Applicant_Tracking_System_RFI_v_2024_0611a 06172024.docx

Administrative Office of the United States Courts – Request for Information Applicant Tracking System June 11, 2024

Introduction The Administrative Office of the United States Courts (hereinafter known as either the AO or Government), Human Resources Office, Court Human Resources Division, Recruitment Services Branch (HRO-CHRD-RSB) provides recruitment services to the federal judiciary. The Online System for Clerkship Application and Review (OSCAR) is supported by the AO in partnership with 3rd party vendors.

The AO is conducting market research to determine the availability of alternative solutions to the existing OSCAR system. The OSCAR system provides applicant tracking system (ATS) functionality along with a wide range of information related to law clerk recruiting.

Objectives This request for information (RFI) has been created to identify vendors offering existing production-deployed applicant tracking systems (ATS) that could be configured to address the needs of the OSCAR program.

· The judiciary is not currently evaluating options for new development of custom coded solutions. We are seeking to identify available configurable ATS options in the commercial off the shelf (COTS) marketplace.

· The judiciary is seeking information on both vendor-hosted or on-premises options. The judiciary is seeking information on the cost models associated with each of these options.

· The judiciary is seeking information about pricing models and any metrics, user roles, or other criteria that would be needed to estimate costs for vendor solutions.

· The judiciary understands that some existing OSCAR functionality may not be directly available in a vendor’s offering. This information collected via this RFI will be used to identify functional gaps and potential work-around options.

The information collected from this RFI may or may not be used to develop a request for proposal for use by the OSCAR program.

Background Information The OSCAR system originated 19 years ago as a court developed application to assist with recruitment and screening of law clerks. Law clerk positions are highly competitive positions that typically receive a large number of applications with numerous supporting documents. Processing paper-based applications for these roles is a very time-consuming process. OSCAR was developed to provide more efficient processing of these applications and to address some of the unique business rules associated with these positions. In addition to ATS functionality, the OSCAR website ( https://oscar.uscourts.gov/ ) includes a wide range of informational content provided to assist users.

The OSCAR system is currently used by federal judges and other judiciary staff to fill law clerk and staff attorney positions in all 50 states and 4 U.S. territories. Judiciary staff can post position advertisements, accept electronic applications, and manage recruitment and selection processes. Applicants can research position advertisements, review hiring profiles, upload application documents, identify their recommenders, and submit applications. Recommenders can upload recommendation letters.

Information Requested Vendor Information Respondents are requested to provide information about your company including history, employee headcount, financial status, geographic presence, and management experience. Respondents should provide information about factors that differentiate your company from other participants in this marketplace. Please provide information about your experience with other state and local government partners. Respondents should also include information about any existing procurement vehicles available to federal agencies.

Product Summary Please provide information about the components naming, capabilities, pricing models, and whether they were developed organically or acquired via another pathway. Respondents should provide information needed to understand how each component aligns with the overall hiring process workflow Respondents are asked to provide information that helps the judiciary understand their overall product line, capabilities, and costs. Respondents should clarify factors that differentiate their products from other products available in the marketplace.

Implementation Process and Support Respondents are requested to provide information about the initial configuration process and solution rollout. This should include information about the requirements gathering, prototyping, testing, implementation, and review processes that would be deployed to support an engagement with the federal judiciary. Respondents should indicate if dedicated staff would be assigned to the judiciary, how much time would be dedicated, what costs would be included in product licensing vs. charged to the judiciary for solution configuration. Respondents should clarify if implementation costs models are different for initial setup vs. subsequent configurations.

The judiciary is seeking a configurable solution that allows customization of workflows, data elements, user interfaces, user communication, dashboards, reporting, and user roles and permissions. Respondents should describe related capabilities and the customization process. The judiciary is seeking to understand the skillset required to complete the customization. Would customization require coding or scripting changes, or is it possible to configure the ATS via an administrative graphical user interface? Can customers complete customization, or is that functionality only available to vendor personnel?

Respondents should provide information about the routine release cycle for vendor products to address security and functional updates. Information should include timing and costs associated with routine updates and maintenance.

Respondents should describe the training resources provided to customers and end users.

Respondents should describe the support provided to customers and end users. Respondents should describe the components and metrics included in their service level agreement with customers.

Migration and Transition Respondents should provide information about their organization’s experience with migration of data and functionality from previously implemented ATS applications for customers. The judiciary is seeking information that would help estimate timing and costs associated such conversions.

Technical Environment and Capabilities Respondents should describe the technical environment and capabilities of their system. Respondents should describe the browser and device support options for their system. Respondents should describe current system capacity in terms or user and transaction volumes currently supported. Respondents should describe how capacity utilization is monitored, and how additional system resources are deployed to respond to increased needs. Respondents should provide information about the timing required to deploy additional technical resources in response to anticipated or real-time requirements.

Hosting Options Respondents are asked to provide information about the hosting options available for their offerings. Vendors should indicate if hosting options would include client on-premises implementation or if the products are only available as hosted solutions. Vendors should identify if 3rd party providers such as Amazon, Microsoft, Oracle, Google, or other companies provide hosting infrastructure. Respondents should indicate if all customer data is stored in real-time replicated storage at multiple physical locations to protect against data loss. Respondents should identify additional data backup and cyber protection procedures that are implemented in conjunction with hosting services. Respondents should indicate if customer data is stored in dedicated storage infrastructure, or if the storage infrastructure is shared among multiple customers. Please provide information about the service performance standards associated with hosting that are included in your service level agreement with customers. Respondents are asked to provide information about the costs associated with vendor hosted vs. client hosted options.

Security Respondents should describe their overall processes and procedures that have been implemented to maintain and enhance the security posture of their software, infrastructure, and organization. Respondents should indicate if their products are FedRAMP certified. Respondents should indicate if all customer data will be stored on infrastructure physically located within the United States of America. Domestic data storage is required by judiciary policy. Respondents should indicate if they have experienced any cybersecurity incidents that resulted in disclosure or loss of customer data in the last 5 calendar years. Respondents should also describe remediation measures that have been taken in the event of such an incident. Respondents should identify any cyber-security certifications they currently hold. Respondents should describe any 3rd party audits that are routinely conducted to validate their organization’s security processes and status.

Basic Functional Requirements Respondents are asked to provide information about the core functionality of their ATS offering. Respondents should address the following topics and any other ATS functionality that will help the judiciary understand the current capabilities of their offerings:

User Management, Roles, and Permissions Judiciary operations are highly decentralized. Respondents should clarify how their offerings can support decentralized user roles while still maintaining appropriate oversight of user permissions.

Basic Account Management and Auditing Respondents should describe the different types of accounts that are available in their ATS, the capabilities available to those roles, and how those accounts can be monitored to ensure only authorized users have access to appropriate functionality and data. Respondents should indicate if applicants can create their own accounts, and what information (e.g. Applicant Profile, Resumes, Writing Samples, etc.) they can save for use with multiple applications.

Decentralized Support Model Respondents should describe any features of their ATS that would support a decentralized support model. For example, does the ATS provide a role for external recruiters that could offer functionality that OSCAR provides to Law School Administrators supporting law school students. This would involve the assignment of different applicants to different LSAs based upon their law school. Respondents should also describe functionality that would support decentralized account management for various program areas and court units. Respondents should describe functionality that would support collaboration during the applicant screening process.

Single Sign On Respondents should describe their organization’s experience implementing Single Sign On (SSO) that integrates with customer or 3rd party (e.g. login.gov, ID.me, etc.) authentication/authorization systems. Respondents should describe any technical standards for SSO that their ATS supports.

Job Posting, Distribution, and Candidate Sourcing Respondents are asked to provide information about Job Posting and Sourcing capabilities provided by their ATS solution and associated products.

Respondents are requested to:

1) Indicate if their ATS provides users with a catalog of customizable job posting templates for use by hiring personnel.

2) Describe what options their ATS provides for hiring personnel to customize their job postings. Please describe options to support collaborative development, review, and approval steps in the process.

3) Describe any capabilities to integrate with native or external job sites to a) publish judiciary postings to expand the visibility of our opportunities, and/or b) search for candidates with skillsets relevant to our needs and direct job postings to them.

Applicant Tracking, Management, Screening and Communication Please provide an overview of your ATS capabilities in tracking, managing, screening, and facilitating communication throughout the hiring process.

Workflow Dashboards Describe the workflow dashboards offered in your ATS, highlighting key features and functionalities that help users in different roles monitor and prioritize the tasks they complete. Please describe options for customizing these dashboards to adapt to different business processes or user preferences.

User Notifications Respondents should describe the functionality provided by their ATS to communicate with users in various roles to facilitate the sourcing, posting, application, review, screening, interviewing, and other talent acquisition processes. Respondents should indicate if these methods support email, txt, or in-app notifications. Respondents should describe automatic vs. manual distribution. Respondents should describe template and mail merge functionality. Respondents should indicate batch vs. individual notifications.

Screening Respondents should describe any capabilities to include screening questions and skill testing natively or via integration with 3rd party applications. Respondents should include information about testing capabilities that would correlate with Legal, Information Technology, Office Productivity, or Law Enforcement skillsets.

Interview Scheduling and Hosting Respondents should describe any capabilities to schedule screening interviews. Respondents should indicate if their ATS can integrate with customer’s installations of Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Teams, or other applications for scheduling phone, video, or in-person interviews.

Analytics and Reporting Demographic Data and Reporting Respondents should describe how their ATS supports voluntary collection and reporting of demographic data for applicants.

Auditing and Transaction Review Respondents should provide information on the auditing and transaction review features within their ATS to maintain data integrity and compliance. Please describe the usage/audit trail information that would be available to RSB to assist end users with their support requests.

Custom Report Creation and Distribution Respondents should describe the capabilities of their ATS in creating and distributing custom reports tailored to organizational needs.

Data Import and Export Respondents should describe how their ATS facilitates data import and export processes to integrate with other systems. Respondents should describe how their ATS maintains reference data like lists of current judges, law school points of contact, etc. Respondents should describe capabilities to export data to Microsoft Excel, Adobe Acrobat, or other 3rd party application formats.

Integration with Other HR Systems Respondents should describe the integration capabilities of their ATS with other HR systems, ensuring smooth data exchange and interoperability. Respondents should indicate if their ATS can integrate with PeopleSoft HRMIS applications.

User Experience Respondents should describe the development process utilized to maximize the user experience (UX) and user interface (UI) aspects of their ATS.

Intuitive and Accessible Interface Respondents should describe the user interface of your ATS, emphasizing its intuitiveness and accessibility for all users.

Mobile Device Support Provide details on the mobile device support features within your ATS, enabling users to access the system on various devices.

Specialized Functionality – OSCAR The OSCAR system was created to improve the efficiency of the application process. Law clerk positions are highly competitive, and the pool of eligible applicants is generally familiar with these positions. While some clerk positions are more competitive than others, they generally receive a large number of applications. The OSCAR system provides a centralized website for the posting of law clerk positions using an efficient step-by-step process. These positions can be easily reviewed by potential applicants. Applicants can compile application components and submit them electronically. Judges can work collaboratively with their chambers staff to screen applicant packages to identify candidates to be interviewed and selected for specific positions. While the most efficient processing is achieved via electronic submission and screening, the OSCAR system allows judges to specify a preference for paper or email processing.

OSCAR includes functionality that is not typically included in generic ATS offerings. Respondents are asked to review these issues and describe ways their ATS either directly supports this functionality or could be configured to address these requirements if possible. Respondents should also indicate if their application cannot support these requirements, so that the government can identify alternative options.

Federal Law Clerk Hiring Plan The Federal Law Clerk Hiring Plan (FLCHP / Federal Law Clerk Hiring Pilot - OSCAR (uscourts.gov)) establishes gateways in the hiring process for law clerks. These gateways only apply to applicants who are still enrolled in law school. The goals of the FLCHP are 1) to prevent applicants from applying too early in their studies, and 2) to provide equal access to the pool of law school applicants among judges filing positions.

Applicants who do not have at least 2 years of law school grades are not eligible to create accounts in the OSCAR system. The OSCAR system typically screens applicants based upon their anticipated graduation year. This could be implemented via a direct qualification question included in the user account creation process. OSCAR positions cannot be viewed without an account. Applicants from a eligible graduation year will only be able to create an account after a set “access date” to ensure equal access to available positions.

Judges who are interested in hiring law school students who have recently completed 2 years of law school will only be able to view submitted applications after a set “release date.” The system will “hold” associated application packages for these students, but they will not be viewable prior to the release date. This is done to ensure equal access to the pool of these student applicants. Applications from 3rd year law students and graduates are not impacted by the FLCHP. Their applications are viewable by judges as soon as they are submitted.

The FLCHP schedule results in periods of peak usage corresponding to the access date and release date. The OSCAR system has been implemented with elastic hosting capacity to accommodate these periods.

Respondents should indicate if their ATS could be configured to support the workflow and business rules of the FLCHP.

Limit on Active Clerkship Applications The OSCAR system limits the number of active applications an applicant may file at any given time. They are limited to 100 active applications. This restriction was established because judges only want to receive applications from applicants with a strong interest in their specific positions. Judges do not want to receive applications from applicants who are “spamming” any available position.

Respondents should indicate if their ATS could be configured to support the business rules of the application limit.

Distributed Support Model The OSCAR system utilizes a distributed support model to facilitate collaboration between different groups of users. Respondents should review the user groups described below and indicate if their user roles and security configuration could provide similar functionality.

Program Support Staff The OSCAR system includes a user role that facilitates end user support. Members of the OSCAR Program Support Staff (PSS) have wide-ranging access to system usage information and data. They can assume access to the system as other users to assist them in completing the full range of user tasks. PSS focuses primarily on support of judiciary staff and law school administrators.

Collaborative Candidate Review The OSCAR system supports team review of applications based upon judge preferences.

Chambers Staff Accounts Judges can create accounts for members of their chambers staff if they would like to involve them in posting positions and reviewing application packages. These accounts can access information related to their judge’s positions and applications, but they will not see information associated with other judges.

Court Unit Administrators The OSCAR system includes a user role that facilitates support within a specific court unit. This role can support multiple judges, and other court employees. This role is typically assigned to a member of the local court unit’s human resources staff. These accounts can access information related to their court unit’s users, positions, and applications. They will not see information associated with other court units.

Law School Administrators The OSCAR system includes a user role (Law School Administrator – LSA) that facilitates support of students, alumni, and faculty recommenders associated with their specific law school. These users typically work in the career services office of a law school. Their role is somewhat similar to the role of a recruiter for a generic ATS. LSAs can access student and recommender accounts and data for users from their law school. They can complete the full range of tasks that the students or recommenders otherwise would complete themselves. LSA’s offer primary support to their school’s users to allow PSS to focus on supporting judiciary users.

Recommender Accounts The OSCAR system includes a user role for recommender accounts. Recommenders may be faculty staff or non-faculty. Recommendations are a key part of applicant packages especially for law school students who may not have significant work experience. Applicants can request recommendations from these users, create new recommendation accounts, and track the status of requested recommendations. Recommenders will be notified when recommendations have been requested. Recommenders have accounts that allow them to track the status of all recommendation requests, create template responses, and specify notification preferences.

5.0 Cost Estimate

Provide a cost estimate in response to providing the above requirement and provide any government-wide contract vehicles that the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts can utilize for this requirement.