3-SP-2026-0011 RFP for E-Warrant Solutions for Placer Court.pdf

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF PLACER

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

(IT Goods / Services)

RFP NUMBER SP-2026-0011

E-WARRANT SOLUTIONS

RFP SP-2026-0011 p. 1

A. BACKGROUND / PURPOSE

The Superior Court of California, County of Placer (“Court”) is requesting proposals from well-qualified Proposers to provide E-Warrant Solutions. Interested and qualified Proposers who can demonstrate their ability to successfully provide the services described in this Request for Proposal (“RFP”) are invited to submit a proposal.

This is a fully electronic RFP process. All proposals must be submitted electronically on the Court’s Online Procurement Website at https://lacourt.bonfirehub.com/ (“Bonfire”) in accordance with the requirements set forth in this document. See the attached Court Online Procurement Procedures for further information.

B. DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AND/OR SERVICES NEEDED

The Court seeks E-Warrant Solutions meeting the requirements set forth in the Statement of Work.

C. RFP TIME-LINE

The Court has developed the following list of key events related to this RFP. The listed dates are not binding upon the Court and subject to change at the discretion of the Court. Changes to the listed dates will be posted on Bonfire or on the Court’s website.

EVENT DATE

RFP Issued See Bonfire for exact date

Pre-Bid Conference See Bonfire for exact date

Deadline for Submission of Questions See Bonfire for exact date

Proposal Due Date (Late proposals will not be accepted by the Court)

See Bonfire for exact date

Proposal Evaluations Process Month of August, 2026 (estimated)

Notice of Intent to Award Month of August, 2026 (estimated)

Project Target Start Date Month of September, 2026 (estimated)

D. RFP PACKET ATTACHMENTS

1. Statement of Work

Describes in detail the specific services for which proposals are being solicited. Once a contractor has been selected, the Statement of Work will become part of the final Agreement.

2. Court Online Procurement Procedures

These rules and procedures govern this solicitation and should be read carefully by Proposer.

https://lacourt.bonfirehub.com/

RFP SP-2026-0011 p. 2

3. Terms and Conditions

Proposers are encouraged to carefully review the Model Agreement, which includes the Court’s Standard Business Terms and Conditions. Please note that the language may be subject to change.

Proposers are not required to sign the Model Agreement at this time. The contractor selected to provide services as a result of this RFP process will be required to sign the final version of the Model Agreement upon completion of the negotiation process.

Any proposed exceptions/modifications to the Model Agreement must be submitted on a red-line version of the Model Agreement with comments to substantiate each proposed exception/modification.

4. Required Forms

All forms posted on Bonfire must be completed and submitted electronically on Bonfire. The completed forms will become part of Proposer’s proposal.

E. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

Proposer must meet the minimum requirements listed below. Failure to comply with any one of the minimum requirements may be cause for disqualifying a proposal from further consideration. The Court may, in its discretion, waive minor deviations or defects. Only those proposals that are deemed as meeting the minimum requirements may be considered for a full evaluation and a possible contract award.

1. Proposal Submission Deadline. The proposal must be submitted on Bonfire on or before the Proposal Due Date. The Court will not accept proposals submitted by email, unless otherwise specified.

2. Experience and Capability. Proposer must have at least five (5) consecutive years documented experience in providing services similar to the ones being solicited, as described in this RFP. Such experience shall be documented by completing the Vendor Information Questionnaire on Bonfire.

3. Insurance.

The selected contractor must procure and maintain the insurance coverages as indicated below.

The Standard Business Terms and Conditions 5.0 describes the Court’s specific insurance requirements.

☒ Standard Business Terms and Conditions 5.0, Section 22.2 Insurance Requirements – Specific Coverages

☒ Workers Compensation/Employer’s Liability ☒ Commercial General Liability

☒ $1 million per occurrence and $2 million annual aggregate ☒ Commercial Automobile Liability ☒ Cyber Liability ☒ Technology Professional Liability Error & Omissions

RFP SP-2026-0011 p. 3

4. Business License and Certifications. Upon request of the Court, Proposer must submit copies of any current business licenses, professional licenses, certificates or other credentials required by the nature of the contract work to be performed by Proposer.

5. Authorized Reseller (if applicable). A reseller of a manufacturer’s product must be an authorized reseller of the product being offered in its proposal.

6. Required Forms and Questionnaire. Proposer must complete and submit all Required Forms and Questionnaire as directed.

F. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

In preparing its proposal, Proposer should do so in its own words and take care not to simply copy the language in the RFP. Specific information is requested from all Proposers to ensure that the proposals can be fairly compared in a standard manner. Only that information which is contained in the proposal will be evaluated. Incomplete or inaccurate information may result in disqualification of the proposal.

1. Executive Summary. Provide an Executive Summary of your proposal. The Executive Summary should be a high‐level, general overview of how Proposer intends to accomplish the requirements of this RFP. The Executive Summary should demonstrate the Proposer’s understanding of the requirements. The Executive Summary must also address how Proposer meets the minimum requirements.

2. Work Plan for Providing the Requested Services. Provide a detailed Work Plan, which must include a proposed method for completing the work set forth in the Statement of Work.

3. Staff Qualifications. For each key staff member provide a resume describing the individual’s background and experience, as well as the individual’s ability and experience in conducting the proposed activities.

4. Business License and Certification. Proposer must submit a copy of all business or professional licenses or certificates required by the nature of the services to be performed and held by Proposer (i.e. California State Board of Equalization Seller’s Permit and Business License).

a. A reseller of a manufacturer’s product must be an authorized reseller and have all necessary licenses to sell a manufacturer’s system.

5. Required Forms and Questionnaire. Proposer shall complete and submit all Required Forms and Questionnaire posted on Bonfire where indicated on Bonfire.

G. COST PROPOSAL

1. In calculating pricing to be offered, Proposers are cautioned to include all costs associated with providing the service. Please refer to the Statement of Work for more details.

NOTE: It is unlawful for any person engaged in business within this state to sell or use any article or product as a “loss leader” as defined in Section 17030 of the Business and Professions Code.

H. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

1. The Court shall evaluate the proposals using the criteria set forth in the table below.

RFP SP-2026-0011 p. 4

2. If a contract will be awarded, an Intent to Award Notification will be posted on the Court’s website at https://www.placer.courts.ca.gov/general-information/procurement.

EVALUATION CRITERIA PERCENT WEIGHTED

Experience on Similar Assignments 10%

Credentials of Proposer’s Personnel to be Assigned to the Project 10%

Quality of Work Plan Submitted 35%

Cost 45%

Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise 3%

I. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

1. Cooperative Agreement (“Piggybacking”). Following discussion and consideration by the Court and the successful bidder/proposer, the “piggybacking clause,” provided in the Model Agreement, may be included in the final form of the Agreement if mutually desired.

2. Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) Preference.

a. The Court has established rules and procedures for its DVBE program. Qualified Proposers wishing to claim the DVBE incentive should refer to the DVBE Rules and Procedures for further information. The Court’s DVBE Rules and Procedures can be located at the following website:

https://www.lacourt.ca.gov/pages/lp/procurement/tp/shared-procurement-services-sps-program/cp/socioeconomic-programs-for-the-sps-program

b. A Proposer will receive the DVBE incentive if, in the Court’s sole discretion, Proposer has met all applicable requirements. If Proposer receives the DVBE incentive, the final score of its proposal will be increased (for evaluation purposes only) by an amount equal to 3% of the total possible available points.

3. Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI)

a. Definitions.

“Artificial intelligence” or “AI” means technology that enables computers and machines to reason, learn, and act in a way that would typically require human intelligence.

“Generative Artificial Intelligence” or “GenAI” means an artificial intelligence system that can generate derived synthetic content, including text, images, video, audio, code, and data visualizations, that emulates the structure and characteristics of the system’s training data.

b. In its proposal, Proposer must notify the Court if Proposer’s goods or services contain or utilize GenAI (or will contain or utilize GenAI), or if GenAI is or will be included in any services, goods, or deliverables that materially impact:

https://www.placer.courts.ca.gov/general-information/procurement https://www.lacourt.ca.gov/pages/lp/procurement/tp/shared-procurement-services-sps-program/cp/socioeconomic-programs-for-the-sps-program https://www.lacourt.ca.gov/pages/lp/procurement/tp/shared-procurement-services-sps-program/cp/socioeconomic-programs-for-the-sps-program

RFP SP-2026-0011 p. 5

1) functionality of a Court system (i.e., the work using GenAI could have a significant, substantial effect on the system’s data integrity, availability, confidentiality, or security, and failure to perform such work in accordance with the contract could cause major disruptions to court operations);

2) risk to the Court (i.e., the work using GenAI could have a significant, substantial effect on the Court’s operations, finances, security, or reputation, and failure to perform such work in accordance with the contract would constitute a high likelihood of damage to the JBE); or

3) contract performance (i.e., when failure to conduct work which uses GenAI in accordance with the contract would constitute a material breach of contract).

c. Proposer’s failure to disclose GenAI to the Court may result in disqualification (at the Court’s sole discretion), and the Court reserves the right to seek any and all relief it may be entitled to as a result of such non-disclosure.

d. The Court reserves the right to incorporate GenAI-related provisions into the final contract and to reject bids/offers that present an unacceptable level of risk to the Court, as determined by the Court in its sole discretion.

4. Multiple Awards. The Court reserves the right, but is under no obligation, to award multiple contracts to more than one vendor under this RFP. If multiple awards are made, the Court will not be obligated to procure any minimum amount of Work under such contracts executed under this RFP.

5. Small Business Preference

a. The Court has established rules and procedures for its Small Business Preference program. Qualified Proposers wishing to claim the Small Business preference should refer to the Small Business Preference Rules and Procedures – Information Technology Procurements for further information. The Court’s Small Business Preference Rules and Procedures – Information Technology Procurements can be located at the following website:

https://www.lacourt.ca.gov/pages/lp/procurement/tp/shared-procurement-services-sps-program/cp/socioeconomic-programs-for-the-sps-program

b. A Proposer will receive a Small Business preference if, in the Court’s sole discretion, Proposer has met all applicable requirements. If the Proposer receives the small business preference, the score assigned to its proposal will be increased by an amount equal to 5% of the points assigned to the highest scored proposal. If a DVBE incentive is also offered in connection with this solicitation, additional rules regarding the interaction between the Small Business preference and the DVBE incentive apply.

https://www.lacourt.ca.gov/pages/lp/procurement/tp/shared-procurement-services-sps-program/cp/socioeconomic-programs-for-the-sps-program https://www.lacourt.ca.gov/pages/lp/procurement/tp/shared-procurement-services-sps-program/cp/socioeconomic-programs-for-the-sps-program

RFP SP-2026-0011 p. 6

ATTACHMENT A – STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW)

1. Purpose/Overview:

1.1. The Superior Court of California, County of Placer (the “Court”) seeks a comprehensive electronic warrant software solution (“eMagistrate” solution) that aligns with our existing process while streamlining and modernizing the lifecycle of the warrant process. The solution is intended to support the initiation of warrants and the upload of pre-existing warrant information by Law Enforcement Agencies (“LEA”) and Justice Partners; facilitate appropriate Legal Counsel review and approval, such as the Office of the District Attorney (the “DA”); enable built-in secure communication features as desired; support Judicial Officer review, adjustments, approval, and rejection; provide reliable features for submitting and managing warrant returns; and should allow Court Staff to effectively and appropriately receive, manage, track, and report on warrants and warrant activities.

1.2. The ideal solution is customizable, to meet the operational needs of the Court, LEAs, legal partners, DA, and justice partners. It will have the ability to provide custom warrant template features and workflows, while supporting partnering agencies’ needs to leverage prerequisite documents, like an LEA’s declaration or affidavit. It also should be accessible on various devices through a web-based platform with 24/7 system availability and support while providing autosave features to preserve user work in the event of lost connectivity.

1.3. The proposed solution should include comprehensive security features and meet Criminal Justice

Information Services (CJIS) requirements to ensure the highest standards of security and data protection.

Additionally, the system should include robust scheduling features, configurable notification preferences, and a seamless warrant process during business and after-hours operations. This Statement of Work outlines the project objectives, desired outcomes, requirements, and an implementation plan to guide vendors in proposing an effective electronic warrant solution.

2. Background Information & Data:

2.1. The following information is provided solely to illustrate the potential range of annual warrants reviewed and the number of agencies submitting warrant requests. This information is offered to assist Offerors in making informed decisions. It is based on data gathered in good faith by the Court and may contain some inconsistencies.

2.2. There are up to fifteen (15) agencies we anticipate will need access to utilize the eMagistrate solution.

Those of which currently include:

2.2.1. Placer Superior Court, Placer County Sheriff’s Office, Placer County District Attorney, Placer County Agencies (e.g. Probation, County Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services), California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Parole),City of Roseville Police Department (PD), City of Auburn PD, City of Lincoln PD, City of Rocklin PD, California State Park’s Gold Fields District, and California Highway Patrol.

2.3. Placer Superior Court desires a solution that supports and allows an unlimited number of warrant requests.

RFP SP-2026-0011 p. 7

2.3.1. The Court estimates an average annual warrant request volume of approximately 2,400 with an assumed variance of ±10%, resulting in a projected range of 2,160 to 2,640 warrants annually.

3. Definitions:

3.1. Administrative Staff: All administrative staff, including Court Staff, that are appropriately authorized to provide support to the Court and partnering agencies throughout the warrant process.

3.2. Agency Administrators: The Court’s or partnering agencies’ designated lead that coordinates the eMagistrate onboarding for their agency.

3.3. Court Staff: The jurisdictional court’s staff that are authorized to receive, manage, track, and report on warrant activities, and any other related duties.

3.4. District Attorney (DA): The entity is generally responsible for reviewing warrant requests prior to Judicial Officer submission, along with other related duties.

3.5. eMagistrate solution (the “solution”): Electronic warrant request and warrant software solution.

3.6. Judicial Officer (JO): Magistrates, judges, and commissioners of Placer Superior Court.

3.7. Justice Partners (JP): All other agencies that submit warrant requests to The Superior Court of California, County of Placer for review or play a role in the warrant process.

3.8. Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA): All law enforcement agencies and agencies that submit warrant requests to The Superior Court of California, County of Placer for review, and among other appropriate duties.

3.9. Legal Counsel: All appropriate legal counsel, which includes the District Attorney and County Counsel, that are appropriately allowed to review, request feedback, and endorse warrant requests prior to Judicial Officer review, and among other appropriate duties.

3.10. Partner agencies: All agencies that are involved in the warrant process and partner with the reviewing jurisdictional court. This includes LEAs, JPs, DAs, Legal Counsel, and Administrative Staff.

3.10.1. This includes all agencies listed in the Background Information & Data section.

3.11. Plan of Action (POA): A written description of the tasks, timelines, and responsible parties required to address an issue or complete a specified objective.

3.12. Point of Contact (POC): The designated personnel responsible for communications between the Court and its partner agencies.

3.13. Sworn statements: These include declarations, affidavits, and other correspondence of a similar nature.

3.14. The Superior Court of California, County of Placer (the “Court” or “Placer Superior Court”): The judicial branch entity (JBE) or court authorized to approve or reject warrant requests within the County of Placer.

3.15. Urgent: Is synonymous with words such as critical, high-priority, crucial, imperative, emergency, crisis, pressing, and exigent.

4. General Warrant Workflow Process:

The following information is provided solely to illustrate a general warrant workflow process for the Offeror(s) to submit an informed proposal to meet or exceed our desired outcomes. If the Offeror(s) believes their solution exceeds these outcomes the Offeror(s) shall identify and provide any additional features, safeguards, enhancements, or any other benefits that are relevant for consideration.

RFP SP-2026-0011 p. 8

4.1. LEAs or Justice Partners have a need to request a warrant. The LEA or Justice Partner prepares any prerequisite documentation like an affidavit, identifies a warrant type, and discerns if the warrant needs any unique approvals (e.g. Hobbs Sealing). Finally, they prepare the warrant request.

4.2. LEAs or Justice Partners may or may not require interagency warrant request approval before requesting the DA, appropriate Legal Counsel, or the JO to review the warrant request. Once the warrant request is prepared, it moves forward to the next reviewer.

4.3. If the reviewer is the DA or appropriate Legal Counsel, they may inquire, provide suggestions, or recommend corrections to the LEA or Justice Partner until they endorse the warrant request for JO review.

4.4. Once the warrant request reaches the JO, the JO may review, inquire, comment, or request corrections until satisfied and then may either administer the oath to the affiant and approve a warrant or reject the warrant request.

4.5. If a warrant is approved and active, the JO will provide the approved warrant to the appropriate LEA or Justice Partner party and Administrative Staff may need to be notified for warrant processing.

4.6. Once a warrant is carried out by the LEA or Justice Partner and if they are required to report back to the Court, they are able to submit a warrant return to the Court for processing.

5. General Requirements:

5.1. The eMagistrate solution is a software solution.

5.2. Accessible on various devices and is mobile responsive.

5.3. Ability to develop and utilize custom warrant requests and warrant templates effectively.

5.4. Ability to support attachments, including LEA declarations, photos, and other large warrant related information.

5.5. Ability to support the creation or upload of declarations, affidavits, and sworn statements of a similar nature.

5.6. Supports an unlimited amount of warrant request submissions and migrations to be processed.

5.7. Provides eMagistrate solution access and an unlimited amount of user accounts to the Court and all partnering agencies.

5.8. The offeror shall include any additional general features, safeguards, enhancements, or other benefits that are relevant to the services that the Court should reasonably evaluate for consideration.

6. IT & Security Requirements:

6.1. Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) compliant.

6.1.1. The offeror may submit additional or alternative industry standard levels of compliance or certifications for review at the sole discretion of the Court and its partnering agencies.

6.2. The offeror shall include in their proposal sufficient documentation supporting stated certifications and levels of compliance.

6.3. Provides end-to-end encryption for data in-transit and at-rest.

6.4. Utilizes multi-factor authentication for all users.

6.5. Includes secure system integrated communications.

6.6. Employs a cloud-based architecture to support scalability and reliability.

6.7. Provides 24/7 system monitoring and support.

RFP SP-2026-0011 p. 9

6.8. The Contractor shall ensure that their solution, systems, and all related services maintain all Court and partner agency data and information, whether in transit or at rest, shared or stored in any form, remain solely within the geographic boundaries of the United States. If the Contractor becomes aware that Court or partnering agency data has left, or is at risk of leaving, the United States, the Contractor shall notify the Court immediately and provide all relevant details, including the nature of the data, the location to which it was transmitted, and corrective actions taken and to be taken.

6.9. The offeror shall include any additional security-related features, safeguards, enhancements, or other benefits that are relevant to the security of services that the Court should reasonably evaluate for consideration.

7. Objective Statements and Desired Outcomes:

7.1. The desired outcomes listed in the SOW are based on the project’s objectives. They represent the key interest areas and attributes that the Court and partnering agencies have for the Contractor under this Contract. Offerors may either propose how they will meet, do meet, exceed, or do not meet these desired outcomes and objectives or present alternative approaches for Court review and consideration.

8. Desired Outcomes: Warrant Lifecycle & Workflow Management:

Objective Statement: Our goal is to ensure that the warrant lifecycle and workflows are designed in a way that the Court and its partnering agencies can easily adopt without causing unnecessary disruption to the current processes, while also implementing warrant templates to enhance the efficiency of DA/Legal Counsel and Judicial Officer review. With this objective in mind, we desire the following outcomes:

8.1. A solution that simplifies and supports a complete electronic warrant process lifecycle from LEA or Justice

Partner initiation or upload, to interagency review and feedback, to appropriate Legal Counsel or DA review, feedback, and endorsement, to Judicial Officer review, adjustment, approval, and rejection, and finally to appropriate administrative receipt, management, and reporting or other related warrant lifecycle processes.

8.2. A solution that provides a secure central and searchable repository for all warrant records and supports the migration of pre-existing warrants into the electronic workflow.

8.3. A solution that supports secure in-application messaging, voice, and video communications when needed for the warrant review and clarification process.

8.4. A solution that is able to support partnering agencies’ needs to leverage prerequisite documents, like an LEA’s declaration or affidavit.

8.5. A solution that supports the submission and transfer of large files and media-heavy warrants and warrant returns while also being able to sustain responsive performance while the Court and partner agencies are utilizing the software.

8.6. A solution that provides efficient features to support and control customizable warrant templates and workflows that align with all LEA, Justice Partner, Legal Counsel, DA, and Court operational needs to support practical warrant review.

8.7. A solution that allows updates to existing warrant templates and the addition of new warrant templates within the eMagistrate system.

RFP SP-2026-0011 p. 10

8.8. A solution with the ability to support unique warrant situations which may include Ramey Warrants, Hobbs sealing, sworn affidavits, and search warrant returns as needed.

8.9. A solution that can provide custom interagency pre-submission approvals to meet the unique needs of the Court and all partnering agencies.

8.10. A solution that is able to allow partnering agencies to submit warrants with various priority levels.

8.11. A solution that is able to communicate a warrant request’s and warrant’s status in the workflow.

8.12. A solution that is able to automate and generate a custom warrant number.

8.13. A solution that has the ability to support revisions, corrections, or comments throughout the warrant process.

8.14. A solution that provides versatile electronic signature features for the Court and other partnering agencies.

8.15. A solution that provides comprehensive scheduling features for managing on-call Judicial Officers during business, after hours, and holidays, with tiered scheduling and customizable notifications. Court Staff should also have the ability to maintain, modify, and update these schedules as needed.

8.16. A solution that provides a method to verify the process is robust before the software goes live.

9. Desired Outcomes: Audit, Reporting, & Administration

Our goal is to have a system the provides clear insights into warrant activity and while supporting Court and partner agency oversight. With this objective in mind, we desire the following outcomes.

9.1. A solution that provides strong reporting capabilities for the Court and all partnering agencies.

9.2. A solution that incorporates a comprehensive audit trail of all warrant actions.

9.3. A solution that allows Administrative Staff or other appropriate parties the ability to export informational reports, approved warrants, and rejected warrants.

9.4. A solution that provides effective, customizable, and intuitive user dashboards to meet operational and administrative needs.

10. Desired Outcomes: Access, Usability, & Draft Continuity:

Our goal is to ensure that the system is easily accessible, simple to use, and resilient for all Court and partnering agency users, regardless of location, device, or individual needs. With this objective, we desire the following outcomes.

10.1. A solution that provides secure, mobile responsive, and web-based access from any location and operates effectively on various devices such as desktops, laptops, tablets, and mobile devices, with a method to reduce or prevent information loss.

10.2. A solution that is user-friendly, intuitive, and customizable throughout the warrant process for all partnering agencies.

10.3. A solution that is able to reasonably accommodate users with ADA needs.

10.4. A solution that offers unlimited user account creation for the Court and other partnering agencies.

10.5. A solution that provides appropriate contact information for all parties involved in a warrant workflow.

10.6. A solution that provides configurable access permissions for various user roles and grants the Court and partnering agency administrators privileges to customize user access permissions.

RFP SP-2026-0011 p. 11

10.7. A solution that includes features to preserve in-progress work and supports recovery after connectivity loss or interruptions.

11. Desired Outcomes: Automation & Notifications

11.1. A solution that is capable of automating or streamlining repetitive warrant related tasks.

11.2. A solution that provides a variety of customizable notifications and sequencing to partnering agencies and the Court throughout the warrant review lifecycle.

12. Desired Outcomes: IT & Security:

Our goal is to ensure the system maintains strong security, reliability, and support practices to protect the confidentiality of the warrant process. With this objective in mind, we desire the following outcomes.

12.1. A solution that includes clear support escalation and ticket categories with levels of response and resolution commitments in case of software errors, bugs, or human error.

12.2. A solution with incident response plans and notification procedures for security events.

12.3. A solution that is able to provide and enforce role-based access controls and confidentiality features to ensure appropriate agency viewing and handling of warrant information.

12.4. A solution that meets industry-standard security requirements and maintains relevant and recognized certifications.

12.5. A solution that provides high availability, fault tolerance, and includes disaster recovery capabilities, including documented backup or restoration procedures.

13. Court Implementation Plan Objectives:

Our goal is to ensure the successful completion, preparation, and operational rollout of an electronic warrant solution that meets the needs of the Court and its partnering agencies in seven and a half (71/2) months or less. With these objectives in mind, we desire the completion of the following implementation phases, and the offeror shall describe how their proposed solution and approach will meet or exceed each phase. The Offeror may propose an alternative implementation approach that addresses these key areas of interest, and the Court and its partnering agencies will review it for approval at their sole discretion.

13.1. Phase 1: Detailed Requirements and System Design (Weeks 1-8)

13.1.1. Conduct a comprehensive project kick-off with all key stakeholders to establish shared goals, success criteria, communication protocols, a refined implementation plan, and roles and responsibilities.

13.1.2. Establish refined requirements to support project objectives by conducting collaborative requirements gathering sessions to capture detailed operational and administrative needs of the Court and all partnering agencies in a way that effectively integrates with the eMagistrate solution.

13.1.3. Appropriate partnering agencies will collaborate to develop a minimum viable set of warrant templates for the eMagistrate solution, which may include sworn statements, with initial templates ideally completed by the start of the Testing and Quality Assurance phases and all

RFP SP-2026-0011 p. 12 templates finalized by the end of that phase. The Court may, at its discretion, provide feedback during this process.

13.1.4. Finalize and approve of the refined requirements and outcomes, success criteria, communication protocols, refined implementation plan, design documents, and any other related items that allow the Contractor, Court, and its partnering agencies the ability to begin the Development and Customization phase.

13.2. Phase 2: Development and Customization (Weeks 9-15)

13.2.1. The Contractor will develop and enhance the solution’s core functionalities regarding the electronic warrant process lifecycle according to refined objectives, outcomes, and requirements and notify the Court and partnering agencies where they can support project progression.

13.2.2. Once the solution can support prerequisite warrant information and is ready capable of applying custom warrant information, viable warrant templates will be integrated into the solution.

13.2.3. Establish test user accounts with defined permissions and prepare the accounts with appropriate scheduling, communication, and notification features to simulate testing and quality assurance in the next phase.

13.3. Phase 3: Testing & Quality Assurance (Weeks 16-20)

13.3.1. The Contractor, Court, and partnering agencies will engage in testing in a safe and secure environment to validate warrant workflows, administrative functions, and overall system performance. Any issues, bugs or workflow gaps identified during this phase will be documented and resolved promptly. Account permissions will also be tested to ensure access remains limited to a need-to-know and right-to-know basis.

13.3.2. After general testing, a select group of end-users will initiate User Acceptance Testing (UAT) to validate select warrant workflows, permissions, and administrative features. Any further issues identified during UAT will be addressed promptly before implementation.

13.3.3. The Court and its partnering agencies will identify designated users and their levels of permission and account set-up and configuration shall commence.

13.4. Phase 4: Training and User Onboarding. (Weeks 21-24)

13.4.1. Develop and provide comprehensive training materials, including role-specific guides, quick-reference sheets, and video tutorials, for the designated users of the Court and its partnering agencies.

13.4.2. As needed, conduct user training sessions for all user groups to ensure familiarity with system functions and workflows.

13.4.3. Establish Agency Administrators for the Court and its partnering agencies.

13.4.4. Coordinate with the Court and its partnering agencies user onboarding and account setup with appropriate permission levels for each designated group.

13.5. Phase 5: Solution Implementation and Post-Implementation Support (Weeks 25-30)

RFP SP-2026-0011 p. 13

13.5.1. Successful coordination and selection of an ideal deployment date during a low anticipated traffic period.

13.5.2. Continuous system monitoring immediately after solution implementation with timely notification to the Court and partnering agencies of any issues identified or issues resolved.

13.5.3. Ongoing support including 24/7 support.

13.5.4. Collection of structured user feedback through surveys or feedback sessions to prioritize any final improvements.

14. Implementation Payment & Payment Requirements:

14.1. All pricing provided shall be all-inclusive and reflect the Offeror’s fully burdened rate for performing the duties under this Contract.

14.2. The Offeror(s) shall submit a pricing schedule that reflects:

14.2.1. An initial term of twelve (12) months with a cost that includes both the implementation costs and use of services allocated and paid evenly after the completion of each of the five implementation phases.

14.2.2. An annual subscription cost for each optional year to extend (Option Year), paid evenly on a quarterly basis, which includes maintenance of the eMagistrate solution, support, and product-wide updates and enhancements. There shall be up to four (4) Option Years.

14.2.3. The Offeror(s) shall detail other services provided that are covered within the implementation costs and annual subscription costs.

15. Contract Management:

15.1. Contractor Point of Contact & interactions

15.1.1. The Contractor shall designate a primary point of contact(s) (POC) for all matters related to this Contract.

15.1.2. The Contractor shall provide the following information regarding the designated point of contact.

15.1.2.1. Full Name, email address, work phone number, mobile phone number.

15.1.3. The Contractor shall notify the Contract’s Project Director or Court designated lead(s) of any changes to this information as soon as reasonably possible. Notification of such change shall not exceed 14 calendar days.

15.1.4. The Contractor shall notify the Court by phone and email as soon as reasonably possible, ideally within two (2) to eight (8) hours, after becoming aware of a critical issue, and no later than 72 hours.

15.1.5. The Contractor’s POC shall return/respond to urgent calls, mobile messages, or emails that are designated as such by the Contract’s Project Director or designated lead(s) or stakeholders as soon as possible and shall not exceed 72 hours.

15.1.6. For situations designated as urgent, the Contractor or POC will prepare a Plan of Action as soon as possible but shall not exceed 14 calendar days. The Court and appropriate partnering agencies may review the POA. The Court may approve or disapprove of the POA and request modifications.

RFP SP-2026-0011 p. 14

The Contractor is responsible for executing the POA to the Court’s satisfaction to address the urgent issue.

15.1.7. The Contractor’s POC shall return/respond to non-urgent calls, mobile messages or e-mails that are not designated as urgent as soon as reasonably possible but shall not exceed 14 calendar days.

15.2. Status Report Meetings

15.2.1. The Contractor will coordinate with the Court and partner agencies to schedule bi-annual progress, discussion, or improvement related meetings following implementation.

15.2.2. The Court may request ad hoc meetings, and the Contractor will attend and assist in the facilitation of these ad hoc meetings. If the Contractor is unable to attend, the Contractor will propose a date that is within a 14 day period of the original meeting date request. The Court will make a good faith effort to accommodate later dates if needed.

15.2.3. The Court and partnering agencies may decline to meet as needed.