Addendum #1 RFP06122026VLG.pdf

THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) ADDENDUM

FAILURE TO RETURN THIS ADDENDUM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW MAY SUBJECT YOUR PROPOSAL

TO REJECTION

RFP Number: RFP06122026VLG Title: Legal Research Platform Addendum Number: 01 Addendum Date: July 10,2026 RFP Opening Date / Time: Friday July 17, 2026 at 12:00 PM Eastern Time (ET)

Please see the following University responses to all questions received by the deadline to submit written questions of June 24,2026 at 12:00 PM ET:

Instructions: Return one properly executed copy of this addendum prior to the RFP Opening Date / Time specified above. This addendum may be included with your proposal, or it may be emailed separately to Veronica Green at Veronica.Green@unc.edu

Execute Addendum:

Vendor Name

Authorized Signature Date.

Name and Title

Email Address mailto:Veronica.Green@unc.edu

# Reference Question Answer

1 Purpose of RFP, specifically section 2.5

Contract Type

In reference to the pre-determined quantity, how many users of OUC will be expecting to access the proposed solution(s)?

25 attorney seats; eight admin seats If there is a CLE component, we would benefit from an additional ~5-10 seats for this portion of the tool only.

2 Purpose of RFP, specifically section 2.8

Problem Statement

• Within the current legal research environment, are there any specific pain points, gaps, or limitations of usability that can be further defined?

Is there a theme of content (e.g., specific legal topic) that is currently behind a paywall?

Current pain points are generally related to access of certain categories of legal content rather than a specific substantive area of law. In particular, secondary sources such as treatises, practice guides, legal books, and law review articles may require separate subscriptions or additional fees. Access to lower court filings, decisions, and orders can also be challenging when content is available only through external systems such as PACER.

OUC is interested in solutions that provide broad, seamless access to legal research content and reduce the need to navigate multiple platforms. This includes features that improve access to court documents and dockets, including potential integration with PACER.

3 RFP Requirements and Specifications

In regard to tracking statuses, regulations, and legal topics:

• What specific legal topics does OUC need to monitor?

• For regulatory coverage, is OUC seeking North Carolina only, multi-state, federal, or a mix of coverage?

Section 3.5 references a ten (10) page limit for responses. For clarity, could OUC confirm which proposal elements are intended to fall within this limit? Our understanding is that it applies to

Sections 6.3.2(f) and (g); please advise if that is correct.

OUC needs to monitor a broad range of legal topics that support its work across litigation, advisory, transactional, policy, and compliance matters. This includes developments in case law, statutes, and regulations at the federal, state (particularly North Carolina), and administrative levels, as well as emerging legal issues affecting higher education. Key areas may include employment and labor, student and academic affairs (e.g., TItle IX and FERPA), healthcare and privacy (e.g., HIPAA), contracts and procurement, intellectual property, research compliance, and governance. OUC should also track litigation trends, newly filed cases, regulatory changes, and legal news relevant to the University’s operations.

OUC needs to be able to monitor regulatory changes across all jurisdictions; North Carolina, all other state-specific searches & federal.

The page limit applies to the narrative responses to Section 3.5 only. We understand that the full submission will exceed ten (10) pages.

4 Other Requirements and Special Terms, References to restrictions on substituting key personnel without prior written approval are made. Could OUC clarify whether this requirement applies to individuals proposed in the response (e.g., Substitutions due to personnel changes will be permitted with approval.

specifically section 7.6 Personnel account manager) for the full contract term? If so, please confirm whether reasonable substitutions due to personnel changes (e.g., attrition or role changes) will be permitted with approval.

5 Please list how many licensed attorneys are within the Office of

Legal Counsel? A licensed attorney is defined as anyone who is licensed as an attorney to practice law. For example, full-time and part-time partners, shareholders, associates, contract, general counsel, staff attorneys, of counsel, fellows, and the like.

There are ~25 licensed attorneys in OUC when fully staffed.

6 3.3 Security Requirements – 3.3.4

(page 8);

Attachment A – 11)

Sensitive Information (page 23); and

Attachment B – 17.

Confidentiality; Care of

Information, (d) Protection of University’s

Sensitive and Confidential Information, and (g) FERPA Acknowledgement (page

28)

Would the OUC please clarify the use case for HIPAA and FERPA data under this contract?

OUC regularly handles sensitive data involving University students, employees, affiliates, and visitors. Because the University includes healthcare-related schools that work closely with UNC Health Care System, some matters may also involve patient data. If the software is used to support work product involving sensitive University data, FERPA, HIPAA, and other applicable data privacy requirements may apply.

7 3.5 Business and Technical Specifications

(page 9)

The solicitation provides a page limit of 10 pages. The solicitation also indicates that Offerors should: “Clearly state your understanding of the problem(s) presented by this RFP including your proposed solution’s ability to meet the specifications, including capabilities, features, and limitations, as described herein” (page 16). Given the level of detail required by the solicitation (21 separate items) and the need for offerors to provide the OUC with sufficient detail, we respectfully request an increase in the number of pages allowed for proposals. Would the OUC please consider extending the page limit to 30 pages?

Yes we will extend the page limit.

8 3.5.1 Legal Research, E.;

and 3.5.3 Litigation and Practice Intelligence, A.

and B. (pages 9 and 10)

Is the legal counsel looking to receive filings on newly filed lawsuits with Dockets? Will the OUC require access to real time litigation documents that have been newly filed?

We would like the ability to create alerts for newly filed lawsuits. We do not require access to real-time litigation documents, but this would be beneficial.

9 6.3.2 Offer Organization,

(c) and (f) (page 17)

(c) The Completed and signed Requirements Checklist (Attachment I) encompasses the same items as listed in (f) Vendor response to business and technical requirements (reference Section 3.4 of the RFP). Would the OUC please clarify the difference between items (c) and (f) in the offer organization list?

They are the same. See the reference to Attachment I at the bottom of Section 3.4. Please complete and return Attachment I. Additional narrative response for Section

3.4 is not requested.

10 Section 3.5.7

Section 3.5.7 describes AI safeguards including 'retention or training practices for user prompts and outputs.' Will the

University require vendors to contractually confirm that no University data, queries, or outputs will be used to train or improve any AI model, including third-party foundation models underlying the platform?

Yes.

11 Section 3.5.1

Section 3.5.1 refers to North Carolina-specific authority. Does OUC's scope include University of North Carolina System-wide regulatory matters, or is the initial deployment scoped to UNC-

CH Office of University Counsel only?

OUC’s scope is primarily limited to UNC-Chapel Hill.

However, because UNC-CH is part of the broader UNC System, there are instances where matters overlap with system-wide issues when UNC-CH is directly involved.

Outside of those scenarios, the initial deployment is scoped to the UNC-CH Office of University Counsel only.

12 Section 3.1

Does the University anticipate ingesting existing OUC document repositories — including internal memoranda, precedent files, contracts, and correspondence — into the platform, and if so, what approximate volume of documents and data would be in scope for initial ingestion?

Not currently, but we would be interested in discussing an integration with SharePoint.

13 Section 3.5.2

Section 3.5.2 references contract playbooks and clause libraries. Does OUC maintain existing negotiation playbooks or standard form libraries that it would expect the platform to incorporate, and in what format are these currently held?

No. If market-standard, out-of-the-box contract playbooks and clauses are available from the vendor, we are interested in learning more about these tools.

14 Attachment D

For the purposes of Attachment D (Cost Form), should vendors price for a defined number of named users, concurrent users, or unlimited institutional access? Can the University provide an indicative user count for the OUC deployment?

Price for a defined number of users;

25 attorney seats; eight admin seats

15 Section 3.3

Does the University's data governance framework require that all AI processing occur within US-based infrastructure, and will vendors be required to provide data residency attestations as part of the security review process under Section 3.3?

As a general matter, we do require US-based processing.

The University’s standard terms and conditions require that if a vendor is going to use non-US based processing, then vendor must obtain prior written approval from the

University and the list of vendor’s processors/subprocessors must be included as an attachment. The University may require data residency attestations to ensure compliance with this requirement.

16 Section 3.5.2

Does the University anticipate using the platform to generate legal documents — such as contracts, standard forms, and

We are interested in learning more about these capabilities.

regulatory filings — informed by the platform's legal research outputs and OUC's own document repository?

17 Section 3.5.3 Page 9–10

Does the University anticipate using the platform to develop legal strategies, arguments, and defences — drawing on case law, internal precedents, and applicable statutes — as part of litigation preparation or advisory work?

We are interested in learning more about these capabilities.

18 Section 3.5.3 Page 9–10

Does the University envisage using the platform in an adversarial testing mode — for example, posing legal arguments or positions to the AI system and having it respond as opposing counsel — as a tool for argument preparation, moot practice, or risk assessment?

We are interested in learning more about these capabilities.