COUNTY of KANE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT KANE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER

Transcription

1 COUNTY of KANE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT KANE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER Christopher Rossman 719 S. Batavia Ave., Bldg. A, 2 nd Floor Director of Purchasing Geneva, Illinois Telephone: (630) Fax: (630) August 15, 2013 ADDENDUM #4 RFP No. & Title: Justice Case Management Systems The attention of proposers is called to the following changes, clarifications, additions and/or deletions to the original RFP document and they shall be taken into account in preparing your response and shall be part of the contract. 1. QUESTION: On Page 21, it was mentioned that Kane County will implement an integration hub (likely using Microsoft Biz Talk or enterprise bus architecture). Please explain if the implementation of the integration hub is part of the scope that the vendors need to account for and if it should be included in the proposal cost. Please also explain and describe licenses and hardware that Kane currently owns (Microsoft BizTalk or equivalent) that will be used for the integration hub. If they are currently not owned, does the vendor have to include cost for this activity? RESPONSE: Offerors are not to include cost for implementing interfaces or the integration hub in their proposals. Kane County expects to contract with the selected offeror at a later date to assist with the implementation of these as well as other interfaces. Kane County will implement an Integration Hub (likely using Microsoft BizTalk or enterprise service bus architecture) to facilitate information exchange and federated query among county justice systems and other participating systems. 2. QUESTION: There are contradicting statements as noted below which were repeated several times in the RFP for example on Page 4 of 8 of the State Attorney s Case Management System as re-stated below: Kane County expects to contract with the selected offeror at a later date to assist with implementation of these, as well as other, interfaces. Offerors are not to include costs for implementing interfaces in their proposals. RESPONSE: Refers to interfaces between separate offices, agencies, government entities, or commercial services (e.g., collection agencies, etc.). On another part the RFP also mentioned: An interface is required with the Laserfiche system that will allow seamless attachment of all types of electronic media to the electronic

2 case file for viewing as needed by staff, judicial officers, and public depending on security. RESPONSE: Refers to interfaces within an office between two applications used by the office. In another section of the RFP, it was stated that: The Circuit Clerk and Court currently make use of Adobe Technologies (LiveCycle and Flash Builder) and ARX CoSign to achieve these demands. Both Adobe solutions make use of the J2EE architecture and consist of web applications on the front end and web services on the back end. LiveCycle allows users to access smart forms in PDF format while the Flash Application EcoSystem Electronic Court Operations System) allows them to dynamically stich together court orders by dragging and dropping court actions onto a blank order. Both solutions make use of ARX CoSign to apply the Judge s digital certificate to the court order through the use of web services. The application(s) must demonstrate the ability to handle the roles of each courtroom partner and be configurable per case type and courtroom. User roles determine how orders are shared between parties and the approval process prior to being submitted to the Judge. Please explain how the proposed product can either provide similar functionality or integrate with these Adobe products to maintain this functionality. RESPONSE: Again refers to an interface within an office between two applications used by the office. Similarly under Item 13 we noted Financial Information and Interfaces. Please specify which of the above sentences the bidders should follow. Please clarify if the interface with the Laserfiche system is in the scope of the project and if it should be included in the proposal cost. Please also specify if Kane is asking vendors to replace LiveCycle and Flash Builder or any of the processes around it. Please highlight any problem areas that Kane has identified with such processes. Please also explain in concrete terms what interfaces are in scope and with what systems, frequency of data exchange, conditions of data exchange and an overall description of the data exchange and details of data being exchanged. RESPONSE: The RFP is referring to interfaces between offices, government agencies, and commercial enterprises and interfaces within an office between two applications. The bidder should price the interfaces with applications within the office. Interfaces between offices will be addressed later as stated, Offerors are not to include costs for implementing interfaces in their proposals. 3. QUESTION: There are contradicting statements in various parts of the RFP as noted below: Similarly, data conversion is not within the scope of this procurement. Kane County will discuss data conversion needs with the selected vendor at initial contract negotiations. However in the Scope of Services within the various parts of the RFP the following were included: Services Acquisition of all required expert services to ensure successful implementation, including system configuration, data conversion, interface development, testing, migration, training, and ongoing management and support of the acquired solution. Under Planning, it is indicated that the bidder has to create a data conversion plan.

3 In the Evaluation Factors section, on the Project Approach Criterion which is 20% mentioned Data Conversion. Please specify which of the above sentences the bidders should follow and what tasks under conversion and migration are in scope for the work being requested and what should be included in the proposal cost. RESPONSE: See Question 14 in Addendum #3. 4. QUESTION: The RFP mentioned some generic statements related to reports. Please provide samples of reports that you are expecting the system to duplicate, especially if your system currently produces them. Please explain what ad-hoc reporting tool Kane owns and currently works with, or if the vendors are expected to cost the tool for Kane. RESPONSE: See question 12 of Addendum #3. 5. QUESTION: Please explain Kane s timeline for the various projects noted in the RFP. RESPONSE: See question 10 of Addendum #3. 6. QUESTION: Is there any existing hardware that Kane plans on re-using for this project? If so, please specify the details and the environment for which they will be used for (development, test, training, production or disaster recovery.) The RFP indicated not to include hardware cost, but to include a list of hardware needed. We want to make sure we take into account any hardware that Kane believes will be made available to the project. If it is Kane s intention is to purchase all that is required, please indicate also. RESPONSE: Kane will not be reusing existing hardware. Prospective bidders are to specify hardware (e.g., application and database servers) as a component of the proposed solution, but not include the cost of the hardware in the cost proposal. The County will purchase any required hardware separately through established contracts. 7. QUESTION: Does each department already have licenses to Microsoft SQL Server? Or should the vendor include these in the proposed costs? RESPONSE: Kane County has an enterprise agreement for Microsoft SQL Server licensing and the cost does not need to be included in the proposed costs. 8. QUESTION: Is each department open to train-the-trainer instead of end-user training to save cost? RESPONSE: Bidders should provide both train-the-trainer and end-user training options to their proposals. 9. QUESTION: If a vendor is only proposing public defender and state's attorney, should they also complete Section 8 b. Response to CMS Functional Capabilities in Section IV? The other departments may also be interested in configurability, automated workflows, advanced search and ad-hoc reporting, technology, role based security, etc. RESPONSE: If a vendor is only proposing a system for the State s Attorney and/or the Public Defender they do not need to respond to Section 8 of the response. The vendor may include responses to Section 8 if they feel there is pertinent information concerning their proposal within the section.

4 10. QUESTION: It sounds like the County prefers a web-based solution. Is that a requirement for this bid? RESPONSE: See question 10 of Addendum #1, the response is the same for a web-based solution. 11. QUESTION: Should attachment L interfaces (Mandatory Interfaces at the time of production) only be included in the proposed cost if a vendor is proposing a solution for the courts? RESPONSE: See question 2 above. Interfaces within an office should be included in the cost proposal. Interfaces between offices should not be included in the cost proposal. 12. QUESTION: The court services introduction states there are 115 employees, but the scope of services requires training for 195 users. How many users will access the system? RESPONSE: The Circuit Clerk s section states that there are 115 employees. This is the Clerk s office only and does not include judges and Court staff that will also use the system. Assume the number of individuals trained will be the number of individuals accessing the system. 13. QUESTION: The vendor is assuming Kane should be listed on the vendor's insurance policy upon contract award, and a copy of the current proposal is sufficient for the proposal response. Is this correct? RESPONSE: See paragraph C.01 on page 7 of the Terms and Conditions, regarding Kane County being listed as certificate holder and additional insured. A copy of the certificate of insurance should be submitted with your proposal. 14 QUESTION: In the STATEMENT OF WORK for Circuit Clerk and Court, page 13 of 20, the third paragraph has an incomplete sentence: Please explain how our solution could accept incoming e-filings, from independent e-filing vendors, and the public using various. RESPONSE: The sentence should read, Please explain how your solution could accept incoming e-filings from independent e-filing vendors and the public using various browsers. 15. QUESTION: The RFP indicates a staff of 138 for the State s Attorney s Office, 49 for the Public Defender s Office, and 115 for the Circuit Clerk s Office. How many additional users of the proposed system, that are not included in those numbers, would you estimate there will be (e.g.; law enforcement, probation, judges, state and federal agencies, etc.). A break-down of estimated transactional/update users versus inquiry-only users would also be helpful. RESPONSE: Additional users of the system would include law enforcement, probation, judges, state and federal agencies, and the diagnostic center (psychological services branch of the Judiciary). We do not have a breakdown of estimated transactional/update users versus inquiryonly users at this time. You may assume the number of users trained are the number of transactional/update users. The number of inquiry-only users would vary greatly and include law enforcement, other court and county employees, officers of the court and public. Specific access for inquiry-only users should be configurable depending on the type of user and access.

5 16. QUESTION: The RFP identifies Microsoft SharePoint as part of the KCIT technology platform. Can you provide additional information on the current and planned future use of SharePoint as it may relate to this RFP? RESPONSE: Microsoft SharePoint is part of the KCIT technology platform and is not a requirement for the proposed solution. Kane has an investment in SharePoint and is planning on supporting it into the future. 17. QUESTION: The STATEMENT OF WORK for SAO and PDO is clear that those data conversions are not within the scope of this procurement. In the STATEMENT OF WORK for Circuit Clerk and Court, page 9 of 20, the second paragraph indicates Pricing for the conversion of data - into the new CMS shall be all provided separately and included in the overall costs. The answer to question 7 in Addendum No. 1 seems to indicate that estimated costs for data conversion is not being requested at this time, even for the Circuit Clerk s data. Please clarify if the cost for data conversion of Circuit Clerk s data should be included in the cost proposal. RESPONSE: See Question 14 of Addendum # QUESTION: Under Attachment D, State s Attorney Functional Requirements, ref F- 32, Configurability can you please provide clarification or additional information about Enable configuring an unlimited number of case-types and associate each case-type with the following:, what is meant by Document Types Received? RESPONSE: The County will consider all proposals for e-filing capabilities. 19. QUESTION: Will the court consider a web-hosted SaaS model for e-filing capabilities? RESPONSE: The County will consider all proposals for e-filing capabilities. 20. QUESTION: If the court is agreeable to a SaaS hosted model, will the court require the contractor to escrow source code for web-hosted components of the e-filing system? RESPONSE: Standard procedure is to require source code to be placed in escrow. 21. QUESTION: If we are bidding on only one of the functional requirements, can you confirm that we are not required to submit the other functional requirement attachments? RESPONSE: The vendor only needs to respond to the functional requirements for the system they are proposing. See question #9 above. 22. QUESTION: Will e-filing be mandatory? RESPONSE: Eventually e-filing will be mandatory; initially it will not be mandatory. A vendor that submits a proposal is not required to submit with their own e-filing solution. It is the intent of the Circuit Clerk to acquire an e-filing solution pursuant to this RFP and have it installed and utilized when approved by the applicable government authorities. 23. QUESTION: Have the local e-filing order and rules been finalized? If not, can we have a copy of the draft local e-filing order and rules? RESPONSE: This Question was answered in Addendum #1 Question 1.

6 24. QUESTION: Attachment H has two incomplete requirements. Number 38 is blank and number 76 appears to be missing the end of the sentence. Can you please clarify? RESPONSE: This Question was answered in Addendum #1 Questions 2 and QUESTION: Are all case numbers unique across all case types? RESPONSE: Yes, case numbers are unique across all case types. A list of case types is attached as Attachment S. Please respond accordingly and confirm your receipt of Addendum 4. If you have any additional questions, please fax to (630) or via ed. Sincerely, Tim Keovongsak Buyer Enclosure: Attachment S

7 RFP # Kane County Justice Case Management Systems Attachment S Case Types AD AR CH CC D DT ED F CF J JA JD L LM MH MR CM MC OP P SC TX TR OV CV CA XM Adoption Arbitration Chancery Contempt of Court Dissolution Driving under the Influence Eminent Domain Family Felony Juvenile Juvenile Abuse Juvenile Delinquent Law Law Medium Mental Health Miscellaneous Remedy Misdemeanor Municipal Corporation Order of Protection Probate Small Claims Tax Traffic Ordinance Violation Conservation Violation Court Administration Bond Transfers Misc Fees cases We have three case types that are used for fees that are not associated to a specific case or for multiple cases X1 X2 X3 Marriage Fees Photocopy fees Civil Misc Fees We also created some case types in the system for efficiencies in the office. BA Batches for scanning of SDU batches ZA Appeals - for security record that is on appeal ZZ Scanning errors images that were scanned but were not able to be indexed NO Notices images of all notices mailed EX Exhibit to determine location of exhibits IN Index we old indexes back onto the system to give broader access to case numbers.

8