A requirement exists to preserve and extend America's leadership in Artificial Intelligence and decrease its international dependence on AI technologies developed by adversaries. The requirement owners believe this is done by supporting the global deployment of United States-origin AI technologies. Their recent RFI is seeking input from the public on how the Departments of State, Commerce, War, and Energy should evaluate proposals submitted by industry consortia to export American AI rather than import it. Based on Wifcon's decades of knowledge gained in the evaluation of offers, how should the government select its awardee(s)? I assume this FR Notice won't lead to a FAR-based RFP, but its language about "factors", "evaluate", and "proposal" could speak to it someday heading for SAM.gov, after federal assistance has done its job. What criteria should consistently produce merit (economic growth, national security, and global competitiveness) in such a long-term, world-changing endeavor?

Section H: Evaluating Proposals

E.O. 14320 directs the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with other agencies, to evaluate submitted proposals for inclusion under the Program. The Department seeks comment on how to implement this requirement.

22. What factors should be used to evaluate the relative merits of a consortium's proposal?

23. Should proposals be considered that would have non-consortium members providing a good or service in coordination with the consortium?

24. What are the relative tradeoffs of selecting more or fewer consortia for participation in the Program?

25. What other factors should be considered that would support proposals' ability to increase the competitiveness of American technology around the world?

Federal Register

American AI Exports Program

The Department of Commerce (the Department) is issuing this request for information (RFI) to solicit public comment on questions relating to the work of the American AI Exports Program (Program). As d

1 hour ago, WifWaf said:

A requirement exists to preserve and extend America's leadership in Artificial Intelligence and decrease its international dependence on AI technologies developed by adversaries. The requirement owners believe this is done by supporting the global deployment of United States-origin AI technologies.

That "requirement" is too vague. What do you want the contractor to do? What does "supporting" mean?

An "evaluation factor" is an attribute (feature, quality, or characteristic) of the thing being evaluated (a company, a product, a service, or an idea) that contributes "value", i.e., usefulness in the pursuit and achievement of the government's acquisition objectives.

In order to chose one or more "factors" (that is, attributes) you must determine what is needed to pursue and achieve the government's objectives.

So what do you need from a contractor? You must evaluate (a) the prospective contractors and (b) what they promise to do or deliver.

21 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

That "requirement" is too vague. What do you want the contractor to do?

According to the Federal Register RFI:

To achieve these goals, E.O. 14320 directs the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), to establish the American AI Exports Program and issue a public call for proposals from industry-led consortia. Proposals must (1) include full-stack AI technology packages; (2) identify specific target countries or regional blocks for export engagement; (3) describe a business and operational model to explain, at a high level, which entities will build, own, and operate data centers and related infrastructure; (4) detail requested Federal incentives and support mechanisms; and (5) comply with United States export control regimes, outbound investment regulations and end user policies.

* * * *

E.O. 14320 describes the full-stack AI technology package as encompassing (1) AI-optimized computer hardware ( e.g., chips, servers, and accelerators), data center storage, cloud services, and networking, as well as a description of whether and to what extent such items are manufactured in the United States; (2) data pipelines and labeling systems; (3) AI models and systems; (4) measures to ensure the security and cybersecurity of AI models and systems; and (5) AI applications for specific use cases ( e.g., software engineering, education, healthcare, agriculture, or transportation).

* * * *

E.O. 14320 requires proposals to identify specific target countries or regional blocs for export engagement.

* * * *

E.O. 14320 requires proposals to describe a business and operational model that explains, at a high level, which entities will build, own, and operate data centers and associated infrastructure

* * * *

E.O. 14320 requires proposals to detail requested Federal incentives and support mechanisms.

* * * *

E.O. 14320 requires each proposal to comply with all relevant United States export control regimes, outbound investment regulations, and end-user policies, including chapter 58 of title 50, United States Code, and relevant guidance from the Bureau of Industry and Security within the Department of Commerce.

The RFI then seeks to learn what evaluation factors should be used to evaluate the relative merits of a proposal. This is done under the overarching E.O. direction to, "evaluate submitted proposals for inclusion under the [American AI Exports] Program."

21 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

What does "supporting" mean?

Nothing. Disregard it.

21 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

"value", i.e., usefulness

I assume this can primarily be found in the technology package.

I presume so. I really don't understand the requirement. Have they issued a draft SOW?

Nope. A search query on SAM today of all of Commerce’s contract opportunities shows nothing related either. This is early in the technology development phase and will probably only produce financial assistance for now. But there is nothing related from Commerce on grants.gov, from what I could tell.

I’m not sure why it’s being done in the Federal Register like this.

The EO basically gives special treatment for exporting to companies/consortiums selected to participate in the program. All the call for proposals does is establish a process for sources to submit interest in participating. The proposal just tells the government why they should be selected.

Edit: just found this

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/u-s-launches-american-ai-exports-program-7591389/

I wonder what of the CO acquisition community's corporate knowledge might benefit this exports program via public comment? Many of us have experience buying large, sole-source, technology now, and a comment articulating that experience may now influence this requirement while the export program is in infancy. This new requirement is not driven by statute, which means it is actually able to be molded by most reasonable public comments. I consider it a duty to disclose our wisdom so that the future of this world-changing tech has our stamp on it. We are, after all, going to have to buy it via contract someday.

For example, the program at this point heavily values the technology package. What about on-ramps for other industry consortia to get a foothold later into the program? How has government successfully fostered that in the past?

In our republic only you, the private citizen, can prevent a shift to an oligarchy. Something tells me this is what the Administrative Procedure Act's Federal Register was meant to do. Participate in your government's process while you can.

All electronic public comments on this action, identified by Regulations.gov docket number ITA-ITA-2025-0070, may be submitted through the Federal e-rulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov, as well as https://aiexports.gov. Response to this RFI is voluntary; you can choose to respond to all or some of the questions.