EDiscovery Q@A Question 1: In our initial review of the RFP we have some questions around the data volumes. Can you confirm the data volumes are correct? We are questioning the validity of the total data volume by file type. What is the anticipated total volume to be processed? 3.3.2 DATA SPECIFICATIONS The table below is a guideline of the data that is expected to be presented by the WCB as the initial source. Table 2 Data Specifications Data Type Size of Data Number of Files Doc 6.79 GB 51,823 Docx 1.28 GB 9,379 Nsf 1,083 GB 1,006 Pdf 156.33 GB 290,164 Xls 6.83 GB 22,977 xlsx 1.05 GB 5,794 Response: The Board has verified the data volumes and updated them as of October 29, 2014. The following are the revised data volumes to be presented by the WCB as the initial source. The total volume is not yet known as the opposition has not yet provided their documents. Data Type Size of Data Number of Files Doc 7.71 GB 54,928 Docx 1.60 GB 12,034 Nsf 1,400 GB 1,300 Pdf 186.45 GB 324,636 Xls 7.15 GB 24,466 xlsx 1.41 GB 8,041 Question 2: The RFP states that the 1 TB of NSF data is expected to be about 250 GB after deduplication. What is the expected volume after deduplication for the remaining 172.28 GB of data referenced in the RFP? Response: The volume of deduplicated Native files is not known. It is not expected to be high. Question 3: Is the WCB interested in the selected vendor providing attorney review services on the hosted data? Question 4: Are we correct in our reading of the RFP that Clause 12 of Appendix A does not apply to vendors located outside the state of New York? This section pertains to any entity doing business with the State of New York.
Question 5: The Word version of Appendix B and the PDF version of Appendix B appear to be two different versions of the Vendor Responsibility Questionnaire. Which version would you prefer we complete? Response: The WCB updated the Webpage related to this procurement; use the version located there: http://www.wcb.ny.gov/procurements.jsp. Appendix B5-Vendor Responsibility. Question 6: Additionally, we received only a PDF version of Appendices B7 and B-7b. We can complete those PDFs, but would it be acceptable for us to submit them in soft copy format on the CD as PDFs even though they're not MS Office files, as required by the RFP submission instructions? Response: The WCB does not require soft copies of appendices as part of the RFP response. It only requires hard copies of these and all appendices (with original signatures when applicable). Question 7: The Word and PDF versions of Appendix F appear to match, except for minor differences in page breaking. These Appendix Fs are very similar to Appendix G in the main RFP file, but Appendix G appears to differ in around a half dozen places from the Appendix F files. Should we just complete one of the stand-alone Appendix F files and disregard the Appendix G of the main proposal document? Response: This was corrected on website http://www.wcb.ny.gov/procurements.jsp. Bidders should use Appendix F-Requirements Traceability Matrix. Appendix G-includes the M/WBE forms to be completed (Forms MWBE 100G and 101G as well EEO 100G and 101G). Question 8: ID 36 - What is the maximum size of oversized paper that you will need scanned? We can handle very large sizes, but want to confirm the maximum size to expect. Response: Standard sizes of letter and legal paper would be the norm but we could have larger documents in the future, perhaps as large as of 36 X 48. Question 9: ID 64/65/68 - We have multiple methods of grouping documents. Are these specific items required or can we outline other equally robust methods of grouping the documents? Response: Having the ability to place documents into a virtual folder is a mandatory requirement. The ability to create document sets via issue codes, tags, and saved queries is also a mandatory requirement. Question 10: Can the proposal package be submitted via FedEx (Courier) and will the delivery confirmation/signature be considered proof of receipt? Response: (CEC) Yes, you can use FedEx, but you must be certain that the package will arrive before the scheduled time within the RFP. Question 11: If the Bidder/Proposer is authorized to do business in New York State, would this qualify our company as a responsive New York State Business? Response: Yes. Question 12: Are the bidders allowed to change the file name so that it is consistent and aligned with the RFP. For example, within the RFP document it states that MWBE Utilization Plan form as Attachment 1. However, the file name to the PDF is labeled APPENDIXG1-MWBE100GUtilizationPlan. Response: As long as all documents are submitted, they can be under a different name.
Question 13: It is specified in the RFP that the Cover Letter, Technical Volume I, and Cost Volume II are produced and labeled as a separate document. However, specific directions have not been provided as to how the Appendices and/or Attachments are to be submitted in both hard copies and softcopy on CD. Please clarify if the Appendices/Attachments are to be submitted with either the Technical Volume I OR the Cost Volume II. Response: Please submit the appendices/attachments in hard copy with the Cost Volume. Question 14: P. 48 of the proposal, under 4.5.2. Contractor's experience states that sample experience "must include at least 2 years of providing a hosted e-discovery solution." Is that 2 years across all 3 projects or does it need to be within 1 project? Response: Contractor s experience should indicate that they have provided EDiscovery solutions for at least two years.. Question 15: On page 6 of RFP, section 1.3 PURPOSE OF RFP: The data source represents ESI up to March 2014. Will there be additional data that is expected post March 2014? Response: Yes, see response to question 1 for more current information. Question 16: On page 6, section 1.3, also page 19, section 3.3.2 DATA SPECIFICATIONS: Organization and structure of data; will the Bidder receive the raw data in some litigation support tool where the data will be extracted from? A. Is the information housed in a litigation support platform (e.g., Summation, Concordance, Relativity, etc.)? B. Please describe how the data is organized now. Response: As native files. C. Is there Chain of Custody for data? Response: Yes D. What information will NYS WCB be able to provide to Bidder to assist us in performing a data audit upon receipt to ensure completeness and accuracy of the information? Response: A Spreadsheet with MD5 values of the native files will be provided. E. Does the Board maintain all original data as received or developed such that the Bidder will be able to conduct a full assessment of the quality and completeness of the ESI provided to us against any original data sources? Response: The hosting provider will not be responsible for WCB onsite collection, nor the completeness of the ESI provided. F. Please describe what information available about the ESI that Bidder may use and rely upon to perform a data quality audit upon initial receipt of the data. Response: Validate the Md5 report matches the files provided.
G. Who at NYS WCB will be available to assist Bidder if there are deficiencies in the data set that need to resolved/addressed? Response: An Information Technology Services representative will be provided. H. Once the contract is awarded, what is NYS WCB s expected timeline and process to transfer data to Bidder? Response: It is anticipated that data will be transferred within 1 week of contract being executed. Question 17: In Appendix E, would it be acceptable to include additional new columns (e.g., BIDDER Unit of Measurement column and/or Explanation column) where Bidder pricing per unit may differ or requires explanation for inclusions/exclusions? Response: No, the pricing must be as described within Cost Volume worksheet, however, you can include any explanations on a separate sheet. Question 18: pg. 57, Section 5.3 Proposal Evaluation Process- This question relates to the points allocated to the vendor technical and cost proposals, respectively. Regarding the technical score, we observe that different agencies take different approaches - some use a raw score and use that as the technical points allocated; others use a raw score and then normalize the technical points so that the vendor with the highest technical score receives 50 points (using WCB s 50% technical / 40% cost weightings). In assigning a cost score, agencies invariably use a proportional allocation in which the highest cost score receives 40 points. Can you specify the methodology WCB plans to use to allocate the technical score? Will it be the "normalized" method rather than the "raw score" method? Response: The Source Selection Plan, which is an internal document, includes the methodology. Question 19: pg. 50-56, Section 4.6 Volume II-Cost Volume Format- The question relates to how pricing information should be provided. Generally and specifically where pricing may be hourly rather than unit-based (e.g. per GB) or vice versa, is the expectation that pricing should be provided broken down by line item as set out in Section 4.6? Should pricing be provided in the specific units set out, or may pricing be provided in a different, potentially more advantageous manner? In other words, how closely must we conform to the Distinct Components and sub-item of Section 4.6? Response: You must absolutely conform to the pricing unit of measure within the Cost Volume Worksheet. Question 20: pg. 15-17, MWBE Forms- Please confirm which forms related to MWBE participation should be included in the proposal. Page 15 indicates that Attachment 3, M/WBE Participation Information should be included, however, we cannot find this form in the RFP. Page 17 states that Attachment 4 is the Form # EEO 100-G, however page 15 states that Attachment 4 is the MWBE Subcontractor Participation Log. Response: The following forms located on the website under http://www.wcb.ny.gov/procurements.jsp must be completed and submitted with the Cost Volume worksheet; MWBE 100G and MWBE 101G and EEO 100G and EEO 101G. There may be other forms required of the awarded contractor. Question 21: With regards to Technical Specifications section items 128, and 129, to come up with more factual timing values we would need to know how many documents would be exported. Can you please clarify this Technical Specification? Response: Technical Specification Item 128 should read: The time it would take to run a "Document Privileged" report, when 1,000 documents are marked privileged.
Technical Specification Item 129 should read: The time it would take to run an Export Batch report, when 20,000 documents are being produced. Question 22: With regards to Technical Specifications section items 181, 182, and 183, we are not sure how you would like us to quantify the performance impact to our hosted solution. Can you please clarify this Technical Specification? Response: Technical Specification Item 181 should read: The impact to the current case performance when adding 100,000 documents to a case. This is measured by running the Technical Specifications Query item 152 prior to loading data and then again during the data load. Both times must be presented. Time should be evaluated to the tenth of a second. Technical Specification Item 182 should read: The impact when running a 10,000 page Static production to the current case team. This is measured by running the Technical Specifications Query item 152 prior to creating the static production and then again during the creation of the static production. Both times must be presented. Time should be evaluated to the tenth of a second. Technical Specification Item 183 should read: The impact when OCRing 5,000 pages. This is measured by running the Technical Specifications Query item 152 prior to starting the OCR job, and then again during the OCR job. Both times must be presented. Time should be evaluated to the tenth of a second. Question 23: With regards to Technical Specifications section item 207, we are not sure what is meant by The time it would take to add an automated e-mail based on a document tag. Can you please clarify this metric? Response: The time it would take to develop the following specialty task. Automatically email the lead attorney, once at 4:00 PM. If during the previous 24 hour period someone tagged a document as Hot, then move the reviewed document into a restricted issue code, to prevent normal reviewers from viewing the document, but allowing senior reviewers access to this document. Question 24: Is it required that contractor processes.nsf files in native format? Do you intend to review Notes documents in native format? Response: NSF files will be presented to the hosting provider. The emails contained in these files will need to be reviewable, but outgoing productions will be standard Static (Image) productions, or as native file PST files. Question 25: You require that the vendor possesses scanning and print blowback capability either directly or in partnership with another vendor. Does the scanning and blowback work need to be done locally (in Schenectady) or can it be performed in New York City at or near our office? Response: Scanning, and blowbacks can be performed anywhere in the US. Question 26: Does the Board have a preference between an ediscovery platform that is hosted at the New York States consolidated data center verses a solution hosted by the service provider (e.g. Grant Thornton)? Response: Data must be hosted by the service provider. Offsite replication for disaster recovery is also a requirement. Question 27: Does the Board have a desired timeline for the period after the beginning of the contract term? Specifically, does the Board have dates in mind by which it expects the estimated 1 TB of ESI to be processed and available for review?
Response: The Board expects the estimated 1 TB of ESI to be processed two weeks after receiving the data. Question 28: Does the Board anticipate any structured data (e.g. databases) whose contents will need to be reviewed? Question 29: Are any of the NSF files password protected? If so, what percentage and are the credentials for those files available? Response: The NSF files provided are not password protected. There is a < 1% occurrence of password protected files. Question 30: In addition to the NSF files, a significant portion of the initial data is expected to be in the form of PDF documents (156 GB and 290,164 files). Can the Board give an estimate of what percentage of those files are either password protected or scanned documents? Response: The percentage of Password Protected PDF files is <1 %. The percentage of OCR d files is 11%. The percentage of OCR d PDF files is between 11% and 30 %. These percentages are approximate. Question 31: What has been the typical case size in the past two to three years, number of litigations, number of custodians, and total volume per matter? Response: In the past three years the volume of WCB data is 1 TB (1,400,000 documents). The WCB data will be split into all of the various cases based on keyword search terms. At this time there have been two cases broken out. Case 1 was 105,402 documents. Case 2 was 4,174 documents. No additional statistics are available at this time. These are approximates. Question 32: Would WCB require document review services as part of the scope of this procurement? Response: No Question 33: Does WCB typically also collect full forensic images from the custodians or is WCB only relying on server data? Response: No, the WCB does not collect full forensic images. Question 34: What kind of encryption does WCB allow individuals to use within Lotus Notes? For example, can individual users encrypt emails? Response: No, the WCB does not allow individual users to encrypt emails. Question 35: The number of New York State certified Minority and Woman-owned Business Enterprises (MWBE) to support the very specialized scope of work this RFP addresses (i.e. e-discovery hosted solutions) may be extremely limited. Will WCB allow and/or provide direction on the possibility of proposing MWBE firms (in the MWBE Utilization Plan) that currently do not have New York State certification but plan to obtain that certification prior contract start? Response: Yes, as long as they become certified before the contract execution date. Question 36: Will WCB specify which of the appendices (e.g. Appendix B Vendor Responsibility Questionnaire, Appendix B ST-220 CA) need to be included with the proposal and which would be due post award (or are informational)? For those appendices required to be submitted in the proposal, will WCB which volume they should be included with? Response: All appendices must be completed and submitted with the Cost Volume. Question 37: How many providers are participating in the RFP?
Response: Unknown. Question 38: Will there be an in-person meeting as part of the selection process? Response: See RFP page 58, Section 5.3.3 The top ranked Contractors, based on their combined Technical Volume and Cost Volume scores, will be invited to provide a technical demonstration of their system and oral presentation on their proposals, at the Board s Schenectady office. These Contractors will be required to bring their key personnel to the technical demonstration/oral presentation. A sample source will be provided, in advance of the demonstration, so performance metrics can be verified. Question 39: Section 3.3.1 indicates that you require a review tool solution with cross-browser capability, not limited to IE. To confirm, will you consider any review platform, so long as it meets that criteria? Response: Yes, the requirement is that it works with Internet Explorer 11 plus another browser. Question 40: Appendix H is this provided just to confirm our ability to create and store fielded data in the fashion indicated on the doc? Please explain if there is any additional action item required with respect to Appendix H. Response: The attachment is for illustrative purposes, but should be used to understand metadata fields that will be provided to you, and the fields and order that will be expected as outgoing productions. Question 41: Are there any font/margin/formatting specifications we should adhere to when drafting our primary proposal and supporting documentation? Question 42: Please confirm: The proposal in volume 1 should contain a narrative description indicating how we propose to meet the requirements as outlined throughout the RFP and in Section 3.3.3. We are then to use Appendix F to indicate where, within, our proposal, we have stated how we plan to meet each requirement. Is our understanding of the format of our response correct? Response: Yes. Question 43: Are there any restrictions on information provided as an Appendix or Exhibit? Response: The Board requires the hard copy of the appendices and attachments which should be submitted with the Cost Proposal. Question 44: How much of a role will previous exposure and experience with a vendor and/or particular software play in your selection decision? Response: None. Question 45: Do your decision makers have any previous experience using the Ringtail platform? If so, what is the scope of that usage and during what period of time did it occur? Response: None. WCB has no previous experience using the Ringtail platform. Question 46: Assuming that you find a satisfactory solutions, will you promote and/or share the review platform of the winning bid with other State or Municipal agencies in New York? If so, will those agencies be able to procure under this contract or will a separate bidding process be required? Response: Unknown. Question 47: Have you awarded previously similar contracts for document hosting services related to electronic discovery? If so, how often? When was the last contract awarded?
Response: there have been no prior similar contracts awarded. Question 48: In several questions within the RFP, there are requests for the time required for task completion related to ten boxes of paper. What is the total assumed paper document volume? Response: See technical requirements item 40 and 41. It describes 10 bankers boxes of 2,500 pages. It is expected that the metrics will use 25,000 pages as the paper document volume. Question 49: The RFP requests the ability to access documents from remote locations during depositions and/or court hearings. We seek to better understand your exact requirements. Do you require the ability to: a. Access online documents remotely? Response: Yes. b. Code online documents remotely? Response: Yes. c. Access a set of documents offline? d. Code offline documents remotely? e. Synchronize offline document coding with the online database? Question 50: Can you provide more details around the specific ad-hoc administrative queries needed when requesting read-only access to our SQL database? What specific reports do plan on creating once granted access to our SQL database? Would the denial of access to our production SQL database environment eliminate us from further consideration? Response: It is uncertain what ad-hoc reports will be needed. Denial of access to SQL will not eliminate you from consideration but it will reduce your overall score. Question 51: Will the absence of real-time Active Directory Authentication and Active Directory Group Integration deem our proposal non-responsive? Question 52: What will be the penalty for a bidder that has: Less than 20% participation from a MWBE? No % participation from a MWBE? Response: The vendor is required to make every effort in obtaining an M/WBE for subcontracting. While there will not be a penalty, they may be additional points awarded for obtaining a M/WBE subcontractor. Question 53: Regarding #16 on Page 21: Can you please define what you mean by no searchable text? Does this mean documents where text cannot be extracted? Please describe the document types (images, multi-media, etc.). Response: See Technical Specification 16, Linear Review Folder A second folder must be created to hold all documents that contain no searchable content. This folder must be called "Linear Review". No searchable content is any document that contains no content and therefore can t be identified using Keyword search terms. This document must be identified and placed in a folder for manual review. Examples of no content documents are password protected files; images that can t be OCR d, Media File types, etc. Question 54: Regarding #39 on Page 23: Please confirm that WCB will be providing supplemental meta-data to support the building of load files for scanned paper documents.
Response: With regards to paper productions the only metadata WCB would provide would be at the scanning batch level, not the document level. Question 55: Do you recommend a specific approach for respondents to match the requirements in Attachment F (Requirements Traceability Matrix) to Volume I while keeping with the Volume I format as requested in the RFP? Response: The bidder must use Appendix F-Requirements Traceability Matrix and indicate what page & paragraph within their proposal has satisfied the requirement. Question 56: Can you provide the estimated value of this RFP? Question 57: Who currently performs the work and for how many years? Response: Performed internally. Question 58: Regarding references for work performance, do they have to be on the private sector, government, or a combination of both? Response: References for either category is appropriate. Question 59: What % of the cases are complex and will require multiple and senior level reviewers? Response: All cases will have WCB senior level reviewers. The proposal details that between 1 and 15 reviewers will be working on any one case. It is not expected that the service provider will review any WCB documents. Question 60: Do you expect from us to use your current logs, templates, and in-house processes for audit and reporting purposes? If not, do you expect from us to design and implement new ones? Can you provide samples and data metrics for such logs and reports that you use today that comply with your Agency s standards? It is expected that the hosting provider will use their experience with other customers to design and implement at least the following seven reports listed below. As long as all content is provided the hosting provider can propose different field designations and additional fields. Ingestion Report: See Technical Specifications 12 & 123. The service must maintain a record, per data ingestion set, of the volume of the data presented by the WCB, the custodians provided for ingestion, the number of files provided, the number of searchable documents loaded, the number of non-searchable documents loaded, the date of presentation, and the date the data was ready for review. Deduplication Report: See Technical Specification Item 48, The service must provide a list of all the documents removed as duplicate data. For example, Sender, Recipients, sent date, attachment names, Filename, File Path, MD5 Value, custodian, data load identifier, document id of data in the database. De-Nist Report: See Technical Specification 50 for more information about this report. Example fields would be; Filename, File Path, MD5 Value, custodian, data load identifier, document id of data in the database. Reviewer Audit Report: - See TechSpec 91, The review solution must include auditing of all document events, including but not limited to: ingestions, foldering, issue coding, deduplication, printing, searching, and outgoing production. The audit should include at a minimum a user identifier, the document identifier, the date and time of the activity, plus any comments associated to the event. Examples of some additional fields; Reviewer ID, Document ID, Folder Name, Issue code, Redaction Reason, Search parameters Run, Timestamp of inclusion, timestamp of exclusion,
Redaction report: For more information about this report See Technical Specification 125. Example fields could be; Sender, Recipients, sent date, attachment names, Filename, File Path, MD5 Value, custodian, Document id, Production #, redaction reason, Reviewer who did the redact, timestamp of redaction. Privilege report: See Technical Specification 124, The review solution must include a "Document Privileged" report. This report must include the review solution document id, a production id, with the following metadata fields as appropriate per document: Document Type (E-mail, Attachment, Loose File), From, To, CC, BCC, Subject, Date Sent, Time Sent, Filename, File Title, Author, All applied Privilege codes, all Document Summary Comments. Export Production Report: See Technical Specification 126, When the WCB requests an export production, a unique export production Batch ID must be created. An export production batch report must also be created. The report must include the number of documents being exported, the production IDs exported, the date and time of the export, a detailed list of any export errors, a description of the rules used to identify the export documents (ex. All documents returned by a specific query). Question 61: We perform our own Q/C to verify the quality of our Predictive Coding process. Is your requirement to train your staff to do the same part of a second level verification? Response: It is expected that the service provider will be responsible for verifying the quality of the Predictive coding process. There will be a WCB senior reviewer working on each case who will work in partnership with the hosting provider to set up the seed sets and perform the Software decision training until the software meets its confidence threshold. If the hosting provider has experience that identifies needs of a second phase verification process then the hosting provider should identify that their solution involves additional review after the confidence threshold has been met. Question 62: Do we need prior authorization to assign more than one reviewer for complex cases? Response: WCB will provide the names of the reviewers who will be working each case. These reviewers will be WCB employees. Question 63: With regard to the data specifications assuming we receive data on a rolling basis - what would be the average data size received per month? Response: The hosting provider should expect the initial data volumes as a bulk presentation. After that point it is uncertain how much data will be provided on a rolling basis. Question 64: Based your current experience, what is the average data size range for your typical e- Discovery matter? Response: See the initial data source size in response to question 1 and recognize it will be split into 25 separate cases. Question 65: Do you have a specific preference for e-discovery review or software platform? If so, what issues have you had with your current review and platform? Response: There is no specific preference. Question 66: Please clarify your use of federated searches are you looking for one search that may be run simultaneously across multiple hosted databases to achieve one unified result report? Response: Yes. Question 67: Do you require a single audit report per day for all daily review activity? Will you accept audit logs for ingestion and deduplication that are separate from audits of foldering, issue coding, printing, searching and outgoing production?
Response: There is no need for daily activity reports. The technical specifications describe an Ingestion/deduplication monthly report, a separate monthly activity report (foldering, issue coding, printing, searching), and a separate outgoing production report. Question 68: Will you accept a visual demonstration of the tools by one of our certified trainers via a WebEx tutorial instead of a video tutorial? Response: The requirement is to describe the forms of training available. With respect to technical specifications 194 196 on demand video tutorials are not mandatory. Question 69: Regarding the costs for separation and loading of initial data source into 25 initial cases based on keywords provided by WCB, have the keywords been pre-determined and are ready for final application or will an ECA/EDA environment be required for iterative testing and refinement of these keywords before finalized? How complex will these keyword searches be and what search syntax standards do you currently use? Response: At this time there are 6 of the 25 cases with keywords available. The other keywords will be presented over time. Refinement of the cases that do not currently have agreed upon terms may require the software to help refine the terms. Keywords will require Boolean logic, proximity searching, wild card searching, and word stemming. See technical specifications 107, 109, 138, 139, 141, and 142. Question 70: Regarding the costs associated with editing of the WCB case template and the costs associated with assigning users to their various roles, do you consider an edit to include potentially multiple changes to a schema? How many users and how many roles? Response: Once a security review schema is created we don t expect significant changes, but the ability to implement changes is a requirement. It is expected there will be 3 different review roles. (Manager, Senior Reviewer, Primary Reviewer) Question 71: Regarding the cost per concurrent reviewer, please define concurrent. Response: Concurrent means multiple reviewers using the tool at the same time. Question 72: Regarding the costs per GB of hosting data and backups, does this include both the document repository and database GBs? Are you looking for a cost based solely on the document GBs? If the former what is the assumption for database size given a document size? Response: The per GB charge is based on the incoming document GB volume, plus the size per GB of the indexed case data at the time of ingestion. The index volume will need to be reported back to WCB as part of the ingestion reports. This will allow WCB to have a verifiable volume, and it will allow the hosting provider to use their experience to make a valid cost proposal. Please see revised Cost Volume worksheet on website. Question 73: How many hours of support outside of reporting should be expected each month - for batching, help with searches, etc.? Response: It is expected that technical support, and case support will be covered by the hosting provider. It is expected that the hosting provider will use the experience they have gleaned from other customers to identify how many non-covered support hours they will need to charge per month. This figure should be based on past experience with other customers that are running 25 cases, and 15 reviewers. Question 74: Regarding the cost per GB for any preprocessing work required, such as but not limited to Deduplication, OCR, Data problem identification and resolution, metadata mapping, data filtering and
De-Nisting, does this include keyword searching? Are these native files or are these images produced from another party? Response: Preprocessing can include keyword culling. The initial set of documents is described in the RFP as Native files. It is expected that there will be additional PST files provided and static productions provided as well. WCB will be providing Native file productions. It is unknown at this time how much volume the Opposition will provide but it is expected the volume will come as Static/Image productions. Question 75: Regarding the cost of making a static production of all documents (Text, Metadata), please define static. Response: Please refer to technical requirement 42. A static production is the industry standard for productions as Tiff, Text, and Metadata as consistent with the industry standard EDRM XML, and/or Concordance formatted productions. Question 76: Regarding the cost associated with redacting files that can't be dynamically turned into a tiff images, would an example of this be Excel documents requiring redaction? Response: Yes, excel documents would be one example. Other examples should be based on your experience with the number of problems that your software has creating tiff images from native files as they are needed for redaction. Question 77: Regarding the estimate for training administration fees, could you please provide examples of training administration? Any specific tools that WCB or the State prefers? Response: The cost proposal is designed to identify all charges that would be related to training. If you do not charge for training administration then a value of $0.00 should be recorded. Question 78: Regarding our estimate for cost for Technical Software Development training, could you please describe in further detail and provide some examples. Response: If your solution provides APIs, or SDKs that a developer could use to automate standard review processes then how much does it cost to train someone to use these tools? Question 79: Regarding the cost for Legal Documentation that would help WCB successfully defend the use of the review solutions implementation of this technology, what type of "Legal Documentation" are you referring to? Is this a formal certification or affirmation under court rules or an informal technical description of the processes and validation measures? Response: A formal certification or an affirmation under the court rules is sufficient. Question 80: Regarding our estimate for costs the WCB would incur if they needed someone to help them identify and create seed sets, please describe tasks that would assist with "identify" and "create" seed sets. Response: The hosting provider should collaborate with WCB lead attorneys on their use of keywords, or other techniques (custodians, dates, document locations, etc.) to identify viable seed documents for use as predictive coding sample sets. The hosting provider should be able to demonstrate how to place these documents in folders so their predictive coding solution can use these documents in the most appropriate way. Question 81: Please define "disengagement"? Please confirm whether WCB would in disengagement typically request export of the entire database in EDRM XML form or just the production sets in EDRM XML form (or some other form). Response: Disengagement is the act of exporting all the case data prior to the completion of the case. This action is different from a case closing. In a disengagement the exporting would be all documents in
EDRM XML format, which will capture the folder and tagging information associated to a document in the review process. Question 82: As for the cost of the Project Manager and fees should be identified based on a case data volume, please confirm this should be quoted on a per GB basis. Response: Please see revised Cost Volume worksheet on website. Question 83: Appendices A, B, D, E and H appear to be blank pages in the PDF we received. In some cases, the contractor is asked to provide additional information as outlined in the appendices, as applicable. Can we confirm that these appendices were intentionally left blank? Response: The pages were left intentionally blank. The appendices are on the website in individual documents; http://www.wcb.ny.gov/procurements/rfpc140347/ediscovery.jsp Question 84: In addition, we do not appear to have an appendix related to the metadata requirements (H), as indicated in the table of contents. Will the metadata requirements be specified in a separate attachment? Response: Appendix H-Metadata Requirements is on the website at: http://www.wcb.ny.gov/procurements/rfpc140347/ediscovery.jsp Question 85: What data sources can we expect to receive/collect (ex: Outlook emails, Lotus emails, network shares, CD/DVD, legacy systems, etc...)? Response: Please refer to response to Question 1, which updates, Section 3.3.2 data specifications for the primary files of incoming data. The WCB will be providing additional lower volume native file productions of PST files, and other MS office file types. These are the data sources that WCB controls. It is expected that WCB s opposition may provide other file types as concordance formatted static productions, but in some instances they may provide data as Native File productions. It is unknown what this volume will be at this time. This opposition data will be identified per case. The WCB expects the hosting provider will be able to ingest all native files presented. The hosting provider will be receiving encrypted hard drives or DVDs of all data collected directly from the WCB. Question 86: Are any of your systems encrypted? If so, what type of encryption? Response: WCB does not have a practice of encrypting data except for data transport. Question 87: Are you currently using any tools/applications internally for ediscovery? Response: Yes. Question 88: Besides English, what languages will need to be supported? Response: None that we are aware of at this time. Question 89: What is the expected duration to provide these services? Response: Pursuant to the RFP, this a three year engagement with optional renewal terms. Question 90: Are data collections limited to locations within New York? Response: Yes, all data collections will be performed by WCB in New York State. Question 91: Often times we recommend Scanning and paper providers, and the company contracts directly with the provider with our oversight, would this model be acceptable?
Response: No, the vendor will be responsible for setting up all sub contracts including scanning and printing. Question 92: Does NYS WCB own any existing ediscovery technologies? For Collection, Processing or Hosting? Response: New York State owns collection, processing, and ediscovery Review Solutions. Question 93: In relation to Document Foldering, is this requirement expected in the review/hosting solution or are you looking for a separate document foldering solution, similar to a Sharepoint? Response: The ability to create virtual folders and organize documents in these folders is a mandatory requirement. Question 94: Data sets of 1 million documents are referenced throughout the RFP, on average, how many 1M plus document cases does NYS WCB have per year? Response: Technical specifications, items 1 8 describe how the initial data of approximately 1 million documents needs to be divided into 25 cases based on case specific keywords. Documents may exist in multiple cases. It is anticipated that none of these initial 25 cases will contain all WCB documents. It is possible that after the opposition documents have been provided the number of documents in a case will grow beyond a million documents. Question 95: For reporting in general, does NYS WCB typically run its own reports, or would we be expected to run the reports, or a combination? Response: The hosting provider would be expected to provide load, production, monthly activity, etc. reports as identified in the RFP. It is anticipated that WCB would be able to create additional case reports as needed from the review solution. Question 96: Related to the project manager which is requested based on a case volume not hourly, are you looking for a fixed fee based on our formula of how many PMs are needed based on case size? If so, what case sizes should we estimate? Response: See question 82. Please see revised Cost Volume worksheet on website. Question 97: Typically are your cases ESI or Paper or a combination? Are you able to share any statistics? Response: The vendor should expect a combination of paper, native files, and Static/Image productions. It is expected that the primary type of load data will be Native Productions. No statistics are available at this time. Question 98: Is it your intention to share the questions and your responses from the other service providers? Response: Yes. Everyone will receive all of the questions and responses.