Procurement workflow surface
California SB-53: Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (TFAIA) — vendor disclosure form
This is a sample disclosure form a procurement team can adapt for vendor RFPs and ITTs evaluating systems against California SB-53: Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (TFAIA). The provision-specific questions below were derived from the catalog's coverage cells; before issuing, a qualified procurement lawyer should review the adapted version against your jurisdiction's contract law. This form is NOT legal advice (see charter §7.4).
1. Vendor identification
2. AI system identification
3. Provision-specific questions
- Foundation Models / GPAI. Does the offered system meet the threshold for a general-purpose / foundation model under California SB-53: Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (TFAIA) (Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11 — defines 'foundation model' + 'frontier model' (>10^26 FLOP) as the regulated class)? If yes, identify the specific obligations you will satisfy and the evidence you will provide.
(Cite: Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11 — defines 'foundation model' + 'frontier model' (>10^26 FLOP) as the regulated class)
- Transparency Obligations. Provide the documentation required under the transparency obligations of California SB-53: Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (TFAIA) (Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12 — frontier developers must publish a frontier AI framework + a pre-deployment transparency report) — including (as applicable) model card, system card, training-data summary, evaluation results, and known limitations.
(Cite: Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12 — frontier developers must publish a frontier AI framework + a pre-deployment transparency report)
- Catastrophic & Existential Risk. Has the offered system been evaluated against catastrophic-risk thresholds (e.g., CBRN information uplift, autonomous replication) consistent with California SB-53: Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (TFAIA) (Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11 (definition) operationalized by §§ 22757.12 (framework) + 22757.13 (critical-safety-incident reporting to CalOES))? Provide the evaluation report or its public-disclosure equivalent.
(Cite: Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11 (definition) operationalized by §§ 22757.12 (framework) + 22757.13 (critical-safety-incident reporting to CalOES))
4. Documentation enclosures expected
Tick each enclosure attached to the vendor response. Missing enclosures should be explained in the “Variances” field below.
- Copies of submitted regulatory reports / registrations
- Transparency documentation (per-instrument schema)
- End-user redress + complaint-channel procedure
- Safety / capability evaluation results
- Vendor company registration + insurance certificates
- Sub-processor / supply-chain list (including model upstream)
5. Vendor attestation
The undersigned, on behalf of the vendor, attests that the disclosures above are true and complete to the best of their knowledge at the date signed, and undertakes to notify the buyer in writing within 30 days of any material change to those disclosures.
This is a sample form derived from the catalog at /wiki/ca-sb-53. Adapt before issuing. Not legal advice; not jurisdiction-specific. See charter §7.4.