ADDENDUM #1 JUDICIAL SERVICES CASE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE REPLACEMENT WITH DOUGLAS COUNTY RFP-13-85

Transcription

1 Arapahoe County Finance Department Purchasing Division 5334 South Prince St Room 480 Littleton, Colorado REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ADDENDUM December 4, 2013 Administrative Clarifications RFP ADDENDUM #1 JUDICIAL SERVICES CASE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE REPLACEMENT WITH DOUGLAS COUNTY RFP One ORIGINAL hard copy and TEN (10) USB copies, a TOTAL of ELEVEN (11) copies are due THURSDAY, December 19, 2013, 2.00 p.m. (our clock) # signatures must accompany the submittals: 1. Request for Proposal Cover Sheet Letter of Submission, any exceptions/assumptions the submitting party is taking must be stated in this letter. 4. SUBMISSION OF OFFERS: The original Offer must be received before the due date and time as specified in this solicitation. The Vendor is responsible for addressing the envelope as indicated below. If the submittal arrives late, it will be returned unopened. Address the envelope as follows: Arapahoe County Purchasing Division 5334 South Prince Street. Room 480 Littleton, CO ATTN: Theresa M. Chappell, CPPB Sr. Purchasing Agent RFP Points of Clarification The question period has expired Responses will be evaluated based on the evaluation criteria on page 8 Responses should follow the Response Format on page 14 & 15 as well as include all responses to all mandatory requirements. We will be verifying submittals include the following: Submittal properly acknowledged Copies included Addendum acknowledged Submission Form Mandatory Requirements: o The vendor must provide a Certificate of Incorporation or other format documentation supporting the requirements for years in business. o 3 References, Company Name, Contact Name, Telephone Number, address If a submittal is missing any of the above mentioned documentation the submittal may be returned to the Vendor as non-responsive and be deemed ineligible to participate.

2 Responses to Requests for Information 1. Is it possible that either Arapahoe County or Douglas County would contract and not the other? R. It is not probable. Both Arapahoe County and Douglas County are in need of this implementation to replace their current Judicial Services Case Management Software system. 2. What does Case Management mean? R. Case Management is a criminal justice term for an electronic file for tracking an individual s progress. 3. Page 16, #4, The judicial services case management solution must provide Arapahoe and Douglas County with the ability to manage Service Providers, which are those organizations where clients can be referred for treatment (e.g. mental health, domestic violence counseling, monitored urinalysis). R. We are looking for the recommended solution to provide a means to jointly manage (create, update, delete, and view) Service Provider information (e.g., name, description, treatment type, location info, status, work days, personnel, etc.) and for each agency to be able to search on these agencies. 4. Is it possible other counties will join at a later date? R. Arapahoe County and Douglas County would be open to sharing the solicitation and award documents with other government entities. It is possible that once other agencies see our solution, they would like a similar solution. They may also choose to share some of the same pretrial data we are looking to share between Douglas County and Arapahoe County. 5. Would the County extend the due date of this solicitation? R. The County is not considering a due date extension. 6. Does the County want the Excel documents (Attachment D and F) to be pasted into our response document (Word) in order to maintain the submittal format requirements as specified or submit as separate attachments in Excel to our response? R. Documents may be printed and pasted into the submittal or the Vendor may recreate the form without the County logo. 7. How would the County like for us to address costs that are not listed in the form that may be applicable to the project? Can we add rows to the form to accommodate? R. Vendor may add rows to the existing Pricing Form or use an attachment to the form without recreating the County logo. 8. The County goes into great detail in section VI through XIII of the RFP, which describes what expectations the County has for the vendor on the project. Are these sections represented in Appendix D? If not...how best should we address these sections in our response within the submittal format the County has provided? R. Section VI is a high-level synopsis of requirements represented in Appendix D. Section VII provides Arapahoe s system specs and states that the solution must be compatible with these systems. If the solution is not compatible make sure to include this in Appendix E. Section VIII is also covered in Appendix D, specifically #1007, CJS Can the County provide the amount of data that is required to be migrated/converted? Number of years, size of data, etc R. Douglas County: Implemented in 1999, but few cases entered before August The total database size is MB R. Arapahoe County: Implemented in 1999, Approximately 221K distinct case numbers. 10. Does Arapahoe and Douglas desire to have a single SQL database system separated by user security rights/rules or separate databases from one another? R. Arapahoe and Douglas County desire to have a single database controlled by security rights/rules so that each jurisdiction can create, view, update, and delete their own data and allow the other jurisdiction to view data. RFP Page 2 of 7

3 11. Arapahoe County currently has a custom-built solution that provides pretrial supervision clients, does Douglas County? R. Unsure of what the context is. Both Douglas County and Arapahoe County have a custom built solution we are currently using called Client Tracker. Each agency purchased the rights to use this application and, since then, each agency has made some changes to the product. Arapahoe County also has a custom built online check-in application that was built to integrate to Client Tracker. Douglas County does not currently have such a solution. Both agencies want the functionality contained in the online check-in application going forward. 12. Does the County desire the vendor to build the online access functions requested in the RFP using the existing Arapahoe County website? R. From a business perspective we care that the functionality exists. From a technical perspective we are open to either integrating to the existing Arapahoe County web application or using a new vendor solution. Whichever avenue is selected, both jurisdictions will need to use the functionality. 13. Are the county s looking to share online access requirements and site or must they be separate? Please provide additional information on what the vision is for this component of the solution. R. I m assuming since this question follows the one above, that the context is around the online web application built by Arapahoe County. If so, both jurisdictions desire the functionality currently contained in the web application. Both jurisdictions would like the core system and associated modules to be the same so as to increase maintainability. However, information entered by a client must still go to the appropriate offender and case for that jurisdiction and the web application must be accessible from each agency s website. 14. In addition to 1 original copy of the proposal does the County want 10 individual USB Drives each containing 1 copy of the proposal response? R. Correct. 15. Is Appendix A or Appendix B the prevailing contract? R. The selected vendor will contract with each agency independently. Therefore, Appendix A will be used for the agreement with Arapahoe County and Appendix B will be used for the agreement with Douglas County. 16. How best should the vendor submit exceptions to the County contract? Can we obtain an editable version for submitting exceptions? R. Editable versions of the contracts are not available. Vendor shall submit exceptions to the County contract(s) and a separate tabbed section of their submittal. 17. Regarding the LEARMS integration requirement, do the Counties have access to New World Software Systems API s? R. Douglas County: We do not currently have access to an API from New World that contains the information requested. We would have to work with New World to provide a list of criteria and obtain cost estimates. R. Arapahoe County: Yes, we access data through a source file upload. Yes, there are specific limited APIs within the LEARMS that ACG has access too. 18. Do ODBC drivers exist to connect to the data source, or can a direct SQL connection be established to the data source? R. Douglas County: Assuming we are still talking about the New World integration, the answer is Yes. Direct ODBC connections to a replicated database are available. R. Arapahoe County: Yes, ODBC drivers exists using the IBM ODBC DB2 driver. Yes, direct access from SQL to DB2 is possible. 19. To confirm the LEARMS integration requirement, will it be a one-way only integration from each LEARMS to the new Client/Case Management system? R. We will be obtaining data from the New World system. We will NOT be sending any data to the New RFP Page 3 of 7

4 World system. 20. Regarding the Online Access (portal) requirement, are Douglas County and Arapahoe County interested in keeping the existing Pretrial Supervision website in place and integrating it with the new Client/Case Management system (as opposed to introducing a new website / portal)? R. (Appears to be the same question as #12): From a business perspective we care that the functionality exists. From a technical perspective we are open to either integrating to the existing Arapahoe County web application or using a new vendor solution. Whichever avenue is selected, both jurisdictions will need to use the functionality. 21. If yes to the above question, do the Counties possess the source code for the custom-built integration between the Pretrial Supervision website and Client Tracker? R. Arapahoe County: Yes, the county has all source code for the Pretrial Supervision website. 22. Can the Counties share technical documentation regarding the legacy Client Tracker system in terms of data schema, number of tables, data volume, available API s, etc.? R. Arapahoe County: Please see attached table. We are not aware of a Client Tracker API. Arapahoe County has no issues sharing the database schema. R. Douglas County: Please see attached table. We are not aware of a Client Tracker API. Douglas County has no issues sharing the database schema. 23. What is the approximate number of records in each of the 10 largest tables in Client Tracker? R. Arapahoe County: Please see attached table R. Douglas County: Please see attached table 24. Are there other sources of data that must be converted besides the legacy Client Tracker system? R. No, other than the Client Tracker, we are not aware of any other data sets required for conversion. 25. What is the total number of users expected (is it limited to the 36 full-time employees referenced in the RFP, or will additional users need access)? R. Douglas County: There will be 17 named users, an estimated 7 judges (3 district court judges, 3 county court judges, and a magistrate) who will have read-only access and their own dashboard, and 10 additional Sheriff s office personnel who would also require read-only access. R. Arapahoe County: We have 22 staff who will need read/write access. An estimated 5 Judges will need read only access at a time. 26. Appendix D Requirements Row 17 Validate Address Does the county have a current solution for maintaining address data (ex. ESRI?) that the vendor will connect to, or does the Vendor need to supply a valid address database? R. Douglas County: Douglas County maintains address master records through a custom application built atop our ESRI GIS platform. This master address is used by all other County applications as a definitive source. This information is largely accessed from the DBMS or from derivative sources. This may be exposed via other methods such as GIS locator services. R. Arapahoe County: We do not have an address validation process in place using ESRI (ArcGIS). But address data does exist within our ESRI system. We currently use Experian QAS. The software validates Post Office supplied addresses as they are entered into any given application. We would need to acquire additional QAS licenses for PCs entering address information into the selected Judicial Tracker application. The purchase cost and yearly license cost is unknown. 27. Appendix D Requirements Row 28 Integrate with Douglas County's New World (v10) MSP - how do the Counties have access to the data currently? API s or is there a source file upload? R. Douglas County: CJS has access directly to the New World system via the client software. They do not have direct access to the database. Information obtained from the system is either downloaded, printed, and added to the client s manual file or manually copied into Client Tracker. There is no API or source file upload. R. Arapahoe County: Yes, a source file upload. RFP Page 4 of 7

5 28. Appendix D Requirements Row 62 - Regarding the UA & BA databases, how do the Counties have access to the data currently? API s or is there a source file upload? R. Currently this is a manual process whereby we submit paperwork to the vendor. The vendor has a website that we can log into and obtain results. The results are then printed out and added to the client s file. The results are also manually entered into Client Tracker. We understand that the vendor has a solution that would allow us to integrate directly. 29. Appendix D Requirements Row 66 Radius Search- Does the county have a list of approved facilities/addresses to use for baseline data in the proximity search? If this data is provided from an outside source, please identify it and when/how the data will be updated. R. We maintain (create, read, update, delete) the data on service providers internally. This information is available within the current Client Tracker application. No outside source is used. 30. Appendix D Requirements Row 81 Online Portal for Defendants. The system should provide an online portal for which clients can securely login Does the county have a current client facing portal application that will connect with the proposed system, or does the proposed solution need to include a client facing portal? R. We do not currently have a general client portal. Arapahoe County does have an online portal specific to pretrial supervision clients and used for client check-ins, but it is not meant to assist all clients. This is a desired, but not required feature. 31. Appendix D Requirements Rows , The Court Compliance Report, Arrest Warrant, Travel Permit, Court Reminder Letter, Victim Information Report, Electronic Monitoring Referral Report, Non-Compliant Letter. Will the county provide a sample copy of these and any other reports/template letters that have specific formatting which must be delivered as part of the proposed system? R. Yes. We have examples of all of these reports. However, it is not clear if you are requesting copies of the reports as part of the bid process or if you want to ensure that they can be made available as part of the project. 32. Appendix D Requirements Row 119, 175 Radius Search- Does the county have a list of approved organizations to use for baseline data in the proximity search? If this data is provided from an outside source, please identify it and when/how the data will be updated. R. This appears to be the same question as #29. We maintain (create, read, update, delete) the data on service providers internally. This information is available within the current Client Tracker application. No outside source is used. 33. Appendix D Requirements Rows & 232 Collect Fees The county has a system for collecting fees (Official Payments Services). What methods are available to connect with this solution (API or other?) Are these functions currently performed in the Official Payments Service solution? R. Douglas County: We currently have an optional requirement to integrate to Colorado.gov. The County uses two payment services solutions: Official Payments (Treasurer Tax Payments), Colorado.gov (Over-the-Counter, CJS Payments, Building Permits). The Official Payments solution was custom developed by the vendor. As such, we cannot provide any details on integration. Colorado.gov services are integrated via SOAP web services and a browser-based user interface. County applications create an order and invoke the web services to initiate payment. In the web browser, control is then transferred to Colorado.gov's user interface where payment details are captured (avoiding the need for PCI compliance of County systems). Once payment is complete, control is returned to the County application. These services could be invoked directly. Douglas County created a web services wrapper around their services to simplify the integration and support future change (significant upgrades, change in vendor, etc.) R. Arapahoe County COUNTY: Users are directed to the Official Payments website. All transactions are performed on the Official Payments website/network. Data is sent to and received from Official Payments using https post back. RFP Page 5 of 7

6 34. Appendix D Requirements Rows Collect Fees What Accounting system does the county have for tracking returned checks, partial payments, etc..? Is it permissible to integrate to the accounting system in order to collect this information in the proposed solution? R. Arapahoe County: Tracking of payments, partial and full, is done within the current Judicial Tracker system. Tracking returned checks is done manually. R. Douglas County: Douglas County currently uses JD Edwards EnterpriseOne for our accounting system. We rarely accept checks. We do accept partial payments. It was not a requirement to integrate with JD Edwards for this project, but we have the ability to integrate using various file formats or web services. 35. Appendix D Requirements Row 247 Online Portal for Agencies. The system should provide an online portal for which Agencies can securely login Does the county have a current Agency facing portal application that will connect with the proposed system, or does the proposed solution need to include a client facing portal? R. There is not a current portal for an Agency to submit their Agency Application form online. This is a desired, but not required feature requested by Arapahoe County. 36. Appendix D Requirements Row 292 Common Hyperlinks Please elaborate on the hyperlinks that may need to be collected/managed within the proposed solution. R. These would be hyperlinks to commonly accessed external websites such as: CBI - Credit Card - Credit Card sign in - State Courts - UA Results (Redwood) On page 4 item III-3-a and on page 23 item XI-1, it is stated that the county logo should not appear in the Response. Some of the submittal forms have the Arapahoe County logo. Specifically, the Request for Proposal Cover Sheet (first page), Request for Proposal Submission Form (page 24) and Substitute Form W-9 (page 26). Should we submit those forms without that logo? R. Utilizing documents prepared by Arapahoe County Government is permitted. 38. On page 8 Logos: Can you please expand on the preference that Responders not use their company s trademarks? Specifically, can we use our company logo in the submittal? Can we use the name of our COTS product (which we d be customizing) in the submittal? R. We prefer your company does not utilize its trademark/logo as to not influence an evaluator s evaluation however if a Vendors trademark/logo is present the submittal will not be rejected. 39. How many named users of the new system will there be for Arapahoe County? R. We have 22 staff with full read/write access and approximately 5 Read-only access for a time. 40. How many named users of the new system will there be for Douglas County? R RFP & RFP may be able to leverage the same Workflow Engine from the same vendor with RFP only requiring some additional capabilities from the same vendor. Additionally by acquiring this software it could be leveraged in many different cases throughout the County to significantly reduce the cost of solutions going forward for other business needs. Would the County be open to this? R. There is always a potential for one vendor to be successful in both RFP s, but because one of the two RFP s is multijurisdictional, the two RFP s will have to proceed separately. RFP Page 6 of 7

7 42. Do you anticipate needing Records Management or Case Management system capabilities in the future? R. No additional case management or records management systems have been defined at this time. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO ADDENDUM #1 Signature below indicates that applicant has read all the information provided above and agrees to comply in full. This addendum is considered as a section of the Request for Proposal RFP and therefore, this signed document shall become consideration and fully submitted with the original package. Signature Print Name Date Title Company Name RFP Page 7 of 7