RFI Questions Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 34 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFI-FY27-SI-Powered_Communications_Video_Intelligence
- Issued by
-
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
About this file
This file is a Request for Information (RFI) Questions and Answers document addressing market research for an integrated SI-powered detention communications and video intelligence suite. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is conducting market research to inform acquisition strategy for a comprehensive platform that will ingest, analyze, and correlate real-time and recorded communications, video surveillance, telemetry, and investigative data across detention facilities. The solution must provide unified authentication, workflow, alerting, search, audit, and reporting capabilities as a single integrated platform rather than multiple separate commercial products cobbled together, with mandatory capabilities operationally available at proposal submission rather than dependent on post-award development or roadmap commitments.
The RFI responses are due October 29, 2026, at 5:00 PM Eastern Time via Microsoft Forms, with questions due October 16, 2026. ICE has not finalized contract type, period of performance, small-business set-aside status, facility counts, workload volumes, performance thresholds, hosting model, or evaluation criteria at this RFI stage; all of these will be informed by market-research responses and determined during formal solicitation development. The solution must achieve FedRAMP High authorization, operate within U.S.-only processing and storage environments with U.S. citizen support personnel, support multiple communications providers and video management systems through provider-agnostic connectors, handle real-time and retrospective ingestion of call recordings, messages, video visitation, video surveillance, population management data, and investigative case records, and provide advanced analytics including voice profiling, speaker matching, multilingual transcription and translation, video event detection, cross-source correlation, and headcount reconciliation. Key operational requirements include 99.9% availability, one-hour critical incident response, privacy-protected communications exclusion workflows, configurable retention and deletion controls, role-based access, offline-capable local processing and buffering, and comprehensive audit logging with AI output explainability and human-review mechanisms. ICE will provide existing system inventories, interface documentation, test data, performance baselines, facility details, and technical points of contact after contract award, and respondents must identify current production capabilities separately from planned enhancements while describing deployment scalability, capacity assumptions, cost models, integration dependencies, security authorizations, staffing requirements, and demonstrated reference deployments.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SI-Powered Communications and Video Intelligence Suite Salient Characteristics.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| RFI Questions & Answers | |
| Question | Response |
| Does ICE have standardized minimum network throughput baselines established across Government-owned, contractor-operated, and partner-operated facilities, or should vendor responses detail edge-transcoding, frame filtering, and localized caching solutions designed to operate within constrained or variable bandwidth environments? | ICE cannot provide this information at this RFI stage |
| Will real-time video and telemetry ingestion points terminating at distributed field nodes require dedicated FIPS 140-3 cryptographic module validation prior to cloud routing, or is FIPS compliance enforced strictly at the central FedRAMP High cloud environment boundary? | ICE cannot provide this information at this RFI stage |
| In the event of network disruption or backhaul latency between field facilities and central GovCloud environments, what is the required local buffer window for analytics metadata and video streams at the edge before data degradation or record dropping occurs? | ICE cannot provide this information at this RFI stage |
| Does ICE anticipate setting aside the resulting requirement for small businesses, or competing it on a full and open basis? | ICE is not confirming a small-business set-aside or a full-and-open competition at this RFI stage. Market-research responses will inform the acquisition strategy. Small businesses should identify their size and socioeconomic status, capabilities, proposed prime or subcontractor role, and ability to deliver the required single integrated platform. Any resulting solicitation will identify the applicable competition and eligibility requirements. |
| Section 3.3 describes ingesting recorded calls, messaging and video-visitation audio. Which communications providers and source systems hold that content today, and does ICE expect ingestion through the providers' interfaces or from a Government-held repository? | The inventory of existing communications providers, source systems, and available interface documentation will be provided after award. ICE cannot specify the ingestion path for each source at this RFI stage. Respondents should describe their supported provider APIs, authorized exports, and Government-repository ingestion methods, including format, authentication, licensing, and connectivity dependencies. Identify existing connectors separately from proposed integration work and state any assumptions about access to source recordings and metadata. |
| What security authorization does ICE expect a cloud solution to hold at award, for example FedRAMP Moderate or High? Code Four is pursuing FedRAMP Moderate with a third-party assessment organization engaged, and we would like to confirm whether a solution in the FedRAMP process will be considered. | FedRAMP High |
| Roughly how many facilities, concurrent camera streams and communication hours per month should respondents assume for the initial deployment? | ICE cannot provide initial facility counts, concurrent camera-stream counts, or communications-hour estimates at this RFI stage. Respondents should state the tested capacity of their current production solution, identify the workload assumptions used, and describe how capacity and pricing scale. Any illustrative deployment sizes should be clearly identified as vendor assumptions rather than Government quantities. |
| Is there a page or character limit for the Microsoft Forms response, and may respondents email supporting documents alongside it? | You may email supporting documents, but Forms responses should be substantive and not just refer to the supporting documents |
| Who is the incumbent on this contract? Please share the contract number. | N/A |
| Does the incumbent qualify to submit a bid for this solicitation? | There is no incumbent |
| To support the development of realistic technical, staffing, and pricing approaches, can ICE provide anticipated workload ranges or historical volumes for key activities, including the number of facilities and users, communication records, concurrent video streams, stored video, data storage, and API transactions? | ICE cannot provide this information at this RFI stage |
| The PWS identifies a Scrum Master as key personnel but does not list other labor categories or estimated labor hours. Will ICE provide the anticipated labor categories, FTEs, labor hours, and qualification requirements, or should vendors propose their own staffing approach? | The final solicitation will provide these details |
| PWS Sections 3.1 and 3.2 identify several systems that the solution must integrate with. Will ICE provide an inventory of the existing systems, including vendors, versions, and available interface documentation, or will ICE share this information during the discovery and site assessment phase? | This information will be provided after award |
| Does ICE anticipate that the solution will use existing ICE enterprise services for identity, logging, security monitoring, application hosting, and software delivery, or may respondents propose a common application runtime that provides these capabilities while integrating with ICE’s existing services? Are facility-level on-premises or edge deployments anticipated for video processing? | ICE cannot provide this information at this RFI stage |
| Given the requirements for interoperability, Government data ownership, and prevention of vendor lock-in, does ICE intend to evaluate the ability to replace or upgrade individual analytic products or models without disrupting existing workflows, historical records, identity services, or audit history? Will this include demonstrating version control, software/model provenance, security validation, and rollback? | ICE has not determined how it will evaluate responses to the final solicitation |
| Please identify the anticipated initial number of facilities, concurrent users, monitored cameras/video streams, communications recordings or messages, and the expected daily data volumes. What growth assumptions should industry use for planning and pricing? | ICE cannot provide initial deployment quantities, daily data volumes, or growth projections at this RFI stage. Respondents should identify tested limits for facilities, named and concurrent users, camera streams, recordings, messages, processing throughput, and storage. Provide scalable deployment and cost models with explicit growth assumptions, capacity increments, and dependencies. ICE anticipates phasing, but rollout quantities and timing are not available for this RFI. |
| Which detention telephone, messaging, video visitation, video management, detention/population management, and investigative/case-management platforms are expected to provide data to the Suite? Can ICE identify available APIs, protocols, data schemas, and interface documentation by system type? | The inventory of existing systems and available interface documentation will be provided after award. |
| Will ICE furnish or facilitate the data-access rights, vendor permissions, interface credentials, network connectivity, test environments, and technical points of contact required to connect existing Government or third-party systems? How should vendors account for interfaces where the incumbent provider restricts access? | This information will be provided after award |
| What historical retention period, approximate data volume, file formats, and quality requirements should vendors assume for migration and backfill of communications, recordings, video metadata, population records, and investigative data? | This information will be provided after award |
| Will ICE provide source-level rules and metadata identifying privileged, legally protected, restricted, or otherwise excluded communications and records before ingest? Should the Suite prevent their ingestion entirely, or maintain a separately controlled exclusion/redaction workflow? | ICE cannot provide this information at this RFI stage |
| Will ICE consider an integrated solution composed of multiple currently available commercial products under one accountable prime contractor, provided the products operate through supported APIs and deliver unified authentication, workflow, alerting, search, audit, and reporting capabilities? | ICE requires a single integrated platform. |
| The draft indicates mandatory capabilities must be in the proposed production configuration rather than an uncommitted roadmap. May existing commercial components be configured and integrated following award, with compliance demonstrated at Government acceptance, or must the integrated configuration already be operational when an RFI response is submitted? | A solution that lacks an existing capability expressly required by the PWS and relies on post-award development is not technically acceptable. Describe the currently operational production configuration and distinguish it from any remaining configuration, deployment, or integration work. ICE has not finalized the stage at which integration must be demonstrated. Any resulting solicitation will state the required compliance milestones and supporting evidence. |
| For ingestion, transcription, voice matching, video-event detection, cross-source correlation, and alert delivery, which functions must operate in real time, and what maximum end-to-end latency should industry design against? Are batch-processing workflows acceptable for retrospective analysis? | Final performance thresholds will be established after award. At the RFI stage, respondents should separately describe real-time and retrospective processing for ingestion, transcription, voice matching, video-event detection, correlation, and alert delivery. Report demonstrated end-to-end latency and throughput, including test conditions and processing dependencies. Identify where batch processing is proposed and its operational limitations. Batch processing should not be represented as satisfying a real-time function expressly required by the PWS. |
| Which authoritative identifiers and systems of record should govern correlation among detainees, accounts, telephone numbers, voice profiles, cameras, housing assignments, movement events, and case records? Who owns identity conflict resolution and data-quality remediation? | ICE cannot provide this information at this RFI stage |
| Does ICE require a new native case-management/evidence-workflow capability inside the Suite, or may the proposed solution integrate with designated existing Government case-management tools while preserving source links, audit trails, export formats, and chain-of-custody records? | ICE requires a single integrated platform. ICE is not confirming through this response whether each case-management function must be native or may use an interface to an existing Government system. Respondents should identify native case and evidence workflows, supported integrations, and external dependencies. Explain how the proposed configuration preserves source links, audit trails, exports, and chain-of-custody records. Existing-system inventories and available interface documentation will be provided after award. The proposed approach remains subject to the mandatory Suite requirements. |
| Which languages, dialects, and translation directions are mandatory at initial acceptance, and what evaluation standards will apply to transcription accuracy, speaker diarization, translation, multilingual search, and detection of coded or emerging terminology? | ICE cannot provide a final list of mandatory languages, dialects, or translation directions at this RFI stage. Respondents should identify capabilities currently available by language and direction, including transcription, diarization, translation, multilingual search, and coded-terminology detection. Provide measured accuracy, relevant operating conditions, known limitations, and recommended benchmark methods. Final performance thresholds and representative testing inputs will be established after award. Clearly distinguish existing language capabilities from planned development. |
| For voice profiling and speaker matching, what approved use cases and matching populations are in scope (within a facility, across facilities, or outside-party recordings)? What enrollment, privacy-approval, confidence-threshold, human-review, and false-match controls will ICE require? | ICE cannot provide the approved matching populations, enrollment rules, or use-case boundaries at this RFI stage. Respondents should describe how the solution restricts enrollment and matching to Government-authorized sources and populations, including controls for outside-party recordings and cross-facility searches. Describe privacy-approval dependencies, configurable confidence thresholds, false-match testing, and documented human verification before operational reliance on a match. Do not assume unrestricted enrollment, cross-agency matching, or use of protected communications. Final performance thresholds will be established after award. |
| Must the Suite operate with existing cameras and video management systems without replacement? Which video protocols, recording formats, image quality, frame rates, network constraints, and permitted live/recorded stream-access methods should vendors assume? | The inventory of existing camera and video-management systems and available interface documentation will be provided after award. ICE cannot confirm replacement decisions, source-specific quality parameters, frame rates, bandwidth, or permitted access methods at this RFI stage. Respondents should describe compatibility with existing equipment, supported protocols and recording formats, minimum image-quality requirements, and live versus recorded access methods. Identify any required hardware changes, licenses, network capacity, or on-site equipment as explicit dependencies. |
| Which video event classes are mandatory for initial deployment, and which are configurable or future capabilities? How will ICE define and validate safety-related or behavior-based alerts, and what operator review must occur before any operational action? | This information will be provided after award |
| Which Government-provided roster, housing, location, and movement systems will serve as the authoritative source for automated headcounts and reconciliation? What count frequency, acceptable error rate, alert threshold, and fallback process should apply when a source is unavailable? | ICE cannot provide this information at this RFI stage |
| What minimum correlation scenarios must be demonstrated among communications, voice, camera events, and movement or incident records? Will ICE specify acceptable false-positive/false-match rates and require source-attributed, explainable results for human review? | ICE has not provided the minimum correlation scenarios or numerical false-positive and false-match limits at this RFI stage. Final performance thresholds and representative testing inputs will be established after award. Respondents may recommend scenarios that correlate authorized communications, voice results, camera events, and movement or incident records. For each scenario, describe source attribution, timestamps, confidence and uncertainty, the basis for the proposed association, and the operator review process. Identify measured accuracy, false-match results, and the test conditions supporting those claims. |
| Does ICE require FedRAMP Moderate or FedRAMP High authorization for the proposed hosted Suite? Please identify the applicable system impact categorization and any DHS/ICE-specific security controls or handling requirements for detention communications, video, voice biometric information, derived intelligence, and controlled unclassified information (CUI). | High |
| Must the applicable cloud services be FedRAMP Authorized at the time of an RFI response, future proposal submission, contract award, or before ingesting Government data? Would FedRAMP Ready or In Process status be acceptable at any stage? May a proposed solution instead operate within a Government-authorized hosting environment, subject to an ICE Authority to Operate (ATO)? | FedRAMP High |
| For a Suite integrating multiple commercial products, are separate FedRAMP authorizations required for each SaaS service, AI/ML inference service, API endpoint, storage service, and third-party data processor that handles ICE information? May components operate in separate authorized boundaries using approved interconnections and inherited controls, or must the entire integrated Suite reside within one authorized security boundary? | Separate solutions will be accepted |
| Will the Suite require a separate DHS/ICE ATO in addition to any applicable FedRAMP authorization? What security artifacts, continuous-monitoring evidence, interconnection agreements, and Government approval milestones should industry plan for, and will ICE identify the authorizing office and authorization lead-time assumptions? | FedRAMP High is the stated cloud baseline. An existing FedRAMP authorization does not, by itself, authorize the proposed ICE deployment. Respondents should describe available authorization evidence, continuous-monitoring information, inherited and customer-responsible controls, interconnection needs, and remaining approval dependencies. ICE will provide available data and resources to support ATT and ATO requirements after award. The responsible authorizing office, required artifacts, approval milestones, and authorization schedule require ICE confirmation. No specific approval duration is established by this response. |
| Is deployment expected in an ICE-controlled environment, a FedRAMP-authorized commercial cloud, an on-premises/edge architecture, or an approved hybrid configuration? Are there U.S.-only processing, storage, support-personnel, or subcontractor-access restrictions that apply to all solution components? | Yes |
| What requirements govern retention, deletion, legal holds, segregation, and export of raw recordings, video, transcripts, voice profiles, derived analytics, alerts, and audit logs? May any Government data be used for vendor model training, tuning, or product improvement, or is such use prohibited absent separate written approval? | No |
| What minimum auditability, model/version documentation, confidence scoring, explainability, operator approval, and correction/appeal mechanisms will be required for AI-generated identities, risk indicators, event alerts, or other findings that could affect individuals? | The detailed minimum controls and approval workflow are not available at this RFI stage. Respondents should describe audit logs linking each output to its source data, model and version, relevant configuration, confidence information, and subsequent operator action. Explain how reviewers can inspect supporting evidence, reject or correct a result, retain a traceable correction history, and route disputed findings for Government review. Describe how the solution prevents an AI output alone from triggering an adverse action. Any required appeal process and final control requirements remain subject to Government determination. |
| Will ICE provide representative, lawfully authorized test datasets, Government-observed end-to-end scenarios, and objective minimum thresholds for detection accuracy, false matches, transcription quality, alert latency, headcount reconciliation, security, and interoperability? Can vendors recommend benchmark methods through this RFI? | ICE will provide all available data and resources to support ATT and ATO requirements after award. Vendors can recommend benchmark methods |
| Please confirm whether the cited 99.9% service-availability expectation applies to every Suite component or the consolidated production service. How will scheduled maintenance, loss of third-party data feeds, Government network outages, and upstream vendor disruptions be handled in availability calculations? | Scheduled outages are not part of this calculation |
| What severity definitions, response/restoration targets, incident notification windows, and divisions of responsibility will apply among the prime contractor, component vendors, existing facility technology providers, and ICE? Are the stated one-hour critical response and personal-data incident notifications separate obligations? | A critical-service response target and a privacy or security incident-notification requirement serve different purposes. Respondents should explain how their incident process would meet each applicable contractual deadline independently, including parallel notifications when one event triggers both. Describe severity definitions, response versus restoration commitments, escalation contacts, and responsibilities across the prime, component vendors, facility providers, and ICE. The prime should identify dependencies and proposed coordination arrangements. ICE has not provided the complete responsibility matrix or final thresholds at this RFI stage. The resulting contract must establish the applicable clocks, triggers, recipients, and responsibilities. |
| Does ICE anticipate an initial pilot or limited operating capability before enterprise rollout? Please identify notional implementation phases, target dates, facility-readiness responsibilities, and the conditions for phased versus full operational acceptance. | Yes, but ICE cannot provide these details for this RFI stage |
| For market-research estimates, what contract period, purchasing or licensing metrics, implementation-versus-recurring cost categories, and potential acquisition structure should vendors assume? May respondents provide supporting capability matrices, architecture diagrams, and teaming descriptions as supplemental attachments to the Microsoft Forms submission? | Vendors should respond with their cost models for their technically acceptable solution. |
| May a Canadian-incorporated firm respond independently at the RFI stage, or should it participate through a U.S. prime? Are UEI/SAM registration or a U.S. establishment required to respond? | Should participate with a U.S contractor. The UEI and SAM registration is mandatory. |
| May respondents describe a defined integration or testing capability, or must each response cover the entire integrated suite? | ICE requires a single integrated platform. Respondents describing a defined integration or testing capability should clearly identify that limited scope, the requirements they can support, and their proposed role in delivering the overall solution. Such information may inform market research, but a partial capability description does not demonstrate compliance with the complete integrated-platform requirement. Identify any dependencies on other parties and distinguish existing capabilities from work still required. |
| What citizenship, security vetting, data residency and system access restrictions apply to potential Canadian subcontractors? | US Citizenship |
| Is an alternative official download available for “SI-Powered Communications and Video Intelligence Suite Salient Characteristics.pdf”? We could not retrieve the public attachment. Please also advise whether there are additional response instructions or amendments. | No, there is not an alternative. |
| Will the Government please confirm the anticipated contract type (e.g., Firm-Fixed-Price, hybrid FFP/Cost-Reimbursement), the period of performance (base and option years), and whether a separate RFI/RFP containing proposal instructions and evaluation criteria will follow this document? | ICE will use responses to this RFI to make this determination |
| Can the Government provide the expected number, type, and geographic distribution of detention facilities in scope at award, as well as the planned phasing and rollout schedule across those sites? | ICE cannot provide this information at this RFI stage |
| Section 3.2 requires provider-agnostic connectors. Will the Government provide an inventory of the specific in-scope source systems and versions — including communications providers, video management/camera platforms, and detainee/offender management system(s) — so that offerors can distinguish existing production connectors from interfaces requiring custom development or source-vendor licensing and cooperation? | The inventory of existing systems, including vendors, versions, and available interface documentation, will be provided after award. |
| Regarding the historical backfill described in Sections 3.2 and 3.13, can the Government quantify the approximate volume and time span of historical data (communications, video, and records) to be migrated, and confirm whether third-party source-system vendors are obligated to cooperate with data access and export? | Historical migration and backfill information, including data volumes, time spans, and third-party integration access, will be provided after award. ICE is not confirming third-party source-vendor obligations through this RFI response. Respondents should identify required permissions, export mechanisms, cooperation, licensing, and any access or extraction fees. Describe how restricted access would affect migration, schedule, cost, and completeness, and identify assumptions that require Government coordination. |
| Regarding hosting and authorization (Section 3.11), does the Government have a required or preferred hosting environment and authorization baseline (e.g., FedRAMP level, DHS/ICE cloud, or on-premises/edge), and is an existing Authority to Operate (ATO) expected to be inherited, or must the offeror obtain authorization as part of performance? | FedRAMP High is the stated cloud authorization baseline. The RFI responses do not establish a single confirmed hosting arrangement for all components. Respondents should identify the proposed ICE-hosted, contractor-hosted, or hybrid architecture and any on-premises or edge dependencies. Describe existing authorization coverage, reusable controls and evidence, and gaps requiring additional assessment. Reuse is subject to ICE review of the proposed deployment and does not automatically transfer an existing ATO. ICE will provide available ATT and ATO support after award. |
| For the service level agreements and acceptance testing described in Sections 4.0 and 3.14, will ICE establish the final performance thresholds, representative test data, workloads, and camera counts before proposal submission or after award? Early visibility into these conditions is important given that mandatory capabilities must be reflected in the proposed production configuration rather than on a future roadmap. | After award |
| The table of contents lists several sections (such as deliverables, period of performance, place of performance, hours of operation, and government-furnished equipment) that we could not find in the document we received. Will a complete version be released? | Yes with the final solicitation |
| Section and appendix numbers in the table of contents do not always match the numbers in the body. Which numbering should we follow? | Final solicitation will have all sections and address numbering |
| Some appendices have blanks that still need to be filled in, and some are marked "Not Applicable." Which appendices apply to this work? | It is anticipated that the provided appendices will apply |
| Section 14.0 mentions "CCaaS." Does that apply to this project, or should it refer to the Suite? | It will refer to the Suite |
| What contract type, contract length, and option periods are planned? | ICE will use responses to this RFI to make this determination |
| Confirm that this is a planned small business set-aside? | A small-business set-aside is not being confirmed at this RFI stage. ICE will use market-research responses to inform the acquisition strategy. Small businesses should identify their capabilities, size and socioeconomic status, and proposed prime or subcontractor role. Any resulting solicitation will state the applicable set-aside or competition requirements. |
| When do you expect to release the solicitation and make an award? | Solicitation release and award dates have not been established for this RFI. ICE will use the market-research results to inform the acquisition approach and schedule. Any solicitation and associated dates will be communicated through the applicable official procurement notice. Respondents should identify relevant product availability, implementation lead times, and constraints without assuming a particular award date. |
| Is any part of this capability already in place at ICE today? If so, what needs to be replaced or kept? | There is no incumbent contract identified for this requirement. That does not establish that ICE has no existing source systems or related capabilities. The inventory of existing systems and available interface documentation will be provided after award. Respondents should describe integration with existing communications, video, population, and investigative systems and identify any proposed replacement, migration, or retention assumptions. ICE is not confirming particular systems for replacement through this RFI response. |
| How will proposals be evaluated? Will vendors be asked to give a live demonstration? | ICE has not finalized the evaluation approach for a future solicitation, including whether a live demonstration will be required. RFI responses should describe current capabilities, relevant production deployments, available test results, and the demonstrations or validation methods the respondent can support. Any resulting solicitation will identify the evaluation factors, required evidence, and demonstration instructions. |
| Can the target performance numbers (accuracy, speed, error rates) be shared before proposals are due, so we can plan and price correctly? | Final performance thresholds will be established after award. |
| May the prime contractor use partners or subcontractors for parts of the work? Are there limits? | Subcontracting is acceptable |
| Will ICE accept commercial products under their standard license terms, and how should we handle the Government’s requests for source code and trained models where a vendor owns that technology? | See ICE data rights language |
| How many facilities are involved at the start, and how many in total? In what order will they be added? | ICE cannot provide initial or total facility counts or the order of deployment at this RFI stage. A phased approach is anticipated, but detailed rollout information is not available for this RFI. Respondents should describe their recommended deployment sequence, site-readiness dependencies, implementation capacity, and how schedule and cost change as facilities are added. Label all assumed facility counts and rollout dates as vendor assumptions. |
| About how many calls, messages, and video visits per month should the system handle, and how long should recordings be kept? | ICE cannot provide monthly call, message, or video-visitation volumes or a confirmed retention period at this RFI stage. Respondents should describe tested ingestion and processing capacity, configurable retention capabilities, storage growth, and support for Government-directed holds and disposition. State the volumes and retention assumptions used in cost models, with the effect of changing those assumptions. Historical migration and backfill details will be provided after award. |
| About how many cameras are involved, and how long is video stored? | ICE cannot provide a deployment camera count or confirmed video-retention period at this RFI stage. Respondents should identify supported concurrent streams, tested resolution and frame-rate combinations, ingestion and analytics throughput, and storage requirements under clearly stated retention assumptions. Describe how storage, retrieval performance, and cost change with scale. Existing-system information and final test workloads and camera counts will be provided after award. |
| Can you list the phone providers, camera and video systems, and detainee-management systems currently in use? | The inventory of existing systems, including providers and available interface documentation, will be provided after award. |
| Which languages must be supported from day one? | ICE cannot provide the final day-one language and dialect list at this RFI stage. Respondents should list currently supported languages and translation directions, with measured transcription and translation performance and any limitations. Distinguish generally available capabilities from planned additions. Final performance thresholds and representative test inputs will be established after award. Vendors may recommend a benchmark approach for the languages their solution supports. |
| About how many people will use the system, and will facility staff employed by contractors be included? | ICE cannot provide named-user or concurrent-user counts, or confirm which contractor-operated facility personnel will receive access, at this RFI stage. Respondents should describe role-based licensing, access controls, administrative and analyst roles, and capacity for both Government and authorized contractor users. State the user counts and role mix assumed in the proposed cost model. Access to Government systems or data remains subject to the applicable Government approval and vetting requirements. |
| What internet connections do facilities have? May equipment be installed on site, and who provides space and power? | ICE cannot provide site-specific bandwidth, equipment-installation permissions, or space and power allocations at this RFI stage. Respondents should state minimum connectivity requirements and describe operation under constrained or interrupted connectivity. Identify all proposed on-site hardware, network interfaces, rack space, power, environmental, and maintenance requirements, including who is assumed to furnish each item. Do not assume facility installation rights or Government-furnished infrastructure that has not been confirmed. |
| How much past data (in years) must be loaded when the system starts? | Historical data migration and backfill details, including the time span of data to be loaded, will be provided after award. |
| Will existing phone and video providers share recordings and data with the new system? Who pays for any fees involved? | Information on data-access rights and third-party system integration access will be provided after award. ICE cannot confirm each provider's participation or allocate access, export, or licensing fees through this RFI response. Respondents should identify existing provider interfaces, required cooperation and permissions, and any expected charges. Separately identify known fees, estimated fees, and unresolved dependencies in the cost model, including assumptions about the party responsible for payment. |
| Who keeps the official list of protected numbers and accounts, such as attorney lines, and how will we receive it? | ICE cannot identify the authoritative list owner or delivery mechanism at this RFI stage. Respondents should describe how they can securely receive and validate Government-approved protected-number and account lists, apply updates promptly, and record changes and acknowledgments. Include procedures for conflicting, missing, or stale entries and for escalation to the designated Government contact. The solution should support source-specific exclusions without requiring vendor personnel to decide whether a communication is legally protected. The responsible office, source of truth, and exchange method require Government confirmation before operational use. |
| If the system cannot tell whether a call is protected, should it hold the call out of review until that is settled? | For this RFI, describe a conservative exclusion workflow that prevents a communication with unresolved protection status from entering routine analytics or investigator review until an authorized Government determination is made. Identify whether exclusion occurs at the source and how any inadvertently received content would be isolated with restricted access and an auditable referral. Do not assume that uncertainty permits recording, transcription, profiling, or operational use. ICE must confirm the final exclusion and exception-handling procedure before deployment. |
| If a call is later found to be protected, what must we delete, and what proof of deletion do you need? | Respondents should describe the ability to identify and isolate an affected recording and all associated transcripts, indexes, voice profiles, derived analytics, and exported copies. Deletion or other disposition must follow specific Government direction and applicable preservation requirements, rather than an automatic vendor decision. Describe how authorized remediation would propagate to replicas and downstream systems, how backups would be handled, and what verification record could document the scope, time, method, and exceptions without reproducing protected content. ICE has not provided the required deletion scope or certification format at this RFI stage. |
| Does protected communication also cover medical, religious, and consular calls? | ICE has not provided a complete source-level definition of protected communications at this RFI stage. Respondents should not assume that medical, religious, consular, and attorney communications all receive identical treatment, or that an unspecified category may be monitored. Describe how the solution can apply Government-approved exclusions and access restrictions by source, number, account, and communication type. The treatment of each category must be confirmed against the applicable legal requirements, facility rules, and approved operating procedures before collection or processing. |
| What rules and approvals apply to building voice profiles, particularly for people outside the facility who are on the call? | ICE cannot provide the complete enrollment and approval rules at this RFI stage. Do not assume that participation in a recorded call authorizes creation of a voice profile, particularly for an outside party. Respondents should identify the data and permissions their method requires, the proposed enrollment controls, and how profiles can be restricted to Government-approved purposes and matching populations. Describe provenance, access controls, review of uncertain matches, and removal of improperly enrolled profiles under Government direction. The applicable legal, privacy, and operational approvals must be resolved before the capability is enabled. |
| Which other agencies, if any, may be included in voice matching, and what agreements are expected? | ICE cannot provide this information at this RFI stage |
| How long may voice profiles be kept, and when must they be deleted? | ICE has not specified a retention period for voice profiles at this RFI stage. Respondents should describe configurable retention and disposition controls covering profiles, source recordings, linked identifiers, and derived results, with separate treatment where required. Include support for Government-approved holds, access restrictions, auditability, and verified deletion from active systems and managed replicas or backups. Do not assume indefinite retention or a vendor-selected deletion schedule. The applicable schedule, triggers, exceptions, and approval process must be confirmed by the Government before operational use. |
| Which events should the system watch for at the start? Can you share definitions and examples? | This information will be provided after award. |
| Section 3.6 allows alerts for signs of distress or self-harm, and the SI contract language limits predicting emotional state. Can you help us understand what is allowed? | The reference to distress or self-harm alerts should not be treated as permission to bypass the stated restriction on predicting emotional state. Respondents should distinguish detection of defined, observable safety events from inference about a person's emotions or mental state, and explain the data, limitations, and human review involved. Identify any capability that depends on restricted inference for Government review. ICE will provide event definitions after award. The permissible events and use conditions must be confirmed before operational deployment. |
| Does tracking a person from camera to camera, without using faces, count as biometric identification needing special approval? | The absence of facial recognition does not, by itself, establish that cross-camera tracking is exempt from biometric or privacy review. The determination depends on the characteristics collected, the recognition method, persistence of identifiers, and whether results identify or link an individual. Respondents should disclose those details, retention, and intended uses, and distinguish temporary object tracking from person recognition. ICE must determine the applicable classification and approvals for the proposed implementation before operational use. This RFI does not grant that approval. |
| In which areas should headcounts run, and who decides what to do when counts don’t match? | ICE cannot provide the approved headcount areas, authoritative rosters, or discrepancy-resolution assignments at this RFI stage. Respondents should describe configurable counting zones and schedules, comparison against an authorized roster, confidence and exception reporting, and a manual verification workflow when counts differ or a source is unavailable. Identify how alerts reach designated facility and ICE personnel and how decisions are recorded. The Government must establish the areas, responsible officials, thresholds, and response procedures. A system-generated discrepancy should support human verification rather than independently determine an operational action. |
| Who decides which camera areas are blocked out for privacy? | Privacy exclusion areas require Government approval based on the applicable facility, privacy, and operational requirements. The specific approving officials and camera-by-camera rules are not available at this RFI stage. Respondents should describe configurable privacy masks and exclusion zones, role-based administration, documented approval and change control, and verification that excluded areas are not processed or exposed through recordings, analytics, or exports contrary to the approved rules. Vendors should identify any technical limitations and should not independently decide which areas may be observed. |
| What security impact level will apply, and will FedRAMP Moderate or High be required? | FedRAMP High is the stated requirement for the hosted cloud solution. The detailed FIPS 199 categorization of the ICE system, including confidentiality, integrity, and availability impact values, and any additional DHS/ICE controls require Government confirmation. Respondents should identify their current High authorization coverage and any component, data flow, or operational dependency outside that coverage. A lower cloud baseline should not be presented as satisfying the stated High requirement. |
| Will the system run in an ICE cloud account, the vendor’s approved cloud, or both? Who pays for cloud and computing costs? | ICE cannot confirm a single hosting and account-ownership model at this RFI stage. Respondents should clearly identify whether their solution requires an ICE cloud account, a contractor-operated service, or both, consistent with the FedRAMP High baseline. Provide a cost model separating subscriptions, cloud infrastructure, compute, storage, networking, data transfer, implementation, and operations. State all Government-furnished service assumptions. Allocation of cloud charges and payment responsibilities depends on the final acquisition and hosting approach. |
| Can a small pilot with test data begin before final security approval (ATO)? | ICE anticipates a pilot or phased approach but has not provided the detailed approval conditions for this RFI. The RFI does not authorize a pilot or waive security approvals. Respondents may describe a proposed isolated test environment using synthetic or otherwise Government-approved test data, its boundaries, interconnections, safeguards, and approval dependencies. Any pilot involving ICE systems or information must receive the required Government authorization before it begins. Production use requires the applicable authorization and acceptance decisions. |
| Can we reuse an existing security authorization for parts of the system that are already approved? | Existing authorization packages, assessments, and controls may be proposed for reuse where they apply to the offered services and deployment. Respondents should identify the authorized service and boundary, current status, inherited controls, customer responsibilities, interconnections, and changes or gaps introduced by the Suite. ICE must determine whether that evidence supports its intended use and what additional assessment or authorization is necessary. An existing authorization does not automatically authorize the integrated ICE deployment. |
| Are there limits on where AI models may come from or who may supply them? | The RFI responses do not provide a complete list of permitted or prohibited model suppliers or countries of origin. Respondents should identify model developers, ownership, provenance, hosting and inference locations, third-party dependencies, licenses, and any external data transmissions. Explain how models are controlled, updated, assessed, and kept within the proposed security boundaries. Identify restrictions or dependencies that could affect the FedRAMP High baseline, ICE data rights, or Government control of information. Supplier acceptance remains subject to applicable solicitation terms and Government review. |
| Which roles require U.S. citizenship, and what background checks are needed? | The existing response concerning potential Canadian subcontractors specifies U.S. citizenship. ICE has not provided a complete role-by-role citizenship, suitability, or background-investigation matrix for this RFI. Respondents should identify personnel requiring facility, system, data, or administrative access and describe their staffing assumptions. Final role qualifications and access requirements must be confirmed in the solicitation and Government onboarding process. This response does not establish that every role requires a national-security clearance or that citizenship alone authorizes access. |
| Will any part of this work be classified, requiring a facility clearance? Will ownership and management of the awarded organization be required for pass EQIP before implementation? | The uncompleted classification and clearance fields do not establish a specific classified-work or facility-clearance requirement. ICE must confirm whether classified access is in scope and identify any applicable facility and personnel clearance levels. Ownership, management, and other personnel vetting will depend on the roles, access, and security requirements established for the procurement. Respondents should disclose existing clearances and relevant access assumptions without treating an unspecified clearance or questionnaire requirement as already satisfied. The final solicitation must resolve the placeholders. |
| The recovery targets (48 hours and 24 hours) are listed for the whole system. Are there shorter targets for urgent safety alerts? If so, what are those recovery targets? | Final service-level performance thresholds will be established after award. ICE is not specifying a separate shorter recovery target for urgent safety alerts at this RFI stage. Respondents should distinguish alert-delivery latency, incident-response time, recovery time, and allowable data loss, and describe demonstrated resilience of safety-related functions. Identify recommended priority service levels, the architecture and costs required to meet them, and limitations and proposed mitigations during recovery. |
| If a facility loses its internet connection, what should keep working locally? | ICE cannot specify the final local operating and buffering requirements at this RFI stage. Respondents should describe which capture, event detection, alerting, access-control, and audit functions continue during a network outage, and identify functions that depend on cloud connectivity. State local storage limits, buffer duration, data-protection measures, and the behavior when capacity is exhausted. Explain synchronization and reconciliation after connectivity returns, including any potential data loss and on-site hardware or power dependencies. |
| Must support staff be located in the Continental United States (CONUS)? Are there any Outside CONUS (OCONUS) staffing requirements? | ICE has not confirmed a complete CONUS/OCONUS staffing or place-of-performance requirement for this RFI. Respondents should identify the locations of support staff, subcontractors, administrators, and personnel with remote access, along with hours of coverage and on-site support assumptions. The existing U.S.-citizenship response concerning potential Canadian subcontractors remains applicable to that question. Do not infer permission for foreign or OCONUS access from the absence of a completed staffing matrix. Final location and access restrictions require Government confirmation. |
| Does contractor staff require security clearances? If so, which level(s) of security clearance are required? | ICE has not identified specific personnel security-clearance levels in the completed RFI responses. The final solicitation must resolve whether classified access is required and identify applicable clearance, suitability, and background-investigation requirements by role. Respondents should identify any existing clearances and explain which proposed positions require access to facilities, systems, sensitive data, or administrative functions. A blank clearance field should not be interpreted as either a clearance requirement or a waiver of Government vetting. |
| How quickly should new data appear in searches and alerts (seconds, minutes)? | Final performance thresholds will be established after award. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .