Addendum # 1
January 8, 2018
70. Q. On page 41 of the main RFP document, under the heading of Price Proposal Template Provided in Appendix H, the first paragraph states that "… Lake County has provided a list of likely cost components 0in Appendix J…" Where do we find Appendix J?
A. The reference to the list of likely cost components is actually to Appendix H which contains worksheet tabs of all of the anticipated cost components. Tab F.14 “Other SvcsPeriodic Costs” is intended for the situation “…if the Proposer is aware of additional costs not listed, the Proposer is required to add those to the price proposal so that the Proposer’s response captures the total cost of ownership.” Those costs are not automatically added to the “Total Other Costs” on line 29 of the F. “Total Cost Summary” worksheet, but they will be taken into account.
71. Q. Is there any data exchange / ESB data that will be migrated to the new data exchanges / ESB?
A. No. All data will be migrated through a data conversion process from one application database to another, not through a data exchange process which is an event-driven transport mechanism.
January 3, 2018
69. Q. The RFP indicates we can respond to individual parts of the RFP, but I’d like to know if we can respond both individually and with another vendor? The possibility exists that we could both partner with another vendor for a total solution, and respond individually for parts of the RFP.
A. Alternative proposals will be considered.
December 28, 2017
63. Q. Questions regarding Appendix B Prosecution CMS Capability
5.4.3 – Manage Expert Witness Resource
AC 5.4.3-02 - Please clarify what is meant by capturing “availability”, “non-availability”, and “ad hoc availability”? Does this refer to the service the agency/person provides or a date range when that person is available/not available?
A. More the latter, referring to a person as a resource, tracking when an expert witness is available, unavailable, or special circumstances (ad hoc).
64. Q. AC 6.2-05 – Teen Court Obligation
Is Teen Court considered a term of a defendant/juveniles probation/supervision, or is it considered a form of Probation/supervision?
A. Typically a prosecutor would track the Teen Court obligation as a condition of diversion in cooperation with Juvenile Probation/Supervision in an informal case.
65. Q. AC 11.2-12 - Enable configuring an unlimited number of entries in tables, including: a) State Offense Code Tables; b) Prosecution ROA entry codes; c) Event-types; d) Document types generated. Please provide more detail or example of what is considered an “Event-types”.
A. As noted in Question 55, there may be some overlap between the two concepts of Prosecution Case Notes and ROA entries. An ROA entry is an event that the prosecutor or staff records on a case about an office event, and the entry records in the Prosecution Case what transpired. Proposers may propose the same functionality for both capabilities. Examples are provided in AC 5.1.4-01: (Dropdown: Witness Interview, Victim Interview, Deposition, Hearing, No-show, Email, Phone call). Additional events may include Plea Offer, Diversion Offered, Diversion Granted, etc.
66. Q. AC 11.2-10 - Provide a set of dashboard performance metrics (e.g., disposition measures) that can be selected by individual users, according to their role in the organization. Can you please expound on this requirement?
A. A dashboard should provide summary information in an easy-to-consume format. Dashboards are most useful when a user can click and drill down to the underlying data.
Prosecutors typically want to know on a current basis the following kinds of statistics for the case types (criminal, juvenile, civil) or subtypes they handle (specialized list):
- Number of cases assigned, and the number disposed, with clearance rate, i.e. number of outgoing cases as a percentage of the number of incoming cases (“Is a backlog building?”)
- Number of cases disposed by plea, trial or dismissal in the current period
- Number of cases open
- Age of open cases (“What are my oldest cases?”)
Victim coordinators typically want to know statistics on their Assistance Referrals:
- Number of victims referred, and number of referrals closed, with clearance rate, i.e. number of outgoing cases as a percentage of the number of incoming cases (“Is a backlog building?”)
- Number of victim contacts made in the current period
- Number of referrals open
- Age of open referrals (“Do my oldest cases need attention?”)
67. Q. In Section 1.35 of Appendix G (Order of Precedence) there is a reference to (i) the Lake County General Terms & Conditions & (ii) the Lake County Request for Proposal Terms and Conditions. Please clarify the difference between these two sets of Terms and Conditions. Are the Lake County General Terms and Conditions the terms contained within Appendix G?
A. Appendix G is the Lake County General Terms & Conditions, and they take precedence over anything stated in the RFP itself (i.e., the RFP Terms and Conditions).
68. Q. Do you have a Document Management System in place to handle scanning paper files?
A. See the answer to question 47. The Document Management System handles all electronic documents, including e-filed and scanned paper documents.
December 21, 2017
48. Q. 1.5 - Generate Documents
RD 1.5-01 - What is meant by "version number"?
AC 1.5-03 - What are the business rules governing the process of email notifications.
A. In RD 1.5-01 "version number" is for configuration control when there is a history of templates. Documents must be generated using the latest version.
In AC 1.5-03 the business rules governing the process of email notifications are not specified, mostly because no such rules currently exist. The requirement is that business rules can be developed to govern generating email notifications. One example is that if a party is not e-filing documents into a case, and no email address is available, the system should recognize that and generate a paper notification to be mailed.
49. Q. 2.1 - On-View Felony Arrest
RD 2.1.1-01 & AC 2.1.1-02 - Please clarify what the term "Advice Given" means in your jurisdiction.
AC 2.1.1-04 – Is this referring to a plea negotiation process?
DN 2.1.102 & DN 2.1.1-03 - Is this flag simply for information/identification purposes?
RD 2.1.2-01 - Please clarify your definition of "Case Category".
RD 2.1.3-03 – Are the judges assigned to specific Courtrooms?
A. In RD 2.1.1-01 & AC 2.1.1-02 "Advice Given" means that the prosecutor reviews felony charges and provides feedback to law enforcement on what charges are appropriate for a given incident, i.e., whether the prosecutor approves the charges.
AC 2.1.1-04 refers to case screening as law enforcement is preparing charges which the prosecutor will use or modify when filing charges with the clerk to initiate a criminal case.
Yes – in DN 2.1.1-02 & DN 2.1.1-03 the Early Disposition Court flag identifies cases appropriate for a streamlined plea process.
RD 2.1.2-01 - Please clarify your definition of "Case Category". The term “case category” is used in the Clerk’s Manual on Recordkeeping from the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts.
The standard case types in Illinois are referred to as case categories (with subcategories), e.g., code L for Law claims over $15,000, code LM for Law claims $15,000 or less, code CH for Chancery, code MR for Miscellaneous Remedy.
RD 2.1.3-03 – Are the judges assigned to specific courtrooms? Generally, yes.
50. Q. 2.6 – Therapeutic Intensive Monitoring
Will the SAO be responsible for tracking this information in the SAO Case Management System?
A. The SAO may not be the primary record keeper, but the office approves entry of a defendant into a Therapeutic Intensive Monitoring program, and a prosecutor attends staffings and court sessions for each program. The SAO CMS will keep track of at least that information.
51. Q. 2.7 – Manage Criminal Cases
There are no questions to respond to in this section, just a statement. Is that correct?
A. That’s correct. Section 2.7 is a cross-reference to generic prosecutor requirements in other sections.
52. Q. 3.5 – Manage Juvenile Division Cases
There are no questions to respond to in this section, just a statement. Is that correct?
A. That’s correct. Section 3.5 is a cross-reference to generic prosecutor requirements in other sections.
53. Q. 3.6 – Transfer Juvenile Cases to Adult Court
There are no questions to respond to in this section, just a statement. Is that correct?
A. That’s correct. Transfer of juvenile cases to adult court is a generic prosecutor function of filing a complaint or petition.
54. Q. 3.7 – Manage Party/Participant Relationships
RD 3.7.1-01 asks about a report that displays participants on a given case, yet it states for a “given date range”. If the report is for a given case, why is the date range required?
A. For most cases, it is true, the participants are not likely to change during the lifetime of the case. On the other hand, certain cases may be active in the court over many years, such as juvenile and guardianship/ conservatorship cases, and post-decree matters in family cases. A date range will provide more relevant results.
55. Q. 5.1 – Prosecutor Criminal, Traffic, and Juvenile Cases
5.1.4 – Prosecution Case Notes
Please clarify the difference between a Case Note and an ROA.
AC 5.1.4-01 mentions forwarding Case Notes. Who would these notes be forwarded to? Staff within the office, parties outside the SAO, or both?
AC 5.1.9-03 - Please define or give examples of what is meant by the term “parent child relationship” as it pertains to “Case Topic”.
A. 5.1.4 – There may be some overlap between the two concepts of Prosecution Case Notes and ROA entries. Prosecution Case Notes are the equivalent of Post-It notes in a case but available on the electronic record – they may memorialize a conversation or a phone call. An ROA entry is an event that the prosecutor or staff records on a case about an office event, and the entry records what transpired. Proposers may propose the same functionality for both capabilities.
Case notes would probably be forwarded only within the office since they would constitute confidential attorney work product.
5.1.9 – Brief Bank – Case Topics and Word Search
Please define or give examples of what is meant by the term “Case Topic”.
5.1.9 – Brief Bank – Case Topics would be like West keywords that the SAO would devise.
56. Q. 2.2 refers to a “Record Bureau Number”. Please clarify what the “Record Bureau” is.
A. Law enforcement record bureaus assign a number to records that the agency generates, such as an incident number. It is helpful for prosecutors to have that number available when working with law enforcement officers.
57. Q. 2.3 – Assumption from this section is that the SAO and PDO are authorized to be the approving authority for subpoenas and sign their subpoenas. Do these Subpoenas not require a Court Clerk/Judge signature?
A. The Circuit Clerk preauthorizes subpoenas which the SAO and PDO can issue and serve.
58. Q. Data Exchange 2.3 – Please clarify what is meant by a “…paper number”.
A. It is a unique identifying number. A subpoena with a case number and unique party identifier may be sufficiently unique as not to require a paper number, unless multiple subpoenas are issued for the same person during a long trial. A proposer may take exception to the need for a paper number.
59. Q. The pricing spreadsheet states that the bid should provide costs for 7 years, however, the pricing tab “F10 Annual Support and Maintenance” description (cell A2) states “five years”. We assume that you want 7 years. Please confirm or correct our assumption.
A. Seven years is the correct number.
60. Q. Can you confirm that you are expecting an individual price proposal spreadsheet to be uploaded for each module being proposed?
eFiling System (See the answer to Question 36 on December 7, 2017)
Enterprise Services Bus (ESB)
Judicial Portal (17 Courtroom Processing, Judicial and Courtroom Tools)
A. Yes. F. Section 1 – Price Proposal, Page 41 states: “Each Proposer will upload price proposal data for each module proposed in the Price Proposal Excel spreadsheet provided.” If the Proposer offers a discount for multiple modules, Tab F.9A Implementation Discount for Multiple Modules of the Price Proposal can be filled out.
61.Q. For the Judicial Portal, can you confirm the number of back file cases and images that need to be converted?
A. To date, the Clerk’s office has less than 10,000 files from the previous e-filing system where an electronic image was produced. There have not been any discussions yet to determine if those records will be converted since the majority are Small Claims actions. To date no new images have been added since April 2017, and there is no requirement for these files to even be microfilmed.
Moving forward, the Clerk’s office typically has at any given moment 14,000 actively pending civil files and using the same metric provided earlier, will experience on average 23,500 civil filings annually which translates into 2,000,000 pages.
62. Q. In Section E, can you confirm if items 12.2.1 through 12.2.8 only apply to Hosted Solutions?
December 19, 2017
43. Q. Will there be any public access to State’s Attorney or Public Defender system?
44. Q. If the Court case management system is integrated with the State’s Attorney and Public Defender systems, do filings still have to go through the statewide eFiling system? (Can they go directly to the court?)
A. Under Illinois Supreme Court Order M.R. 18368, all civil filings with some exceptions will have to go through the statewide eFiling system because the Court/Clerk CMS is the system of record for the Court. The only filings that would go directly to the Clerk’s office would be filings submitted in paper form (as permitted by court rule – see guidance provided in the press release at http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Media/PressRel/2017/053017.pdf, particularly in the section “Criminal E-filing”) which the Clerk’s office will convert to electronic form to flow through the standard electronic workflow process.
45. Q. Can you describe how the web service queries (i.e., #’s 1.25 through 1.37) listed in Appendix E1b (Data Exchanges – Current and Proposed) are used by the State’s Attorney CMS and Public Defender CMS? For example, is the data retrieved from the Court/Clerk CMS via these web service calls stored in the receiving systems, or just displayed? Can these requirements be met by a Justice Partner Portal that allows the State’s Attorney and Public Defender staff to view this information vs. by a system-to-system data exchange?
A. The correct reference in 2017-11-20 Appendix E-1b Data Exchanges-Current and Proposed is to web service queries #1.29 through 1.41. The data retrieved from the Court/Clerk CMS will be stored in the receiving system rather than require staff in the receiving agency to manually update the agency system with data that can only be viewed. If the data cannot be saved, agency staff may have to execute the query repeatedly every time when the information is needed.
46. Q. In regards to requirement E.3 - 5 on page 21 of the Lake County Integrated Case Management System RFP, would the County consider accepting reviewed financials as satisfactory to meet this requirement?
A. For any financial statements that are not audited, sufficient evidence must be provided that any review shall have been conducted by a third party that is a properly certified professional accountant. Lake County reserves the right to reject the reviewed financial statements if they do not meet the basic standards of an audit.
47. Q. Does Lake County currently have a Document Management System? If so, which one and which company provides it?
A. The County has a license to OnBase which is used in a variety of departments and applications. Alfresco has been used in a pilot e-filing system implementation. Proposer may propose either of these or any DMS which is integrated with their module(s).
December 7, 2017
36. Q. It is our understanding that the Circuit Court and Circuit Clerk’s office is requesting an interface between the proposed Court CMS and the Tyler Odyssey eFileIL statewide e-filing system. However, the E-filing System Requirements in Appendix D appear to identify requirements that are mostly relevant to the EFM (i.e., Filing Review MDE) and EFSP (i.e., File Assembly MDE), which are functions of the eFileIL statewide e-filing system rather than functions provided by the Court CMS (i.e., Court Record MDE). Also, based on our understanding, the Tyler Odyssey eFileIL EFM/EFSP does not currently support some of the requirements listed in the RFP (e.g., 6.2-02, 6.2-07, 6.4-01, 10.2-03, 10.2-04, 10.2-07, 10.2-08, 10.2-018, and 10.6-04), nor currently exposes an external interface to allow a 3rd party CMS to provide some of this functionality. Would you review and confirm if the e-filing requirements in Appendix D are relevant to the Court CMS and/or clarify how Court CMS vendors should respond to Appendix D?
A. The questioner is correct that one of the possibilities for responding to the RFP is to propose an interface between the proposed Court CMS and the Tyler Odyssey eFileIL EFM; this would enable attorneys and members of the public to use one of the approved EFSPs available to e-file documents with the proposed Court CMS. A second possibility is that a proposer may propose a CMS with the proposer’s EFSP module that interfaces with the proposed CMS and the eFileIL EFM. A third possibility is that a proposer may propose a CMS with a third-party EFSP module that interfaces with the proposed CMS and the eFileIL EFM. The minimum standards for proposing an EFSP is that it interfaces using the standard message interactions; additional features of a proposed EFSP module will be considered during evaluations, including its cost/benefit.
37. Q. Section E.11 (CMS and E-Filing System Non-Functional Requirements) includes E-Filing System as one of the 4 module(s) that may be proposed. Section A (Introduction) lists only 3 systems that may be proposed (i.e., Court/Clerk CMS, SAO CMS, PD CMS), and indicates a Court/Clerk CMS requirement for an e-filing interface. Would you clarify how vendors should response to E.11 (CMS and E-Filing System Non-Functional Requirements) with regard to the E-Filing System, when the RFP is requesting an e-filing interface, rather than an e-filing system?
A. Consistent with the response above to Q36 requiring an e-filing interface rather than an e-filing system, the fourth bullet point “E-Filing system” can be ignored and need not be responded to.
38. Q. Please identify the total number of judges who will be using the eBench.
39. Q. Please identify the total number of non-judges who will be support the judges and will need access to the eBench.
A. Every judge will have one or more judicial assistants or courtroom clerks helping the judge prepare for dockets or assist with tasks in the courtroom, depending on how hands-on the judge wants to be.
40. Q. Please identify the number of historical cases and page counts and the volume of cases projected in the coming year.
A. The 3-year average for new civil case filings is 23,500 which translates into approximately 2,000,000 pages.
41. Q. From your Public Defender Office, how many total internal users will you have accessing the system, i.e., unique log on ID? I see you showing 60 concurrent users. We need to know total users.
A. 60 is both concurrent users and total (unique user ID) users in the Public Defender’s Office.
42. Q. From your States Attorney Office, how many total internal users will you have accessing the system, i.e., unique log on ID? I see you showing 150 concurrent users. We need to know total users.
A. 150 is both concurrent and total users for the State’s Attorney Office.
November 30, 2017
35. Q. Would the County consider an extension of the question and proposal deadlines for the response to RFP #17209 Justice Integrated Case Management Systems by three weeks, due to the deadlines’ close proximity to the Christmas holidays.
A. The County will not extend the deadline by three weeks, however the County will extend the deadline by one week. The updated deadline is January 11, 2018.
November 28, 2017
19. Q. The Public Defender requirement # AC 1.2 – 01 references DE 7.5-08 – DE 7.5-19 in Appendix E, however there are no data exchange requirements listed as such. Are these data exchanges DE 1.1.1-08 thru DE 1.1.1-19 or DE 1.1.2-08 through DE 1.1.2-19 or something else?
A. The referenced requirements are designed to populate the Public Defender CMS case when events occur in the Court/Clerk CMS. A list of Public Defender data exchanges in Appendix E-1a are set forth below:
(Requirements in Appendix E-1a are corrected and re-numbered. The previous identifiers “DE 1.1” have been removed to simplify the numbering.)
- 1-01 Defendant Information Updates (from Court/Clerk CMS)
- 1-07 Notice of Appointment and Case Initiation
- 1-09 Notification of PD Change/ Discharge
- 1-10 Notification of Charge Modification to PD
- 1-11 Notification of Court Appearance
- 1-15 Court Inquiry Web Services (including 1-15a through 1-15L)
- 1-22 Subpoena Issued
- 1-24 Writ
- 1-27 Subpoena and Summons Returned (Affidavit of Service)
- 1-28 Bail Bond Posted
- 1-41 Speedy Trial Demand
- 2-12 Notification of Scheduling Date Change
- 2-14 Notice of PD Discharge
- 2-18 Outlook/ Office 365 Integration
- 2-21 Defendant Information Update (from Prosecutor CMS)
- 2-22 Prosecutor Assignment to a Courtroom
- 2-23 Prosecutor Special Assignment to a Case
- 2-28 Work Release Violation
- 2-29 Custody Status Update
- 2-30 Mug Shot and Identifying Marks
- 2-35 Booking Information
- 2-46 Probation Information to PD
- 2-48 Defendant Information Update (from Probation CMS)
20. Q. The Public Defender section 1.3 and RD 1.3-01 references DE 7.5-29 Mug Shot and identifying marks, however there is no DE 7.5-29. Is this DE 1.1.2-20 or DE 15.5.2-29 or something else?
A. The correct reference in DE 7.5-29 should be to Appendix E-1a #2-30 Mug Shot and Identifying Marks, which is cross-listed in Appendix E-1b as #3.7.
21. Q. Appendix A – 17.1.7 01-13 are missing requirements descriptions in the Decision Director tool.
A. A revised file is available: 09 2017-11-20 Appendix E-1a Data Interfaces and Exchanges Requirements.
22. Q. There are discrepancies between Appendix E-1a and Appendix E-1b. Can we assume Appendix E-1a takes precedence as E-1a seems to be aligned with the Decision Director tool?
A. The two appendices have been reconciled so they contain the same information and are numbered consecutively in each list.
23. Q. Data Exchanges DE 1.1.1-15 Court Inquiry Web Services, DE 1.1.1-19 SDU Child Support System Interfaces, DE 1.1.1-20 HFS Child Support System Interface, and DE 1.1.1-24 Information and Arrest Warrant are not listed in Appendix E-1b. We assume these are required exchanges?
A. Court Inquiry Web Services in Appendix E-1a is #1-15 is a header which introduces the 12 current (and required) web services that follow, so #1-15 is not a requirement in its own right.
The three other data exchanges named are currently implemented so they are required. In Appendix E-1a SDU Child Support System Interfaces I #1-18; HFS Child Support System Interface is #1-19; Information and Arrest Warrant is #1-23.
24. Q. Data Exchange requirements DE 1.1.2-13, DE 1.1.2-18, DE 1.1.2-19, and DE 1.1.2-20 all have duplicate data exchanges with the same requirement number. Can you confirm that there are 8 data exchanges referenced by these 4 requirement indexes?
A. There were errors in numbering the proposed data exchanges, and numbering is changed to make requirements consecutive. Revised files are available for Appendix E-1a and Appendix E-1b.
25. Q. DE 1.1.2-02 Bail Bond Exchange is listed as proposed in Appendix E1a and as current in Appendix E1b #3.5. Should we assume that this data exchange is proposed or current?
A. The Bail Bond Exchange (between Cook County and Lake County) in Appendix E-1a #2-06 is a proposed data exchange, and is cross-listed in Appendix E-1b as #1.18.
The data exchange Bail Bond Posted in in Appendix E1a as #1-28 is a current data exchange, and is now cross-listed in Appendix E1b as item #3.5.
26. Q. DE 1.1.2-14 Information and Arrest Warrant is listed as proposed in Appendix E1a and as current in Appendix E1b #2.6. Should we assume that this data exchange is proposed or current?
A. Information and Arrest Warrant is a current data exchange so its listing in Appendix E-1a is #1-23. It is cross-listed in Appendix E-1b as #2.6.
27. Q. DE 1.1.2-33 Automated logging of data exchanges/interface transactions is listed as proposed in Appendix E1a, as proposed in Attachment D E-Filing Requirements 10.2-01, and is not listed in Appendix E1b 4.1 through 4.20 (which are identified as required by Appendix E1a DE 1.1.1-29 Statewide EFM Interface). Is this data exchange functionality proposed or required?
A. Now renumbered in Appendix E-1a as #2-49, Automated logging of data exchanges/interface transactions is proposed. It is cross listed in Appendix E-1b as #7.1. The two appendices have been reconciled so they contain the same information and are numbered consecutively in each list.
28. Q. Appendix E1b 3.4 Work Release Violation is listed as a current exchange, but is not listed in Appendix E1a as a requirement. Is this exchange required?
A. Work Release Violation is renumbered in Appendix E-1a as #2-28, and it is proposed. It is cross-listed in Appendix E-1b as #3.4. The two appendices have been reconciled so they contain the same information and are numbered consecutively in each list.
29. Q. Appendix E1b 4.8 Attorney Information Verification is listed as a proposed exchange, but is not listed in Appendix E1a. Can we assume that this is a proposed exchange?
A. Attorney Information Verification is renumbered in Appendix E-1a as #2-36, and it is proposed. It is cross-listed in Appendix E-1b as #4.8. The two appendices (E-1a and E-1b) have been reconciled so they contain the same information and are numbered consecutively in each list.
30. Q. Appendix D E-Filing Requirements identifies 18 data exchange requirements. Appendix E1b 4.1 through 4.20 identifies 20 data exchange requirements. Should be assume that the E1b 4.1 through 4.20 requirements take precedence over the Attachment D E-Filing requirements? (4.7, 4.8, 4.11, and 4.12 are not listed in the E-Filing requirements).
A. The two appendices (E-1a and E-1b) have been reconciled so they contain the same information and are numbered consecutively in each list.
Individual requirements in Appendix D E-Filing Requirements 6.2 “Integrate with CMS (Current and Proposed Exchanges)” have been removed, and the section now refers to Appendices E-1a and E-1b to reduce the amount of duplication.
31. Q. Appendix D E-Filing Requirements lists 10.2-15 Petition for Rule to Show Cause and Notice as a requirement, but we did not find this exchange listed in Appendix E1b 4.1 through 4.20.
A. Same response as #30 above. Petition for Rule to Show Cause and Notice in Appendix E-1a is #1-37, and is cross-listed in Exhibit E-1b as #4.18.
32. Q. If a vendor is only offering an on premise solution, can you confirm that Requirements 11.6.1 through 11.6.8 are not required? If they are not required, do you prefer the response in Decision Director to be left as Input Not Complete or do prefer we put in a canned answer like “Bidding Only an on premise implementation”.
A. It is true that the questions in section E.11.6 Platforms and Technical Options for CMS Modules relate only to hosted, off-premise solutions. Therefore, the response “Bidding only an on-premise implementation” is informative and removes ambiguity about the response.
33. Q. In the RFP it states “ADFS & Federation SSO – established” in Microsoft Azure. What version of ADFS has been implemented?
A. ADFS version 3.0
34. Q. Are there any ADFS proxy servers been deployed? Does the County prefer to utilize them for this RFP?
A. ADFS Proxy servers exist. Lake County prefers to use ADFS Proxy for SSO authentication. Trust relations will be required for Federation.
November 10, 2017
11. Q. In Proposer Staffing (Pg 30) in RFP document, you mentioned "resumes of key personnel". For that, do we need to provide Sample (Representative) or live resumes?
A. Per E.7.1 on page 30, provide the actual resumes of the key personnel including education, areas of expertise, professional certifications, and other projects on which they have worked and their roles in those projects.
12. Q. What is the Place of Performance (Onsite/Offsite)?
A. Please refer to question three below of the questions dated October 10.
13. Q. Is this Multiple or Single Award?
A. The County will accept and review proposals for any one or more of the systems in the Introduction of the RFP on page 1. In the event that certain Proposers meet the needs of some systems but not all systems, the County reserves the right to divide this scope into discrete contracts with multiple vendors, or to award a contract for less than the full scope outlined in this RFP in order to best meet the needs of the Justice Partners.
14. Q. Do you prequalify the Vendor's list?
A. A prequalification of vendors was not completed for this specific procurement.
15. Q. What are the Work hours for the proposed staff? (24*7*365, Day shift and so on...)
A. The standard work hours for this implementation is unknown at this time. This will depend on the solutions selected, implementation plan and the desires of each justice partner. However, the business hours of the Circuit Court and its justice partners generally are 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday to Friday.
16. Q. Is performance bond required?
17. Q. What is the term of the Contract?
A. The County will consider the term of contract offered by the Proposer. The County intends to implement and use the ICMS for the foreseeable future.
18. Q. What is the Start date of the project?
A. Responses are due January 4, at which point we will enter the four-phase RFP Evaluation Process. Lake County anticipates the award to be approved at the May 8, 2018 County Board Meeting if the process moves forward as planned.
October 17, 2017
- Q. Whether companies from Outside USA can apply for this? (like, from India or Canada)
- Yes, all proposers are invited to submit proposals.
- Q. Whether we need to come over there for meetings?
- Finalists will be invited to provide a demonstration in Lake County of the proposed module(s). This will include demonstrating scenarios as described in section B.6. Demonstrations may take about one day per module, up to four days if all modules are being offered by the Proposer.
- Q. Can we perform the tasks (related to RFP) outside USA? (like, from India or Canada)
- Yes, if you are referring to preparing your proposal. Implementation tasks must be performed on site.
- Q. Can we submit the proposals via email?
- No, proposers are to submit their responses via DecisionDirector as well as provide written verification that the answers provided are complete, accurate, and final.
- Q. What is the estimated cost of the Integrated Case Management System project?
- Lake County shall negotiate a contract with the best qualified proposer at the compensation determined in writing to be fair and reasonable.
- Q. Has the Department allocated funding for the Integrated Case Management System yet? If so, through which source (budget, CIP, state/federal grant, etc.)? If no funding is secured, which sources will be sought and when? If utilizing a grant, would you be able to specify which one?
- The Integrated Case Management System includes various stakeholders. Accordingly, the sources within the financial model will vary. It will be funded through various sources within the County, that could include one-time capital, special revenues and other county funding sources, both on-going and one-time.
- Q. Does the Department need to replace or upgrade any of the integrated systems in the next 5 years? If so, which system and when?
- If the IT department replaces or upgrades components of the Justice Technology Architecture described in Section D.5, that will not affect how Proposers will respond to the RFP.
- Q. Who currently provides Integrated Case Management System?
- Please read section D.1 and D.5 of the RFP document.
- Q. Who is the technical contact and/or project manager for the Integrated Case Management System?
- The Integrated Case Management System project plan will be prepared in consultation with the justice entities and County IT. Also, please refer to RFP Section E.7.2 Lake County Staffing which identifies the kinds of staff resources available during implementation.
- Q. Does the Department anticipate any professional or consulting services may be needed through separate procurements to accomplish this effort? (i.e. project planning/oversight, PM, QA, IV&V, staff augmentation, implementation services etc.)? If so, what services does the Department desire and how do they anticipate to procure?
- Please refer to RFP Section E.7.2 Lake County Staffing which identifies the kinds of staff resources available during implementation. Lake County’s expectation is that the successful vendor will have a full complement of dedicated project staff, including a project manager, for the duration of the implementation. The need for auxiliary professional/consulting services will be dependent on the solution (s) selected and the internal resources available at the time of implementation. If necessary, there will be separate procurement activities completed.
October 10, 2017
No Addendum's have been posted at this time. Please check back later.