15COE-S3857 QA.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Case Management System
- Solicitation number
- 15COE-S3857
- Issued by
- Nevada
About this file
Summary
This is a Bid Questions and Answers document for the Nevada Commission on Ethics (NCOE) Case Management System replacement project. The project seeks to replace the current Precision Document Imaging system with a comprehensive case management and publishing solution to improve workflow efficiency and public functionality. The system must support four case types: Advisory Opinion Requests, Ethics Complaints, Ethics Acknowledgments, and Public Records Requests, with specific statutory timelines including a 45-day deadline for Advisory Opinions and 5-business-day requirement for Public Records Requests. Key functional requirements include a public-facing searchable database with full-text OCR capability, configurable workflows for staff, auto-generated case numbering based on case type, electronic voting support for Commission decisions with conflict-of-interest flagging, document template autofill in Microsoft Word format, and customizable dashboards for case status and productivity metrics. The system must support approximately 600 case files with 5 years of substantial documentation and 50 years of final opinions (primarily PDF files), integration with Microsoft 365 (Outlook and SharePoint), automated records retention scheduling, and support for up to 20 concurrent users with search and retrieval response times of 5 seconds or less.
Pricing, budget amounts, and specific funding sources are not disclosed per agency policy, though the project is funded with exceptional funding for development and regular budget for ongoing operations with no federal funding involved. The current vendor, Precision Document Imaging, is eligible to submit proposals. Implementation is expected to occur within 3-6 months, with formal Executive Director sign-off required before go-live. The contract term is four years with annual feature enhancements and bug fixes required as part of ongoing support. The vendor is responsible for hosting the solution and maintaining both the public-facing website and backend publishing mechanism, with no preference specified for cloud, on-premises, or hybrid deployment models. Security requirements must comply with Nevada's OCIO standards and GovRamp/FedRamp compliance, with specific password policies, encryption standards, logging, and monitoring requirements to be established by the OCIO office.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 15COE-S3857 Cost Schedule.docx | DOCX document | |
| 15COE-S3857 Terms-and-conditions-for-services.pdf | ||
| Quote Instructions.pdf | ||
| 15COE-S3857 Strategic Plan.pdf | ||
| 15COE-S35857 Insurance Requirements.docx | DOCX document | |
| 15COE-S3857 RFP~2.docx | DOCX document | |
| 15COE-S3857-Vendor-Information-Response.pdf | ||
| 15COE-S3857 Standard-form-contract.docx | DOCX document | |
| 15COE-S3857-reference-questionnaire.docx | DOCX document | |
| 15COE-S3857 Certification-regarding-lobbying.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Bid Q&A for Export Report
| Bid Q&A | ||||
| QUESTION_NBR | CREATED_BY | QUESTION_SUBJECT | QUESTION_TEXT | ANSWER_TEXT |
| 1 | SOURCEMANAGEMENT | Contract Type | What is the contract type? | Standard contract |
| 2 | IVOYANT | Project Overview / Current System | The RFP references replacement of the current database and public-facing search functionality. Please |
identify the current system/platform, database technology, hosting environment, data export format, and whether schema documentation, APIs, database exports, and file repositories will be made available for
| discovery and migration planning. | The current system is Precision Document Imaging. Technical details unknown by agency | |||
| 3 | IVOYANT | Advisory Opinion Requests / Deadlines | For Advisory Opinion Requests, please provide the statutory deadline rules to be configured, including |
trigger events, due-date calculations, pause or tolling conditions, escalation rules, reminder frequency, and
| required notification recipients. | 45 days from confirmation of requester's facts to delivery to requester | |||
| 4 | IVOYANT | Ethics Complaints / Confidential Case Data | For Ethics Complaints that move into the investigatory phase, please define required document categories, |
confidentiality levels, role-based access restrictions, retention requirements, and whether the system must
| support legal hold, privilege tagging, sealed/non-public records, or redaction workflows. | All documents obtained during the investigatory phase are confidential. | |||
| 5 | IVOYANT | Ethics Acknowledgments / External Crosscheck | The RFP references crosschecking Ethics Acknowledgments against other databases or lists of public |
officers. Please identify the external data sources, ownership, update frequency, integration method,
| file/API availability, matching criteria, and exception-handling workflow required for this crosscheck. | Aurora System with secretary of state. Technical details unknown. | |||
| 6 | IVOYANT | Public Records Request / Workflow | Please clarify the required Public Records Request workflow, including intake, assignment, due-date |
calculation, extension handling, correspondence tracking, document production, exemption/redaction
| handling, closure process, and audit history requirements. | Records must be provided in 5 business days or a new target date must be provided to the requeser at the 5 day mark. | |||
| 7 | IVOYANT | Scope of Work / Document Templates | The RFP references document template autofill and initial draft creation using case information. Please |
identify required template types, merge fields, output formats, version control, approval workflows, and
| whether generated documents must remain editable, such as in Microsoft Word. | Generated documents must be produced and editable in Word. | |||
| 8 | IVOYANT | Scope of Work / Reporting and Dashboards | Please identify required dashboards and reports, including data fields, filters, grouping, visualizations, |
export formats, refresh frequency, role-based access requirements, whether business users must be able
| to configure reports, and whether scheduled report delivery is required. | Ideally business users will be able to configure their own dashboards. Case status, approaching deadlines, and other productivety and caseload data is desired in dashboarding. | |||
| 9 | IVOYANT | Scope of Work / Public Search and Publishing | For the public-facing searchable database, please clarify whether full-text OCR is required for scanned |
PDFs, whether metadata-only search is acceptable for some records, what filters/categories must be
| available, and whether public records require an approval workflow before publishing. | Yes, full-text OCR is required. | |||
| 10 | IVOYANT | Data Migration and Security / Data Volume | Please provide the estimated migration scope, including number of cases, number of documents, total |
storage size, file types, legacy metadata fields, data quality considerations, and whether legacy records
| require cleansing, deduplication, OCR, redaction, or mapping to new workflow states. | a. Primarily PDF files- 5 years of substantial documentation from cases and 50 years of final opinions (typically one PDF file) d. Approximately 600 case files e. Primarily PDF documents | |||
| 11 | IVOYANT | User Roles, Testing, Deployment / Go-Live | Please define the expected role/permission model, deployment environments, acceptance testing process, |
UAT responsibilities, production cutover expectations, go-live criteria, and whether a formal State sign-off is
| required before launch. | Formal state sign-off is required before launch. Other items to be proposed by vendor. | |||
| 12 | IVOYANT | Training and Support / SLA | Please define the required support model, support hours, incident severity levels, response and resolution |
SLAs, escalation process, warranty period, and whether post-launch support includes configuration
| changes in addition to break/fix support. | To be proposed by vendor | |||
| 13 | IVOYANT | Data Security / Compliance and Audit Logging | Please specify any required security or compliance standards, such as CJIS, HIPAA, FedRAMP, SOC 2, |
ISO 27001, NIST 800-53, or NIST 800-171, and define audit logging expectations for user access,
| document activity, administrative changes, and public publishing actions. | Agency will work with State OCIO office to ensure security requirements are met. Nevada is adopting GovRamp | |||
| 14 | IVOYANT | Workflow Configuration / Case Processing | Should workflows be configurable by authorized NCOE administrators for case types, statuses, approvals, |
reminders, escalations, categories, and publishing rules, or should the solution follow predefined processes
| established during implementation? | Yes | |||
| 15 | IVOYANT | Integrations and Performance / Architecture | Please identify all required integrations, including SSO, State email infrastructure, public officer databases, |
reporting tools, and any external data sources, and clarify whether there are performance SLAs for form
| submission processing, search response time, dashboard loading, and public access availability. | Intergration with state Microsoft suite (outlook, sharepoint) | ||||
| 16 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Resumes | The RFP states: "Provide a resume free of photos or overly stylized formatting for proposed key personnel." Could the State please clarify whether this requirement also applies to proposed non-key personnel? | Pictures need to be redacted for all employees. | |
| 17 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Resumes | Could the State please confirm whether sample resumes would be acceptable for proposed non-key personnel? | You can provide them, but they are not necessary. | |
| 18 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Resumes | Could the State please confirm whether the resumes for proposed non-key personnel are expected to include individual names? | Bidder's decision. | |
| 19 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Funding | Could the State please share the estimated budget for this project? | Agency chooses not to disclose that information. | |
| 20 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Funding | Could the State please confirm whether this project is federally funded? | It is not federally funded. | |
| 21 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Work Site | Could the State please clarify the expected primary work location for proposed personnel? Is it on-site, remote, or a hybrid arrangement? | There is no proposed personnel. | |
| 22 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Hosting | Does the agency have a preference for the proposed solution to be deployed on the cloud, on-premises, or using a hybrid model? | No preference. | |
| 23 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Hosting | Is the vendor responsible for hosting the solution, or will it be hosted by the agency? | Vendor responsible. | |
| 24 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Product Specifics | Can the State please clarify whether it is seeking an existing, configurable off-the-shelf product or a fully custom-developed solution for the new case management system? | Open to both solution types | |
| 25 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Hosting | If the proposed solution is to be deployed on the cloud, does the agency have a preference for a specific cloud provider (e.g., AWS, Azure, GCP)? | No preference. | |
| 26 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Vendor Presentation | Can the State confirm whether the vendor presentation will be conducted remotely or onsite in Nevada? | Preferably remotely. | |
| 27 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Numbering Format | What is the desired case numbering format? For example, should numbers include a prefix based on case type (Advisory Opinion, Ethics Complaint, etc.) or fiscal year? | The current format is YY-###(C, A, or RR depending on case type) | |
| 28 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Number Generation | Should case numbers be auto-generated by the system upon form submission, or assigned manually by staff? | Autogenerated | |
| 29 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Separate Series Per Case Type | Do different case types (Advisory Opinion Requests, Ethics Complaints, Ethics Acknowledgments, Public Records Requests) require separate, independent numbering series? | It can be one series but identified with type - see answer 27 | |
| 30 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Intake & Jurisdictional Review Access | During the intake and jurisdictional review phases of an Ethics Complaint, which staff roles should have access to the case record? | All | |
| 31 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Investigation Phase Access | During the investigation phase, which staff roles should have access, and should Commissioners have visibility at this stage? | All | |
| 32 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Adjudication & Closure Access | At the adjudication and closure phases, which roles gain or lose access to an Ethics Complaint record? | None | |
| 33 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Publication Trigger | At what point and under what conditions does an Ethics Complaint record become accessible for public publication? | Partial release following Review Panel, additional release after Adjudication. | |
| 34 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Electronic Voting Workflow | Should the system support an electronic voting or acknowledgment workflow for Commission decisions, or will Commission votes continue to occur outside the system? | This is great if possible. | |
| 35 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Vote Record Detail | If electronic voting is required, should the system record majority and dissenting opinions, vote tallies, and the date each Commissioner cast their vote? | Yes | |
| 36 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Conflict Flagging | Should the system flag potential conflicts of interest for Commissioners assigned to a specific case? | Yes | |
| 37 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Recusal Workflow | Should the system support a formal recusal workflow, including automated reassignment of the recused Commissioner and recalculation of quorum? | Not necessary | |
| 38 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Formal Sub-Stages | Beyond the overall 120-day statutory timeline, are there formal sub-stages (jurisdictional analysis, investigation, hearing preparation, adjudication) that each require their own tracked status? | Yes | |
| 39 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Sub-Stage Deadlines & Notifications | Should each sub-stage have its own deadline, document folder, and automated notifications? | Yes to deadline and notifications | |
| 40 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Hearing Scheduling | For complaints that proceed to a hearing, should the system support hearing scheduling and calendar management? | Not required | |
| 41 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Exhibits & Witnesses | Should the system manage exhibit lists and witness lists for hearings? | Not required | |
| 42 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Transcript Storage | Should hearing transcripts be stored within the case record? | Yes | |
| 43 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Post-Hearing Deliberation | Should the system support post-hearing deliberation tracking? | Yes | |
| 44 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Recording Sanctions | Should the system record penalties, fines, or sanctions imposed as a result of a case outcome? | Yes | |
| 45 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Payment Status Tracking | Should the system track payment status of fines, including receipt of checks or electronic payments? | Yes | |
| 46 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Unpaid Fine Alerts | Should the system generate alerts for unpaid fines or compliance failures? | Yes | |
| 47 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Email Association With Cases | Should the system support the association of inbound and outbound Outlook emails with case records? | Yes | |
| 48 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Association Method | If email association is required, should it be automated (e.g., via a unique per-case email alias) or manual (e.g., via an Outlook plug-in or drag-and-drop)? | Automated | |
| 49 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Duplicate Submission Flagging | Should the system proactively flag potential duplicate complaint submissions, for example, same respondent and same underlying facts? | Yes | |
| 50 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Cross-Case Pattern Detection | Should the system flag cases involving related parties or the same respondent appearing across multiple cases? | Not needed. | |
| 51 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Native Multilingual Portal | Should the online submission portal natively support Spanish, Mandarin, and Tagalog with translated field labels and validation messages? | If possible | |
| 52 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | PDF Fallback | If native multilingual support is not required, should the existing PDF-based translated forms be retained alongside the online portal? | Yes | |
| 53 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Automated Retention Scheduling | Should the system automatically apply Nevada's records retention schedule and flag records when they are due for archival or disposition? | Yes | |
| 54 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Disposition Approval Process | Is automated disposition with supervisor approval acceptable, or is full manual review required before any records are disposed of? | Automated with supervisor approval permitted | |
| 55 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Auto-Generated Report Sections | Should the system auto-generate the recurring performance metrics sections of the annual report, case counts, average resolution times, and dispositions by type? | Yes | |
| 56 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Export Format For Reports | Should these auto-generated outputs be exportable as charts and tables suitable for direct inclusion in the statutory annual report? | Yes | |
| 57 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | UAT Participants | Which staff will participate in User Acceptance Testing? | All | |
| 58 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Acceptance Criteria | What are the acceptance criteria for each functional area during UAT? | Unsure what this means | |
| 59 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Defect Tracking During UAT | How should defects identified during UAT be tracked and prioritized? | Up to vendor UAT processes | |
| 60 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Go-Live Sign-Off | What is the formal sign-off mechanism required before the system can go live? | Executive Director | |
| 61 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Volume Of Historical Records | Approximately how many historical case records exist in the current system that would need to be migrated? | a. Primarily PDF files- 5 years of substantial documentation from cases and 50 years of final opinions (typically one PDF file) d. Approximately 600 case files e. Primarily PDF documents | |
| 62 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Legacy Attachment File Size | What is the estimated total file size of attachments and documents associated with legacy cases? | Unknown | |
| 63 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Attachment Migration Vs. Archival | Must attachments be migrated into the new system, or can they be archived separately and linked? | Final opinions needs to be migrated, other items may be separaetly linked | |
| 64 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Data Cleansing Requirement | Is data cleansing or normalization of legacy records required before migration? | Ideal | |
| 65 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Republication Of Public Records | Must previously published public records be republished in the new system's public-facing database? | Yes | |
| 66 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Legacy Audit Log Preservation | Must audit logs from the legacy system be preserved and accessible in the new system? | No | |
| 67 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Single Sign-On (SSO) | Is Single Sign-On (e.g., Azure AD) required for staff authentication? | Not required | |
| 68 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) | Is MFA required for all user roles, or only for privileged roles such as administrators? | Not required | |
| 69 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Commissioner External Access | Do Commissioners require external user access to the system, i.e., access from outside the State network? | Yes | |
| 70 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Password & Session Policies | What are the requirements for password policies, session timeout rules, and device restrictions? | Set by OCIO | |
| 71 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Encryption Standards | What encryption standards are required for data at rest and data in transit? | Set by OCIO policy | |
| 72 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Logging & Monitoring | What are the logging and monitoring requirements for system activity and security events? | Set by OCIO policy | |
| 73 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Incident Response | What are the incident response expectations in the event of a breach or system compromise? | Set by OCIO policy | |
| 74 | RDDILDAY | General | Will NCOE consider an extension to the deadline for vendors' responses? | No | |
| 75 | RDDILDAY | 2.3.1.C "Public-facing searchable database" | Will NCOE consider products without a public facing searchable database? | No | |
| 76 | RDDILDAY | 2.3.1.G "Improved search and sort functionality for public-facing documents" | Our system allows for licensed users to easily sort and search records, data, and documents stored in the case management system. Is this sufficient? | Search must be available for non-licensed users | |
| 77 | RDDILDAY | 2.3.2.B.2 "The ability to easily modify the[...]email notification list" | What is this email list utilized for? Is there an expectation for the system to send emails out? If yes, will emails be sent exclusively to licensed users? | Notification of new filings, yes only to licensed users | |
| 78 | RDDILDAY | 2.3.2.B.4 "In addition, functionality that allows a crosscheck between the Ethics system and other d | Our system provides the functionality to pull information from lists of persons/entities records directly into the system (no push functionality). Users can then cross check this information in the case management system. Is this sufficient to meet hte requirement? | Yes | |
| 79 | RDDILDAY | 2.3.2.B.4 "In addition, functionality that allows a crosscheck between the Ethics system and other d | We offer API access. NCOE will have access to API endpoints and will need to build out the connections between other databases (this allows both push and pull functionality). Is this sufficient to meet the requirement. | Yes | |
| 80 | RDDILDAY | 2.3.3.B "What is an estimated cost for data conversion" | For data conversion, please provide: |
1. What format is the data in?
2. Will a subject matter expert be available to assist with data mapping?
3. Approximately how many years of data will be migrated?
4. Approximately how many case files will be migrated?
5. Will attachments be migrated along with case records/logs?
6. What is the approximate size of the data being migrated from the legacy system?
| 7. Approximately how many data fields will be migrated? | 1. Primarily PDF files 2. Yes. 3. 5 years of substantial documentation from cases and 50 years of final opinions (typically one PDF file) 4. Approximately 600 case files 5. Only for currently open cases 6. Unknown 7. 5 | ||||
| 81 | RDDILDAY | 3.2.1.D "Case publishing and Searching for the Public - The system must include a searchable databas | Will NCOE consider products without a public case publishing functionality? | No | |
| 82 | KEVINCHUGH | Timeline | Is there a strict timeline/go-live date for this project? | ASAP | |
| 83 | KEVINCHUGH | Budget | Is there an established budget for this project? If yes, can the State reveal the budget? | See question #19 | |
| 84 | KEVINCHUGH | Funding | If there is established funding for this project, is it supported by federal or state funding? | No federal funding. | |
| 85 | KEVINCHUGH | Budget | Is the budget allocated from the agency's regular budget, or was there exceptional funding obtained for this specific project? | Exceptional funding for development and regular budget for ongoing. | |
| 86 | KEVINCHUGH | Current Vendor | Is the current vendor eligible to submit a proposal in response to this RFP? | Yes | |
| 87 | IKRAM | Current System, Data Volume, and Budget | What is the current technology platform and vendor providing the existing document database system? Approximately how many total documents, records, and active or historical cases exist in the current system that would require migration to the new platform? Is there an estimated budget range or not-to-exceed amount for this project, including both initial development and ongoing annual support costs? | PrecisionDocument Imaging | |
| 88 | IKRAM | echnical Requirements | Does the Commission have a preference for cloud-hosted versus on-premise hosting? Are there specific web accessibility standards such as WCAG 2.1 AA that the public-facing components must meet? How many staff members currently use the system and what are their primary roles? Is the Commission open to AI-assisted features such as automated document drafting, intelligent case search, or predictive deadline tracking, or is the scope limited to traditional case management functionality? | No preference. | |
| 89 | IKRAM | Implementation and Transition | Implementation and Transition | ||
| Question: What is the expected timeline from contract execution to full system deployment? Will there be a parallel operation period where both the old and new systems run simultaneously during the transition? Are there specific data security certifications or compliance frameworks required beyond what is outlined in the RFP? | 3-6 months. | ||||
| 90 | IKRAM | User Roles and Permissions | What specific user roles and permission levels does the Commission require? For example, are there distinct access needs for Commissioners, legal counsel, investigators, and administrative staff? Does the public need any login-based access, or is the public-facing component entirely open search? | Access to certain files within cases. | |
| 91 | IKRAM | Integration and Reporting | Does the Commission currently use any other systems that the new case management platform would need to integrate with, such as email systems, document management tools, or state reporting platforms? What types of visual data reports and exportable reports does the Commission need for tracking agency performance trends referenced in the RFP? | Microsoft 365. Data reports needed are those found in the our annual reports available on line | |
| 92 | IKRAM | Ongoing Support and Enhancements | After initial deployment, what level of ongoing support does the Commission anticipate needing (help desk hours, response time expectations, frequency of system updates)? Is there an expectation for annual feature enhancements or improvements beyond bug fixes and maintenance during the four-year contract term? | Yes, annual enhancement improvement and bug fixing is required as part of the contract | |
| 93 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Penetration Testing | Is penetration testing required, and if so, at what frequency? | Unsure what this means | |
| 94 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Audit Trail Retention | Must audit trail records be immutable, and for how long must they be retained? | Unsure what this means | |
| 95 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | CJIS-Like Controls | Must the system support CJIS-like security controls? | Unsure what this means | |
| 96 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Concurrent Users | What is the maximum number of concurrent users the system must support? | 20 | |
| 97 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | File Upload Size Limit | What is the maximum permitted file upload size per document or submission? | No current maximum | |
| 98 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Search & Retrieval Response Times | What are the required response times for search and record retrieval? | 5 sec | |
| 99 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Growth Projections | What is the anticipated growth in case volume and user count over the next 5-10 years? | We are currnetly growing at about 10-15% each year | |
| 100 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Auto-Scaling Requirement | Must the system scale automatically to accommodate growth, or is planned manual scaling acceptable? | Unsure what this means | |
| 101 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Recovery Point Objective (RPO) | What is the required RPO, i.e., the maximum acceptable data loss in the event of a failure? | Unsure what this means | |
| 102 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Recovery Time Objective (RTO) | What is the required RTO, i.e., the maximum acceptable system downtime before restoration is required? | Unsure what this means | |
| 103 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Backup Frequency & Retention | How frequently must backups occur, and for how long must backup data be retained? | Based on vendor proposal. | |
| 104 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Geographic Redundancy | Is geographic redundancy required for the system infrastructure? | Unsure what this means | |
| 105 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Automatic Failover | Must failover to a backup environment be automatic, or is manual failover acceptable? | Unsure what this means | |
| 106 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Pre-Publication Redaction | Must documents be redacted before being published to the public-facing database? | No | |
| 107 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Redaction Scope | Must redaction capabilities cover text, embedded images, and document metadata? | Ideal | |
| 108 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Multi-Step Publication Approval | Is a multi-step approval workflow required before a document can be published publicly? | Ideal, the current system has a warning and double check before going public | |
| 109 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Versioning & Rollback | Must the system support versioning and rollback of published documents? | Yes | |
| 110 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | CMS Integration | Must the system integrate with the State's existing website CMS for public publishing? | No, the publishing site can be linked from the state website - this is current state | |
| 111 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Outlook Integration | Is integration with Outlook for email ingestion and calendar synchronization required? | Yes or alternative calendar and messaging system inbedded with system | |
| 112 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | State HR Systems | Is integration with State HR systems required to pull public officer and agency data? | No | |
| 113 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | State Financial Systems | Is integration with State financial systems required to record or reconcile fine payments? | No | |
| 114 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Public Officer Registry | Is integration with any public officer registry or ethics acknowledgment database required? | Ideal but not required | |
| 115 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Other Third-Party Systems | Are there any other third-party systems currently in use that the new system must integrate with? | No | |
| 116 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Staff-Configurable Workflows | Should NCOE staff be able to modify case workflows, such as stages and routing rules, without vendor involvement? | Yes | |
| 117 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Conditional Workflow Logic | Is conditional workflow logic required, for example, where a case type automatically determines the workflow path it follows? | Ideal, not required | |
| 118 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Configurable Approval Chains | Must approval chains within workflows be configurable by staff? | Yes | |
| 119 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Workflow Version Control | Must changes to workflows be version-controlled so that prior configurations can be reviewed or restored? | During testing yes but once active, previous workflows not needed. | |
| 120 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Scope | The RFP mentions a cross-check with "other databases or lists of public officers." Which specific external databases or registries does the Commission currently use or envision for this cross-check? | The Secretary of State's Aurora system is a envisioned connections not yet in place | |
| 121 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Scope | Are Ethics Acknowledgments submitted on a recurring schedule (e.g., annually), and does the system need to track compliance cycles per individual officer rather than just per submission? | There are varying scheduling depending on what type of position the public officer holds. | |
| 122 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Scope | Is "constituent service and media inquiry tracking" for Public Records Requests considered in-scope for this contract, or aspirational/out-of-scope? | In-scope | |
| 123 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Scope | For document template autofill, are existing Word/PDF templates available for transfer, or must the vendor design templates from scratch based on staff input? | Exiting word documents exist. | |
| 124 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Scope | Will the vendor be expected to maintain the public-facing web search interface as part of ongoing support, or only the backend publishing mechanism? | Vendor is expectex to maintain both the public-facing site and backend. | |
| 125 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Legal & Statutory | Beyond the 120-day timeline, are there other NRS 281A or NAC 281A deadlines (e.g., for complaint acknowledgment, jurisdictional determination, or advisory opinion issuance) that the system must track? | Yes | |
| 126 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Legal & Statutory | Does the Commission ever seal or expunge case records? If so, does the system need to support permanent or time-bound suppression from both staff views and the public database? | No | |
| 127 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Legal & Statutory | Are there pending legislative changes to NRS 281A or NAC 281A during the 4-year contract term that might alter case workflows or publication requirements? | Unlikely but the ability to easily adjust those in the event of legsilative change is important | |
| 128 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Data Migration | What format is the current system's data export: structured database export, document-level exports, or API-based? Does the current vendor cooperate with data extraction? | Unsure | |
| 129 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Data Migration | Is there a contractual or technical constraint with the current vendor that might delay or restrict data export during the transition period? | No | |
| 130 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Technical Environment | Must the solution be hosted on State of Nevada-approved cloud infrastructure, or can the vendor use their own SaaS hosting? | It can be hosted on vendor hosting so long as security requirement set by the state are met. | |
| 131 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Technical Environment | Does EITS need to review and approve the system architecture, and is there a standard State security assessment the vendor must pass before go-live? | OCIO maintains security and other required standards for information systems including GovRamp/FedRamp | |
| 132 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Technical Environment | Is the Commission's Outlook environment on Microsoft 365 (cloud-hosted) or an on-premises Exchange server? | Microsoft 365 | |
| 133 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Operations & Governance | Who within the NCOE will serve as the primary system administrator post-launch, and do they have a technical background, or must all configurations be designed for non-technical staff? | No staff have a technical background | |
| 134 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Operations & Governance | Are there blackout windows (e.g., during hearings or Commission meetings) where downtime is unacceptable, and what is the agreed maintenance window? | No.Down time for maintenance should be minimal | |
| 135 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Operations & Governance | Are there any current third-party service contracts (e.g., e-signature, payment processing, court reporting) that the new system must interface with or replace? | No | |
| 136 | ACCOUNT@ADITICORP.COM | Operations & Governance | Will the evaluation committee normalize Year 1 development/migration costs separately from Years 2-4 ongoing costs, or is the total 4-year cost the primary metric? | 4-year cost is the metric. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .