The anticipated period of performance is one (1) base period, followed by two (1) option years and a (6) month extension period.