3-Open Solicitation Addendum and Questions 72525 Addendum No. 2 - 071825(v2).pdf

Paige McInnis

Harris County Purchasing Agent

July 25, 2025

TO: All Vendors

RE: Job No. MAY71425

Questions & Answers

All vendors are required to acknowledge this addendum with each proposal for Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS) Integration Platform. This addendum must be acknowledged in Bonfire no later than the above due date.

ADDENDUM NO. 2

1) Questions & Answers No. 2 (attached).

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS NO. 2

1) Question: Is the Integrated Platform referenced in the RFI specific to an integrated service bus or a master party record system that will serve as a connection between all current and future justice applications implemented in Harris County? Or is the County seeking responses for a holistic integrated justice suite of software solutions that replace the existing JWEB system, presumably meeting the needs of all justice stakeholders (Sheriff’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, District Clerk, District Courts, County Courts at Law, Pre-trial Services, Juvenile Probation, Public Defender, Office of Managed Assigned Counsel, and Universal Services)

Answer: The County is NOT seeking responses for a holistic integrated justice suite of software. The RFI is intended to gather details about integration platforms that could serve as middleware (e.g., service bus, master party record system) to connect current and future justice applications.

2) Question: What was the annual spend for the previous year on this Project?

Answer: This is a request for information only. Vendors may provide information on general pricing structure information.

3) Question: If this is a new Contract, what is the annual Budget for this?

Answer: Refer to question 2.

4) Question: Are you open to a hybrid delivery model with a mix of offshore and onshore resources?

Answer: This is a request for information only. Specific resource requirements are not a part of this request.

5) Question: Work will be onsite or remote?

Answer. Refer to question 4.

6) Question: Are you expecting a full replacement of JWEB or a wraparound integration platform to unify existing systems?

Answer: Refer to question 1

7) Question: Is the County open to phasing out JWEB over time as part of modernization, or must the new IJIS coexist indefinitely?

Answer: Currently, Harris County is seeking information on integration capabilities with existing systems and potential for replacement.

8) Question: Is Harris County open to a vendor-hosted solution (SaaS), or is an on-premises deployment with local control of infrastructure a requirement?

Answer: Harris County is open to both SaaS and on-premises solutions. Vendors should specify deployment models supported and address data residency, security, and compliance considerations.

9) Question: What level of data migration is anticipated (historical, active, both)?

Answer: Vendors should be prepared to support migration of both historical and active data. Details will be determined during requirements gathering and planning phases.

10) Question: Can you clarify whether the envisioned IJIS Integration Platform is intended to ultimately replace JWEB in its entirety, including core court case management functions (e.g., calendaring, docketing, workflow, case lifecycle tracking)?

Answer: Refer to question 1

11) Question: Is Harris County exploring a modular modernization approach, beginning with integration and potentially phasing in full CMS functionality over time?

Answer: Yes, a modular modernization approach is being considered.

12) Question: Is the County evaluating vendor platforms that can eventually support complete CMS functionality across all court types (e.g., criminal, civil, juvenile)?

Answer: Refer to question 1

13) Question: What is the long-term strategic vision for court technology modernization in Harris County, and where does JWEB (or its replacement) fit within that?

Answer: Harris County’s vision is to modernize its justice information systems in a modular approach to improve integration, efficiency, and public access. The future CJIS platform should support current and evolving security, data sharing and integration needs across all justice stakeholder solution preferences.

14) Question: How does Harris County define the boundaries between the IJIS integration layer and the case management systems it supports or connects to?

Answer: The integration layer is intended to facilitate interoperability, data security, data exchange, and workflow automation between disparate systems. Vendors should describe how their platform delineates integration versus core CMS functionality.

15) Question: Will the IJIS platform serve only as middleware, or is the County considering a solution that includes native CMS capabilities within the platform itself?

Answer: Refer to question 1.

16) Question: Which existing justice applications and CMS components (if any) do the County plan to retain, and which are the candidates for replacement?

Answer: Currently, Harris County is only seeking information on integration capabilities with existing systems and potential for replacement.

17) Question: Is the County expecting vendors to integrate with a legacy JWEB backend, or to provide a new case management framework that renders JWEB obsolete?

Answer: Refer to question 1.

18) Question: Which current systems require deep integration (e.g., JMS, CMS, Prosecutor, Public Defender, Pretrial, etc.)?

Answer: The primary stakeholders include the Sheriff’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, District Clerk, District Courts, County Courts at Law, Pre-trial Services, Juvenile Probation, Public Defender, Office of Managed Assigned Counsel, and Universal Services. Vendors should describe their experience integrating with similar justice applications supporting those agencies and specify which components their platform can support.

19) Question: Are integration standards (e.g., NIEM, XML, API-first, message bus architecture) already defined or preferred?

Answer: Industry standards such as NIEM, XML, API-first, and message bus architectures are preferred. Vendors should detail their platform’s compliance with these standards and any additional interoperability standards / frameworks supported.

20) Question: Are any third-party audits or certifications (e.g., CJIS, SOC 2) required for all components, including integration middleware?

Answer: Yes, compliance with CJIS is required at a minimum. Other certifications such as SOC 2 are highly desirable. Vendors should provide details on their platform’s certifications and audit history.

21) Question: What authentication and identity management solutions are currently used (e.g., Active Directory, Azure AD)?

Answer: Vendors should be prepared to support common enterprise identity management solutions such as Active Directory and Azure AD. Specifics regarding Harris County’s current identity management will be provided in subsequent procurement phases.

22) Question: What is the anticipated timeline for a formal RFP following the RFI?

Answer: A decision on an RFP release has not been made.

23) Question: Will there be an opportunity to participate in solution workshops or pilots before RFP?

Answer: A pilot or proof of concept phase may be included as part of an RFP process.