RFI NO. 100130-FY27-13

LEGAL CASE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE SOLUTION

ADDENDUM NO. 1

AUGUST 31, 2026

ITEM NO. 1: REVISED RESPONSE DUE DATE

Firms are advised of the following revision to the response due date:

Responses must received by the Town no later than 2:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) on Friday, September 4, 2026. Any references in the Request for Information to the original response due date shall be deemed revised accordingly.

ITEM NO. 2: QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

Firms are advised of the following responses to questions received:

1. What is the estimated number of users who will access the solution, and what user categories or roles are anticipated?

RESPONSE: 7 users. The Town anticipates user roles consisting primarily of attorneys, paralegal/administrative staff, and system administrators. The Town is interested in role-based access that allows permissions to be configured based on a user's responsibilities and, where appropriate, access to specific matters or categories of matters.

2. Could the Town provide information on the existing systems/applications currently used by The

Town Attorney’s Office, along with the anticipated scope, volume, and format of the data and documents to be migrated?

RESPONSE: The Town Attorney’s Office currently uses Laserfiche as its primary document repository and Microsoft Teams/OneDrive and Outlook for day-to-day collaboration and email.

At this time, the Town does not anticipate migrating its existing Laserfiche documents or historical data into a new legal case management system. The Town intends to continue using Laserfiche as its repository for existing records.

The Town is primarily seeking a legal case management solution for managing matters and related information going forward. Respondents may describe any available integration capabilities with Laserfiche, Microsoft Outlook, and other Microsoft 365 applications that could support the Town’s existing workflow without requiring migration of its historical document repository.

3. Could you clarify the functional scope expected under Claims and Risk Management and Personnel Management, including the types of matters, workflows, and reporting requirements?

RESPONSE: Claims and Risk Management and Personnel Management are intended to represent categories of legal matters handled by the Town Attorney’s Office rather than full risk management or human resources functions.

For claims, the Town is interested in tracking claims from intake through review and resolution, including claimant and incident information, supporting documentation, communications, status, key dates, assigned staff, and disposition. The Town is also interested in the ability to support an external claim intake form that can be provided to a claimant for submission of information and supporting documents.

Personnel matters may include legal advice, employment-related matters, grievances, disciplinary matters, and other personnel issues requiring involvement by the Town Attorney’s Office. The system should support matter tracking, document management, assignments, status, key dates, notes, and appropriate access restrictions for sensitive personnel matters.

Reporting should primarily support matter counts, status, workload, and other standard or ad hoc reporting by matter type or category.

4. Could you clarify the key workflows and requirements for municipal real estate/land rights and encroachment management?

RESPONSE: For municipal real estate and land rights, the Town is looking for the ability to track matters such as acquisitions, easements, and other property-related matters, including property and owner information, assigned staff, status, key dates, documents, approvals, agreements, and communications with property owners or other parties.

For encroachments, the Town is looking for the ability to manage the process from intake through completion, including application information, property and applicant information, review and approvals, agreements, fees as applicable, inspections, key dates, renewals or expirations, supporting documents, and communications with residents/property owners throughout the process.

The Town is interested in configurable workflows that can accommodate different types of real estate, land rights, and encroachment matters and provide appropriate tracking and reporting.

5. What records retention and destruction requirements apply, and is the solution expected to manage retention/disposition directly or integrate with an existing records management system?

RESPONSE: The Town follows applicable records retention requirements based on the type of record. Laserfiche is expected to remain the Town’s long-term document repository. The Town is interested in the ability to transfer or export closed matter records to Laserfiche for retention and disposition. The case management system should also provide the ability to flag matters that are subject to a legal hold. Vendors should describe any available retention, disposition, legal hold, and Laserfiche integration or export capabilities.

6. Does the Town have a preferred deployment or hosting models such as SaaS, cloud-hosted, on-premises, or hybrid, and are there any specific data hosting, residency, or cloud-provider requirements?

RESPONSE: The Town has not identified a preferred deployment or hosting model for purposes of this RFI. Vendors should describe the deployment and hosting options available for their solution, including any applicable data hosting or residency requirements. Any proposed solution will be subject to the Town’s applicable IT and security requirements.

7. Will any existing data need to be migrated, or will the Attorney’s Office start fresh with a new system? The system we will be proposing prices data migration based on the number of fields [first name, last name, zip code are three example field names] you'd like to migrate from the current database. Only counting the same field name once, please estimate the total number of fields with “meaningful data” that needs to be migrated to live on in the new system.

RESPONSE: The Town Attorney’s Office currently uses Laserfiche as its primary document repository and Microsoft Teams/OneDrive and Outlook for day-to-day collaboration and email.

At this time, the Town does not anticipate migrating its existing Laserfiche documents or historical data into a new legal case management system. The Town intends to continue using Laserfiche as its repository for existing records.

The Town is primarily seeking a legal case management solution for managing matters and related information going forward. Respondents may describe any available integration capabilities with Laserfiche, Microsoft Outlook, and other Microsoft 365 applications that could support the Town’s existing workflow without requiring migration of its historical document repository.

8. How many users will need access?

RESPONSE: 7 users

9. Does the Attorney’s Office intend to keep all documents in Laserfiche, requiring the new system to integrate with it, or is the Office open to storing all files in the new CMS?

RESPONSE: The Town is open to storing documents in the new case management system while matters are active. The Town intends to continue using Laserfiche as its long-term document repository and is interested in the ability to transfer or export closed matter records to Laserfiche.

Vendors should describe any available Laserfiche integration, document linking, and export capabilities offered with their solution.

10. Please identify the anticipated user types and estimated number of users by category, including Town attorneys, paralegals, administrative staff, department personnel, records personnel, risk-management staff, contract managers, and system administrators.

RESPONSE: The Town anticipates user roles consisting primarily of attorneys, paralegal/administrative staff, and system administrators. The Town is interested in role-based access that allows permissions to be configured based on a user's responsibilities and, where appropriate, access to specific matters or categories of matters. This will be used internally only.

11. Should the Town’s planning assumptions distinguish between full users, occasional departmental users, read-only users, approvers, external counsel, and public users?

RESPONSE: Yes. For planning and pricing purposes, vendors should distinguish between full users and any available limited, occasional, read-only, or approver user types. Vendors should also identify how external intake users are handled for licensing purposes. The Town does not currently anticipate providing external counsel or members of the public with direct access to the case management system.

12. Does the Town anticipate concurrent-user licensing, named-user licensing, usage based licensing, or a combination of these models?

RESPONSE: The Town has not established a preferred licensing model at this time. Vendors should describe the licensing options available for their solution, including any differences in licensing or cost for full users, occasional or limited-access users, and external intake users, as applicable.

13. Will personnel outside the Town Attorney’s Office create matters, submit requests, review documents, approve agreements, or monitor assigned actions?

RESPONSE: Personnel outside the Town Attorney’s Office may need to submit requests or supporting documents and, depending on the matter, review documents, provide information, or complete assigned actions. The Town Attorney’s Office would generally be responsible for creating and managing legal matters within the system. Vendors should describe how their solution supports limited or role-based access for users outside the Town Attorney’s Office, including whether access can be restricted to specific requests, documents, or assigned actions.

14. Does the Town require a public-facing portal for claims, public-records requests, encroachment applications, contract submissions, or other legal intake?

RESPONSE: The Town is interested in public-facing intake capabilities for certain processes, including claims and encroachment applications. Ideally, staff would be able to provide an external party with a link to complete an intake form and submit supporting documentation without requiring authenticated access to the case management system. The submitted information should then be available to Town staff within the appropriate workflow or matter. A full public portal that allows external users to access or review internal matter information is not currently required.

15. If a public portal is required, approximately how many external submissions, registered users, anonymous users, and portal visits should the solution support annually?

RESPONSE: The Town is not currently anticipating a public portal requiring registered or authenticated external users. The Town is interested in the ability for external parties to submit claims, encroachment applications, and supporting documentation through an online intake form without requiring access to the case management system. Annual submission volumes have not been established and may vary from year to year.

16. Is the Town interested in an integrated Virginia FOIA/public-records module that supports intake, assignment, statutory deadlines, document collection, review, redaction, correspondence, appeals, and reporting within the legal case management platform?

RESPONSE: No. The Town is not currently seeking an integrated Virginia FOIA/public-records management module as part of the legal case management solution.

17. Should a FOIA module integrate with the Town’s existing public-records request webpage, email accounts, Laserfiche repository, or other intake systems?

RESPONSE: No. The Town is not currently seeking an integrated Virginia FOIA/public-records management module as part of the legal case management solution.

18. Will outside counsel, claimants, property owners, applicants, or other external parties require authenticated access to exchange documents or review status?

RESPONSE: The Town does not currently anticipate providing external parties with authenticated access to the case management system. However, the Town would like the ability for external parties, such as claimants, property owners, or applicants, to complete online intake forms and submit supporting documents without requiring access to the system. Submitted information should be captured or routed to the appropriate matter or workflow within the system. Vendors may describe any additional secure external submission or portal capabilities available with their solution.

19. Please provide estimated annual volumes for legal matters, litigation matters, claims, contracts, legal holds, land acquisitions, easements, encroachments, and public-records requests.

RESPONSE: The Town processes approximately 300 or more contract and deed/document reviews annually, with some matters requiring multiple reviews. Volumes for litigation, claims, legal holds, land acquisitions, easements, and encroachments are significantly lower and vary from year to year. Specific annual volumes are not currently available for each category. One of the goals of the new system is to improve the Town’s ability to track and report matter volumes by type.

20. What historical data, documents, emails, calendars, contracts, and matter records must be migrated, and what are their approximate volumes and file formats?

RESPONSE: The Town does not currently anticipate migrating historical data, documents, emails, calendars, contracts, or matter records into the new system. Existing historical records will remain in their current repositories, including Laserfiche. The new system is expected to be used for matters going forward.

21. Which current applications, databases, spreadsheets, shared drives, mailboxes, and repositories are expected to be replaced or integrated?

RESPONSE: The Town currently uses Laserfiche, Microsoft Teams/OneDrive, Outlook, and various spreadsheets to manage and track legal matters and related information. The new system is expected to reduce or replace the use of separate spreadsheets and other manual tracking methods for legal matter management. Laserfiche will continue to be used as the Town’s long-term document repository. Integration with Outlook and other Microsoft 365 applications is desired, as applicable.

22. Does the Town have a target number of years of historical information that must remain searchable in the new system?

RESPONSE: No. The Town does not currently anticipate migrating historical information into the new system. Existing historical records will remain in Laserfiche. Matters created and managed in the new system should remain searchable and accessible in accordance with applicable records retention requirements.

23. Which Microsoft 365 capabilities must be integrated: Outlook desktop, Outlook Web, Exchange Online, Teams, OneDrive, SharePoint, Word, Excel, or Microsoft Purview?

RESPONSE: The Town’s primary integration needs are with Microsoft Outlook and commonly used Microsoft 365 applications, including Word and Excel. Integration with Teams and OneDrive would also be beneficial. Vendors should describe the Microsoft 365 integrations available with their solution, including Outlook desktop and web capabilities, as well as any available integration with Exchange Online, SharePoint, and Microsoft Purview.

24. Should users be able to create a matter from Outlook, save emails and attachments, apply matter metadata, and retrieve related correspondence without leaving Outlook?

RESPONSE: Yes. The Town would like users to be able to easily save emails and attachments from Outlook to the appropriate matter and associate relevant matter information with the correspondence. The Town is also interested in any additional Outlook integration capabilities offered by the vendor, including the ability to create matters or access related correspondence directly from Outlook.

25. What Laserfiche version and modules are currently in use, and does the Town expect Laserfiche to remain the official document repository?

RESPONSE: The Town currently uses Laserfiche as its document repository and expects Laserfiche to remain the primary repository for long-term document retention. Specific version and module information is not available at this time and can be provided at a later stage if needed for integration purposes.

26. Should the case management platform store documents directly, reference documents retained in Laserfiche, or support both models?

RESPONSE: The Town is interested in the ability to support both models. Documents may be maintained within the case management system while a matter is active, with the ability to reference or link to documents maintained in Laserfiche as needed. The Town also intends to continue using Laserfiche as its long-term document repository and is interested in options for transferring or exporting closed matter records to Laserfiche.

27. Are supported Laserfiche APIs, web services, or integration middleware currently available?

RESPONSE: The Town has not yet confirmed the specific Laserfiche APIs, web services, or integration middleware currently available. Vendors should describe their available methods for integrating with Laserfiche and any technical prerequisites or Laserfiche components required to support the integration.

28. What security standards or assurance reports must the SaaS provider support, such as SOC 2 Type II, StateRAMP, FedRAMP, NIST SP 800-53, ISO/IEC 27001, or Commonwealth of Virginia security requirements?

RESPONSE: The Town has not established solution-specific security standards for purposes of this RFI. Vendors should identify the security standards, certifications, and assurance reports applicable to their proposed solution, including any of those listed above. Any proposed solution will be subject to the Town’s applicable IT and security requirements.

29. What types of sensitive information will be processed, including attorney-client privileged information, personally identifiable information, personnel records, criminal justice information, health information, or payment information?

RESPONSE: The system will contain attorney-client privileged and confidential information, personally identifiable information, personnel-related information, and other sensitive information associated with legal matters. Depending on the nature of a particular matter, records may also contain criminal justice, health, financial, or other protected or sensitive information.

30. Does the Town require U.S.-based data storage and support personnel?

RESPONSE: The Town has not established a specific requirement for this RFI. Vendors should identify the location(s) where Town data would be stored and processed and indicate whether support personnel with access to Town data are located within the United States.

31. Should the platform integrate with Microsoft Entra ID for single sign-on, multifactor authentication, automated provisioning, and account deactivation?

RESPONSE: Vendors should describe available integration with Microsoft Entra ID, including support for single sign-on, multifactor authentication, user provisioning, and account deactivation. Any proposed solution will be subject to the Town’s applicable IT and security requirements.

32. What audit events must be retained, and how long must access, export, download, modification, deletion, and administrative activity logs remain available?

RESPONSE: The Town has not established a specific retention period for audit logs for this RFI.

The system should maintain an audit trail of significant user and administrative activity, including access, modifications, deletions, exports/downloads, and changes to system or user permissions.

Vendors should describe the audit logging capabilities included with their solution, including how long audit logs are retained and whether retention periods can be configured.

33. What recovery time objective, recovery point objective, availability target, backup frequency, and disaster-recovery testing requirements should vendors address?

RESPONSE: The Town has not established specific RTO, RPO, availability, backup, or disaster recovery requirements for this RFI. Vendors should provide information on the standard backup, system availability, disaster recovery, and recovery capabilities included with their proposed solution, including any applicable service levels.

34. Must mobile access operate through Town-managed devices and Microsoft Intune, or will personally owned devices be permitted?

RESPONSE: Town managed devices.

35. Which Library of Virginia records-retention schedules apply to legal matters, contracts, claims, land records, encroachment agreements, and related documents?

RESPONSE: The Town follows applicable Library of Virginia records retention and disposition schedules based on the type of record. Specific schedules and retention periods vary by record type and have not been identified for purposes of this RFI. Laserfiche is expected to remain the Town’s long-term document repository. The proposed solution should support applicable records retention requirements and legal holds and should provide the ability to transfer or export closed matter records to Laserfiche.

36. Should authorized records personnel approve destruction, suspend disposition through legal holds, and retain a disposition certificate or audit record?

RESPONSE: The Town currently uses Laserfiche as its document repository and anticipates continuing to use Laserfiche for long-term records retention. The proposed solution should provide the ability to identify and clearly flag matters that are subject to a legal hold and prevent or otherwise alert users to any disposition-related action while a hold remains in effect.

The Town is also interested in understanding whether closed matters and associated records can be transferred or exported to Laserfiche for long-term retention and eventual disposition in accordance with the Town’s records management requirements. Respondents should describe available legal hold, audit trail, disposition, export, and Laserfiche integration capabilities.

37. What accessibility standard should the solution satisfy, such as WCAG 2.1 AA, WCAG 2.2 AA, or another Town standard? Will the Town require a current VPAT or Accessibility Conformance Report?

RESPONSE: The Town has not established solution-specific accessibility requirements for purposes of this RFI. Vendors should identify the accessibility standards supported by their solution and provide information regarding any current VPAT or Accessibility Conformance Report, if available. Any proposed solution will be subject to applicable Town accessibility requirements.

38. Which standard and ad hoc reports are required for Town management, Town Council, audits, claims, litigation, contracts, land rights, legal workload, and Virginia FOIA reporting?

RESPONSE: The Town Attorney’s Office does not currently have a specific Virginia FOIA reporting requirement. Reporting needs include standard and ad hoc reports to support management, annual budget preparation, and the Annual Town Attorney report to Town Council, as required by the Town Code.

For budget purposes, reporting is primarily quantitative and includes the ability to track and report the number of matters handled by the office, including counts by matter type or category and other relevant criteria. Additional reporting may be needed for litigation, claims, contracts/agreements, land rights matters, and overall legal workload.

The Town is interested in flexible reporting capabilities that allow authorized users to filter, summarize, and report on matter data by criteria such as matter type, status, responsible attorney or staff member, department, and date range, as well as the ability to create ad hoc reports without significant vendor assistance.

39. Please describe the expected stages, approvals, documents, and responsible departments for municipal real estate acquisition and land-rights projects.

RESPONSE: Municipal real estate acquisition and land-rights projects may involve multiple stages, including project initiation, property and ownership research, appraisal or valuation, property owner communications and negotiations, legal review, preparation and execution of applicable agreements or acquisition documents, required approvals, closing, and recordation, as applicable.

The specific stages, approvals, documents, and participating Town departments may vary depending on the type and complexity of the transaction.

The solution should support configurable workflows, assignment of responsibilities, tracking of approvals and key dates, document and agreement status, and communications with property owners and other parties throughout the process. The Town is also interested in the ability to maintain a chronological history of activities and communications associated with each project or property.

40. Should land acquisition, easement, right-of-way, and encroachment records integrate with the Town’s GIS or parcel-management systems?

RESPONSE: No.

41. What intake, technical review, legal review, approval, fee, agreement, renewal, expiration, and inspection steps are required for encroachment applications?

RESPONSE: The Town’s encroachment process may include intake, technical and legal review, required approvals, agreement execution, and tracking of applicable fees, renewals, expirations, and inspections, as appropriate. The specific steps may vary depending on the type and circumstances of the encroachment.

The solution should also provide the ability to document and track communications and contacts with property owners/residents throughout various stages of the process, including the date, type of contact, notes or outcome, and any necessary follow-up.

The Town is interested in a solution that provides configurable workflows to support these processes rather than requiring a single fixed workflow.

42. Does the Town require electronic signatures through DocuSign, Adobe Acrobat Sign, or another approved service?

43. Is the Town interested in controlled AI capabilities for document classification, semantic search, summarization, chronology generation, contract review, and identification of related matters?

44. If AI is permitted, what restrictions apply to data retention, model training, external processing, human review, and disclosure of AI-generated results?

RESPONSE: AI is not permitted or will not be used within the platform.

45. Does the Town have a preferred implementation date, phased-release schedule, pilot group, or deadline associated with its fiscal-year planning?

RESPONSE: The Town is currently planning for implementation as part of its FY2028 budget, with implementation anticipated to begin no earlier than July 2027. The Town is seeking planning-level cost information through this RFI to support its FY2028 budget development process, including cost estimates needed by October 2026. A specific implementation schedule, phased-release approach, or pilot group has not yet been established.

46. Does the Town expect vendors to include data migration, configuration, integration, testing, training, change management, and post-production support within the planning-level implementation estimate?

RESPONSE: The Town does not currently anticipate migrating existing data or documents from Laserfiche into the new system. For planning purposes, vendors should include anticipated costs for configuration, integrations, testing, training, implementation/change management, and post-production support in their implementation estimate. Vendors should identify any assumptions, optional services, or costs that are not included in the estimate.

47. Which cooperative purchasing vehicles will the Town consider, including GSA Multiple Award Schedule contracts authorized for state and local purchasing?

RESPONSE: The Town is willing to consider multiple cooperative purchasing vehicles, including GSA Contracts. The Town is a member of multiple national and regional cooperative procurement associations. Please provide information on the cooperative purchasing vehicles available.

48. If proprietary information is included, may the firm submit an unredacted marked PDF, a redacted public PDF, and the Submittal Protection Disclosure Form as separate attachments despite the instruction that the response be submitted as one PDF attachment?

RESPONSE: Yes.

For the Town of Leesburg, Octavia Andrew, NIGP-CPP, CPPO, VCO Chief Procurement Officer Town of Leesburg, Virginia Email: BidQuestions@leesburgva.gov Bid Board: http://www.leesburgva.gov/bidboard

END OF ADDENDUM NO. 1

mailto:BidQuestions@leesburgva.gov http://www.leesburgva.gov/bidboard