Addendum #2 - Questions & Answers 1-23-26.pdf

RFP 202526-01

Addendum #2 - Questions & Answers

Solicitation Process/Document Questions

1. Could you please share the budget for the project

Year 1- Planning, Development, migration, testing and deployment $614,000

Year 1 - Maintenance/licenses $370,000

Annual licensing/maintenance budget after deployment** $740,000

**The full annual licensing/maintenance budget is “should not exceed” amount and will be available starting in year 2 beginning July 1, 2027, or after the system is fully deployed, whichever is later.

2. Does the Budget reflect the software cost, implementation effort cost, or both? per year? Is that inclusive of all years?

The First-year budget includes development, testing and deployment as well as limited funds for licenses and maintenance. All other years only include budget for maintenance/license fees.

3. What is the deadline to build and deploy the system

This question is answered in Section 2.7, page 14 of the CCMS Solicitation Document.

“The Office anticipates that implementation activities would begin as soon as a contract is executed in March/April 2026. The project and all required modules must be completed, tested and fully deployed on or before June 30, 2027.”

4. Would demonstrations be in-person or virtual during the week of 3/2?

This question is answered in Section 3.1, page 18 of the CCMS Solicitation Document.

“The Office, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to have system demonstrations with those Proposers on the Vendor Shortlist, or any other Proposer. Demonstrations may be conducted at the Office offices or via teleconference.”

5. For pricing, what onsite presence should proposers assume (discovery workshops, training, go-live support), expected frequency, and primary locations (Tallahassee and/or circuit locations)?

The Office will rely on each Vendors knowledge and experience to include recommendations in their proposal regarding when it would be appropriate and necessary to have an onsite presence and when they believe items can be handled via Zoom video conference call.

6. How many vendors have responded to the RFP?

As of 1-16-26, thirty-two (32) vendors have contacted the Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office about the Client Case Management System.

7. We are having issues downloading the documents from the website. Can you send us the documents?

We will email you a copy of the documents if you are having issues downloading them from either the Vendor Information Portal or the Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office website. Proposers must send an email to RFP20252601@gal.fl.gov to request a copy of the documents. The Office will make every effort to respond to such requests within 48 hours.

8. Whether companies from Outside USA can apply for this? (like from India or Canada)

While companies outside of the United States may submit a proposal, all data migrated, collected and stored, including backup data, for this project must ALWAYS be stored at a facility and on servers located within the United States.

9. Do we need to come over there (USA/Florida) for meetings?

Some on-site presence will be expected during both the development and deployment phases. However, the Statewide Office assumes that most meetings will occur via Zoom video conference.

10. Can we perform the tasks (related to RFP) outside USA? (like, from India or Canada)

While companies outside of the United States may submit a proposal, all data migrated, collected and stored for this project must be stored on servers and a facility that is located within the United States.

mailto:RFP20252601@gal.fl.gov

11. Can we submit the proposals via email?

No. Please follow the Proposal Submission instructions found in Section 4, pages 24- 29 of the SGAL RFP – CCMS Solicitation document. This document is located on both the Florida Vendor Information Portal and the SGAL website.

12. Should travel/out-of-pocket expenses be proposed as a single project-level NTE amount or NTE per phase/wave?

Answer located in Section 4.5, page 29, of the SGAL RFP – CCMS Solicitation Document, travel expenses will be reimbursed in accordance with Florida Statute

112.061. Vendors are expected to prepare and submit complete travel voucher forms, and all appropriate receipts, with the invoice that includes the services that require travel.

13. Are the vendor demonstrations a must prior to the award? Configuring an optimal solution for SGAL would necessitate requirements and development (as part of the project) prior to meaningful demonstration.

Yes. All finalists will be expected to provide a brief demonstration of the proposed project on the date and time scheduled by the Evaluation committee. Final selection scores will be based, in part, on the demonstration.

14. Per this section, will the pertinent Q&A be posted to this site? https://guardianadlitem.org/guardian-ad-litem-request-for-proposal-2025-26/ We cannot currently find it as of 1/12/2025.

Per the update noted in Addendum #1, posted on the Florida Vendor Information Portal on 1-16-26, the SGAL Office will post two addendums (Addendums #2 and #3). Addendum #2 will include the answers for all RFP process and Operations questions. It will also include answers to technical questions that are readily available the week of January 19, 2026. Addendum #3 will include the answers to all remaining technical questions that were not answered in addendum #2 and will be posted the week of January 30, 2026.

https://guardianadlitem.org/guardian-ad-litem-request-for-proposal-2025-26/

15. All addendums for this RFP are posted on both the Florida Vendor Information Portal and the Florida Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office website. This requirement states:

"The system has the ability to support external data capturing equipment (e.g., credit card scanners, barcode readers)." Is there a requirement for the system to process credit card transactions? If not, can you please explain the requirement for credit card scanners?

Vendors can ignore the mention of barcode readers or credit card scanners. However, while not a requirement, the Office would like its litigation expense approval process, which includes the ability to pay invoices via credit card, embedded in the system. Again, this is not a requirement and not included in Proposal scoring.

16. Can you please describe the use cases for barcode scanning?

Please disregard references to bar code readers. This was going to apply if the Statewide Office decided to track inventory or barcoded case files in the system. Neither of those will be part of this project.

Operation Questions

17. Could you please share the name of the current vendor that will be transitioning to the newly awarded vendor?

Optima

18. Which "justice partner" systems need integration? The RFP mentions this but doesn't list them. We need exact system names and how they communicate (API, file transfer, etc.).

We would like to be able to integrate with the Office of the State Court Administrator, Department of Children & Families, and the Clerks of Court to the extent that we are able to data share with them. This is not something that is currently utilized so conversations will need to be held once we know the capabilities of a new CCMS.

19. Is there integration needed with Florida court eFiling or case lookup systems? If yes, what are those systems and do they have documented APIs?

The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal offers APIs for third-party vendors (TPV) and governmental agencies (CBI) to enable machine-to-machine (M2M) filing, allowing bulk electronic submission of court documents, requiring vendor application, certification, and adherence to specific XML standards and web services for functionality, data format (XSD), and system resilience

20. "The system has the ability to approve & efile the pleading" - Would this constitute an integration? Can you further describe the requirements needed for this?

Yes, there will need to be integration with the e-filing portal. Also see answer to question #19.

21. What system handles volunteer background checks? How do results come back, API response, email, file upload, or manual entry?

Staff will enter background check information manually. The system must allow staff and volunteers to upload supporting background check documentation as part of the volunteer profile.

22. What distinct user roles exist today (e.g., attorney, GAL staff, volunteer, supervisor, admin)?

Roles should include System Administrator, Supervisor, Attorney, Child Advocate Manager, Volunteer, and Administrative Support.

23. Does SGAL require full-text search/OCR for documents at initial go-live, or is metadata search sufficient? Full text search is preferred.

Yes. All documents in the CCMS must have full-text search functionality available at the initial go-live date. See Tech specs User Tools #33

24. You mentioned duplicate person profiles exist across circuits. Is there any common identifier to match them? Like SSN, a state ID, or some combination of fields? Or do we need to build matching logic ourselves?

Duplicate profiles exist both within circuits and across circuits. Circuit databases assign unique IDs per case rather than per person. In July 2022 SGAL started utilizing DCF’s FSFN ID for children (clients) represented in a particular case. Children (clients) represented in cases prior to July 2022 will require a unique identifier (names/DOB).

25. There are a lot of requirements for the Guardian Office. There was mention of a phased approach. With that said, would you consider doing a pilot for 3 or 4 offices/ regions before rolling out to the entire state?

The Office is open to discussion about the piloting process and rollout plans in a phased approach. The ability to pilot the system in a testing environment prior to going live and for training purposes is necessary.

26. Does SGAL believe a train-the-trainer approach is appropriate, or is full training for all users preferred?

Train the trainer with training tools/videos is appropriate.

27. In addition to training, does SGAL seek support from proposer for Organizational

Change Management (OCM) activities?

SGAL is open to conversations about such services depending on the need, complexity of system and cost.

28. Do you need the system to read text from scanned documents? This would let users search for words inside scanned PDFs and images.

Yes

29. Is historical audit data (status changes, assignments, notes history) required to be fully migrated or can it remain read-only?

Searchable but not editable preferred.

30. What is the expected migration scope: Full historical migration into the new CCMS, or

Operational/current data migration + a searchable archive for historical records?

See the answer to Question #15. The Office will require a full historical migration into the CCMS. However, historical archive data should be migrated as searchable but not editable.

31. Do volunteers need the portal to work offline? Some volunteers might work in areas with poor internet and need to sync their work later?

There should be no “offline” access for this system. Volunteers must access the system through an online portal and all case file documents and information saved in the CCMS.

32. Do we need to have a full text search across all circuits and the 10+ TB of data and documents, how fast should results appear?

Yes, all case file data in the CCMS must include full text search functionality. Historical data will be searchable but read only. Vendors are expected to include the estimated search result speed as part of their proposal. Per current industry standards, the SGAL Office expects the acceptable load time to be not more than 3 seconds with an ideal load time of not more than 2 seconds.

33. Should users be able to bulk upload documents?

No, users will upload documents individually, by document type in the individual cases and volunteer/staff files.

34. Will all documents be in digital format already or is there a need to scan documents directly into the CCMS?

Users should be able to upload both digital (electronic) and scanned documents.

35. How many active vs inactive/closed cases currently exist across all circuits?

12,034 Active Cases 217,744 Inactive Cases This count includes Dependency, Criminal, Delinquency & Family Law Cases. It also includes cases that may have a placement in more than one location (i.e. a child has a case file in more than one location).

36. What's the acceptable downtime for maintenance? Can we have a maintenance window, or does it need to be available 24/7?

Prefer for maintenance to be outside of regular business hours (Monday through Friday, 8 am to 5 PM) to the extent possible. Other necessary maintenance is acceptable provided SGAL is given sufficient advance notice of the downtime.

37. Is 24×7 availability required, or are maintenance windows acceptable?

See answer to question #36.

38. Who owns final process decisions, statewide leadership or individual circuits?

SGALO Statewide leadership team.

39. While not referenced in the RFP, will there be any need to integrate with the DCF

Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) being procured / developed?

Ideally, yes to the extent we are allowed to per our agreement with DCF.

40. How are court specific event dates handled? Would these be manually entered or is there need for integration with a court scheduling system?

Court dates will be entered manually.

41. There are references storing, importing, and exporting audio and video files (MP3, MP4, etc.). Are there other specific audio and video requirements such playing within the solution vs. download and play locally?

Audio and video files need to be able to be stored, imported and exported. Ability to play and annotate the videos in the system is highly preferred.

42. CCMS Pg. 14 defines volunteers as "External Users". Attachment C POR.13 and POR.14 describe the need to add notes and child visit information to case records within the system. Please confirm criticality of volunteers modifying system records (as opposed to view only).

The ability for Volunteers to add information to a case file is critical so view only is not an option.

43. Are you open to using AI in your solution?

Yes, we are open to discussing AI incorporation.

Technical / IT Questions

44. Does SGAL require a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)/already-built CCMS that is primarily configured and migrated, or will SGAL accept proposals to build a new CCMS platform specifically for SGAL (including configuration, development, and statewide rollout)?

SGAL will accept proposals to build a custom Client Case Management System that adheres to the requirements outlined in the RFP.

45. If a new build is acceptable, does SGAL prefer the proposer to start from an existing solution baseline/accelerator (pre-built core components) versus a fully from-scratch build?

The SGAL has no preference between custom built or off the shelf. It is up to Proposers to utilize a platform (custom built or off the shelf) that they believe will best satisfy all the requirements outlined in the RFP. There is no preference from a technical standpoint.

46. Are you on-prem or cloud-based with your current ops?

SGAL’s current operations are cloud based.

47. If a SaaS solution is used, would the hosting hardware and environment need to be completely dedicated to SGAL or would a shared environment (where SGAL still has complete control over their instance) be acceptable?

SGAL does not require dedicated resources. However, all case file and other system data must be stored on a server and in a facility located within the United States.

48. Does SGAL have a preferred cloud provider (AWS vs. Azure vs. other), or is cloud selection up to the proposer?

SGAL uses Azure but has no preference for which Cloud provider a Proposer uses unless the Proposal requires SGAL to host the CCMS in its current Cloud environment.

49. Does SGAL require hosting in an SGAL-owned cloud account/tenant with SGAL-controlled security policies and encryption keys?

SGAL has its own Identity Provider that the new system would need to authenticate against. There is no need to host any components of the application in SGALs Cloud environment other than where it would direct authentication traffic.

50. If AWS is used, does SGAL require AWS GovCloud (US), or are standard commercial U.S. regions acceptable?

Standard commercial US regions are acceptable.

51. Is SGAL required to follow any specific security framework(s) for this project (e.g., NIST, CJIS, HIPAA-like), beyond the IT security questionnaire?

60GG-2 (State of Florida Cybersecurity Standards) and FIPA (Florida Information Protection Act).

52. Does SGAL require SSO with a specific identity provider (e.g., Entra ID/Azure AD/Okta) and MFA for all users, including portal users?

Yes, SSO is required and SGAL uses Entra ID as our identity provider.

53. What identity provider do you use for staff login? Azure AD, Okta, ADFS, or something else? This determines our SSO setup.

See answer to questions #52. SGAL uses Entra ID as its identity provider.

54. For the Azure on-premises option, what Azure region and subscription do you currently have? We need to know what infrastructure already exists.

SGAL uses East US 2.

55. Are there restrictions on administrative access such as U.S.-only access, IP allowlisting, VPN, just-in-time access, and mandatory audit logging retention?

Yes, SGAL currently has US-only and requires multifactor authentication for all admin users.

56. Are there file type restrictions and maximum upload sizes expected for internal users and portal users?

From a technical perspective, the only file type restrictions we would require are executables and code files. The current maximum file upload size in Optima is 9MB. SGAL would prefer no restrictions or the ability for a system administrator to waive file size restrictions for uploaded files.

57. Considering the data storage needs (10 TB and growing) would it be acceptable to use a SaaS solution with a seamless integration to a storage solution external to the core SaaS case solution?

SGAL would not have any restrictions on which or how many external storage solution providers are used for this to be successful. The only requirement is that all data must be stored on servers and in a facility, or facilities, located within the United States.

58. What are the primary data sources for migration (Optima only, or additional databases/files/spreadsheets that must be included)?

Optima only

59. In terms of legacy data, does migration just involve all the legacy data in the Optima

Application? If not, how many different sources will there be for legacy data?

All data is in Optima

60. Does SGAL require statewide deduplication (single master person record across circuits)? If yes, who is the designated authority for conflict resolution and final decisions?

The “single master” file would be the file that is created when a child is appointed to the Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office. Out of County/Circuit placement and transfer files should all be tied to this original appointment file. While there should not be any file conflicts in the new system, the SGALO State Leadership team will have final authority to resolve file conflicts.

61. During the deduplication process, i.e., matching and merging duplicate person/case records across circuits into a single ‘golden/master’ record, who is the designated authority responsible for resolving conflicts and making the final decision when discrepancies exist between circuits or data sources?

SGALO State leadership team.

62. What are SGAL’s minimum acceptance criteria for migration (e.g., % completeness, field-level mapping requirements, reconciliation process, sampling approach)?

The vendor must guarantee a 100% transfer of all case files. Proposers should incorporate field-level mapping and reconciliation during the migration process. SGAL staff will work with the Proposer/Vendor to random sample case files to verify the migration was successful.

63. Are there required retention/legal-hold rules for documents and audit logs (e.g., WORM/Object Lock), and what are the retention periods

Record/File Type Retention Period

Dependency Case files 7 fiscal years after case is closed; or 7 years after child turns 18, whichever is first.

Volunteer Case files 7 fiscal years after case is closed; or 7 years after child turns 18, whichever is first.

Personnel Records (Volunteer) 3 Fiscal Years (July 1 – June 30) after separation or termination of employment provided applicable audits have been released.

64. Please confirm the number of current CCMS instances/environments and whether they are separated by circuit/region (e.g., ~20).

There are 21 instances/environments that are separated by circuit.

65. How many different environments would you like to have?

SGAL requires at least a Test and Production environment to deploy patches or changes to test ensuring semantic correctness before deploying to production.

66. Will the vendor (Evinto Solutions) cooperate in providing data extraction assistance, or must vendors assume limited cooperation?

Yes, the Statewide Office will work with both Evinto Solutions and the selected vendor to help ensure successful migration of all existing data.

67. Do you have any existing API gateway, firewall, or load balancer that our system needs to sit behind?

No, if it is not hosted in our environment there would be no NVA it sits behind that we manage.

68. Does the Office require audit logs for every data change and user action?

Yes, there should be audit logs for every data change and user action including logging in and viewing documents.

69. Does SGAL currently utilize ServiceNow in any capacity today?

No, SGAL does not currently utilize this service.

70. What is the current file size limit for files uploaded to Optima?

Per Evinto Solutions, the current file size limit is 9Mb.