Attachment 3- E-STAR_RFI_Questions_Responses_For_Industry.pdf

E-STAR RFI Questions & Answers

Who provides the current systems? (Which government team or which incumbent vendor?)

CBP OIT manages operations of E-STAR and further enhance the system. The data is stored in a CBP-owned government cloud (Amazon cloud services).

How Much data (GB, TB, other) does the system currently store and of which type?

(tabular, images, video, other unstructured, etc.)

Tabular. 190 GB. There are some images that have been attached to a report, but very minimal. There are no videos. There are Word docs, text documents, PDFs, and PowerPoints.

What key dates, milestones, or other external factors are driving development milestones or delivery expectations?

CBP desires to modernize its system but there is no guarantee that CBP will issue a solicitation. Please also note that any and all period(s) of performance for a potential future contract have not yet been determined.

CBP is looking to industry to recommend a development approach that optimizes the cost of deploying and sustaining a modernized system. Vendors should include the time required to develop and have the system ready for Go-Live as an assumption in their rough order of magnitude cost estimates.

What are the sworn number of users over one year?

CBP is an agency comprising approximately 60,000 federal employees. From 2017 through the end of calendar year 2024, there have been approximately 149,000 unique E-STAR users (total, not at one time). The total number of incidents reported per year typically does not surpass 5,000. CBP does not have information on the annual number of active users available at this time. CBP does expect substantive growth in users and reports in the future.

CBP E-STAR RFI Questions & Answers

What system are you currently using?

A CBP-owned, CBP-developed relational database with data stored on a CBP-owned government cloud (Amazon Cloud Services).

How much is it currently costing you in man-hours and dollar cost?

CBP is currently considering a solicitation for a lower-cost system alternative. Given that system cost is a determining factor in the selection process, we are intentionally leaving cost details open to allow for competitive bidding.

What are the most significant functional limitations with the current E-STAR system that CBP is seeking to address?

Limitations impacting end users:

• No mobile capabilities.

• Lack of modernized interface capability.

Limitations impacting system administrators:

• The inability to configure existing forms/form fields without the need for complex computer programming (no form builder tool).

• Lack of data dashboards to export/extract collected data in an interactive visual format and in a static report format.

• A system ad hoc search functionality to extract system data

The current system lacks integration with AI capabilities, resulting in significant functional limitations across multiple operational areas. Specifically, the absence of AI-driven tools affects:

• Data Integrity: No automated validation or anomaly detection to ensure accuracy and consistency of entered data.

• Report Review: The system does not support intelligent checks for completeness, missing elements, or narrative inconsistencies during user input beyond a simple missing validation indicator.

• System Administrator Support: There is no AI-assisted functionality to help system administrators efficiently review, analyze, or flag issues in completed reports.

• User Experience: Users receive no contextual guidance, predictive inputs, or intelligent prompts to improve usability and reduce entry errors.

• Knowledge Delivery: The system lacks intelligent surfacing of relevant policy references, past incident examples, or guidance tailored to user input.

• Data Summarization: There is no capacity for AI to synthesize and present data trends or patterns, whether at the incident (micro) level or across the enterprise (macro) scale.

• CBP views the integration of AI capabilities as a high-value future enhancement, with the potential to significantly improve system efficiency, data quality, and user support at all levels of the organization.

CBP currently faces a functional limitation preventing the rapid deployment of system enhancements. Due to existing system architecture, development workflows, and contractual processes, changes to the system often require extended timelines for coordination, development, testing, and deployment. As a result, CBP does not have the flexibility to implement enhancements or new features on short notice.

What internal CBP or DHS systems (e.g., case management, HR, operational reporting) must the modernized E-STAR integrate with?

The modernized E-STAR system must integrate with the following internal CBP and DHS systems to ensure operational continuity, accountability, and data interoperability:

• E3 – For detention and processing personnel data and case-related records.

• IDVRS (Evidence.com) – For access to body-worn camera footage and evidentiary media.

• FACTS (Firearms, Armor, and Credentials Tracking System) – For tracking firearm, optics, and body armor assignments, including serial numbers, as well as documenting firearms qualifications and less-lethal quarterly/annual training compliance.

• EGIS – For geospatial data integration and operational situational awareness.

• ACADIS (including ACADIS Readiness Suite) – For training management, certification tracking, and course completion records.

• Border Enforcement Management Systems – For operational enforcement data and incident correlation.

• VerITAS – For internal documentation, accountability tracking, and audit support.

Additionally, user identification and authentication are currently managed through BPETS, WebTele, and Active Directory. Integration with these systems may be necessary depending on the vendor’s system architecture and approach to user management.

CBP also reserves the right to identify and integrate additional systems as mission needs or operational requirements evolve.

Will there be a need for mobile or offline data entry capabilities to support field personnel?

Yes. In addition to a reporting system that allows all actions to be completed while working from a CBP workstation, CBP is also interested in a complementary mobile application that provides users with the option to initiate their reports using their CBP mobile devices while they are still in the field.

Beyond FedRAMP, are there any additional security compliance frameworks required?

Yes, in addition to FEDRAMP authorization, the system must adhere to CBP Office of Information and Technology (OIT) Security Standards: all systems must comply with CBP’s internal cybersecurity policies, which are based on Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) guidelines, in accordance with CBP Handbook 1400-05D Information Systems Security Policies and Procedures.

The system must also adhere to CBP Privacy Standards, including CBP Directive No. 2120- 010A (“Privacy Policy, Compliance and Implementation”) and CBP Directive No. 51250- 025 (“Public Disclosure of Employee Information”).

These standards collectively ensure that the system maintains confidentiality, integrity, and availability of CBP data, and aligns with CBP’s mission-critical information assurance goals.

What level of data analytics capability does CBP anticipate (e.g., user dashboards, trend analysis, predictive modeling)?

CBP recognized data analytics as a critical area of need and a key capability that we seek to significantly expand with the implementation of a new system. Current dashboard functionality is limited, offering only minimal data visibility, static visuals, and no export capability.

CBP is interested in gathering industry’s recommendations on analytics capabilities, including:

• Dynamic User Dashboards: the ability to display all collected data points, not just summary metrics, with features such as customizable visualizations, real-time updates, and filtering by field office, incident type, date range, etc.

• Exportable Reports: users have access to generate and export data in multiple formats (e.g., Excel, CSV, PDF), with customizable fields and filters.

• Trend Analysis and Visualizations: graphical representations of trends over time (e.g., use-of-force types, regional patterns, seasonal spikes), with drill-down capabilities for deeper analysis.

• Advanced Analytics: systems capable of predictive modeling, anomaly detection, and other forms of advanced analytics using structured incident data and exogenous variables.

CBP seeks a solution that enables data-driven decision-making, facilitates transparency, and supports operational planning.

To what extent should CBP personnel be able to modify form fields, workflows, or reports without vendor involvement?

CBP system administrators should have a moderate level of autonomy in managing and modifying system components without vendor reliance, including the following:

• Form Building and Layout Adjustments: Basic form creation and modification should be an inherent system capability accessible to trained CBP system administrators. This includes the ability to add, remove, and reconfigure form elements to align with operational needs.

• Field Label Changes: Administrators should be empowered to update field labels and descriptions to improve clarity or align with evolving terminology without needing vendor support.

• Simple Data Modifications: The addition or deletion of data points (e.g., dropdown options, selectable values) should be straightforward and manageable by CBP personnel. The system should be designed to handle such changes gracefully, including the automatic assignment of “null” or default values in historical records where applicable.

Types of changes where vendor assistance should be required include:

• Report Impact and Historical Data Integrity: In cases where modifications will affect report logic, calculated fields, or historical data representations, vendor assistance should be required. This ensures data integrity, prevents unintended consequences, and supports appropriate version control.

• Workflow Configuration: Routine workflow modifications (e.g., reassignment of approval roles, minor routing changes) should be manageable by CBP administrators. However, structural changes involving logic branching or system behavior should be vendor-supported to ensure stability and compliance.

In summary, CBP personnel should be capable of making routine and administrative-level changes independently, while more complex or data-impacting modifications should involve the vendor to maintain system integrity and reporting consistency. The vendor should be capable of assisting CBP with changes to the system in a timely manner (relatively simple changes should not take months to complete).

Are there funding constraints CBP is willing to share that could guide solution scope or implementation phasing?

CBP is currently considering a solicitation for a lower-cost system alternative. Given that system cost is a determining factor in the selection process, we are intentionally leaving cost details open to allow for competitive bidding.

Would CBP consider a limited pilot as part of the evaluation process for shortlisted solutions?

CBP would be open to evaluating existing systems or demonstration environments as part of the vendor selection process. However, a limited pilot involving actual field deployment would not be feasible due to the complexities of ongoing data collection, operational reporting requirements, and the need to maintain consistency in data dissemination. Any evaluation must be conducted in a controlled environment that does not interfere with live operations or introduce risk to the integrity of official reporting systems.