Clarification Responses.pdf

W91QEX26QA011 /News Monitoring Services

Request for Clarification

Ambiguity Identified / Industry Inquiry / Topic

Government Clarification / Resolution

PWS Section 5.1 & Section 1.4: Discrepancy in user account numbers.

The Government clarifies that the requirement is for twenty (20) personalized user login accounts.

We would appreciate clarification on whether this is a new requirement or if there is an incumbent contractor. If applicable, kindly share the relevant contract details.

Current Contract is W91QEX-21-P-0014.

Contractor: The WINVALE Group, LLC. Please refer to SAM for further details that have already been posted.

Commercial Software Licensing and Data Rights: Our platform is a mature commercial SaaS product. We propose configuring our existing platform to meet PWS requirements.

Section 1.6.16 of the PWS provides that all software produced under the contract shall be Government-owned. We accept that for contract-specific deliverables. Would the Government consider an offer structured as a commercial software license (consistent with FAR Part 12) for the underlying platform, where the Government receives full capabilities but the contractor retains ownership of the pre-existing proprietary codebase?

Yes. The Government confirms that the data rights outlined in PWS Section 1.6.16 apply exclusively to materials, configurations, deliverables, and code specifically developed or 'produced under this contract.' The Government intends to acquire access to the underlying, pre-existing commercial software platform under standard commercial licensing terms in accordance with FAR Part 12 and DFARS

227.7202. Offerors must submit their standard

End User License Agreement (EULA) or Terms of Service (ToS) with their proposal for Government review to ensure compliance with Federal law (e.g., addressing indemnification and Anti-Deficiency Act restrictions).

AI Inference and Model Access: Could you please clarify whether USSOUTHCOM has access to DoD-negotiated AI or LLM infrastructure that would be available to the contractor, or whether the costs of AI inference are expected to be borne entirely by the contractor within the firm fixed price?

Relatedly, has the Government contemplated any mechanism (such as an EPA clause) to account for significant changes in AI infrastructure costs over the five-year performance period?

The Government will not provide access to DoD-negotiated AI, large language model infrastructure, or Government Furnished Equipment/Services (GFE/GFS) to support the contractor's platform. The requirement is for a turnkey, commercial Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) solution. The contractor is expected to independently secure, host, and fund all necessary AI infrastructure, models, and inference capabilities required to meet the PWS requirements. All associated costs must be fully burdened within the Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) quote. The Government does not contemplate including an Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) clause or any other mechanism to account for fluctuations in commercial AI infrastructure costs. In accordance with standard FFP contracting principles, the contractor bears the risk of market fluctuations and cost increases.

Offerors must account for and price this risk into their proposed base and option year rates.

News Content Licensing: Part 3 of the PWS does not identify any government-furnished content licenses or data feeds. Can you confirm that all content licensing and data aggregation agreements for news sources are expected to be procured and funded by the contractor, and that no existing DoD or government-negotiated content agreements would be available?

Confirmed. The Government will not provide any government-furnished content licenses, data feeds, or existing DoD-negotiated content agreements for this requirement. The contractor is solely responsible for independently procuring, maintaining, and funding all necessary content licensing, API access, and data aggregation agreements required to meet the continuous monitoring and historical archive requirements outlined in the PWS. All costs associated with data access must be fully burdened within the contractor's Firm-Fixed- Price (FFP) quote

Social Media Data Access: The PWS requires monitoring of social media via APIs and firehose-level feeds. Can you confirm whether USSOUTHCOM currently holds any platform API agreements or licensed data arrangements that would be extended to the contractor, or whether the contractor independently secures and funds all access?

The Government does not hold, and will not provide, any platform API agreements or licensed social media data arrangements (e.g., 'Firehose' feeds) to the contractor. Consistent with the requirement for a turnkey commercial service, the contractor is solely responsible for independently securing and funding all necessary social media data access and API integrations required to meet the PWS standards.

These costs must be included in the contractor's Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) quote.

Can the Government clarify whether the FY26 requirement represents a material expansion in scope from SOUTHCOM's prior News Monitoring Service contract particularly regarding AI-enhanced analytics, prompt-based insights, sentiment/trend analysis, historical media access, geo-filtered social monitoring, and dashboard performance standards?

Quoters are advised that each procurement stands on its own. The Government will evaluate proposals based strictly on the requirements and performance standards set forth in the current solicitation and PWS. Whether this requirement represents an expansion over previous contracts is not relevant to the current competition;

quoters must ensure their technical and price proposals fully account for all tasks described in Section 5, including but not limited to AI-enhanced analytics, prompt-based insights, and specific data ingestion latency standards.

Can the Government clarify whether technical acceptability will be evaluated solely through submitted documentation, or whether offerors should anticipate a platform demonstration, evaluation period, trial access, or other hands-on capability validation?

In addition to the submitted documentation, the Government will evaluate technical acceptability by conducting a hands-on assessment of the offeror's web-based site. Per Section L, the Government will request unfettered access to the platform for three (3) evaluators for a period of four (4) hours at no cost to the Government. This access will be requested via email no later than

48 hours after receipt of quotes. Offerors must respond with the required usernames and passwords within 24 hours of the request.

Technical acceptability will be determined based on a checklist (Attachment 3) during this access period. Failure to provide access within the specified timeframe may result in the quote being deemed technically unacceptable.

Can the Government clarify whether the AI-enhanced platform must enable users to conduct natural-language, prompt-based analysis across aggregated news and social datasets, reducing reliance on manually constructed Boolean searches and preconfigured dashboards?

The platform must support both natural-language, prompt-based analysis (as required in Section 5.2.1) and traditional Boolean search logic/preconfigured dashboards (as required in Section 5.2 and 5.4). While the Government seeks the efficiency of AI-generated insights to augment analysis, the AI capability is not a replacement for Boolean functionality. The system must maintain full Boolean and keyword search capabilities to allow for precise data filtering and historical data integrity.

Can the Government clarify the intent of the "third-party quotes" language and whether quotes submitted by an authorized reseller/partner on behalf of the underlying service provider/ Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) would be considered responsive?

The Government’s intent is to establish direct working relationships with the primary service providers to ensure seamless delivery. Quotes submitted by authorized resellers/partners are acceptable, provided that the proposal explicitly demonstrates that the underlying service provider/OEM is fully committed to, and directly involved in, the execution of the services. Bids where the reseller acts merely as a transactional broker without direct OEM commitment may be deemed non-responsive.

Would the Government find value in optional onsite implementation, administrator enablement, and end-user training support at no additional cost to accelerate user adoption and operationalization following award, or should offerors assume a fully remote onboarding approach?

Contractor must assume a fully remote onboarding, implementation, and training approach. The Government will not provide physical access to USSOUTHCOM facilities for the performance of this contract. All user instructions, administrator enablement, and customer support (per PWS Sections 5.1 and 5.11) shall be delivered via web-based or remote interfaces only. Proposals including onsite support components may be deemed inconsistent with the Government’s operational requirements