E-Filing RFP Questions November 26, 2013

Transcription

1 E-Filing RFP Questions November 26, 2013 The Court highly encourages interested vendors to review the SF Local Rules of Court when responding to this RFP. RFP Requirements 1. Item No. 2 in Table 2 on page 5 of the Request for Proposal (RFP) requires proposers to have Five (5) or more years experience as an Electronic Filing Service Provider (EFSP) for Courts. The five (5) year minimum experience requirement will likely eliminate many proposers who might otherwise qualify and will potentially limit the bid to contractors who have or previously had e-service and e-filing service contracts. We suggest verbiage similar to the following: Currently acting as an Electronic Filing Service Provider (EFSP) for one (1) or more California Superior Court(s). Such services to be the same or substantially similar to those described in the attached Exhibit A Statement of Work. The Court has modified the RFP language to three (3) years experience; the remaining language stays as is written. 2. Item No. 8 in Table 2 on page 5 of the RFP requires proposers to provide [a]t least three (3) professional references. The proposers who have experience in the e-service and e-filing service space is very limited. Given this fact: a) What are the evaluation criteria for scoring the Professional References? The Court will call all references the proposer provides. One Court employee will call each reference and ask a serious of uniform questions to ensure fairness. The responses to the questions will be the basis for the proposer s score in this category. b) What are the evaluation criteria for scoring Experience? See section 2.6 and 3.3 of the RFP for the criteria. c) How does the San Francisco Superior Court (Court) intend to score Professional References? Will the Court give greater weight to services that relate to e-service and e- filing services? The Court will call all references the proposer provides. One Court employee will call each reference and ask a serious of uniform questions to ensure fairness. The responses to the questions will be the basis for the proposer s score in this category. The Court is seeking information pertaining to e-filing services in all aspects of the products and services described in this RFP with customers similar to or with relevance in the size, complexity and scope of this RFP. d) We suggest changing this item to read: At least three (3) professional references which may include current EFSP contact, as well as Users of such EFSP Services and or other E-Filing services. The language remains the same. The Court requests Proposers and its subcontractors provide three professional references who can attest to the experience in all aspects of the products and services described in this RFP with customers similar to or with relevance in the size, complexity and scope of this RFP. Page 1 of 10

2 3. Considering the Thanksgiving Holiday next week, it may behoove the court and all RFP participants to extent the timeline (1) week. Section 2.1-5, Proposal Due Date and Time to December 9, 2013 by 4:00 PM. The Court changed the date to December 9, 2013 at 4:00 PM. 4. Section 2.1. Given the RFP was just issued on Thursday November 14, 2013, we request that the Court extend the Proposal due date given the complex goods and services of this RFP and in order to allow vendors time to adequately review and prepare a plan that will serve to benefit the Court and the Public? The Court changed the date to December 9, 2013 at 4:00 PM. 5. Section We request that the Court eliminate the minimum requirement that the Proposer have 5 or more years of EFSP experience, so long as the Proposer can demonstrate a successful working E-Filing implementation with a court. E-Filing is still in its infancy with only a very few courts offering a system and by limiting prospective bidders with less than 5 years experience but who have a working implementation, the Court will be narrowing the number of bidders down to a very few and undermining the Court and Public's opportunity to leverage a competitive landscape from which to choose the best, most cost-effective solution. The Court has modified the RFP language to three (3) years experience; the remaining language stays as is written. Number of Vendors and Filing Volume 6. Section 2.8 of the RFP (page 11) states that the successful Proposer(s) will be required to execute a Contract but does not indicate how many proposers the Court intends to select. Does the Court intend to select one proposer or more than one proposer? It s at the Court s discretion to evaluate proposals and determine how many contracts, if any, will be awarded from this RFP. See RFP sections and How many vendors will the Court grant contract awards? It s at the Court s discretion to evaluate proposals and determine how many contracts, if any, will be awarded from this RFP. See RFP sections and Section 1.2. Project Management describes the Court s right to assign filing volume and case types per vendor. Does the Court intend to assign specific case types to each vendor? No. Will the case types that are currently assigned to the existing vendor remain with that company? Yes, at this time. Will the Court allow multiple vendors to support the same case types? Yes, for general civil. 9. If the Court only selects one (1) proposer does the Court anticipate allowing future EFSP vendors to participate in the Court s E-Filing Initiatives? The Court is open to the possibility. 10. In order to understand the size of the opportunity it would be helpful if the Court would provide the number of new cases civil Limited, Unlimited and Complex cases filed in the last three years as well as the number of active civil cases at present. Can the Court make this information available prior to the RFP response due date? At this time, the Court only accepts initial filings at the Courthouse. The Court accepts subsequent filings via e-filing. However, Court is considering allowing initial filings via e-filing. Please see separate attachment; RFP Data file. Page 2 of 10

3 Operational Questions 11. Our records indicate that sometime in the middle of 2012 your court awarded a similar contract for electronic filing services to Lexis-Nexis. We are concerned that by bidding on this proposed project that there might be some overlap with the contract with Lexis-Nexis. Can you clarify the current relationship with your Court and Lexis-Nexis? The Court is complying with Rule of Court 2.253(b) to expand civil E-Filing with more than one vendor. 12. Doe this RFP include new filings or just subsequent filings? The scope of work under this RFP is for subsequent filings only. 13. Will the existing vendor continue to do what they re doing? Yes, plus the additional e-filing cases that begin on January 27, Can you provide us the new e-file case types? See SFLR 2.10(A) effective January 1, Do you assign cases to the vendors? No, we will not assign the new civil e-filing cases that take effect on January 27, 2014 to vendors. 16. Assuming you want your existing vendor to act as an EFM, have they ever done this before and can you provide their API? The Court is not seeking the current vendor to act as an EFM. 17. Does the existing E-Filing vendor maintain the documents at their facility or at the San Francisco Superior Court, or both? With 18. Is E-Filing mandatory? If so, for which case types? Yes, please see Rule of Court SFLR 2.10(A) 19. Does the current vendor support E-Filing for Pro Se litigants? Yes. 20. Does this system anticipate supporting E-Filing for Pro Se litigants? Yes. 21. Does the Court intend to enforce an E-Filing civil case mandate as described in the proposed Local Rules while an additional vendor(s) are working with the Court to integrate and go-live? Yes. 22. Will the filers be required to deliver courtesy copies for E-Filings that require Court review, action, or signature directly to the assigned Judge s department? Yes. If so, will the vendor need to offer this service? Yes. 23. Section 3.4.1, Methodology and Project Plan describes the requirements for the vendor project plans. Is there a date by which the Court expects the vendor to have completed the project and go-live? The Court would like the vendor to go live with e-filing on or before January 27, 2014, but does understand that this might not be possible. Vendors are to estimate the timeline, based on the Scope of Work located in Exhibit A. Page 3 of 10

4 Filing Fee and Collection Technical Questions 24. RFP Statement: The Court expects the company to collect online payments and electronically transmit filing fees per Court established interface protocols...can you identify the vendor that supplies the established interface protocols? Each vendor is responsible to forward all monies due to the Court by ACH wire transfer by the morning of the next business day. 25. Can you provide more information about how the established interface functions, for example is current protocol collect money at the time the filer submits the filing or does the protocol collect the money after clerk accepts the filing? After the clerk reviews and accepts the filing, clerks need to have the ability to adjust (higher/lower) the statutory fees during review of the filing. 26. Finally, the successful proposer will provide easy fee billing services and a quality and costeffective service to filers and participate in a Court-established cost recovery methodology, which may include an invoicing component by Court to Contractor. How does this billing process interact with the previous statement about integrating to the established interface protocol? Does this billing mean billing after the initial filing? Does this mean payment for other fees on the case? The Court is deleting the cost recovery requirements from this RFP. 27. Section 1.2. Project Management describes among other things a requirement that the vendor participate in a Court established cost recovery methodology. Please explain the established cost recovery methodology. Is the vendor expected to pay the Court a fixed cost recovery fee per E- Filing transaction? If so, how much is the cost recovery fee? If the vendor charges the filer subscription fee for E-Filing how is the cost recovery fee calculated? The Court is deleting the cost recovery requirements from this RFP. 28. Section C.22. describes the forms of payment that vendor must accept from the filer. Can the vendor offer other forms of payment like ACH? Yes. 29. Section C.21. describes the vendors requirement to advance funds, invoice the filers and reconcile the filing fees with the Court. Will the vendor be designated as an Agent of the Court for the collection of Court filing fees? Yes. If the Court is designating the vendor as an Agent of the Court can the vendor assess a surcharge or convenience fee for accepting a credit card in order to cover the credit card merchant fees? Yes. 30. Section C.40. describes the reconciliation process for settling filing fees with the Court. Will the court allow the vendor to reconcile the filing fees via ACH at the end of each business day for the total of that days accepted transactions? The vendor reconciles and transfers via ACH once for the previous day s accepted transactions. 31. Technical Criteria: Regarding ACH fees. Allowing Pro Se litigants to E-File and later bill versus just attorneys create a collection concern. Can the vendor tight the control of who can use ACH with billing and for those that don't have financial credibility force a pre-deposit? The vendor Page 4 of 10

5 determines their billing processes. The Court requires vendors to accept all types of payments (ACH, Billing, Credit Card, or advance payment, etc.). Pro se litigants have the option to continue to file their documents at the Court, so long as all filers have the option to use the e- filing system. 32. Are vendors advancing funds? Yes. 33. How do we handle bad collections? EFSPs are responsible for collecting from dilatory accounts. 34. How do we handle uncollectible filing fees? And do we have recourse? See response to question Can we restrict pro se for how they make payments and may we have pro se pay in advance? EFSP to establish account billing and payment options and practice. 36. Will the vendors be agents of the court? Yes. 37. How is payment information tracked? There are dedicated Deputy Clerks to handle payment review. Refer to RFP requirements (vendor to provide daily funds transaction report associated with each case). 38. What requirements exist to make sure the payment process is Personal Credit Information (PCI) Compliant? It is unclear how the existing interface protocols function to insure that the credit card information is protected and insure that the existing interface protocol can function for multiple EFSP system. The Court will not be asking for personal credit card detail associated with the individual fee payments that the Vendor receives. It is the Vendor s responsibility to secure the PCI. Technical Questions 39. While we may have missed it in the RFP that you sent, we cannot find any reference to the XML format (e.g. 2GEFS, CCMS v2, NIEM 4.1) that the Court will require for the filing envelope. If we are correct that no format was specified, was this the intention of the Court? XML Format was mentioned in RFP. LegalXML V1 40. It seems a little confusing if you're looking for a single portal solution for all E-Filings or if this RFP would be awarded to multiple EFSP's providing a multiple vendor connection to the SF E- Filing System...similar to Orange County... No single portal solution at this time. Specific portal for each Vendor. 41. RFP Statement: integrate with San Francisco Superior Court s existing electronic filing solution in Asbestos, Complex Civil litigation, and Probate Trust cases, the Court s case management system, Integrated Justice System (IJS). Does this mean that the additional vendors software will interact with the existing Clerk Review process of the current E-Filing solution or does it mean Page 5 of 10

6 the San Francisco Superior Court have multiple Clerk Review interfaces and the integration is to the Integrated Justice System (IJS)? Will require multiple Clerk Review interfaces. 42. RFP Statement: integrate with San Francisco Superior Court s existing electronic filing solution in Asbestos, Complex Civil litigation, and Probate Trust cases,...as well as augment with the Court s Document Management capabilities for electronic filing. Does the San Francisco Superior Court have a Document Management capabilities that the new vendors work with, or does it mean that the current Document Management features exist only in the current E-Filing process and the San Francisco Superior Court need a new method that holds documents from all vendors when new vendors participate? Not required under this RFP. 43. Section 1.2. Project Management describes the purpose of the project. Does this mean that the vendor solution must integrate with the existing vendors system? Does this mean that the prospective vendor solution will need to support the existing vendors system? It would appear that there are three points of integration. Is that correct? If not, please explain the requirement in more detail. Vendor solution does not have to integrate with existing vendor system. 44. Does the San Francisco Superior Court anticipate each vendor will maintain the documents e- filed through them or will there be a central repository? Documents reside with the Court. 45. Does the Court s IJS, EFM and EFS systems have the ability to handle multiple proposers now or in the future? Yes 46. It is assumed that Court is responsible for the design, implementation and maintenance of the IJS, EFM and EFS systems; except to the extent that proposer(s) system must interface as described in the Statement of Work, Exhibit A. Only for IJS, EFM. Vendor is responsible for EFS interface with the Court. 47. Do the vendors provide document storage? No, document storage, remains with the court and the vendor has the unofficial copies without the court stamp. 48. Do we need to provide document management? No, the vendor does not need to provide this? 49. The SOW requires the winning contractor s system to accept all document types from Users and defines User as [a]ny party or non-party to an action who files or serves litigation documents and utilizes the services of an approved Contractor. (SOW Section C.3., and B.7, respectively.) Does the Court anticipate that the contractor s system will accept document types from Users who are vendors providing e-service and E-Filing services to the various User types? Yes. 50. Section C.1. The Court states it will provide data export files based on the Court Case Data structures. Please clarify if the Contractor is expected to create an Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) to import these Files? If yes, please describe the expected schedule for EDI tasks? If the Contractor is not expected to create an EDI, please describe what the expected format is? Court will provide data as necessary through Vendor Exchange protocol as defined by Court using XML. Page 6 of 10

7 51. Section C.1. describes the Technical Criteria. Will the Court system support web service calls in addition to data export files for integration? Not at this time. 52. Section C.8. Aside from the EFM Primary functions, please provide any secondary functions and related responsibilities of the Contractor. Contractor is only responsible for data exchange module. 53. Section C.10. describes the Technical Criteria. Will the Court provide documentation that defines the Court LEV1 XML Protocol? Yes. Sample XML and DTD will be provided. 54. Section C.12. Please clarify the last sentence, Contractor will develop the following information to be electronically applied to the Document. The Court is responsible for this. 55. Section C.12. Which document (submitted/returned) the information needs to be applied too and in what context. Court responsibility. 56. Section C.12. Please provide the definition of Multi-Case Service Only and in which context is it used. Ability to e-serve in multiple cases in one transaction. 57. Section C.16. Is it the expectation of the Court that the contractor will provide a separate User Interface for Court Staff (Judges, Staff)? If so, where would this User Interface reside? Hosted by the Court behind the courts Firewall? Hosted by the Contractors in front of the courts Firewall? User interface will reside on Vendor systems and be available to Court via web link. 58. Section C.16. Where are the accessible database(s) stored? All data once filed with Court will be accessible through Public Website and stored with Court. 59. Section C.17. Please clarify Contractor will not retain and/or distribute copies of case file/document submissions. If the Contractor cannot retain copies of case file/documents, what is the expectation of the court on how documents can be printed as required in C.16? Via Court Public Website. 60. Section C.19. If a user submits a new case (Case Initiation) filing with one EFSP, would that case then be assigned to the contractor? If so, would the user be able to do a subsequent filing with another EFSP? New filings are not being considered in this RFP. 61. Section C.19. Would a Judge be accessing the Contractors Portal? It is at the discretion of the judicial officer. 62. Section C.31. Would the Court or the Contractor host the mechanism to route documents to a judge s review queue? Contractor. Page 7 of 10

8 63. Section C.31. Would the Court or Contractor be expected to attach a Judge s signature? If the contractor where would this User Interface reside? Hosted by the Court behind the courts Firewall? Hosted by the Contractors in front of the courts Firewall? No. 64. Section C.37. Would the Court or the Contractor host this mechanism to enable clerks to review each incoming filing? If the Contractor, where would this User Interface reside? Hosted by the Court behind the Court's Firewall? Hosted by the Contractor in front of the Court's Firewall? Contractor site. 65. Technical Criteria: Full text searching can be a feature of a complete document repository but full text searching can be a feature of a specific document. When a TIFF image is embedded in a PDF/A document this does not lend itself to text searching but requires OCR of the image. Does the California Supreme Court require that each document that contains TIFF, JPEG, or other non searchable information to be scanned and have the text embedded in the document or is the searching at the repository level? Not required in this RFP. 66. Technical Criteria: The requirement identifies physical filings, and physical service. Are you anticipating that the E-Filing vendor provide these other services as well, or are you anticipating that the E-Filing system will work in conjunction with these other services so that if a paper filing is submitted to the court the parties using the E-Filing system will receive notice of such an event? Vendor responsibility for E-Service. 67. Technical Criteria: Can you clarify what it means to post to the IJS pick list? Not applicable to this RFP. 68. Technical Criteria: Can you clarify what the difference is between a court stamp and a court issued stamp? Court responsibility for All Court Stamps. 69. Technical Criteria: Can you clarify whether the clerk signature is a /s/ typed signature or an image of their signature? Court Stamp. 70. When do you plan on providing the XML structure? Can you post a sample structure? Yes, sample XML and DTD will is posted. 71. We need to know the workflow process. What is the workflow process for the clerk? Example: review e-filings, accept or reject filings, etc.? What are your expectations for the design or expectation for workflow process in relation to the civil e-file RFP? Clerks log on to EFSP site and views each submitted document, may edit document title and/or type, assesses/adjusts fees, accepts or rejects documents. Upon acceptance, data is pushed into the Court s EFM. Clerks complete a final review before processing into Court s case management system. 72. Is the document linking system through the same vendor portal? If yes, how do we do we link to that system? No individual portals. Page 8 of 10

9 73. What is the process for the judges review? Judge receives an notification in his/her EFSP inbox. Judge views an editable order from the EFSP site. Makes necessary changes, digitally signs the document. Saves the order to his local drive. The judge sends the signed order to the clerk who files and serves the document to the parties. 74. Is the vendor required to stamp the e-filed court documents? No, the e-filed documents are not stamped by the vendor. 75. After the e-file documents are stamped by the Court, does the document go back to the vendor? No. 76. How is the case number assigned? How do vendors check for case file numbers? And how are the case numbers and judges cases pulled? Prior to going live the EFSP can obtain a data pull that includes active case numbers, case name, and parties, firm and lead attorney information. Thereafter, the Court provides a daily data feed of newly filed cases with the same above information. Once a case is loaded onto the EFSP site the parties/attorneys remove or add themselves from the case. 77. How are the case numbers validated? See question 76 for response. 78. How are the parties to a case validated? See question 76 for response. 79. Will you have web services so people can access cases? Cases are available online through the Court s case management system. 80. Is there a requirement for electronic service? Yes. 81. Do you need the vendors to provide the e-serve? Yes, pursuant to SFLR Who will maintain the service list? At this time, the Court is not responsible for maintaining the e-serve list; however the Court will work with contracted vendors to determine possible modifications to this matter. 83. How are judges signature fixed onto the e-file documents? Internal application developed by Court s IT department. 84. Is authorization based on the firm or is authorized per attorney or representative? Pro se too? Pursuant to firm practice. 85. We have found that 99% of the time e-file customers want the official copy of the court documents. What is the Court s policy for e-file vendors to provide official copies of the court documents? And how may a customer receive an official copy of the court records which were e-filed? The Court s CMS is the official record of the Court. Parties can access the filed documents online through the Court s CMS. Page 9 of 10

10 86. What is the Court s expectation for scanned PDF documents? PDF-A Format 300DPI. 87. Does the Court have a process to allow scanned PDF documents to be searched? Minimal capability as defined on Public website. 88. What is the signature? Please see SFLR 2.10(N). 89. The statement of work, page 26, question 12 states Contractor system will provide case initiation, supplemental and amended filings support and a User may choose from one of three submission types: 1) File documents only to the Court, 2) File & Serve documents to the Court and designated users, and 3) Serve Only documents to designated users without Filing to the Court. Contractor will develop the following information to be electronically applied to the Document: Hearing date; Department and time; Certificate of Posting; Entry of Dismissal; and Entry Default. No information is applied electronically on document by contractor for any reason for this RFP. 90. The statement of work, page 26, question 12 states, The system will also support bulk filing, which consists of more than one document in a transaction, and the option of Multi-Case Service Only. Any transaction submitted for Filing should only reflect the case number for which it is intended to be Filed under. Filers have ability to file multiple documents for the same case number in a single transaction. Page 10 of 10