Super Intelligence in RFPs: Guide for Federal Proposal Teams

As agencies begin using Super Intelligence in place of artificial intelligence in requests for proposals, proposal teams face a practical question: whether a solicitation that says SI asks for anything beyond the machine learning and data processing systems they already deliver. Conflating administrative renames with speculative research targets leads proposal teams to overpromise non-existent capabilities or dismiss mandatory solicitation terms as bureaucratic error, creating immediate non-compliance risks during initial source selection evaluations.

Under Section 2(a) of Executive Order 14434, executive departments and agencies are instructed to use Super Intelligence and SI in place of artificial intelligence and AI across non-statutory documents, while statutory definitions under 15 U.S.C. 9401(3) establish the technological baseline.

Super Intelligence in a federal RFP is the term Executive Order 14434 directs agencies to use in place of AI in their non-statutory documents, and it covers the same systems as the statutory definition of artificial intelligence.

President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14434, titled "Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence," on September 29, 2026. Section 2(a) directs executive departments and agencies, to the maximum extent permitted by law, to use the terms "Super Intelligence" and "SI" in place of "Artificial Intelligence" and "AI" across official correspondence, public communications, websites, reports, policy documents, and other non-statutory materials within the executive branch. Section 1 establishes an administrative policy that executive agencies will not acknowledge the usage of earlier terms in applicable settings.

Outside the context of Executive Order 14434, the bare abbreviation SI also designates the International System of Units (Système International d'Unités) in physical sciences, the sacroiliac joint in orthopedic medicine, Sports Illustrated in commercial publishing, and "systems integrator" in government information technology contracting. Because of these overlapping meanings, federal solicitations and proposal responses spell out "Super Intelligence (SI)" upon first appearance in each proposal volume and executive summary to eliminate ambiguity.

The technological scope of the terminology is codified in Section 3(a) of Executive Order 14434:

"For purposes of this order, and except where otherwise provided by law, the terms 'Super Intelligence' and 'SI' mean the technologies and systems encompassed by the term 'artificial intelligence' as defined in section 9401(3) of title 15, United States Code."

Under 15 U.S.C. 9401(3), enacted as part of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020:

"The term 'artificial intelligence' means a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations or decisions influencing real or virtual environments."

Because Section 3(a) links federal Super Intelligence directly to 15 U.S.C. 9401(3), the administrative term covers operational computing systems in production today. These include supervised and unsupervised machine learning algorithms, deep neural networks, computer vision classifiers, natural language processing models, and automated predictive analytics.

This statutory foundation separates federal administrative terminology from academic computer science vocabulary:

• Federal Super Intelligence (two capitalized words, abbreviated as SI): An administrative label mandated by Executive Order 14434 for executive agency procurement documents, describing machine learning and automated systems meeting the statutory criteria of 15 U.S.C. 9401(3).

• Research superintelligence (one compound word, commonly abbreviated as ASI): A theoretical milestone in artificial intelligence research describing a hypothetical system that exceeds human expert performance across almost all cognitive tasks. This technological milestone does not exist. Commercial research groups, including Meta Superintelligence Labs, Microsoft's MAI Superintelligence Team, and Safe Superintelligence Inc., pursue artificial superintelligence as a long-term research objective rather than an operational product.

Proposal writers must also evaluate the legal boundary set in Section 4(c) of Executive Order 14434. The order creates no right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, officers, or employees. The order directs internal executive branch administrative practices and imposes no direct commercial rebranding mandate on private contractors.

• How to Describe AI Tools in Federal Proposals Under Executive Order 14434Executive Order 14434 instructs federal agencies to use Super Intelligence in place of Artificial Intelligence in...
• Super Intelligence in Federal Procurement: Acquisition Lifecycle and Agency PurchasingExecutive Order 14434 directs federal executive agencies to adopt Super Intelligence terminology across non-statutory...
• Super Intelligence in Government Contracts: Clause and SOW Analysis Under EO 14434Executive Order 14434 directs federal agencies to adopt Super Intelligence in non-statutory communications while...
• Super Intelligence Wording in Statements of Work: SOW and PWS GuidelinesFederal procurement offices may use Super Intelligence wording in new Statements of Work and Performance Work...
• Super Intelligence in Federal Grant Applications: NIH, NSF & DOE GuideExecutive Order 14434 directs executive agencies to use Super Intelligence in place of artificial intelligence across...
• What the Super Intelligence Order Means for Federal Contractors: EO 14434 GuideExecutive Order 14434 directs federal agencies to adopt Super Intelligence in official communications while preserving...

More on this subject: AI Agents: General Guides (172 guides)

Federal acquisitions conducted through competitive negotiation follow the Uniform Contract Format prescribed in FAR Part 15. When an executive agency issues a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP), requirements for Super Intelligence appear primarily across three contract sections: Section C, Section L, and Section M.

Statement of Work and Performance Work Statements in Section C

Section C contains the technical requirements governing the procurement, formatted as a Statement of Work (SOW), Performance Work Statement (PWS), or Statement of Objectives (SOO):

• Prescriptive Statements of Work: Contracting personnel specify the exact operational procedures, technical frameworks, and algorithmic pipelines the contractor must deliver. Solicitations drafted after September 2026 may describe requirements using the new label, for example "a Super Intelligence (SI) automated document triage engine."

• Performance Work Statements: Under FAR 37.602, agencies describe requirements in terms of measurable outcomes, quality standards, and operational metrics rather than prescriptive methods. Offerors retain discretion regarding the specific machine learning architectures, statistical models, and infrastructure they propose, provided the solution meets the performance thresholds defined in the PWS.

• Statements of Objectives: Agencies define broad program goals and invite offerors to propose their own PWS, performance work metrics, and technical methodologies.

Because the agency writes Section C, new requirement descriptions may use the terminology Section 2(a) directs agencies to use.

Section L Instructions and Volume Structuring

Section L (Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors) dictates how proposal teams must format, organize, and submit their responses. Section L establishes mandatory page limitations, font sizes, margin constraints, submission channels, and volume allocations.

When Section L instructs offerors to address Super Intelligence capabilities, proposal managers must map those instructions directly into their compliance matrices. Proposal teams should avoid substituting alternative terminology in compliance cross-references. If Section L lists a requirement titled "L.4.2 Super Intelligence Technical Architecture," the proposal compliance matrix and corresponding section heading in Volume I must match that phrasing verbatim.

Section M Evaluation Criteria and Terminology Mirroring

Section M (Evaluation Factors for Award) outlines the criteria Source Selection Evaluation Boards (SSEBs) use to score competing proposals. Evaluators assess proposals against specific evaluation factors, such as Technical Approach, Management Approach, Past Performance, and Cost or Price.

Evaluators score proposals using standardized checklists derived directly from the text of Section M. If Section M states that the government will evaluate "the offeror's capability to deploy Super Intelligence models within contested edge environments," an evaluation sheet will carry that precise phrase.

To maximize technical evaluation scores, proposal teams should adopt the strategy of terminology mirroring:

1. Mirror Section M headings: Align narrative headings and executive summaries with the exact vocabulary used in Section M and Section L.

2. Bridge terminology to statutory criteria: In the introductory paragraphs of technical sections, state explicitly that the proposed Super Intelligence solution fulfills solicitation requirements through machine-based systems meeting 15 U.S.C. 9401(3).

3. Avoid speculative claims: Do not claim artificial superintelligence (ASI) capabilities, autonomous cognitive reasoning, or artificial general intelligence. Source Selection Evaluation Boards consist of technical subject matter experts and contracting personnel who evaluate engineering feasibility, risk, and past performance. Claiming non-existent cognitive capabilities introduces technical risk and can lead to lower evaluation ratings or disqualification.

Clarification Requests and Pre-Proposal Inquiries

If an agency issues an RFP containing ambiguous terminology, contradictory requirements, or unclear evaluation factors regarding Super Intelligence, proposal teams should submit a formal pre-proposal Request for Clarification (RFC). Under FAR 15.201, agencies conduct exchanges with industry before proposal submission to resolve ambiguities.

Inquiries should be submitted through the Contracting Officer during the designated question-and-answer period:

• Sample clarification request: "Reference: Section C.3.2 and Section L.4.1. The solicitation references 'Super Intelligence capabilities.' Can the Government confirm that commercial machine learning, computer vision, and natural language processing solutions meeting the statutory definition in 15 U.S.C. 9401(3) satisfy this requirement?"

Contracting officers typically answer questions in writing to all prospective offerors, and any change to the solicitation is made by a formal amendment, usually on Standard Form 30 (SF-30).

Responding to a federal RFP requiring Super Intelligence requires coordinated authoring across technical, management, past performance, and cost volumes. Each volume operates under distinct procurement rules and evaluation standards.

Volume I: Technical Approach

Volume I presents the core technical methodology, system architecture, engineering processes, and performance metrics. Proposal teams should structure technical narratives around three core elements:

• Functional capability descriptions: Describe software architectures, model training pipelines, inference pipelines, and data ingest mechanisms. Detail the mathematical and algorithmic basis of the solution, including model validation methods and data quality controls.

• Regulatory crosswalk: Include an explicit terminology bridge confirming that all proposed Super Intelligence components conform to the statutory scope defined in Section 3(a) of Executive Order 14434 and 15 U.S.C. 9401(3).

• Operational risk mitigation: Detail how the technical approach mitigates algorithmic drift, handles edge cases, verifies data integrity, and adheres to federal cybersecurity requirements, such as National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-53 controls.

Volume II: Management and Teaming Approach

Volume II addresses program management, organizational structure, staffing plans, subcontractor management, and delivery governance:

• Teaming arrangements: Outline the division of responsibilities between prime contractors and subcontractors. If specialized subcontractors provide proprietary machine learning models, define clear data rights boundaries, software licenses, and delivery milestones.

• Key personnel qualifications: Detail the technical experience, certifications, and academic qualifications of proposed personnel, such as Lead Systems Architects, Data Scientists, and Machine Learning Engineers.

• Quality control and governance: Outline the continuous testing, code review, and configuration management procedures governing software delivery.

Volume III: Past Performance and Section 2(b)

Volume III demonstrates the offeror's record of successful performance on relevant past contracts. Section 2(b) of Executive Order 14434 matters here because it does not require altering contracts issued before the order.

Section 2(b) serves as an express savings clause:

"Nothing in this section requires the alteration of previously issued regulations, Presidential actions, contracts, grants, or other historical documents."

Proposal writers should not alter historical contract titles or project descriptions in past performance narratives. If a contractor successfully delivered an "Automated Artificial Intelligence Imagery Exploitation System" under a Department of Defense contract awarded in 2024, the contractor should cite that exact title in Volume III.

Source selection evaluators check past performance citations against records such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). If a proposal retroactively alters a project title to "Automated Super Intelligence System," evaluators cross-referencing CPARS records will encounter naming discrepancies. Proposal authors should retain historical contract names and include a footnote explaining that the historical AI capabilities fulfill the solicitation's Super Intelligence criteria under 15 U.S.C. 9401(3).

Volume IV: Cost and Pricing Volume

Volume IV presents direct labor rates, indirect cost pools, material costs, subcontractor pricing, and commercial item catalogs:

• Labor category mapping: Offerors bidding on task orders issued under General Services Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedules (MAS) or government-wide acquisition contracts (GWACs) must bill against approved labor category titles. If a vendor's approved GSA Schedule lists "Senior AI Engineer" or "Machine Learning Consultant," the vendor must bill against those approved titles. Amending GSA Schedule labor titles requires formal schedule modifications. Contractors bridge this gap by mapping existing labor categories to the solicitation's statement of work in proposal crosswalk tables.

• Commercial items under FAR Part 12: Vendors offering commercial computer software or commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products maintain their commercial product names, corporate trademarks, and commercial licensing terms. Executive Order 14434 directs federal agencies and does not require commercial software developers to rebrand commercial products.

The following matrix details how proposal teams align each volume under Executive Order 14434:

Coordinate Federal Proposal Reviews and Compliance Matrices in One Workspace

Centralize RFP shredding, color-team drafts, and teaming agreements across dedicated workspaces with audit trails and version control. Monthly plans include a 14-day trial; a card is required.

Start 14-Day Trial

Developing competitive federal proposals requires tight coordination across capture managers, proposal writers, legal counsel, solution architects, and external teaming partners. A typical major procurement generates thousands of working files across color-team review milestones, including Pink Team technical drafts, Red Team compliance audits, Gold Team executive pricing reviews, subcontractor non-disclosure agreements, and Standard Form 30 solicitation amendments.

When procurement files are distributed across disparate local folders, personal cloud drives, and email threads, document control fails. A technical writer may base a volume chapter on an outdated Statement of Work, or an unredacted cost model containing proprietary subcontractor labor rates may be shared with unauthorized team members. In federal procurements, version mismatches or data disclosure can compromise an entire bid.

Federal contractors coordinate complex proposal packages inside centralized workspaces.

Fast.io workspaces provide dedicated, organization-owned environments where proposal operations teams, technical authors, and automated tools collaborate on procurement records. Capture teams can establish dedicated workspaces for individual RFP responses, active IDIQ task orders, or corporate proposal libraries, maintaining an authoritative repository for every bid volume.

Key workspace capabilities for federal proposal operations include:

• Granular permissions: Permissions are set per organization, workspace and share; a share gives an outside party access to only the files or folder placed in it.

• Per-file version history: Every document uploaded to a workspace maintains a revision history. Proposal managers can track edits across color-team milestones, verify that mandatory SF-30 solicitation amendments are integrated into active drafts, and restore earlier revisions if requirements shift during pre-proposal exchanges.

• Detailed activity log: Fastio keeps a detailed activity log of file uploads, changes, and permission and membership changes, so contracts officers and security leads can see who changed which file and when.

• Metadata Views: Federal solicitations and contract packages span hundreds of pages. Metadata Views convert unstructured RFP packages, Statements of Work, Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs), and SF-30 amendments into structured, queryable data. Teams define extraction fields in plain language, and the system extracts amendment dates, mandatory FAR clauses, submission deadlines, and evaluation criteria into a sortable spreadsheet view.

• Notes: Proposal authors, capture directors, and subject matter experts can keep compliance matrices, technical descriptions, and executive summaries as notes in the workspace, next to the files they reference.

• Workspace e-signature: Teaming agreements, mutual non-disclosure agreements, and subcontractor commitment letters can be routed for signature directly from the workspace through e-signature. Documents support sequential or parallel signer routing, optional one-time passcodes per signer, and a tamper-evident audit certificate filed back into the workspace upon execution.

• Model Context Protocol (MCP) connectivity: Engineering teams and automated agents can connect to workspaces through Streamable HTTP at https://mcp.fast.io/mcp/tools for general applications or https://mcp.fast.io/mcp/code for coding agents, allowing automated tools to deposit proposal drafts or extract structured compliance data via storage for agents.

Fast.io offers structured subscription tiers on Fast.io pricing. Organizations can evaluate the platform with a 14-day trial on monthly plans, which requires a credit card.

Workspace data is encrypted in transit and at rest. Centralizing proposal packages and compliance documentation inside dedicated workspaces keeps capture teams aligned throughout the procurement lifecycle.

Federal proposal teams must balance immediate solicitation compliance with upcoming administrative and legislative milestones. Following a structured compliance workflow ensures that technical proposals address agency requirements without creating legal vulnerabilities.

Six-Step Proposal Response Checklist

When an RFP incorporates Super Intelligence requirements, proposal teams should follow this operational sequence:

1. Shred the RFP and build the compliance matrix: Review Section C, Section L, and Section M. Extract every instance of "Super Intelligence" and "SI" into the proposal compliance matrix. Note whether the terms appear as mandatory technical specifications, evaluation criteria, or deliverable descriptions.

2. Establish the statutory terminology bridge: Draft an introductory compliance crosswalk in Volume I (Technical Approach) confirming that all proposed capabilities fulfill the solicitation's Super Intelligence requirements through machine-based systems defined in 15 U.S.C. 9401(3).

3. Mirror agency phrasing across narrative volumes: Use the agency's requested terminology across section headings, system architecture overviews, and executive summaries. If the solicitation requests an "SI Data Extraction Module," use that exact label in technical descriptions.

4. Ground technical solutions in operational engineering: Detail concrete machine learning models, statistical methods, training pipelines, and data quality controls. Do not claim hypothetical artificial superintelligence, autonomous artificial general intelligence, or unverified cognitive capabilities.

5. Preserve exact historical titles in past performance: Cite previous contract awards in Volume III using their official CPARS project names. Do not edit historical contract titles to include "Super Intelligence." Add a footnote explaining that the contract predates Executive Order 14434 and that its AI work falls within 15 U.S.C. 9401(3), the definition Section 3(a) uses for SI.

6. Submit clarification inquiries during the pre-proposal window: If the solicitation presents conflicting instructions, ambiguous requirements, or contradictory clause references, submit formal written questions to the Contracting Officer under FAR 15.201.

Upcoming Regulatory Milestones Following EO 14434

Federal contractors must monitor three prospective regulatory and legislative phases following Executive Order 14434:

• The November 28, 2026 legislative proposal deadline: Section 3(b) of Executive Order 14434 directs the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST) to submit proposed legislative language for a federal definition of "Super Intelligence" and "SI" to the President within 60 days of the signing date. Because the order was signed on September 29, 2026, this 60-day reporting timeline concludes on November 28, 2026. This deadline requires the APST to deliver an internal executive recommendation to the President. It does not enact legislation, amend the United States Code, or create new procurement regulations. As of October 2026, no statutory definition of Super Intelligence exists.

• Office of Management and Budget (OMB) acquisition guidance: The Executive Office of the President and OMB may issue acquisition circulars or memorandums to agency Senior Procurement Executives (SPEs). Such guidance could set how agencies use the term in acquisition plans and other procurement documents.

• FAR Council formal rulemaking: If the federal government seeks to establish standardized contract clauses or mandatory solicitation provisions applicable across civilian and defense procurements, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) must initiate formal rulemaking under Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This process requires publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register, providing a 60-day public comment period, and evaluating industry feedback before issuing a Final Rule.

Until Congress enacts new statutory language, or later Presidential action supersedes the order's definition (Section 3(a)), SI under the order means what 15 U.S.C. 9401(3) defines as artificial intelligence; each solicitation's own definitions govern that solicitation. Offerors should consult the cognizant Contracting Officer or their legal counsel for binding determinations regarding specific solicitation requirements.