APMD_OPS_STAFF_CAMS_RFI_Consolidated_Q and A_.pdf

Question # Question Response

Given the intricate nature of the RFI requirements, an extension would allow us to deliver the most accurate and cost-effective solution, ensuring CBP receives the most comprehensive response. Would CBP be willing to grant an extension to September 5th?

Yes, the RFI will be extended to September 2nd 2025

Please provide additional clarity on what is needed from an integration with a productivity suite, is the need to add documents/attachments/emails in the system?

Yes, CBP needs current productivity integrated within CAMS system.

3 Have you determined the contracting vehicle for this solicitation when it is released? CBP will not be sharing information regarding a contracting vehicle at this time.

4 Is there a timeline for when the solution needs to be completed? CBP doesn't plan to share a timeline at this time.

At the top of Page 2, of attachment 2 it asks for a CCR#. Can you please tell me what CCR is an acronym for?

CCR stands for Central Contractor Registration

The RFI mentions a wide portfolio of assets. To ensure proposed solutions are comprehensive, could CBP elaborate on the process-centric requirements for managing non-traditional assets, such as the chain-of-custody for seized property or the intake, storage, and return workflows for detainee personal property?

CAMS scope covers personal property assets only, seized assets and detainee assets are exlcuded from that.

The RFI's Compliance and Maintenance Scenarios highlight challenges with process consistency and audit findings. Could CBP clarify its strategic objective? Is the goal to acquire a passive 'system of record' for data storage and reporting, or an active 'system of enforcement' that embeds compliant workflows to mitigate risks and create a robust, immutable audit trail?

Compliance and Risk Mitigation: The CAMS system is intended to address challenges such as process inconsistencies and audit findinds by unifying redundant processes, standardizing asset recording, and decreasing discrepancies in accountability and tracking. Integrated Lifecycle Management: CAMS is designed as a solution to support enterprise lifecycle asset management which includes acquisition, accountability, maintenance and disposal processes.

Strategic objectives: CBP strategic goals include improving operational readiness, mitigating risks associated with sensitive assets, and enhancing data integrity and analytics capabilities. In totality, CBP's strategic objective for CAMS aligns with acquring an active "system of enforcement" that integrates compliant workflow, mitigates risks, and provides a robust audit trail, rather than a passive "system of record" focused soley on data storage and reporting.

The RFI mentions a need for improved decision-making and reduced unnecessary acquisitions. Does CBP envision a 'lessons learned' repository, which captures key insights from the asset lifecycle, as a core functionality within CAMS or as a separate application requiring integration? What are CBP's expectations regarding the speed and configurability of deploying such a feature?

If this is a capability a Vendor can provide assistance with incorporating this, CBP would be interested in exploring that.

Given the importance of mobile functionality for remotely deployed assets and the stand-alone/offline capability outlined in Requirement 5.19, could CBP provide more detail on what 'key functionality' must be maintained during a network outage? Specifically, we would like to understand the expected complexity of tasks, such as multi-step workflows, data entry with complex validation, or data synchronization, that would need to be supported in this disconnected state.

Follow up with Rick Cornelio (CBP Chief Logistics Officer) group

With respect to Requirements 5.20 (adding/editing data fields) and 5.21 (tailoring the user experience), could CBP clarify the anticipated user base for these configuration tasks?

Specifically, is the system expected to be configurable by government business analysts with minimal training, or will these modifications typically require technical developer resources or specialized coding skills?

Resources are available to add/edit data field for the user base. There are roughly 3,000 personnel that would edit data fields. OIT would be responsible for tailoring the user experience.

In the context of the RFI's emphasis on interoperability and consolidating disparate systems, is the goal for CAMS to facilitate point-to-point data exchange with systems like SAP and TRIRIGA, or is CAMS intended to be a hub that orchestrates and manages end-to-end business processes that involve data and actions across these systems?

CAMS is intended to act as a hub that orchestrates and manages end-to-end business processes, integrating data and actions across systems like SAP and TRIRIGA. This aligns with CBP's emphasis on interoperability, consolidation of disparate systems and enhances asset lifecycle management.

The Financial Management Scenario highlights the need for real-time, roll-up cost information, which is often hindered by data latency and silos. To what extent does the CAMS solution provide a unified, real-time view of data by connecting to existing systems without requiring the costly and time-consuming extraction, transformation, and loading (ETL) of data into a separate enterprise data warehouse?

CAMS to the fullest extent possible would be providing a solution to provide that.

To ensure the CAMS solution provides a truly unified and comprehensive approach as requested in the RFI, could CBP clarify the architectural expectation for managing different asset categories? Specifically, do accountable, non-accountable, and Heritage assets require distinct data models and lifecycle workflows, or are they managed as different classifications within a single, unified data model?

CBP has data architecture that is specfic to asset types

The RFI emphasizes that the CAMS solution must be flexible and adaptable. To better assess a vendor's post-deployment agility, could CBP provide a notional example of a new capability (e.g., a new compliance workflow or a new type of report) and ask vendors to outline the process, timeline, and cost structure for its implementation?

Any new capability or workflow would come with various levels of effort which would be outlined post system implementation in a change request that would identify process, timeline and cost.

The RFI emphasizes that CAMS must be interoperable with existing and planned CBP systems to aggregate data resources and provide a complete solution. To help us understand the scope of this integration, could CBP provide a list of these critical systems, along with their primary functions and the required technical specifications for data exchange?

CBP utilizes COTS solutions to include Maximo and TRIRIGA, SAP.

The RFI emphasizes that mobile device functionality is essential for remotely deployed assets. Could CBP provide more detail on the specific requirements, including which mobile platforms (e.g., iOS, Android) must be supported and the key functionalities users need to perform, such as scanning barcodes for asset check-in/out, GPS tracking, and submitting maintenance requests with photos?

CBP does issue both iPhone and Android mobile phones. Barcode scanners are also incorporated for inventory purposes.

The proposed solution should provide an application that is compatible with the GCC GOV cloud security requirements that allow for inventory taking purposes on smartphones, tablets and commercially available barcode scanners. CBP does not have an explicit requirement for GPS tracking technologies due to stringent IT security.

The proposed solution should also provide an application for mobile fleet management tasks.

Please see "Fleet management and VMIS details" documentation as well as "Mobile Application and CAMS system Interface" documentation.

In the context of CBP's transition to cloud services, could you clarify the specific requirements for the hosting environment? We are seeking to understand if CBP will mandate a specific cloud provider or if the program will allow any solution that meets FedRAMP compliance and can be deployed in a federally authorized cloud environment?

The vendor will be required to utilize CBP's existing cloud services and providers.

In the context of the CAMS Compliance Scenario, could CBP clarify all relevant cybersecurity frameworks that the CAMS solution must adhere to? We are specifically interested in understanding if compliance is required beyond FIPS and DHS EA, to include frameworks such as Zero Trust, CDM, or a specific FedRAMP level.

CBP requires compliance with Zero Trust and DHS FedRAMP.

The RFI states that CAMS will help with improved information sharing and analytic functionality. To better understand CBP's vision for the system's long-term value, could you clarify if the agency expects advanced capabilities beyond standard reporting, such as predictive analytics (e.g., failure prediction, cost forecasting) and AI-driven insights for decision-making?

CBP does require robust, advanced analytics capabilities to support key assessments such as asset utilization, mobility planning, and audit planning. Specifically, the proposed solution should be capable of automatically identifying underused assets and generating redeployment/mobilization plans. The proposed solution should be capabile of using AI-based technologies for insights into decision making while also meeting government IT security requirements.

What training delivery formats (in-person, virtual, hybrid) does CBP anticipate as mandatory or preferred for different field locations, particularly for remote or mission-critical environments?

CBP anticipates a variety of training delivery formats that can accomodate the many operational and mission-critical environments across the organization. The proposed solution must be capable of time-efficient, role-based training. The solution should provide embedded training and user guides, and self-service help to support users. The solution must manage user and system administrator learing requirements, qualifications, and user roles. All training materials, including documents, manuals, and user communications, must comply with Section 508 Accessibility Standards. Traoining manuals and procedures must be reviewed, tested, and accepted by operational personnel.

The RFI mentions that training is a key component of improving asset accountability. Could CBP elaborate on its requirements and preferences for training? Specifically, what training delivery formats (e.g., in-person, virtual, hybrid) are anticipated as mandatory or preferred for different locations, and will training be required for interagency partners or contractors in addition to internal CBP personnel?

See response provided in #20. Additionally, any interagency partner, or contract personnel authorized access to, and required to interact with the proposed solution will require training.

The RFI states that CAMS will be focused on optimizing system and support services to achieve mission readiness. Could CBP provide clarification on its expectations for post-deployment performance? Specifically, SLAs or KPI expectations CBP envisions for CAMS post-deployment?

The post-deployment expectation of the proposed solution is that KPIs provide for easy visiblitiy and detailed insights for all aspects of asset management, recordation, and operational performance. The KPIs in the deployed solution should be catered to the end user and automate the visibility and controls over asset management.

Metrics are aligned with CBP's Comprehensive Workfoce Readiness (CWR) initiaive to ensure optimal support and sustainment of material (asset) readiness at the best cost throughout the asset lifecycle. Operational performance metrics include consistency with or improvement over Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) results; Ability to meet mission needs as defined in the Mission Need Statement; and Adherance to operational requirements as defined in the Operational Requirements Document.

In the context of achieving a long-term solution that minimizes investment and sustainment costs, how does CBP envision the delivery of CAMS and its ongoing support? We are seeking clarification on the anticipated roles and responsibilities for major system upgrades, post-deployment administration, and optimization, and whether CBP plans to use an internal, vendor-led, or hybrid support model for these efforts.

CBP envisions a hybrid support model for on-going support of the CAMS solution. The acquisition oversight and requirements would be maintained by the government, whereas all the other roles could be performed by the government, the vendor or a mix of both government and vendor.

Who will be using the application from a user perspective? How will they be using it? Please identify each distinct group of users and how they can be defined.

CBP Personnel (USBP, OA, AMO): Users will access CAMS for specialized needs, including executing procurement actions, adminstering contract awards, and providing asset inventory support. Stakeholders and User Groups: Stakeholders will use CAMS to improve asset accountability. data standardization, and information sharing across CBP offices. Office- Specific Users, External Users: CAMs will integreate these funcitonalities to meet FAA requirements fro tracking aviation parts and improve reporting capabilites. It will also address challenges such as limited user licenses and data integration issues.

Please provide a rough estimate of the number of users in each group. If one group is external users, please describe how they fit into the process for the application. Will any need to be authenticated and if so how many? Are there core/power users vs.

infrequent/light-touch users? How will the core/power users use the application differently than infrequent/light-touch users?

The number of distinct users varies among the various siloed systems CBP currently maintains.

In general, the number of distinct users varies between 600 and 6,000 users with the variance in numbers being attributed to the size of the program office. Larger programs employ more personnel and resources, thus requiring a higher number of users. All users will require authentication regardless of role. Different roles will require access based on their job functions.

There will be core/power users. Those will be mission support type roles where transactional processing, auditing and oversight will require system expertise. Infrequent users/light touch users would be those that would need to access the system to accomplish tasks on an ad-hoc, or "as needed" basis to accomplish subtasks in areas like inventory, vehicle management and use, or supply ordering (as examples).

26 For Item 2, is there a page limit? No page limit for item 2

For Item 2, is the expected response an MS excel file with matrix or MS word document with write up?

Responses are not expected to utilize a specific format such as Microsoft Excel or Word.

Is Government seeking insight on additional software for additional features or manpower for development? (Services/Software/Both)

CBP is seeking insight on both services and/or software.

Are the 13 disparate systems in use today all based on the same software product? Please provide details of the software product(s) in use today at CBP.

The 13 disparate systems in use today are not based on the same software product.

Please provide more clarity on the expected results CBP is looking for in the following statement, "Identify advantages of design that would limit cost and support drivers for your product." Specifically, is the word driver referring to cost, functionality or another driver?

This is referring to cost, functionality or on-going support/maintenance.

Will CBP clarify if the statement, "Is there an additional one-time, upfront license configuration? If so, what is the cost?" is referring to the implementation work typically performed by a Systems Integrator or another activity.

Software license cost is seperate from the work performed by a systems integrator

Can CBP please also provide the numbers of users for the following: 1) Self service requests,

2) number of users who will maintain and build reports and service requests approvals, 3) Number of users who will perform more advanced activities such as cost mgt, schedule mgt, purchase order approvals, procurement mgt 4) the number of users that perform system administration such as tool configuration SSO set up, software updates, program management and Facility condition assessment?

CBP has not made that determination at this time.

Will CBP please clarify the expectations of cost for letters E and F against the expectations that the awardee will provide comprehensive asset management system/solution that replaces the 13 legacy systems. For example, is letter E asking for the cost to integrate 8 systems vs having them consolidated into a single enterprise solution or in addition to the data migration work for all 13 systems referenced in letter F?

CBP has not made that determination at this time.

Will CBP please clarify that all functions that can be met by CBP's existing SAP based Financial and Procurement system would use that solution to meet the requirement or if the same data must be replicated in the CAMS solution. For example, requirements 1.04, 1.05,

1.12 reflect capabilities that are maintained in the SAP based solution and users could be directed to that source system versus architecting a solution that duplicates data.

CBP is not specifying that any capabilites provided by other solutions (e.g. SAP) will be utilized in place of the CAMS solution. No assumptions should be made on specific requirements being performed within or using an existing CBP system.

Will CBP please clarify if reporting is expected to be provided by Tableau or from the COTS product or a combination. This clarification is important when considering the response to items such as 2.07 and 2.08

The proposed solution should provide for built in reporting capabilities and be capable of providing data connections to reporting platforms like PowerBI and Tableau.

Will CBP clarify that the root cause for the volume of manual data is that all/many of the existing 13 systems don't integrate with the referenced SAP solution. If not, please provide the reason for the volume of manually required asset record creation and update actions.

Siloed systems is a root cause to explain the volume of data. Lack of integration with current systems leads to "work arounds" and manual processes that result in data qualtiy and integrity problems.

Will CBP please clarify if the use of scanned documents is expected to be part of an interim solution and incorporating a proven platform that normalizes data within a PDF should be a mandatory element of the new solution.

Yes. The proposed solution should provide for the extraction of data from scanned documents.

Scanned documents are common attachments to asset records and can be included with an asset record from acquisition through disposition.

38 Will CBP clarify what they mean by standalone / offline capabilities?

Data and workflows will need to be stored locally on network devices if those devices should lose connection with the network. As an example, if a workflow requires an end user to capture information on a smartphone, and transmit that transaction over the network, then the proposed solution should provide the capability for that device to store the data locally if network connection is disabled, then transmit once reconnected to the network.

We understand that IBM is sunsetting its TRIRIGA Application Suite and consolidating relevant capabilities under the Maximo brand. We intend to propose the IBM Maximo Application Suite as the end-to-end intelligent asset lifecycle management platform for OFAM. Can you confirm whether Maximo is an acceptable path forward under this requirement?

CBP cannot confirm the use of any specific COTS solution would be an acceptable path forward for these requirements.

The RFI requests past performance in the federal space and outlines a preference for vendors with experience and established contracting vehicles. As a newer entrant in the federal market, this presents a significant barrier. IBM Maximo is on GSA MAS, but our company doesn't currently hold any contracting vehicles. I understand agencies are highly encouraged to utilize best-in-class vehicles to streamline the procurement process. Would the Contracting Office be open to considering an on-ramping strategy to allow innovative small businesses like Matter and Energy, LLC to join existing IDIQ or GWAC contract vehicles and support evolving mission needs?

CBP is currently conducting market research and has not determined the acqusition strategy that will be utilized for cams.

Is there a possibility of designating this opportunity as a small business set-aside or WOSB set-aside?

CBP is currently conducting market research and has not determined the acqusition strategy that will be utilized for cams.

How does CBP define or anticipate the method for “optimal order quantity”? Is there an existing economic order quantity (EOQ) model or formula CBP expects us to use, or should the solution determine this dynamically? For example, if CBP has a standardized replenishment policy or forecasting model, integrating that would be important.

CBP defines the method for "optimal order quantity" as part of the CAMS system's capabilities to calculate reorder points and purchase history dynamically. Specifically the system is being described as being capable of calculating optimal order quantities based on historical data and operational needs. CAMS solution is expected to dynamically calculate these quantities rather than replying on a pre-existing EOQ formula.

What specific vendor qualifications or certifications (e.g. safety, airworthiness) need to be tracked, and how does CBP use this info in procurement decisions? Clarifying this ensures the vendor profile module captures all necessary fields (e.g. certification expiry dates or compliance flags).

CBP is currently conducting market research and is not engaged in procurement decisions.

Can CBP provide its approval hierarchy and any variations (e.g. different approval routes for certain programs or dollar thresholds)? Understanding the number of approval levels and any conditional approver assignments (like alternate approvers during absences) will guide the design of the workflow engine.

CBP can not provide the approval heirachy at this time.

What criteria or business rules inform these “lease vs. buy” or “repair vs. replace” recommendations? For example, does CBP have cost threshold formulas or asset lifecycle policies (like if repair cost > X% of new cost, recommend replace) that the system should use when providing guidance?

CBP is currently conducting market research and is not able to share business rules at this time

Should the system enforce budget checks (not to exceed available funds) when approving POs? Clarification on how CBP manages budgets (e.g. annual allocations per department) will help ensure the solution’s procurement module aligns with financial controls.

CBP does not plan to utilize CAMS to enforce budget functionality.

What oversight or data capture is required for local field purchases? For instance, must local purchases still go through the central system for record-keeping and approval, or are they simply logged after the fact? Understanding this prevents gaps between field procurement and central asset records.

CBP utilizes another solution to perform this function

Which reporting tools or platforms does CBP prefer or currently use (e.g., SQL Server Reporting Services, Power BI, Tableau)? Ensuring our solution can either integrate with or embed preferred tools will make ad-hoc report creation smoother. Additionally, understanding if end-users (asset managers) are expected to build these queries themselves via a UI will influence the user interface design for reporting.

The proposed solution should allow for data flows, and data connections such that an array of reporting platforms can access data for visualization. The ideal solution would offer an easy-to-use interface so that low-code/no-code approaches could allow users with differing technological experience to easily consume data for decision making.

Does CBP have a standardized failure coding system (for example, failure mode codes or categories) that the system should use? This could be akin to maintenance codes for why equipment failed. Clarifying this ensures we design the data model to capture failure reason in a structured way for trend analysis.

CBP does use standardized coding for asset condition and asset availability in current siloed systems. The types of codes vary among the siloed systems. The proposed solution should provide a standard coding system that can address the status of assets across the portfolio.

Examples of the various types of assets include, but are not limited to aircraft, marine vessels, fleet vehicles, computers, IT systems, smartphones, all terrain vehicles, ect. CBP has over one

(1) million accountable assets that are managed in the siloed property systems as well as an unknown amount of non-accountable assets that are tracked locally, or in siloed systems.

Are there specific data visualization or BI integration requirements beyond file export (such as direct OData feeds for Power BI or integration with a data warehouse)? Understanding this helps ensure the system’s reporting module supports both static exports and live data connections if needed.

The proposed solution should provide a variety of connector capabilities that support both BI driven insights via PowerBI as well as a diverse capability to integrate with a data warehouse.

The proposed solution should support both static and live data connections.

What GIS platform does CBP use (e.g., ESRI ArcGIS, Google Earth Enterprise), and what integration method is expected (APIs, data feeds)? We should clarify if the solution needs to output data to an existing GIS dashboard or embed maps within the CAMS interface.

Additionally, confirm if assets have geocodes/coordinates stored or if integration means linking to location codes (office codes, cost centers).

CBP utilizes a GIS solution, it is currently conducting market research and is not able to and is not able to share additional information at this time, Which key performance indicators (KPIs) are the highest priority for CBP’s dashboards? For example, inventory turnover, asset availability %, maintenance compliance, etc. Prioritizing these will guide configuration of default dashboard views. Also, confirm if thresholds for these KPIs exist (to trigger alerts if metric out of range).

1 - Asset Visibility Metrics:

Asset Identity: Ensures accurate identification of assets.

Asset Status: Tracks condition, availability, and reliability.

Asset Cost: Includes marginal/annual cost and total cost of ownership.

These metrics are vital for assessing the efficacy of asset management capabilities

2 - Recordation Metrics:

Timelines for specific asset management functions, such as receiving, issuance, transfers, and disposition actions. Examples include:

Receiving Process: 7 business days from receipt.

Issuance to Authorized Asset User: Immediate.

Internal Transfers: 3 business days from allocation date.

These metrics provide benchmarks for operational efficiency

3- Maintenance Metrics:

Preventative and repair schedules.

Compliance with maintenance records and calibration requirements.

4 - Detective Controls:

Metrics to identify latent deficiencies, such as:

Review of Capitalized Asset Additions and Retirements.

Review of Purchase Requisitions (PRs) and Purchase Orders (POs).

These metrics highlight areas requiring process improvements.

Can CBP describe the lifecycle of a corrective action plan in this context? For instance, are CAPs tied to audit findings or inventory discrepancies, and do they require approval workflows or deadline tracking? Knowing this will ensure the system’s CAP module has appropriate fields (e.g. root cause, responsible owner, target date) and possibly alerts for overdue actions.

Yes, CBP does provide corrective action planning based on audit findings, or inventory discrepancies. There are workflows and deadline tracking associated with remediation.

What specific audit standards or reports need to be supported (e.g., DoD or DHS property audit guidelines, OMB A-123 compliance)? Understanding this will allow us to configure audit trails and perhaps pre-built audit reports. For example, if auditors need a report of all asset additions and disposals in a period with user stamps, we can ensure that’s readily available.

CBP complies with multiple audit standards. DHS, OIG, A-123 are all applicable to CBP.

Could CBP elaborate on the workflow for each disposal type? For example: Is there an approval needed before disposal (e.g., certify an item as scrap), or external authority (like GSA screening for excess federal property) involved for certain disposals? Knowing this will help configure disposal status flows (e.g., from “Proposed for Disposal” to “In Disposal Process” to “Disposed – Project Complete”).

CBP follows GSA policy for disposal of assets 41 CFR 102-36

When disposing assets via external channels (like GSA excess or donation programs), does CBP expect CAMS to integrate or at least exchange data with those systems? For instance, some agencies interface with GSAXcess for reporting excess property. Clarify if CAMS should generate standard disposal reports or data exports for such external compliance.

The proposed solution should be able to intergrate with internal and external government systems.

How and where does CBP perform financial reconciliation for disposals? Should CAMS feed this information to the finance system (so that gains/losses on asset disposition are recorded), or simply report it for manual entry? Clarity here ensures we capture necessary data (e.g., buyer info for sales, or scrap certification forms) and possibly build a link to the finance module or SAP.

The proposed solution should integrate with CBPs current financial management system for reconciliations for disposals. The ideal solution would automate, the the fullest extent possible, all manual financial processes.

Could we get a defined list of status stages the CBP disposal process follows? For example:

Proposed for Disposal → Pending GSA Screening → Approved for Disposal → Awaiting Vendor Pick-up → Disposed – Awaiting Verification → Disposed – Completed. Knowing the stages ensures the system’s workflow mirrors CBP’s actual process, including any approval gates or documentation attachments at each stage.

CBP follows GSA policy for disposal of assets 41 CFR 102-36

If CBP manages heritage assets, are there any unique disposal constraints for them that CAMS must enforce (for example, requiring special authorization or preservation steps)? This might be outside standard property disposal, but confirming will ensure compliance modules are in place if needed.

CBP has not made that determination at this time.

Does CBP have an existing maintenance management system or process we need to mirror?

For example, if there is a standard work order form or numbering system, the solution should align with it. Also, clarify if maintenance labor time tracking needs to integrate with a timekeeping system or if it’s purely for cost accumulation.

CBP currently uses VMIS to track USBP maintenance data. If CAMS is implemented, it will likely need to replicate the core functionality of VMIS. OIT may be able to answer for IT assets (if applicable). Not sure if there are unique maintenance systems, or tracking for Air and Marine Assets.Perhaps the POS section and the FSRs can answer this?

Can CBP provide examples of these “specialty asset” types and the unique data to capture?

E.g., aviation assets might require airworthiness directives or certifications logged; IT assets might need software/firmware version tracking. We should ensure the data model is extensible for these fields (perhaps via asset categories with attributes).

CBP is currently conducting market research and can not share information regarding speciality assets

Is CBP expecting the maintenance module to directly decrement spare parts inventory and generate replenishment triggers? If yes, we should confirm how maintenance storerooms are managed (e.g., will technicians have a mobile app to issue parts to a work order on the spot?). This impacts integration between maintenance and inventory components of CAMS.

I agree that automated inventory decrementing and replenishment would be a critical capability for CAMS. OIT may be able to answer for IT assets (if applicable). Not sure if there are unique maintenance systems, or tracking for Air and Marine Assets.Perhaps the POS section and the FSRs can answer this?

What utilization metrics define “underutilized” for CBP? For instance, vehicles might have mileage thresholds or usage hours. Also, confirm if the system should prompt users to enter a justification when an asset falls below utilization targets. This could be an automated report or workflow.

CBP assesses vehicle utilization using several criteria: 1. Mileage 2. Days of use 3. Adjusted mileage (a formula combining mileage and idle time) 4. Number of trips and more.

How does CBP plan replacements currently? Do they maintain a fleet replacement plan or is this ad-hoc? We may need to incorporate a fleet plan module or at least allow linking an old asset to its incoming replacement asset record. Clarify if the system should suggest replacements or simply record them once decided.

CBP collects vehicle replacement and enhancement requests from the field. It will be important for CAMS to track both the outgoing asset and its replacement.

Which of these metrics are currently collected, and are there devices or systems feeding them? For example, vehicle odometers or telematics for mileage, or maybe generators reporting engine hours. Understanding data sources helps us plan integration (e.g., IoT data import vs manual entry). Additionally, confirm which metrics require trend reporting (perhaps MTBF by asset type over time).

CBP does track fuel transactions and telemetry data.

Does CBP have standard repair times for common tasks (labor standards) to compare against? If yes, we can configure a database of standard times per asset type or maintenance activity. Also, clarify if live tracking of technician assignments is expected (which might imply a dispatch or scheduling function within maintenance).

CBP is currently conducting market research and can not share information regarding standard repair times

Are calibration schedules and procedures currently managed in a separate system or spreadsheet? We should know if CAMS will become the system of record for calibration schedules. If so, we may need functionality for calibration due-date alerts and the ability to re-baseline (extend or reset) next due dates.

CBP is currently conducting market research and can not share information regarding calibration schedules.

Will CBP provide a central repository or SharePoint for these documents, or should the CAMS database store them? This affects storage planning. Also confirm file types/size expectations (e.g., linking large engineering drawings or PDFs of manuals).

CAMS should be able to store documents

Could CBP define what constitutes “non-accountable” in their context (perhaps low-cost consumables)? Also, for Heritage assets, which might be museum pieces or historically significant items, clarify if additional metadata or workflows (like preservation or special approvals for moves) are needed. We should ensure the data model differentiates these categories for reporting (e.g., exclude consumables from property reports, etc.).

Accountable propert is defined as:

Personal property with an acquisition value between $5,000 and $49,999.99.

Vehicles, aircraft, and vessels regardless of acquisition value.

Any property requiring a DHS license plate or fuel card.

Personal property valued at less than $5,000 but deemed High-Risk/Sensitive (HR/S).

The proposed solution should provide the capability to designate and track separately, assets that are considered "heritage". Heritage assets are "personal property that CBP places a distinct value to due to their historical, cultural, or educational nature".

Are there specific security accreditation processes (e.g. FEDRAMP, ATO) the solution must go through? We assume a FedRAMP Moderate baseline given FIPS 199 moderate. Also, any audit trails or separation of duties needed due to FFMIA should be clarified. Essentially, ensure the system logs and internal controls meet financial system standards if it interfaces with finance.

CAMS will need to undergo the ATO process and comply with FIPS 199, FISMA.

70.5 For each integration, what is the expected scope?

Key elements system integration include data standardization, data migration, and two way transmission.

SAP: One likely need is to sync asset master data and financial values (capital assets). Should CAMS push acquisition costs/depreciation info to SAP or just receive budget data? Clarify direction and data elements.

The proposed solution should automate, to the fullest extent possible, the flow of asset master data and financial values to and from the CBP SAP system.

FACTS (Firearms, Armor, Credentials): Is the intent to replace FACTS or just exchange data?

If firearms will be tracked in CAMS, integration may involve daily data sync or an eventual consolidation.

CBP has not made that determination at this time.

TRIRIGA: Typically manages real property/facilities. If CAMS covers personal property and TRIRIGA covers real property, perhaps integration is minimal (just location data exchange).

Confirm if any overlap (e.g., some equipment installed in facilities).

The proposed solution should allow for a variety of data to be associated and shared between facilities and personal property. The solution should provide for detailed personal property location data. For example, the ideal solution would allow for identifying a floor, or office number for personal property and not a general address which may contain several buildings, or structures.

Remedy (ITSM): Possibly for IT asset incidents or changes. Does CAMS need to update Remedy when an asset is disposed or moved? Understanding use cases will focus integration points.

Yes, CBP needs the ability to update Remedy and it should be an integration point.

CAPSIS (DHS Consolidated Asset Portfolio & Sustainability Information System): This likely implies reporting asset data to CAPSIS. What data and frequency? Possibly periodic bulk uploads of asset inventory for DHS-wide reporting. Knowing this, we might include an export function or API feed.

The proposed solution should provide for API capability to transmit DHS-required data to CAPSIS as needed.

Which specific forms (form numbers or names) does CBP need the system to produce and possibly auto-fill? For example, CBP Form 52 is mentioned (this might be a property transfer form). If we have a list of required document outputs (e.g., turn-in document, loss report), we can ensure the system’s report generator can produce them in required format (PDF, etc.). Also clarify if electronic signatures are needed on these forms for a paperless process.

CBP seeks to reduce labor hours for to the extent possible for CAMS users. The ability to autofill and automate CBP Forms is essential to this task.

What is CBP’s existing barcode standard? E.g., are assets labeled with a pre-defined format barcode (like Code-128 encoding of asset ID)? And will CBP supply the printing hardware or expect the system to drive specific printers? Knowing the scale (tens of thousands of assets) and if RFID is planned (5.08 suggests future RFID integration), we should design a flexible identification module. Also, confirm if mobile devices/scanners will be used by staff for inventory – this affects whether a mobile app or web mobile interface is needed.

Standard bardcode is used and managed and provided by CBP.Scanners and other mobile devices (smartphone, tablets, laptops, etc.) are being used for the inventory.

We should confirm the user role hierarchy and any need for field-level or record-level security. For example, should field offices only see their assets, or can HQ see all? Likely yes on both: role scoping by organization. Also confirm using government PIV smartcards for login – the system must integrate with CBP’s enterprise Identity Provider (e.g., Active Directory/LDAP) and enforce two-factor auth (which is implied by PIV).

The proposed solution should provide for role-based access with both field level and record level security to provide assess to necessary data as required by each role. Yes to both.

The proposed solution should comply with system security controls as outlined by FISMA and NIST standard. CBP users will login to the system using CBP credentials as well as mobile credentials for phones and mobile devices. A PIV card is required to access the network via laptop/desktop. Mobile credentials are used for mobile devices.

Which functions are critical to operate offline? This is crucial – e.g., maybe the ability to perform an inventory on a handheld device offline, or to issue assets during a network outage. Knowing this, we might propose an offline mode for the mobile app or a desktop client component. Clarify the expected scope (how long offline, how to sync later, etc.).

CBP has not made that determination at this time.

How much end-user configurability is desired versus controlled customization? This might refer to providing some no-code customization ability. For instance, adding a new attribute to an asset type or customizing a dashboard view by user role. We should clarify if this just means the system should be flexible for admins to extend (which we as implementers can handle), or truly an end-user feature for on-the-fly additions (less common in COTS without dev involvement).

CBP expects administrators to have full access to customization abilities and users with limited data presentation customization capabilities.

We will ensure UI designs meet accessibility standards, but if CBP has specific assistive tech to integrate (screen readers, etc.), let us know. For help content, confirm whether CBP will supply the SOPs and training manuals to embed, and if a simple link to an existing knowledge base suffices or if help content must be contextually displayed for each screen.

UI designs must meet 508 compliance accessibility standards. The extent necessary for the creation and content of training materials should be addressed in the vendor's response.

Does the asset management system need to interface with CBP's procurement and/or financial management system? Or, will the asset management system be used to procure assets and track costs / total cost of ownership?

The CAMS system is required to calculate and track the total cost of ownership and depreciation for assets as part of its lifecycle management capabilities. This would involve integration with financial management systems for accurate data on asset costs and accounting updates.

Has CBP created an ontology for its assets? If so, when was it last updated and how often is it maintained?

CBP is working to fully define its ontology.

Can the government provide background on why there are multiple asset management systems in use at CBP?

The use of multiple asset management systems at CBP stems from the historical developmeny of systems tailored to specific needs, the absence of an integrated enterprise approach, and challenges in consolidating existing systems. These factors have contributed to inefficiencies and capability gaps that the CBP Asset Management System (CAMS) initiative seeks to address.

85 Can the government provide a list of asset management systems currently in place at CBP?

The asset management systems currently in place at CBP are listed below: APATS (Air Program Automated Tracking System), CAMITS (Customs Automated Maintenance and Inventory Tracking System), CARMAC (Computerized Aircraft Reporting and Material Control), EMRKS (Electronic Maintenance Records Keeping System), FACTS (Firearms, Armor, and Credenital Tracking System), ICAD (Intelligent Computer Assisted Detection), Maximo, PastPerfect, ServiceNow, SAP, TRIRIGA and VMIS (Vehicle Management Information System)

What are the types or categories of assets tracked by CBP's various asset management systems?

CBP's various asset management systems track a wide range of asset categories: Personal Property, Real Property, Sensitive Property, Fleet Assets, Aircraft Assets, Musuem Collections, IT Assets, Seized Assets, and Facilities and Real Property Assets.

87 What are the varying volumes of assets tracked by CBPs asset management systems?

Real Property Assets: CBP manages 7,000 real property assets and 8,000 acres of land, including CBP-owned and leased properties, General Service Adminstration owned and leased properties, and free space agreements. Fleet Assets: The Vehicle Management Information System (VMIS) manages 92,942 assets, which include vehicles, equipment, and parts. Sensor Assets: The SAM system tracks 78,494 sensor assets, including various dispositions. Personal and Capital Property: The SAP system tracks approximately 544,216 personal property and mobile assets, as well as over 3,000 leased and owned land, buildings, and structures.

What report tools / data warehouses / data lakes are being used currently for asset management reporting?

SAP is used for tracking accoutable and capital personal property and mobile assets. SAM (Sensor Asset Management) manages sensor assets. Maximo is used for asset management and logistics, Maximo tracks maintenance data, asset information and work order data.It integrates with other systems such as ServiceNow and ARDIS-C (Automated Radiation Portal Monitor Data Integreation System-Cloud).

89 How does CBP currently perform predictive analysis? The use of predictive analysis varies across CBP.

A similar RFI was issued in 2023. Did that RFI result in a procurement? If so, who is the incumbent? What systems were implemented?

CBP has not procured a CAMS solution to date.

The RFI mentions a push within CBP toward cloud hosted solutions and mentions adherence to open architecture principles. Is CBP considering SaaS offerings, or is there a preference for a hosted solution?

CBP is open to SaaS and hosted solutions.

The RFI mentions interfacing with existing systems. What types of systems (software name, purpose, use at CBP) would CAMS need to interface with? The RFI also mentions ‘13 disparate’ asset management systems used, and interfacing with 8 existing asset management systems. What are these systems and what do they provide?

The asset management systems currently in place at CBP are listed below: APATS (Air Program Automated Tracking System) and is used to track budget data related to air program operations. CAMITS (Customs Automated Maintenance and Inventory Tracking System) is used to manage inventory for maintenance and operational needs. CARMAC (Computerized Aircraft Reporting and Material Control) tracks maintenance records for aviation needs. EMRKS (Electronic Maintenance Records Keeping System) ensures compliance with Federal Aviation Administration requirements. FACTS (Firearms, Armor, and Credenital Tracking System) tracks firearms, armor and credentials. ICAD (Intelligent Computer Assisted Detection) supports alarm management and detection activities. Maximo tracks maintennace and logistics for USBP and CBO offices. Maximo for Aviation manages aviation specific assets and maintenance.

PastPerfect manages CBP's musuem-related assets. ServiceNow supports IT-related asset tracking and service management. SAP tracks personal property, capital assets, and integrates with other systems. TRIRIGA manages real property assets. Lastly, VMIS (Vehicle Management Information System) tracks vehicles and fleet related assets.

What systems are in use for Space, Employee, and Organizational data? Will CAMS interface with these systems?

The idleal solution would provide for connectivity to various organizational systems that are used for managing and tracking space, employees, and organizational data.

The RFI mentions that the mobile application is critical. What will users need to be able to do from the mobile app? Will the mobile app have special requirements for functioning when offline?

Users will need to perform the following tasks using the mobile app: (1) Physical Inventory with Barcode Scanning: The mobile application must support barcode scanning capabilities to facilitate the physical inventory of SAP-tracked assets. This functionality is intended to streamline and automate inventory processes, reducing reliance on manual data entry. (2) Initiate Asset Loss Notifications: Users must be able to create asset loss notifications and initiate associated workflows dierctly through the mobiel app. This capability is aimed at improving efficiency and ensuring timely reporting of lost assets.

What is the scope of assets? Does CBP plan to use CAMS for managing facilities related equipment? Or, does the system focus strictly on personal property and operational assets?

The scope of assets managed by CAMS focuses on personal property and operational assets, rather than facilities-related equipment. Specifically: Asset Categories: CAMS will manage high risk/sensitive property and accountable property. CAMS aims to provide enterprise-wide visibility and management of personal property and operational assers throughout their lifecycle phases, including acquistion, deployment, use, maintenance and disposal.

What type of security is currently used or will be needed for the application? What about on mobile?

CAMS will undergo the ATO process and comply with FIPS 199, FISM

If proposing staff for implementation and other…