CITY OF FRISCO PURCHASING DIVISION

Transcription

1 May 31, 2013 Addendum #1 Questions and Answers RFP # Enterprise Discovery for Electronic Records Questions and Answers CITY OF FRISCO PURCHASING DIVISION 1. The RFP states to use either AC, FR, 3P, NA If the requirement is available currently, type AC. If the requirement is planned for a future release, type FR. If the requirement is met by a third party, type 3P. If the requirement is not available or doesn t apply, type NA. The Excel Spreadsheet lists a different response for AC - CR (Current Release) Response (FR,CR, 3P,NA) To be consistent what is your preferred response for a feature that is available currently in the current release? A: Either response (AC or CR) is acceptable. 2. Are you planning on migrating SharePoint 2007 directly to 2013? a. Do you have an estimated schedule for this migration? A: Yes we are planning to migrate directly from 2007 to We plan to fully implement SharePoint 2013 by Q b. Will you be requiring ediscovery collection from SharePoint 2007 prior to the migration? A: No. c. Is the SharePoint 2007 a single repository of data, multiple repositories? i. Could you please elaborate on the IT Architecture of your current SharePoint 2007 environment? ii. How many SharePoint 2007 repositories currently exist? A: We will not require ediscovery of our SharePoint 2007 repositories. Please remove that requirement from your proposal. The SharePoint 2013 environment will be a single repository environment. 3. With regards to migrating from NearPoint Mimosa, do you have already have a strategy in mind? A: Yes, we plan to use PST files to migrate the data back to Exchange. a. What NearPoint options have been licensed and configured (Example options: MS Exchange, PST Archive, ediscovery, Content Monitoring, Disaster Recovery, Content Monitoring, Retention & Classification, etc.)? A: We are licensed for all of those options. We are only using the ediscovery feature at this time. b. How many Active Matters will you be migrating? 1

2 A: Active cases are not included in scope at this time. iii. Size? iv. Number of Custodians? c. Do you already have tools ready for migrating the data? v. What tools were you planning on using? A: We plan to export all the files we wish to keep to a PST file and import it into our Exchange environment. vi. Are these tools budgeted for separately from this RFP? A: There are no tools budgeted for at this time. If you have a plan or tool that could be useful than utilizing PST files, please include it in your proposal. d. How many Archived Matters? A: If this is referring to cases, there are 65 cases in the system currently and 49 of them are open at this time. There are usually 3-4 custodians. vi. What is the retention requirement for the Archived Matters? A: If this is referring to cases, we will use PST to archive these cases. The retention requirement varies depending upon the content of the case. e. Is the migration a part of this RFP or procured and contracted separately? A: The City is planning to use PST files, but is open to a solution as part of this RFP if the vendor believes it to be beneficial. 4. Could you please elaborate on the licensing the City of Frisco is intending to purchase for the On- Premise Exchange 2013 solution? a. Are you looking at a Standard or Enterprise Server License? A: Enterprise b. With regards to the CALS offered are you considering the Standard or the Standard PLUS the Enterprise? A: The CALS are Standard. c. Is this per user or per device basis? A: This is per user. d. Also have you taken into account the requirement for volume licensing to take advantage of the Archiving feature for Office Professional Plus 2007, 2010, or A: Yes. 5. With regards to using Exchange 2013, have you developed or formalized a document retention plan? A: Yes. a. How does the document retention plan detail retention, deletion, archiving of data? A: We plan to train users to utilize the retention features of Exchange 2013 to categorize s according to retention requirements. Generally can be considered one of the following types of retention: 1. Administrative Correspondence 3 years 2. General Correspondence 2 years 3. Routine Correspondence As Valuable 4. Capital Improvement Projects Correspondence Permanent 5. Legal Opinions Permanent b. What are the formal retention requirements you currently have in place? A: The City of Frisco utilizes the Texas State Library recommended schedules for local government. Are these changes with the migration to 2013? If so, how? 2

3 A: Exchange 2013 will allow the City to empower employees to use automated tools to delete s that are past retention. Currently it is a manual process to apply the retention schedules to and other documents. 6. What is the timeline to bring online the alternative locations specified below? Items: A: There is no timeline or plan in place to implement any of these alternative locations as we may utilize the capabilities of SharePoint unless the proposing vendor has a better alternative NTFS shares (estimate 4.5 TB) 4.16 SharePoint 2007 (estimate 400 GB) Disregard this requirement 4.17 SharePoint 2013 (not yet implemented) 4.18 Servers, Desktops, Laptops (estimate 1500 devices) Will the City need legal hold functionality as well? A: If you are referring to these alternate locations with your question, that is a desired feature but not a current requirement. As part of the ediscovery system, we require the ability to put records on Legal Hold as outlined in the requirements. We are exploring using Exchange 2013 legal hold features for but are not sure if it meets our requirements at this time. How does the document retention plan differ, relate to the above ESI? Is it the same, different for the Exchange component? A: The retention plan is the same for and other documents. Can you please elaborate on it? A: Please see #5 above for more information on the retention schedules. 7. PROPOSAL OPENINGS: Names of all proposers submitting proposals will be read aloud at the City s regularly scheduled proposal opening for the designated project. Will any additional information regarding the details of the proposal be publicized? With regards to the review of the proposal, will there be a non-disclosure agreement put in place to protect Proposer confidential and City of Frisco confidential information where applicable? A: Only names of proposers are read aloud at the RFP opening. Review and evaluation of proposals is confidential and information is treated as such. Any information that the proposer deems proprietary and confidential should be marked as such, on each page that applies. The City of Frisco is subject to the Public Information Act, and the Attorney General may rule that information must be disclosed. A non-disclosure agreement is typically not put in place. 8. TESTING: An agent so designated, by the City, without expense to the City, may perform testing at the request of the City or any participating entity. Is it possible to get further clarification on what is intended with this item? A: This is a standard term and condition, and allows the City the right to test equipment or supplies provided through a procurement process. 9. TITLE AND RISK OF LOSS: The title and risk of loss of goods shall not pass to the City until the City actually receives and takes possession of the goods at the point(s) of delivery. Please elaborate on what is intended regarding software. Does the City wish software specifically created and owned by them, or is City open to licensing software owned by Proposers? A: This is a standard term and condition, and typically applies to goods shipped and received by the City. The City is open to licensing software owned by the Proposer. 3

4 10. FUNDING: The City is a home-rule municipal corporation operated and funded on an October 1 to September 30 basis, accordingly, the City reserves the right to terminate, without liability to the City, any contract for which funding is not available. Can you please clarify the above statement? Is the City willing to pay for software and services duly ordered and delivered prior to a funding deficit? A: This is a standard term and condition. The statement allows the City to cancel a contract if funding is not appropriated in future years. 11. AUDIT: The City reserves the right to audit the records and performance of successful proposer during the term of the contract and for three (3) years thereafter. Can the specific terms of audits be negotiated during contracting? A: This is a standard term. The City will review and negotiate specifics during contracting. 12. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT: Successful proposer agrees to extend prices to all entities that have entered into or will enter into joint purchasing Interlocal Cooperation Agreements with the City. The City is a participating member of the Collin County Governmental Purchasing Forum (the Forum ). As such, the City has executed Interlocal Agreements, as permitted under Section of the Texas Government Code with certain other governmental entities in Collin County authorizing participation in a cooperative purchasing program. The successful proposer may be asked to provide products/services, based upon proposal submittal, to any other participant in the Forum. Is there a limit to the amount of time that this agreement is in place and are the members of the Interlocal agreement identified? A: The interlocal agreements with other agencies are typically evergreen agreements. However, this specific RFP can only be piggybacked during the life of the agreement. Once the City s contract has expired, it is not valid for other agencies to utilize. The City has interlocal agreements with most public entities in the DFW Metroplex, and a few other State of Texas agencies. 13. SUCCESSFUL PROPOSER SHALL: Defend, indemnify and save harmless the City and all its officers, agents and employees and all entities, their officers, agents and employees who are participating in this contract from all suits, actions or other claims of any character, name and description brought for or on account of any injuries, including death, or damages received or sustained by any person, persons, or property on account of any negligent act or fault of the successful bidder, or of any agent, officer, director, representative, employee, subcontractor or supplier in the execution of, or performance under, any contract which may result from proposal award. Successful proposer shall pay any judgment with cost which may be obtained against the City and participating entities growing out of such injury or damages. Is this provision negotiable? Can indemnification be handled by insurance? A: Indemnity terms on behalf of the City are typically not negotiable, and are typically handled in the contract terms and conditions. 14. TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT: The City reserves the right to enforce the performance of this contract in any manner prescribed by law or deemed to be in the best interest of the City in the event of breach or default of this contract. The City reserves the right to terminate the contract ---- immediately in the event the successful proposer fails to: (1) meet delivery schedules; or (2) otherwise performs in accordance with these specifications. Is the City open to negotiating an appropriate opportunity to cure, or specify specifics for default? A: Yes, this is something the City would consider when contracting. 4

5 15. With regards to the AFFIDAVIT OF NO PROHIBITED INTEREST is it permissible to use a Notary who is local to the Proposer? A: Yes. 16. Does the City of Frisco want the responding vendor to include as part of the RFP response (Section 5 Pricing) implementation services to also include migrating archived data from the current Mimosa Nearpoint archive to Exchange 2013? A: This can be included as an optional service and itemized separately. 17. Does the City of Frisco want the vendor to include as part of the RFP response (Section 5 Pricing) implementation services to also include migrating data currently on legal hold in Mimosa Nearpoint to the new ediscovery solution? If so, please provide information on the number of cases and quantity of data currently on legal hold as this will relate to the amount of time required for migrating legal holds, reproducing cases and queries if needed, and possibly affect pricing for the proposed ediscovery solution. A: There are 65 cases in the system currently and 49 of them are open at this time. All of the open cases are considered on legal hold since they are part of an active review. If the proposing vendor has services or a tool to offer for the Nearpoint conversion, you can include this an optional item. 18. Please respond with the number of staff to be trained on the proposed ediscovery solution including systems administrators and reviewers. A: We expect to train 3 systems administrators and 5 reviewers. 19. I have a question regarding RFP My company is the Texas-based provider of the Laserfiche enterprise content management (ECM) software. I understand that the City is requesting a solution to manage and streamline the discovery process with regards to electronic records and more specifically s. Many of our cities utilize Laserfiche for storing s, in addition to the rest of their content city-wide. The Laserfiche software includes all functions requested, plus much more. With Laserfiche, the City can maintain the records retention policies to include enforcing potential freezing and legal holds; an intuitive search interface is also a staple allowing records requests to quickly be completed. That said, the Laserfiche software exceeds the requested requirements as it also includes functions for document management and a robust Workflow engine which can be leveraged to automate business processes. The license can scale down and handle only the request for records. However, the robust functionality included is just part of the core Laserfiche software license and it can t be pulled out. On a second note, I am aware the City has a prior history with Laserfiche, though, that was not with us. Additionally, I believe Sire Technologies solutions may also already be in place. Question: With the above considerations in mind, would the City consider a proposal for the Laserfiche software in response to the bid request for enterprise discovery of electronic records? A: Our intent is not to replace the current Sire Technologies document management system. If the Laser fiche product meets the requirements outlined in this proposal, the City would consider the solution. 5

6 20. Another goal for this project is to enable the City Secretary to place individual s on hold. We need this process to be easy to manage and legally defensible. We intend to use the archiving features of Exchange to manage long term storage and are not interested in purchasing a separate storage device or system. The 1 st requirement above specifies that the City Secretary needs the ability to place s on hold. The 2 nd item specified that the City of Frisco will be utilizing the archiving features of Exchange to manage long term store. Q: Does the City of Frisco intend to utilize the legal hold capabilities within Exchange to preserve potential items in place? Or does the City require a 3 rd party discovery tool to manage the legal hold requirement? A: The City of Frisco intends to utilize the legal hold capabilities within Exchange to preserve potential items in place. However, we are not sure at this time if it meets our requirements and would like to know the capabilities of the proposed system Describe your implementation plan to duplicate legal holds currently set in the NearPoint archive. Q: Does the City of Frisco require the bidders to provide services to migrate the data from the current NearPoint archiving solution, including the data on legal hold, into the Exchange archive? A: No. Please disregard this requirement. 22. Our corporation maintains the required levels of liability insurance and is able to provide the Certificate of Insurance, the Additional Insured and the Waiver of Subrogation required for the above referenced RFP. For the submission of the bid, does the Certificate of Insurance already have to show the City of Frisco as the Additional Insured or can it be added upon award of the contract? A: This can be added upon notice of award of the contract. Proposers are required to acknowledge receipt of this addendum by initialing in the appropriate space on the proposal document. The due date for this RFP remains June 12, 2013 by 2:00pm CST. Vendors who may have already submitted a proposal and feel this addendum may change their proposal, may pick up their proposal, and return it by the closing date. If picking up the proposal is not feasible, any new proposal submitted by your firm will supersede one previously submitted. If there is a discrepancy between this addendum and the proposal, the addendum prevails. Sincerely, Daniel Ford, CPPB Purchasing Manager City of Frisco 6