AI-Powered Tool for Automated Evaluation of Vendor Economic Dependency

**Key Changes to Q&A:** **New Questions Added (3):** - Q1: Clarifies Phase I operates on synthetic flat-file data only; no live sandboxed DLA environment access during Phase I - Q2: Specifies data formats (CSV, JSON, Excel); offerors must propose their own public API acquisition methods - Q3: Requires Phase I to address both public AND non-public vendors; defers full coverage of non-public vendors to Phase II but demands feasible technical workflow demonstration (web-scraping, OCR, commercial databases) - Q4: Clarifies focus is DLA-specific economic reliance (numerator) vs. total revenue (denominator); secondary capability includes broader Federal reliance via USASpending.gov **Reorganized/Renumbered:** Previous Q&A items (Q1–Q14) shifted to Q5–Q9+ to accommodate new foundational clarifications about data access, formats, and vendor coverage scope. **No substantial answer changes** to existing audit trail, threshold configurability, or procedure development requirements—these remain consistent with previous guidance.

**Key Change in Q&A:** **Q3 Answer Updated** – Clarifies that audit-ready evidence packages must be independently verifiable outside the live tool. Previously stated in-tool traceability was sufficient; now emphasizes need for exportable, self-contained evidence packages that allow auditors to independently re-compute findings without tool access.

**Summary of Q&A Changes:** Added 3 new questions clarifying audit trail and reproducibility requirements: - **Q1 (NEW):** Confidence/data-reliability indices for private vendors must feature mathematically traceable, reproducible calculations with visible audit trails—not just qualitative flags. - **Q2 (NEW):** Tool must retain signed, reproducible records of configurable thresholds and point-in-time data snapshots to allow prior fiscal-year SFFAS 47 disclosures to be re-derived during audits. - **Q3 (NEW):** Audit-ready evidence packages require "visible audit trails" demonstrating configuration and data provenance; clarifies in-tool traceability is primary requirement. **Reordered existing Q&As** (Q4–Q14 renumbered from original Q1, Q2, Q5–Q14) with no content changes to those answers. **Key emphasis:** Audit reproducibility and transparent threshold/data-point documentation are now explicitly central to Phase I evaluation.

# Q&A Changes Summary **New Questions Added (7):** - Q1: Scope clarification—Phase I focuses on technical tool, not DLA's formal SOP development (separate government workstream) - Q2: Why SBIR vs. sources sought for COTS solutions (dual-use mandate & military adaptation bridge) - Q3: Why COTS vs. internally built (common DoD/federal requirement; cost avoidance) - Q4: Audit-ready evidence package requirements (YES—highly valued for traceability & explainability) - Q5: Golden dataset expectations (NOT required Phase I; EBS access provided post-award) - Q6: Greenfield solutions permitted? (YES, but DLA prefers commercially mature/dual-use) - Q8: Risk assessment by contract type (FAR reference; cost-plus vs. fixed-price weighting) **Previously Pending Answers Now Provided:** - Q17 (entity resolution scope)—**Now A17**: Proposals may test additional public data sources; not restricted to EDGAR/SAM.gov/EBS only. **Clarifications to Existing Answers:** - **Q9 (updated)**: Framework must be configurable, NOT hardcoded thresholds - **Q11 (updated)**: End-to-end demo expected using synthetic EBS + real public data; ATO timeline (12–18 months) factored into Phase II planning - **Q13 (new)**: VC/PE backing outside direct SFFAS 47 scope but valuable as secondary health indicators - **Q14 (new)**: Public company revenue from 10-K; private entities scored "indeterminate" with confidence flags

# Q&A Changes Summary **16 new Q&As added** covering: - **Entity resolution & data matching**: DUNS/CAGE/UEI availability; fuzzy matching as Phase I requirement - **SFFAS 47 methodology**: Control signals beyond revenue concentration; related-party indicators to be defined post-Phase I - **Scope clarification**: Point-in-time assessments only (no historical data); primary sources are SAM.gov + SEC EDGAR (USASpending.gov deprioritized) - **Deliverables**: Interactive dashboard required; SOPs/process docs to be developed by Phase I team, not provided by DLA - **Data access**: No DCAA/DCMA access required for Phase I; SAM.gov is public; CUI details require signed NDA - **Technical infrastructure**: DLA prioritizing government-hosted cloud (specifics CUI); sample schemas/EBS metadata provided post-NDA - **AI/tools**: No preference stated on enterprise AI models; locally-hosted inference preferred given data boundaries **Key requirement shift**: Phase I teams must demonstrate robust entity-resolution methodology and propose compliance workflows—DLA will not provide existing SOPs.

Added 2 new Q&As: (1) Confirmed Q&A from 6/23/2026 session will be posted despite platform limitations; (2) Clarified NDA/Data Use Agreement was sent 6/29/2026 to requesters, with follow-up status as of 7/1/2026.

Status changed from Pre-Release to Open

Q1 answer updated with actionable next steps: applicants must email TPOCs to obtain NDA/Data use agreement; once signed, registration link will be provided for TPOC office hours (06/23/2026 14:00-15:30 EST). Q2 remains unchanged.

This Q&A addresses TPOC availability for technical inquiries and clarifies that DLA will provide restricted contract data for the SBIR proof-of-concept, pending legal review and execution of required NDAs.

New opportunity: AI-Powered Tool for Automated Evaluation of Vendor Economic Dependency