Questions_0055.pdf

Questions for RFP HSSS01-15-R-0055

1. Should manufacturer assume phone model is to be considered a United States CDMA phone, only if it was officially launched and sold by a U.S. Carrier and/or MVNO?

a. Yes

2. Would U.S. Secret Service like the manufacturer to ensure that the “supported extraction phones” are phones which have been tested and certified by an acceptable standardized industry quality assurance process and certified by the manufacturer that it works as designed? A “tested device" is defined as the manufacturer has physical possession of device and device went through a development process that enabled Logical and/or File System and/or Physical Extraction and/or Password Workarounds. Once relevant extraction feature has been added to the forensic system software build, the manufacturer's quality assurance team tested the functionality and certified it works as designed.

3. Should manufacturer assume the supported mobile phones count is to be of current, already deployed and tested devices, and not to count phones coming in future developments/version releases.

4. Will manufacturer’s supported phones be evaluated by a phone’s Unique Model # (A unique model is a device which is counted once regardless if it is supported by one or more of the extraction methods (Logical, File System, Physical) available in the forensic system.) and not Duplicate Profiles (Duplicate Profiles are cases where a Unique Model is counted twice or more because it can support one or more extraction methods. e.g. iPhone 4 will be counted as one Unique Model but may be counted as three Duplicate Profiles as it is supported via Physical, File System and Logical extraction methods)?

a. Unique model number

5. Will the counted phone support include only phone and other mobile devices, excluding decoding profiles and/or mobile app decoding profiles?

a. Same question as above

6. Should vendors assume that a unique model, declared as “supported” for Physical extraction, is supported by an end to end self contained, forensically sound process rather than rely on 3rd party tools required to root or jail break the device prior to performing physical extraction?

7. For the reference to include (2) current and past performance references, is it fair to say that you are looking for a total of 4 references – 2/past and 2/present? Or is this implying to references that can be either past/present. I can accommodate either but want to streamline the process for all involved.

a. Only 2 references – the more current and relevant the better.