# Draft requirement coverage and proposal evidence

Use this matrix to turn the technical wiki into response material and later acceptance evidence. It maps the supplied draft, not an awarded contract or a final evaluation scheme. All implementation entries are currently **proposed or unproved**. A linked design page is not a passed test. [Draft SOW](https://sam.gov/api/prod/opps/v3/opportunities/resources/files/34eacfe92b1a46228b9f90674c4c60e1/download).

## Current RFI response coverage

| Requested information | Draft response location | Completion test |
|---|---|---|
| Capability statement | Bidder capability and relevant experience | Real company identity and attributable examples; proposed capabilities separated from existing ones |
| Possible solution | Proposed technical approach | Both source routes, protected output, quality control and AWS integration addressed |
| ROM pricing | Rough order of magnitude | Bidder-approved effort/rate basis and uncertainty; clearly not an official quote |
| Draft SOW feedback | Feedback on the draft SOW | Prioritized, constructive questions that change acceptance, architecture or cost |
| Submission routing | [Current notice instructions](opportunity.md) | Latest notice checked, authorized response sent to the specified contacts, record retained |

## Draft SOW coverage

| Source | Proposed response commitment | Supporting wiki / required proof |
|---|---|---|
| §2 and §3.12 ownership / non-subscription | Meet Library ownership of the resulting TTS software, no contractor-retained ownership interest, and no required separate, recurring or follow-on software license/access purchase | [Model rights](prototype-models.md), reviewed component/voice inventory, licenses and independent installation; legal/commercial review open |
| §3.1 commercial input | Preserve supplied audio; derive reviewed navigation/metadata; generate approved supplemental speech; accept WAV/MP3/OPUS/FLAC | [Ingestion](ingestion.md); actual sample and format fixtures still needed |
| §3.2 text input | EPUB/Word/RTF/text processing, selectable voices, WAV/AMR-WB+, navigation and agreed multimedia outputs | [Prototype scope](prototype.md); format coverage and complete-book fidelity evidence planned |
| §§3.1–3.3 standards / protection / packaging | Versioned approved profile; XML/OPF/NCX/SMIL, approved AMR-WB+ and PDTB/NLS1205 protection; written certifications validating reports under §3.3, with responsible signatory and evidence | [Compiler](compiler.md), [standards](standards.md); actual tool/player proof blocked on access and decisions |
| §§3.4–3.5 batch / scalability | Durable jobs, resumability, controlled concurrency and transparent performance measurements | [Architecture](architecture.md), [hardware](prototype-hardware.md); batch/recovery and accepted-hours benchmarks unmeasured |
| §§3.6 and 5.1 security / source handling | Least privilege, protected source/output, controlled keys/egress, retention and disposal | [Operations](operations.md); Section H absent, controls matrix and test evidence pending |
| §3.7 AWS / interfaces | Integrate with approved NLS AWS/storage/distribution boundaries and retain standard export/import | [Operations](operations.md); actual interface agreement, AWS access and integration trace required |
| §3.8 documentation / training / support | Operator/admin manuals, training, patch process and support response within 24 hours | [Roadmap](roadmap.md); staff roster, support process and walkthrough required |
| §3.9 warranty | Correct covered defects without additional charge for the specified 12-month warranty period | [Pricing basis](pricing.md); reserve and responsibility needed; distinguish support fees from covered correction |
| §§3.10–3.11 reporting / QC | Every-30-day status/QC reports; audio, structure, metadata, integrity and player checks before delivery | [Acceptance plan](prototype-tests.md); templates plus completed evidence, not model self-certification |
| §3.13.1 / §4.1 design package | Five specified diagram views and eight named documents within 30 calendar days of POP start | [Prototype deliverables](prototype.md#deliverables-and-staffing); existing explanatory figures are not the complete accepted package |
| Phase I prototype description / §4.1 | Prototype, DTB/voice samples, workflow demo and test report within six calendar months | [Prototype plan](prototype.md), [test corpus](prototype-tests.md); estimated engineering window is not Government acceptance |
| Phase II / III and §4.1 | Integration/operational testing, then deployment and operation at agreed scale with workflow management, monitoring and QC; each within 90 calendar days after prior-phase acceptance | [Roadmap](roadmap.md); full phase work and acceptance dependencies included in ROM |
| Phase IV | Ongoing production/quality validation, security/configuration, backup/recovery, support, training and reporting through remaining POP | [Pricing](pricing.md); total duration unknown, monthly unit and scope needed |
| §5.2 / §4.1 kickoff | Plan virtual kickoff promptly; clarify award-vs-POP trigger | [Decisions](decisions.md); retain ten-business-day requirement without inventing a start date |
| §6.1 key personnel | Qualified PM and Senior Engineer, accurate resumes and availability | [Gap register](gaps.md); named personnel and qualifications not supplied |

## Turn coverage into a submission check

When the actual solicitation is issued, add its instruction identifier, volume/section, evaluation factor, page limit, responsible writer, evidence reference and review state. Do not invent evaluation weights from this SOW. Validate required representations, registrations, eligibility, amendments, due time and delivery method against that solicitation and the bidder's actual situation.

For each major claim, ask whether a reviewer can find the buyer need, proposed behavior, evidence and limitation in one place. Remove claims whose only support is another planning paragraph. Keep the engineering plan broad enough to satisfy final obligations; an English-only pilot or one multimedia profile is a proposed test boundary requiring agreement, not an exception already granted by the Library.