RFP 01: Customer Segmentation and Profiling
Tender type: Request for Proposals
Issued by: Cardano Product Committee / Intersect
Research portfolio: Product Research Initiatives
Final publication date, submission deadline, clarification window, expected project period, submission method, and contact will be confirmed on the Product Research Initiatives - Grants page before the call opens.
1. Executive Summary
Strategic question
Who are Cardano's current and potential customer segments, what does each segment need from Cardano, and which segments should be prioritized for activation through specific partner and channel strategies?
Evidence gap
Cardano does not yet have a validated segmentation and profiling model that distinguishes current users and ecosystem participants from potential external demand segments. Without this, product strategy, funding, communications, and partner development risk being too broad to produce measurable adoption.
Decision unlocked
This research should enable Cardano stakeholders to decide which customer segments to prioritize first, which partner or channel pathways are most credible for each segment, and what adoption signals should be used to evaluate whether activation is producing real usage rather than cosmetic interest.
Expected outputs
The selected vendor will produce a validated segment map, current Cardano customer/user profile, priority segment briefs, segment sizing assumptions, value proposition and switching-condition analysis, a segment x vertical x channel matrix, a partner/channel activation map, an adoption signal framework, and a concise decision memo.
Requirement priority
The required core is to answer the decision gates with traceable evidence and produce the required decision outputs. Optional methods, templates, or stretch work should be separated from the core scope and budget.
2. Strategic Context
The Cardano Product Committee has received funding to commission a portfolio of product research initiatives aligned with Cardano's long-term product direction and Strategy 2030 priorities. The purpose of the portfolio is to define the evidence Cardano needs before making product, adoption, funding, partnership, and strategic decisions.
This RFP is the first research initiative in that portfolio. It focuses on customer segmentation and profiling.
The work should inform the Cardano Product Committee and the broader Cardano ecosystem. It should not be treated as a passive market research exercise or a generic persona study. The purpose is to produce evidence that can guide prioritization, partner strategy, activation planning, future grant design, and downstream research.
Cardano's current audiences include many different types of participants, including builders, users, operators, contributors, partners, and community members. The research should identify which of these groups are meaningfully different, what they do, what they value, and what would cause them to deepen or begin adoption. It should also test demand hypotheses outside the existing Cardano and crypto-native audience.
3. Research Problem Statement
Cardano lacks a validated, decision-ready understanding of its current and potential customer segments.
Existing audience categories may be too broad to guide action. Labels such as "developers," "retail users," "enterprises," or "institutions" are not sufficient unless they are tied to observable behavior, jobs-to-be-done, decision criteria, current alternatives, adoption blockers, switching conditions, and reachable channels.
This creates a strategic problem:
product and ecosystem priorities may be based on assumptions rather than validated customer needs;
funding and grants may support broad narratives rather than high-potential segments;
partner outreach may lack a clear view of which segments are reachable through which channels;
external demand beyond the current crypto-native audience may be overstated, understated, or poorly defined;
adoption may be measured through weak signals such as attention, stated interest, or one-off engagement rather than recurring use, partner commitment, or measurable activity.
The selected vendor must close this evidence gap by producing a segmentation and profiling model that can support prioritization and partner/channel strategy.
4. Definitions
For this RFP, "customer" should be understood broadly but operationally.
A Cardano customer segment may include current or potential users, builders, buyers, operators, partners, or ecosystem participants whose behavior or decisions can affect Cardano adoption, usage, funding, partnership, or product strategy.
ADA holders and governance participants may be included where relevant, but they should not dominate the research unless their behavior is linked to product adoption, activation, partner relevance, or ecosystem strategy. The RFP should prioritize segments that create, enable, or influence measurable adoption.
The selected vendor may refine these definitions during the research design phase, but any revised definition must remain decision-useful and evidence-based.
5. Objectives
The selected vendor will be expected to:
Profile current Cardano customers, users, and ecosystem participants, including what they do, what they value, and how they engage.
Identify named customer segments based on meaningful differences in behavior, motivation, job-to-be-done, decision criteria, and adoption pattern.
Test hypotheses about potential demand outside the current crypto-native Cardano audience, especially in adjacent sectors or verticals where blockchain may solve a genuine problem.
Define segment-level value propositions, current alternatives, objections, adoption blockers, and switching conditions.
Prioritize segments based on adoption potential, reachability, strategic relevance, evidence quality, and effort required.
Map each priority segment to credible channels, partner archetypes, and activation pathways.
Distinguish real adoption signals from cosmetic activity for each priority segment.
Identify which segment findings should be handed to other Product Research Initiative RFPs for deeper study.
Produce a reusable segmentation framework that can be refreshed on a 12-18 month cadence.
6. Decision Gates
Applicants must design their methodology around the following decision gates. A proposal that does not map methods and deliverables to these gates will be considered weak fit for this RFP.
Can Cardano's current customers/users be segmented into behaviorally meaningful groups?
Current ecosystem evidence, interviews, survey evidence where relevant, optional user-behavior or on-chain data
Cardano has distinguishable current customer/user groups with different motivations and needs
Current customer understanding is too shallow or fragmented for reliable segmentation
Establish a reusable segmentation baseline
Which current segments show the strongest adoption signal?
Segment-level evidence of recurring use, builder activity, capital/activity contribution, product usage, partner relevance, or ecosystem participation
Some current segments merit priority support
Current activity is too cosmetic, speculative, or weakly connected to durable adoption
Prioritize retention, activation, grants, and support
Are there credible customer segments outside the current crypto-native Cardano audience?
Hypothesis-driven demand discovery with external respondents, desk research, and evidence of real problems and alternatives
Cardano has plausible growth segments beyond existing insiders
External demand is unvalidated, unreachable, or better handled elsewhere
Define external segment opportunities or reject weak hypotheses
What job-to-be-done does each priority segment need Cardano to satisfy?
Segment interviews, observed behaviors, current alternatives, pain points, decision criteria, and switching conditions
Priority segments have specific needs Cardano can address or test
Segment needs are too vague or disconnected from Cardano's strengths
Shape value propositions, product inputs, and partner strategy
Which segments are reachable through credible channels or partners?
Channel mapping, partner archetype analysis, access constraints, and stakeholder validation
Some segments can be activated through identifiable partners or channels
Segments may be attractive but are not currently reachable
Prioritize partner and channel strategy
Which segments should be prioritized first?
Comparative scoring across adoption potential, reachability, strategic relevance, effort, and evidence strength
A ranked segment strategy can guide action
Findings do not support confident prioritization
Direct resources toward highest-confidence segments
Which questions should be handed to other RFPs?
Boundary analysis across enterprise, government, stablecoin, AI, L2, brand, use-case, and partner-network research
Some questions are better resolved by specialized RFPs
Segmentation scope is overloaded or duplicative
Keep this RFP focused and improve portfolio alignment
What counts as real adoption signal for each priority segment?
Segment-specific evidence thresholds, examples of valid evidence, and excluded vanity metrics
Future activation can be measured against meaningful indicators
Activation may be evaluated through ambiguous or cosmetic metrics
Improve KPI design for pilots, grants, and partner work
7. Scope of Work
In scope
The selected vendor should cover:
current Cardano customer/user profiling;
segmentation of current and potential customer groups;
jobs-to-be-done per segment;
decision criteria, blockers, current alternatives, and switching conditions;
hypothesis-driven demand discovery outside the current crypto-native audience;
segment-level sizing assumptions with stated confidence and methodology;
prioritization of segments for the next 12-24 months;
partner and channel strategy by segment;
segment x vertical x channel mapping;
adoption signal definitions by segment;
cross-RFP handoff notes;
reusable segmentation framework.
Out of scope and handoff boundaries
This RFP should remain focused on segmentation, profiling, prioritization, and partner/channel strategy. It may identify findings relevant to other Product Research Initiatives, but it should not attempt to fully answer those initiatives.
Adjacent topics should be handled as follows:
Enterprise and RWA
Identify enterprise-related segments, needs, blockers, and channel hypotheses
Full enterprise readiness, SLA, compliance, or production-readiness assessment
Government and emerging markets
Identify relevant customer or partner segments and broad demand hypotheses
Regional entry strategy, regulatory analysis, or country-level playbooks
Use cases and competitive positioning
Capture segment-level current alternatives and switching criteria
Full vertical landscape or chain-by-chain competitive audit
Brand awareness and perception
Capture segment-level trust signals, objections, and value proposition response
Full awareness baseline, brand perception study, or messaging campaign
Stablecoin liquidity
Identify stablecoin-related user or partner segments and demand signals
Liquidity depth analysis, incentive design, market-maker strategy, or venue strategy
L2 and interoperability
Identify segments blocked by scalability or interoperability needs
Technical L2 demand study, bridge strategy, or value-flow analysis
Enterprise delivery partners
Identify partner/channel archetypes for reaching segments
Full certification model or delivery partner network design
AI commercial positioning
Identify AI-related customer or builder segments where relevant
Full AI market positioning, narrative testing, or go/no-go vertical assessment
Findings that materially affect another research initiative should be captured in the Cross-RFP Handoff Memo rather than expanded inside this RFP.
Optional / nice-to-have stretch scope
Applicants may propose optional stretch scope, priced separately, such as:
light value proposition testing for top priority segments;
early partner archetype mapping by segment;
segment-specific adoption KPI suggestions;
deeper survey work for current Cardano user profiling;
optional on-chain or user-behavior analysis;
a crosswalk showing how segmentation findings should inform the other eight RFPs.
Cross-RFP boundary guidance
Enterprise customers
Segment definition, need, blockers, channel hypothesis
Enterprise and RWA Readiness Assessment
Government or emerging market buyers
Segment hypothesis and broad access route
Government and Emerging Markets Entry Strategy
Use-case competitiveness
Segment-level current alternatives and switching criteria
Use-Case Landscape and Competitive Positioning
Brand perception
Segment-level trust signals and objections
Brand Awareness and Perception
Stablecoin users or liquidity providers
Segment definition and demand signal
Stablecoin Liquidity Incentive and Activation Strategy
AI-related buyers or builders
Segment hypothesis and credibility signal
AI Commercial Positioning
L2 users/builders
Segment hypothesis and adoption blocker
L2 Adoption and Interoperability Demand Study
Delivery partners
Partner/channel archetype
Enterprise Delivery Partner Network
8. Required Methodology
The selected vendor must use a mixed-method research design. Desk research alone is not sufficient.
The methodology should include:
desk research to establish hypotheses and context;
primary research with current Cardano users, builders, operators, or ecosystem participants;
primary research with external non-Cardano respondents;
stakeholder or partner/channel validation;
explicit segmentation logic;
evidence standards for segment validation;
confidence levels and limitations;
bias controls;
decision-gate mapping.
Core research hypotheses
Applicants should test, refine, or reject hypotheses such as:
Cardano's current users can be segmented into distinct groups
Whether current users differ meaningfully by behavior, motivation, need, or adoption pattern
Enables current customer profiling
Some current segments show stronger adoption signal than others
Whether segments differ in recurring use, builder activity, capital/activity contribution, or partner relevance
Guides prioritization
Cardano has credible customer opportunities outside the current crypto-native audience
Whether external audiences have real problems Cardano could plausibly solve
Expands strategy beyond insiders
Priority segments have different decision criteria and switching conditions
What each segment needs before choosing or deepening use of Cardano
Enables value proposition design
Reachability differs by segment
Which channels or partner archetypes can credibly reach each segment
Enables partner strategy
Current interest is not always real adoption
Whether segment activity can be tied to measurable behavior or decision commitment
Prevents vanity metrics
Primary research expectations
Applicants must include primary validation. The proposal should explain:
who will be interviewed or surveyed;
why those respondents are relevant;
how respondents map to proposed segments;
how external audiences will be reached;
how insider bias will be controlled;
how negative cases will be included where possible, such as people who chose another chain, stopped using Cardano, or considered but rejected Cardano.
Indicative minimum interview expectations:
Current Cardano users/builders/operators
[15-25]
Profile current customers/users and identify segment differences
Ecosystem stakeholders with cross-segment visibility
[5-10]
Validate segment structure and channel assumptions
External non-Cardano respondents
[15-25]
Test demand outside the current crypto-native Cardano audience
Partner/channel candidates or experts
[5-10]
Validate reachability and partner strategy
Total suggested range
[40-70]
To be justified by applicant scope and budget
Applicants may propose different sample plans, but they must explain why the sample is sufficient to answer the decision gates.
Survey expectations
Survey work is optional but encouraged where the applicant can demonstrate credible recruitment and data quality.
Survey work may be useful for:
broader current Cardano user profiling;
testing segment-level motivations;
comparing value proposition appeal;
estimating relative segment prevalence;
validating prioritization assumptions.
Survey evidence will be considered weak if recruitment is limited to a single Cardano social channel, respondent quality is unaudited, recruitment bias is undisclosed, or questions measure only stated enthusiasm without behavior, current alternatives, or switching conditions.
Optional on-chain or user-behavior analysis
On-chain or user-behavior analysis is optional and should depend on vendor capability and data availability. Applicants that propose such analysis must explain:
which data sources will be used;
what behavior the data can and cannot show;
how wallet or user-level assumptions will be handled;
how privacy and data handling will be addressed;
how behavioral evidence will be connected to segment definitions.
If a proposed method depends on unavailable, proprietary, or paid data, it must be marked "requires validation."
What should not count as evidence
The following should not be treated as sufficient evidence:
unattributed claims about what "the market" wants;
generic blockchain adoption narratives;
Cardano community sentiment presented as external demand;
market sizing without assumptions and source traceability;
personas based only on demographics;
segments defined only by labels;
competitor claims without evidence;
value propositions not tested against segment decision criteria;
interview counts without respondent relevance;
survey samples with undisclosed recruitment bias;
findings that do not map to a decision gate.
9. Expected Deliverables
Deliverables are grouped into core decision outputs, supporting research outputs, and public/community-facing outputs.
Core decision outputs
Executive Decision Memo
Concise synthesis of what Cardano should do differently based on findings
PDF/doc, max [8] pages
States top segment priorities, partner/channel implications, defer/no-go recommendations, evidence confidence, and next actions
Validated Segment Map
Named segmentation model covering current and potential customer segments
Table, map, and narrative
Each segment includes definition, evidence basis, job-to-be-done, current alternative, decision criteria, blockers, switching conditions, and confidence level
Segment Prioritization Model
Ranking of segments by adoption potential, reachability, strategic relevance, evidence strength, and effort required
Scoring table plus explanation
Uses transparent scoring criteria, shows tradeoffs, identifies top, watchlist, and deprioritized segments
Segment x Vertical x Channel Matrix
Matrix showing which segments connect to which verticals and channels
Spreadsheet/table
Shows segment, relevant vertical, activation channel, partner archetype, reachability, evidence basis, and recommended next step
Adoption Signal Framework
Definition of real adoption indicators by segment
Framework table
Lists strong signals, weak/cosmetic signals, minimum evidence threshold, and suggested measurement method per priority segment
Supporting research outputs
Research Design and Decision-Gate Map
Detailed plan showing how the vendor will answer each gate
PDF/doc, max [10] pages
Maps methods to gates, includes sample plan, recruitment sources, evidence limits, and bias controls
Current Cardano Customer/User Profile
Profile of current Cardano consumers/users
Report section plus summary table
Separates user types by observable behavior or role and includes evidence source per claim
Segment Persona Briefs
Concise briefs for each priority segment
2-3 pages per priority segment
Includes job-to-be-done, motivations, blockers, alternatives, decision criteria, value proposition, channel route, partner archetypes, and adoption signals
External Demand Validation Memo
Evidence on potential non-Cardano customer segments
Memo plus evidence table
Includes external respondent evidence and distinguishes validated, weak, and rejected hypotheses
Value Proposition and Switching Conditions Register
Segment-level propositions and conditions required to choose Cardano
Table/register
Includes current alternative, required proof, value proposition, objection, switching trigger, and evidence basis
Cross-RFP Handoff Memo
Findings that belong in other research initiatives
Memo, max [5] pages
Maps relevant findings to other RFPs and explains why they should be handled elsewhere
Final Research Report
Full research record
PDF/doc
Includes methodology, sample, evidence tables, findings by decision gate, limitations, and source traceability
Public/community-facing outputs
Presentation Deck
Presentation-ready summary
Slide deck
Covers question, evidence gap, method, segment map, priorities, channel implications, adoption signals, limits, and next actions
Public Summary
Non-confidential summary suitable for publication
Markdown/PDF, max [5] pages
Includes key findings, methodology overview, evidence caveats, publishable recommendations, and excludes sensitive data
10. Acceptance Criteria
Each deliverable must be decision-useful, evidence-based, and traceable.
Every factual claim must be traceable to a source, interview, survey result, dataset, or clearly identified vendor judgment.
Every priority segment must include:
segment definition;
job-to-be-done;
evidence basis;
current alternative;
decision criteria;
adoption blocker;
switching condition;
channel or partner route;
adoption signal;
confidence level.
Every recommendation must state:
what should be done;
who the action is relevant for;
what evidence supports it;
what uncertainty remains;
what should not be concluded from the evidence.
A deliverable will be considered unacceptable if it:
treats current Cardano insiders as the whole market;
provides personas without evidence;
uses broad audience labels without behavior or needs;
produces market sizing without assumptions;
offers all-positive segment recommendations;
fails to identify weak or rejected hypotheses;
does not distinguish real adoption from cosmetic activity;
does not map outputs to decision gates;
duplicates other RFP scopes without clear handoff.
11. Vendor Eligibility
Applicants may be independent researchers, consultancies, ecosystem teams, academic groups, or consortia. Subcontracting is permitted where responsibilities are clearly defined.
Applicants should demonstrate:
segmentation, customer research, or market research experience;
primary research capability;
ability to reach current Cardano and external non-Cardano respondents;
understanding of Web3, L1 ecosystems, or adjacent adoption markets;
ability to translate research into product, partner, or adoption strategy;
ability to manage research ethics, data handling, and confidentiality;
capacity to deliver concise, decision-oriented outputs.
Preferred but not mandatory capabilities include:
prior L1/L2 ecosystem research;
product strategy experience;
partner/channel strategy experience;
survey design and analysis;
on-chain or user-behavior analytics;
experience communicating research for both executive and public audiences.
12. Proposal Submission Requirements
Applicants must follow the shared Submission Pack and include the common documents: cover letter, technical proposal, budget proposal, team credentials, evidence access plan, ethics/data handling statement, and conflicts declaration.
Applicants bidding on multiple Product Research Initiative RFPs must disclose shared staffing, shared respondent recruitment, shared evidence collection, and any assumptions that could create respondent fatigue or duplicated outreach.
For this RFP, the technical proposal must also include:
segmentation logic and proposed segment validation method;
respondent/sample plan covering current Cardano participants and external non-Cardano respondents;
decision-gate mapping;
partner/channel activation approach;
plan for distinguishing real adoption signal from stated interest;
cross-RFP handoff approach for findings that belong to other research areas.
Budgets should separate core scope from optional stretch scope and explain how cost relates to evidence access, respondent quality, and decision usefulness.
13. Evaluation Guidance
Proposals will be assessed using the CPC standard research grant evaluation framework: Fit to Grant Objectives, Team Capability, Proposal Quality and Execution Plan, and Cost Efficiency. The full scoring framework is maintained on the shared evaluation page.
For this RFP, strong fit means the proposal clearly maps its methodology and deliverables to the segmentation decision gates; includes primary validation beyond Cardano insiders; distinguishes current user profiling from external demand discovery; defines how segments will be prioritized; and explains how partner/channel strategy and adoption signals will be produced.
Proposals will score lower if they rely only on desk research, provide generic personas, omit external validation, fail to connect findings to prioritization and partner strategy, or do not disclose relevant conflicts of interest.
Cost will be assessed against evidence value, not simply lowest price. Higher budget requests should explain how the added cost produces materially stronger evidence, better respondent access, higher confidence, or more decision-useful outputs.
14. Timeline and Milestones
Final calendar dates will be confirmed on the Product Research Initiatives - Grants page before the call opens.
RFP publication
Confirmed on grants page
Open call for proposals
Clarification window opens
Confirmed on grants page
Applicants may submit questions
Clarification window closes
Confirmed on grants page
Final clarification responses issued
Proposal deadline
Confirmed on grants page
Applicant submissions due
Award notification
Confirmed on grants page
Selected vendor notified
Kickoff
Project week 1
Confirm scope, decision gates, workplan, and communication cadence
Research design approval
Applicant-proposed timing
Approve sample plan, instruments, data sources, and bias controls before fieldwork
Early signal check
Applicant-proposed timing
Review early segment hypotheses and recruitment progress
Interim findings review
Applicant-proposed timing
Test whether evidence is answering decision gates
Draft deliverables review
Applicant-proposed timing
Review segment map, prioritization model, channel matrix, and adoption signals
Final report and presentation
Applicant-proposed timing
Deliver final outputs and decision memo
Public summary
Applicant-proposed timing
Publish non-confidential summary
Applicants should propose a timeline appropriate to their methodology. Unrealistic timelines should be avoided, especially where primary external validation is proposed.
15. Governance, Reporting, and Communication
The selected vendor will participate in structured checkpoints.
Kickoff
Confirm objectives, decision gates, workplan, and communication norms
Research Design Review
Approve sample plan, interview/survey instruments, data sources, and bias controls before fieldwork
Early Signal Check
Surface early segment hypotheses, recruitment issues, and data limitations
Interim Findings Review
Test whether evidence is answering the decision gates
Draft Deliverables Review
Review segment map, prioritization model, channel matrix, and adoption signal framework
Final Presentation
Present final findings, limitations, decisions enabled, and recommended next actions
The reporting cadence should be proportionate to project length, but at least one interim findings review and one draft deliverables review are required.
16. Risks, Bias Controls, and Safeguards
Applicants must include a research integrity plan.
Cardano insider bias
Separate insider findings from external validation; disclose respondent affiliations
Overweighting loud ecosystem voices
Use defined recruitment logic and avoid relying only on visible community participants
Weak external demand evidence
Include non-Cardano respondents and identify rejected or weak hypotheses
Survey bias
Disclose recruitment channels, respondent quality checks, and limitations
Unsupported market sizing
State assumptions, sources, and confidence levels
Cosmetic adoption signals
Define real adoption indicators per segment and exclude vanity metrics
Scope creep
Use cross-RFP handoff logic for enterprise, government, brand, use-case, stablecoin, AI, L2, and partner-network findings
Conflicted recommendations
Require conflict declarations and mitigation plans
Sensitive data exposure
Separate public findings, committee-facing findings, and raw data
The final report must include a limitations section explaining what the research can and cannot support.
17. Clarification Process
Applicants may submit clarification questions during the clarification window.
Questions may address:
scope;
decision gates;
deliverables;
data availability;
respondent access;
budget format;
confidentiality;
public/private outputs;
overlap with other RFPs.
Responses should be maintained in a rolling Q&A log where practical so applicants receive consistent information. If a response materially changes scope, deadline, or eligibility, the RFP timeline may be adjusted.
The clarification process also helps assess applicant judgment. Strong questions should demonstrate specificity, methodological awareness, and realistic tradeoff thinking.
18. Data Handling, Confidentiality, and Public Summary
The selected vendor must provide a data handling plan covering:
consent process for interviews and surveys;
anonymization approach;
storage and access controls;
treatment of confidential or commercially sensitive information;
handling of raw interview notes or transcripts;
treatment of survey data;
publication boundaries;
retention and deletion plan.
Research outputs should distinguish:
public findings suitable for community publication;
confidential findings suitable only for CPC/internal review;
raw data that should not be published.
A public summary is required unless confidentiality constraints make specific findings unsuitable for publication. Some findings may remain committee-facing if publication would damage respondent trust, reveal sensitive strategy, or expose commercially confidential information.
19. Human Subject Research Ethics
Because this RFP requires interviews, surveys, or other primary research with current and potential users, the selected vendor must apply basic human-subject research safeguards.
At minimum, the vendor should:
obtain informed consent for interviews, surveys, recordings, and attribution;
allow respondents to participate anonymously or confidentially where appropriate;
avoid collecting unnecessary personal or sensitive data;
explain how raw notes, transcripts, survey data, and recordings will be stored, accessed, retained, and deleted;
separate public findings from confidential respondent evidence;
avoid overstating findings from small, biased, or non-representative samples.
The vendor should not publish respondent-identifying information without explicit permission.
20. Conflicts of Interest
Applicants must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest, including:
paid work for Cardano ecosystem entities;
affiliation with Cardano projects, vendors, foundations, committees, or community organizations;
financial exposure that could benefit from segment prioritization;
governance roles or voting influence;
subcontractor conflicts;
relationships that may bias respondent recruitment, research design, or recommendations.
Declared conflicts do not automatically disqualify an applicant. Undisclosed conflicts may be grounds for rejection, non-award, or termination.
21. Terms and Conditions
Standard terms and conditions will be provided through the shared tender process before award. Applicants should assume that final award terms will cover ownership and permitted publication of deliverables, confidentiality, payment milestones, termination, data protection, subcontractor approval, warranties or disclaimers, and the governing process.
22. Appendix A: Proposal Checklist
Applicants should confirm that their proposal includes:
23. Appendix B: Required Decision Gate Mapping Template
Current customer segmentation
[Method]
[Source]
[Deliverable]
[Risk]
Current adoption signal
[Method]
[Source]
[Deliverable]
[Risk]
External demand discovery
[Method]
[Source]
[Deliverable]
[Risk]
Segment job-to-be-done
[Method]
[Source]
[Deliverable]
[Risk]
Channel and partner reachability
[Method]
[Source]
[Deliverable]
[Risk]
Segment prioritization
[Method]
[Source]
[Deliverable]
[Risk]
Scope handoff to other RFPs
[Method]
[Source]
[Deliverable]
[Risk]
Real adoption signal
[Method]
[Source]
[Deliverable]
[Risk]
Last updated