City Hall – 2nd Floor Contracts and Purchasing Division

9500 Civic Center Drive Thornton, CO 80229-4326

Main Phone: (303) 538-7325

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)

RFP No. 262-26

MUNICIPAL JUSTICE MASTER PLAN

Purchasing Analyst of Record: Andrew Miskell, CPPB

Andrew.Miskell@ThorntonCO.gov mailto:Andrew.Miskell@ThorntonCO.gov

Municipal Justice Master Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A.1 SCHEDULE OF EVENTS:

A.2 PURCHASING ANALYST OF RECORD:

A.3 GENERAL SUMMARY OF PROCUREMENT NEEDS:

B.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND:

B.2 REORGANIZATION, ONGOING CHALLENGES, AND PROBLEM STATEMENT:

B.3 OBJECTIVES/GOALS:

B.4 BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS:

B.5 VENDOR INTERVIEWS:

B.6 SCOPE OF WORK – GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS:

B.7 PROJECT MEETINGS:

B.8 FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

B.9 THORNTON’S INTENDED PROJECT MILESTONES:

B.10 F.O.B. POINT:

B.11 PREVIOUS WORK SAMPLES:

B.12 FUTURE WORK CONSIDERATIONS:

B.13 INVOICING REQUIREMENTS:

B.14 VENDOR PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT:

B.15 COOPERATIVE PURCHASING:

C.1 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ANSWERING QUESTIONS:

C.2 PROPOSAL QUESTIONS:

D.1 PRICING INFORMATION:

D.2 VENDOR PRICING SUBMITTAL:

D.3 BEST AND FINAL OFFER:

D.4 VENDOR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS:

D.5 PRICING:

D.6 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES:

D.7 PROPOSAL ITEMS:

S:\SS\C-P\2026\262-26 MJMP\2-Bid Docs\BidNet\1-Original Upload\262-26 RFP 07-20-26

E.1 PROPOSAL POSTED LOCATIONS:

E.2 PROPOSAL QUESTIONS:

E.3 ADDENDA:

E.4 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS:

E.5 DOCUMENTS FOR FINAL VENDOR SUBMISSION:

E.6 PAGE LENGTHS FOR FINAL VENDOR SUBMISSION:

E.7 CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

E.8 LATE PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS:

E.9 AWARDS:

E.10 ACCEPTANCE PERIOD:

E.11 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS:

E.12 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

E.13 POST AWARD PURCHASE ORDER:

E.14 STANDARD PROPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS:

F.1 SAMPLE AGREEMENT:

G.1 ACCEPTANCE AND ADDENDA ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM:

G.2 SAMPLE AGREEMENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM

G.3 REFERENCES AND AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE FORM:

G.4 DISCLOSURE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (A.I.) USAGE FORM:

H.1 PURCHASING MANAGER FORM:

S:\SS\C-P\2026\262-26 MJMP\2-Bid Docs\BidNet\1-Original Upload\262-26 RFP 07-20-26

SCHEDULE, PURCHASING ANALYST OF RECORD, AND GENERAL

SUMMARY OF NEEDS

A.1 SCHEDULE OF EVENTS:

The following is a list of important items, dates, and times that pertain to this solicitation. All times listed below are in reference to the local Thornton, Colorado time.

Solicitation Item Time

Proposal Issued

Deadline to Submit Additional Questions 11:00 P.M.

Response to Written Questions

Proposal Due Date

Date

July 20, 2026

July 31, 2026

August 6, 2026

August 18, 2026 11:00 P.M.

A.2 PURCHASING ANALYST OF RECORD:

The Purchasing Analyst of Record for this solicitation will be the central point of contact throughout the solicitation process. All questions and inquiries must be submitted in writing via a direct email to the Purchasing Analyst. No communication is to be directed to any other Thornton personnel.

The Purchasing Analyst of Record’s contact information is as follows:

Name: Andrew Miskell, CPPB Title: Purchasing Manager

Email: Andrew.Miskell@ThorntonCO.gov

A.3 GENERAL SUMMARY OF PROCUREMENT NEEDS:

The City of Thornton, CO (“Thornton”) is seeking Proposals from interested firms for the purchase of consulting services for the City of Thornton regarding its Municipal Court’s operations and policies, for both short-term decision-making and long-term road map building to support Thornton’s operations.

mailto:Andrew.Miskell@ThorntonCO.gov

S:\SS\C-P\2026\262-26 MJMP\2-Bid Docs\BidNet\1-Original Upload\262-26 RFP 07-20-26

CURRENT STATE, SCOPE OF WORK, AND SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

B.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND:

Thornton is a home-rule city located northeast of Denver in Adams County, Colorado, which has experienced large growth over the past forty years, with a population of forty-two thousand (42,000) in 1980, to over one hundred fifty thousand plus (150,000+) citizens today. By 2065, Thornton is projected to become the 5th largest city in Colorado within the next few years, with population growth projections exceeding two hundred forty thousand (240,000) citizens.

Thornton’s governing body includes four (4) wards with two elected officials from each ward plus the Mayor. As part of the responsibilities of Thornton’s elected officials, they appoint the three (3) professional positions of City Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge.

Thornton’s Charter section 5.4 (a) states, “To be responsible to the Council for the efficient administration of all administrative departments of the City government except the department under the direction of the City Attorney. As to this department the powers herein granted shall not be applicable unless specifically provided.”

While the City Manager oversees the operations of the City, and the City Attorney oversees Thornton’s in-house counsel and prosecutorial teams, the Municipal Judge has traditionally overseen the court’s proceedings, but the court staff have been managed by another department.

B.2 REORGANIZATION, ONGOING CHALLENGES, AND PROBLEM STATEMENT:

The City completed an organizational review in mid-2025 to ensure that the City’s structure meets the current needs and priorities of the organization. As a recommendation of that organizational review, the City will be examining the supervisory alignment of Thornton’s Municipal Court administrative staff. In addition to evaluating administrative realignment, Thornton’s Municipal Court has faced recent opportunities and challenges

For additional information regarding Thornton’s organizational review and a copy of the report, proposing Vendors may follow this link:

https://thorntonco.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=4378&meetingTe mplateType=2&compiledMeetingDocumentId=11858

In addition to the prospect of realigning the administrative staff of Thornton’s courts, the courts themselves have undergone several operational and program improvements. The current state of affairs of Thornton’s Municipal Courts was described during a planning session and Council Retreat in January of 2026.

A copy of the state of affairs slide deck can be found here: January 20, 2026 Planning Session, along with a brief synopsis is also listed below:

https://thorntonco.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=4378&meetingTemplateType=2&compiledMeetingDocumentId=11858 https://thorntonco.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=4378&meetingTemplateType=2&compiledMeetingDocumentId=11858 https://thorntonco.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=4599&meetingTemplateType=2&compiledMeetingDocumentId=12177 https://thorntonco.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=4599&meetingTemplateType=2&compiledMeetingDocumentId=12177

S:\SS\C-P\2026\262-26 MJMP\2-Bid Docs\BidNet\1-Original Upload\262-26 RFP 07-20-26

1) Municipal Court cases are increasing significantly, increasing by 3,700 more cases in 2025, with a total of 16,405 cases

2) Given caseloads, the Municipal Court often utilizes two and sometimes three courtrooms, relying on contracted Associate Judges. In 2025, Associate Judges worked over five hundred (500) hours.

3) The Municipal Court converted to paperless processes in 2025 which improved efficiency of some functions but also created new challenges.

4) The Municipal Court has been and will continue to be impacted by new policies and programmatic emphasis on proactive traffic enforcement and nuisance code compliance and efforts to support underrepresented communities through programs like the Empowerment Expo, Fresh Start Court, and opportunities to increase supportive services such as diversion, restorative justice and probation.

Thornton is seeking proposals from qualified firms with experience in reviewing governmental/Municipal Courts, for the awarded Vendor to provide operational and policy impacts that could assist in short-term decision-making around the Municipal Court Administration Alignment and short-term resource priorities. The awarded Vendor’s review is also intended to provide a longer-term road map to support prioritization and decision-making.

B.3 OBJECTIVES/GOALS:

Thornton’s desired outcome from this RFP is to find a qualified Vendor that can meet and/or exceed the RFP’s objectives/goals. These goals will include, but are not limited to:

1) Evaluation of potential realignment of administrative responsibilities of the Municipal Court.

2) Development of information to inform Intergovernmental impacts and strategy.

3) Review of and recommendations regarding current facilities and technology.

4) Prospective innovations and programs for potential adoption by the municipal justice system.

Each of these items are discussed further in the Scope of Work section below, including items of emphasis and focus for the proposing Vendor.

Thornton has drafted and developed a governance document for this project that includes people, titles, roles and responsibilities for the project. This document will be shared with the awarded Vendor upon final award and purchase order issuance.

B.4 BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS:

Thornton has a targeted budget for the awarded Vendor’s proposed solution of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00).

All additional/future work outside of this budgeted amount is subject to funding appropriations review and approval by Thornton City Council.

B.5 VENDOR INTERVIEWS:

Thornton may elect to conduct Vendor interviews in order to clarify and answer additional questions. All interviews will be held at a physical/virtual location at Thornton’s sole discretion and shall be at Thornton’s decision if an interview is deemed as being necessary.

Thornton shall not compensate a proposing Vendor for any costs incurred by a Vendor that are related to an interview conducted by Thornton during this RFP process.

B.6 SCOPE OF WORK – GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS:

The following items provide additional context surrounding Thornton’s goals and areas that the award Vendor would be expected to emphasize during their consultant work with Thornton.

1) Evaluation of Potential Realignment:

The awarded Vendor’s analysis will include impacts on the judicial and administrative resources that currently exist within Thornton’s Municipal Court team.

The analysis will also include how current and future recommendations will impact

Thornton’s governance and the systems that currently/should exist for cross-departmental strategies and impacts. Cross-departmental may include, but is not limited to other teams within Thornton, such as the Thornton Police Department, City Manager’s Office, City Attorney’s Office, Information Technology, and/or the Finance Department.

The Vendor’s analysis will include recommendations of an appropriate alignment for decision-making and support that aligns with the Municipal Court’s needs and addresses the challenges that a growing team/City has before them.

This analysis must include best practices and “lessons learned” from other Municipal

Courts that are peers to Thornton, both in geographic proximity and to operational size/structure. Analysis will include evidence-based practices, where possible.

2) Development of Information for Intergovernmental Impacts/Strategy:

Thornton’s Municipal Court has limited jurisdiction to the following:

• Traffic infractions/offenses;

• Parking violations (including tow hearings);

• Code violations; including nuisance and unsafe buildings;

• Animal offenses (including animal fact finding hearings); and

• Misdemeanors (Shoplifting, theft, price switching, damaging property, assault, trespassing, harassment, disorderly conduct, obstructing, resisting, possession of paraphernalia/alcohol).

New laws and emerging priorities have created potential opportunities that Thornton would seek for the awarded Vendor to analyze. These include the municipal vs. county functions, with a focus on domestic violence, including cross-jurisdictional collaboration.

Thornton’s expectation is for the Vendor to provide an analysis of Thornton’s situation

vs. peer groups, along with recommendations for potential avenues of exploration for cross-jurisdictional collaboration with Thornton. Analysis should include, at a minimum, impacts of these cross-jurisdictional collaborations on administrative staff and Thornton departments.

These new laws/priorities have also allowed Thornton to ask the Vendor to provide an analysis on program impacts that may be felt by Thornton. This includes an evaluation of the Adams County justice system functions and programming that may be performed more efficiently at the local Municipal Court level, the advantages/disadvantages of Thornton or the County implementing these functions, and the identification of additional benefits of local regulations over state law. Analysis should include identification of local and state-wide resources available to assist in implementing these functions at a local level.

3) Current Facilities and Technology:

The Municipal Justice Center was erected in 2005 and is composed of multiple levels of primarily two interconnected buildings, the Municipal Court and the Thornton Police Department – District 1. As part of the analysis, Thornton wants the awarded Vendor’s analysis to include considerations for the Municipal Court’s physical building space, courtroom(s), facility, available technology within these spaces, and office impacts regarding growth of the Municipal Court and any implemented recommendations from the Vendor’s analysis. The analysis should include physical impacts on other departments, and if limiting, solutions to those impacts.

As for technology, the Municipal Court implemented our current court management software platform, Full Court (Neumo platform), in 2003 and transitioned to a web-based version in 2014. As previously stated, Thornton’s Courts team transitioned to a paperless system in 2025, however, there are other IT enhancements, and investments currently underway in partner departments (Police, Code Compliance) as part of their

Public Safety Technology Plan. As Thornton continues to grow, Thornton would want the awarded Vendor to review our current court management software for its functionality/scalability vs. the current software market, as well as review the impact and opportunities for the Court to continue to become further efficient and paperless, including integration opportunities with cross-departmental systems and their impacts.

4) Municipal Justice System Programs/Innovations:

Thornton continues to strive to support underrepresented communities through programs like the Empowerment Expo, Fresh Start Court, and opportunities to increase supportive services such as diversion, restorative justice and probation.

The City is interested in understanding potential level of service for the following programs and their resource impacts both in the Municipal Court and to cross-departmental partners, phasing opportunities, and evaluation of the relative priority of new investments.

The awarded Vendor will include in their analysis items such as the scoping and impact of probation programs/resources, diversion/restorative justice strategies, mediation, and Thornton Fresh Start Court expansion. Analysis should include, at a minimum, impacts on administrative staff and Thornton departments.

5) Overarching Considerations for Areas of Evaluation Emphasis:

For any structural recommendations, Vendors are to identify any position or administrative impacts and any off-setting opportunities that could limit the cost and position impacts of implementation. To a reasonable degree, ensure that recommendations consider funding limitations, impacts to existing or best practices internal controls, and the benefits/costs of implementation.

B.7 PROJECT MEETINGS:

The awarded Vendor will be expected to attend and manage the meetings for this project, including but not limited to the sharing and collection of information, development of meeting materials and handouts, graphic illustrations, preparing and disseminating meeting notes, preparing presentations, reports, and recommendations for different Thornton personnel.

Thornton’s expectation is for the awarded Vendor to attend virtual, and upon Thornton’s request, in-person meetings, with the meeting style to be dependent on the audience and material to be discussed. Thornton is generally flexible with a meeting’s format (in-person or virtual). Proposing Vendors are highly encouraged to address how they would meet Thornton’s needs and what their recommendations are for meetings with Thornton’s Leadership.

Upon completion of each meeting with Thornton, the Vendor will create a meeting summary and disseminate (email) that summary to those Thornton individuals who were in attendance of the meeting. This requirement is to ensure that there is minimal miscommunication between both Parties during this project.

B.8 FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

The awarded Vendor will be expected to provide a final report of their process analysis, including recommendations and potential outcomes for each recommendation, to Thornton.

The final report will be provided in conjunction with the awarded Vendor’s presentation of the report to Thornton’s leadership, and it will include all of the recommendations and implementation strategies, impacts (advantages and disadvantages), methodology for findings, assessments and summaries, etc.

As part of the final report and recommendations, the awarded Vendor will also be expected to provide a cost analysis and quantify projected fiscal impacts of any/all proposed recommendations and the timeline for implementing such recommendations.

All reports provided by the Vendor to Thornton shall be in an electronic format that is usable to Thornton (e.g., Adobe PDF, Microsoft Office, etc.) either through email or download, which shall become the property of Thornton. All reports generated and submitted by the awarded Vendor to Thornton shall adhere to the State of Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”). As of 2021, House Bill 21-1110 (CADA) law requires all technology and electronic documents (i.e., Reports generated in Adobe PDF, etc.) to meet or exceed the Website Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) standards, regardless of if the product/information is external facing or internal only. The State of Colorado has put their Office of Information and Technology (“OIT”) in charge of developing and distributing the standards for this compliance.

Proposing Vendors are to note that Thornton does not govern or have oversight over these requirements. For more information on the CADA and WCAG guidelines, please follow this hyperlink to the State of Colorado’s Office of Information Technology website:

https://oit.colorado.gov/hb21-1110-faq

B.9 THORNTON’S INTENDED PROJECT MILESTONES:

Thornton has listed its intended project payment milestones that it would assume to be agreeable to the Vendor. The proposing Vendor may provide an alternative recommendation of payment milestones, however, Thornton reserves at its sole discretion to negotiate a final set of payment milestones with the awarded Vendor to find a mutually agreeable payment structure for this project.

1) Milestone # 1 – Project initiation and kick-off meeting with stakeholders, including initial review of engagement plan with Project Steering Committee.

2) Milestone # 2 – Engagement and Data Collection with Project Steering Committee, Executive Committee, City Council and other key stakeholders.

https://oit.colorado.gov/hb21-1110-faq

3) Milestone # 3 – Analysis of research, draft findings, and recommendations with representatives of the Project Steering Committee and Executive Committee.

4) Milestone # 4 – Development of draft report for review and comment by the Project Steering Committee and Executive Committee, including a presentation to both committees.

5) Milestone # 5 – Development of final report including detailed findings, executive summary, and final presentations to Steering and Executive Committees, as well as City Council.

B.10 F.O.B. POINT:

Prices quoted for all meetings, reports, deliverables, etc., shall be F.O.B. Destination and delivered, as required, to the following points:

Thornton City Hall 9500 Civic Center Drive Thornton, CO 80229 Attention: City Manager’s Office

B.11 PREVIOUS WORK SAMPLES:

As part of their submittal in response to this RFP, proposing Vendors are required to furnish a sample of previous work/reports provided to other clients, which are to be supplied at no cost to Thornton. Any sample submitted shall create an express warranty that the whole of the goods and/or services shall conform to the sample submitted. Thornton will not return any samples to the proposing Vendor at the conclusion of this solicitation.

B.12 FUTURE WORK CONSIDERATIONS:

The Agreement that results from this solicitation with the awarded Vendor shall serve as the basis for the agreed upon terms and conditions and general expectations for all projects under this award. For future work, where funding has been appropriated by Thornton’s City Council, will likely follow the general process below between the awarded Vendor and Thornton:

1) An initial needs assessment and design meeting with the Thornton PM personnel that is assigned to the project, and the Vendor personnel.

2) An initial Vendor recommendation and quoted SOW with pricing that reflects the agreement’s pricing structure and requirements that is to be sent to the Thornton PM for review.

a) Each Scope of Work shall contain at a minimum:

i) Detailed line-item pricing with units, descriptions, quantities, estimated labor hours, etc.;

ii) Confirmation of the agreement’s pricing structure having been utilized;

iii) Project schedule;

iv) Milestone payments with detailed Scope of Work deliverables under each milestone payment; and

v) Any additional special considerations regarding the job environment.

(1) Note, it is at this stage that the PM and the Vendor may have revisions of the

Scope of Work, pricing, and any required documentation to reach a final fulfillment of Thornton’s needs.

3) Once the Thornton PM finds the quote satisfactory, the Thornton PM will enter a requisition into Thornton’s financial system for the finalized Scope of Work and pricing, which will flow to a Contracts/Purchasing Analyst in the Contracts and Purchasing Division for review.

4) Upon review and approval from Contracts and Purchasing Division, the Purchasing Analyst will coordinate with the Vendor to execute a signed Change Order Form.

B.13 INVOICING REQUIREMENTS:

Thornton’s Accounts Payable Division is the only division within Thornton that issues payments to Vendors who have submitted invoices. Thornton only issues payments from invoices and will not issue payments to Vendors off of quotes.

Thornton’s standard payment terms are net thirty (30) Calendar Days after receipt of an invoice. All invoices submitted shall be emailed to AP.Invoices@ThorntonCO.gov. In lieu of email, physical copies may be submitted to City of Thornton – Accounts Payable, 9500 Civic Center Drive, Thornton, CO 80229-4326. Invoices sent to anyone other than Accounts Payable are not considered to be properly submitted and will not be paid until they are properly submitted.

B.14 VENDOR PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT:

Thornton may administer a Vendor performance management program as part of this proposal resulting agreement. The purpose of this program is to create a method for documenting and advising Thornton of exceptional performance or any problems related to the purchased goods and services.

B.15 COOPERATIVE PURCHASING:

Thornton encourages the proper use of cooperative purchasing and reserves the right to make results of this solicitation available to other governmental agencies seeking like equipment, goods, or services. Other agencies using this solicitation must do so according to regulations established by their individual organizations and accept sole responsibility for its use. The terms and conditions of any resulting transaction shall be exclusively between the buyer and the seller. Buyers and sellers from other municipalities and political subdivisions using this solicitation in a cooperative or “piggy-back” fashion, agree to defend and hold harmless Thornton from any dispute or action arising from its use.

mailto:AP.Invoices@ThorntonCO.gov

PROPOSAL QUESTIONS TO PROSPECTIVE VENDOR

C.1 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ANSWERING QUESTIONS:

Your proposal response must specifically address each of the questions/issues that are listed within this RFP. The quality and detail of your responses, along with how closely your firm can meet or exceed Thornton’s Scope of Work expectations from Section B, will be considered in the overall evaluation of your proposal. Proposers are encouraged to give examples and provide comprehensive information to support your compliance on each point.

All answers provided by the awarded Vendor may be incorporated into the final agreement between the Vendor and Thornton as an additional exhibit or as part of a finalized Scope of Work.

C.2 PROPOSAL QUESTIONS:

To standardize the format of all proposals for evaluation, Proposers are required to respond to all questions in the order given and to list the item number and restate the question prior to giving their answer. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in your proposal being declared non-responsive.

A. General Vendor Questions

1) General Vendor Summary

Please provide a brief description of the following:

a) Full legal company name;

b) Your headquarters address;

c) Primary company contact including name, phone number, and email address;

d) The year your firm was established;

e) A brief listing of your Vendor core competencies; and

f) A current copy of your firm’s W-9 (IRS version October 2018).

B. Experience and References

1) Experience

Please provide a brief narrative, on your experience and your expertise surrounding your ability to review and provide recommendations for municipalities, their courts, and systems.

2) References

Please provide five (5) current client references that you have provided the same or like consulting services to in the past ten (10) years. Of these references, please list as many Colorado governmental clients as available, followed by others governmental municipalities as available.

a) Include in your reference information:

i) Name of the municipality or firm;

ii) Client’s headquarters address;

iii) Current reference contact information, including the Reference’s:

(1) Name;

(2) Title;

(3) Phone number;

(4) Email address;

iv) Project start date (date of signed agreement);

v) Project end date (project close-out date); and

vi) Project description including all services performed.

b) Please provide at least three (3) previous Municipal Court review project reports/results that your firm has completed in the last five (10) years for other cities, preferably those cities listed above in your references.

i) Proposing Vendors will upload these examples as separate files when submitting through BidNet Direct’s Vendor portal.

C. Proposed Services Personnel

1) Vendor Engagement Team

Please provide the following:

a) Each team member in the project engagement team’s role;

b) The responsibilities for each role; and

c) Information regarding the team member’s professional background.

i) Resumes may be included as an appendix, but each resume shall not exceed one (1) page in length.

2) Vendor Recommended Roles and Responsibilities of Thornton’s Project Personnel

a) Identify the recommended Thornton personnel project team roles; and

b) The responsibilities of each role.

D. Proposed Services Engagement Methodology

1) Engagement Methodology

Thornton’s expectation is that the awarded Vendor will use their expertise to provide proactive leadership, guidance, and direction to the Thornton, CO team throughout each phase of the project life cycle while working collaboratively to plan and implement the solution.

a) What steps does your firm recommend to a municipal client prior to engaging in a review of its courts/systems?

b) How does your firm intend on engaging and coordinating with various levels of City staff, including the City Manager’s Office, Municipal Courts, Information Technology, supervisors and managers, etc.?

c) What are key research/data points, professional organizations, prevailing best practices, etc. that your firm utilizes in the gathering of information during your analysis and why do you use each one?

d) What types of factors does your firm consider when compiling and making recommendations to a municipal client regarding the study of Thornton’s Municipal Courts, both current and prospective changes?

2) Proposed Scope

a) Please provide Thornton with a proposed scope of work as your firm sees to meet

Thornton’s stated scope of work from this RFP, as well as the additional considerations stated within this RFP by Thornton. Please note that a final scope of work will be mutually agreed upon during finalization of the award with the Vendor.

E. Proposed Schedule and Payment Milestones

1) Project Schedule

a) A proposed project schedule via a Gantt chart or other type of chart, in terms of calendar days based upon the RFP Scope of Work and your proposed engagement methodology.

i) Use “Day 1” as the date of a fully executed agreement/PO issuance, with no prior work having been completed.

ii) Ensure that you list the number of calendar days are expected for each portion of the project schedule.

iii) Ensure that you include all proposed milestones and deliverables that are required to complete this project.

2) Project Payment Milestones

a) Please provide either of the following:

i) Confirmation that Thornton’s proposed milestones and deliverables listed within this RFP are acceptable to your firm; or

ii) Provide a proposed set of milestones and deliverables for Thornton’s consideration.

(1) Note: Appendix No. 1 – Pricing Form, is set up as an open text field for your firm to insert your proposed set of payment milestones, along with each milestone’s corresponding requested payment amount. Your firm must complete Appendix No. 1 to be considered responsive.

F. Additional Details and Closing Statement

1) Additional Details

a) Please describe in detail any areas that Thornton has not included in this RFP’s Scope of Work (best practices, missed requirements, etc.) that your team considers to be beneficial, important, relevant, or crucial to the successful implementation of your proposed solution.

2) Closing Statement

a) Please provide a brief narrative (one [1] page or less) of how you believe your company’s proposed solution will best serve Thornton’s needs both now, and in the future of the contractual agreement.

The remainder of this page has been left blank intentionally.

PRICING AND PROPOSAL ITEMS

D.1 PRICING INFORMATION:

This section shall include a description of the proposed costs and prices. All pricing information shall be limited solely to this section of your proposal. This section should address all requirements set forth in Section B as well as any other items pertinent to your proposal pricing such as additional discounts for increased quantities, service requirements, etc. The requirements have been developed to allow Thornton to uniformly evaluate prices submitted for the work. Accordingly, you should follow these instructions carefully and provide all data requested in the formats specified herein and in any referenced attachments.

Any omissions in this proposal shall be identified by each Vendor and incorporated into their proposal including any omissions for hardware, service, support, software, travel, shipping, etc.

which is necessary to the success of the project. All items must be identified as a separate line item with pricing and included as part of this RFP, unless otherwise requested by Thornton.

Thornton will not increase any subsequent agreement or purchase order (neither dollar amount or time) for items not included in the submitted proposal documents. Thornton reserves the right to purchase part or the entire proposal.

D.2 VENDOR PRICING SUBMITTAL:

All Vendor proposed pricing shall be submitted as a completed on the Pricing Form listed below that has been provided by Thornton. Proposing Vendors may include a copy of their pricing on a Vendor quote as additional explanation of pricing only. Any Vendor terms and conditions, hyperlinks, or “click-through” agreements, etc. stated on a Vendor quote shall not be enforceable, unless first approved in writing by Thornton’s Purchasing Division.

Thornton’s Pricing Form shall be the official record of the Vendor’s proposed pricing submittal.

The Vendor shall be deemed as non-responsive for further evaluation if the Vendor fails to complete and submit the Thornton Pricing Form that has been provided, unless otherwise approved by Thornton in writing.

D.3 BEST AND FINAL OFFER:

Thornton reserves the right after review and evaluation of Vendors, including after all interviews and demonstrations that have been conducted, to go back to the “short list” of Vendors to conduct a Best and Final Offer (‘BAFO”). If issued, the BAFO may be included as a final pricing evaluation tool by Thornton to aid in the award decision process.

D.4 VENDOR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS:

A proposing Vendor who has been awarded an agreement through a competitive solicitation process that has resulted in the Vendor being a part of cooperative purchasing award, may submit pricing that is in line and references the Vendor’s cooperative purchasing award, however, such reference shall be in name and pricing submittal only. For avoidance of doubt, any pricing submitted by a Vendor shall not exceed the ceiling pricing awarded to the Vendor, nor shall Thornton be bound the terms and conditions of such cooperative purchasing agreement that is held by the Vendor unless otherwise authorized in writing by Thornton’s Purchasing Division.

D.5 PRICING:

All prices quoted shall be firm and fixed for the entire period of time it takes to complete the original project that includes all portions of the scope of work listed in Section B of this solicitation, and any other scope of work that becomes adopted as part of this solicitation through clarifications, interviews, proposal submittals, etc.

D.6 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES:

Reimbursable expenses for travel time, fuel, hotel and lodging accommodations, meals, photocopying, and printing will not be applicable. All proposed Vendor rates shall be inclusive of standard office equipment, supplies, travel, mileage, insurance, etc. incurred by the awarded Vendor during their service to Thornton that is required to complete the project.

D.7 PROPOSAL ITEMS:

The pricing form for this RFP will be in a Microsoft Excel format, with a free-type ability for the Vendor to complete the form if there are any additional costs associated with your proposal.

The form is under separate cover and is entitled “262-26 RFP Appendix No. 1 Pricing Form”.

All pricing is to be reflective of the Scope of Work and proposal questions listed within this solicitation. Do not include pricing in any other portion of your proposal.

It is the proposing Vendor’s responsibility to list all applicable employee costs for this Project.

All items not itemized and listed by the proposing Vendor that are instrumental in completing this Project will be at the cost to the Vendor and supplied to Thornton at no additional cost.

Proposing Vendors are asked to provide hourly rate pricing for each of their employee positions that will be applicable to Thornton for this project. These hourly employee rates will be used for this Scope of Work, as well as for any meetings, presentations, or other hours accumulated by the awarded Vendor that may fall out of the Scope of Work listed within this RFP which would require a written change order.

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS, EVALUATION, AND AWARD

E.1 PROPOSAL POSTED LOCATIONS:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) has been posted publicly to the following locations:

• BidNet® Direct: www.BidNetDirect.com

• Thornton’s Purchasing website: https://solicitations.thorntonco.gov/solicitations

Thornton currently uses BidNet Direct® and its own website to distribute official records for all copies of publicly posted proposals for viewing. Both websites operate as a free to view and download option for prospective Vendors.

Upon request by a Proposing Vendor, the Purchasing Division will also make this solicitation available for viewing at the Contracts and Purchasing Division office. The address for the office is located on the cover page of this RFP.

E.2 PROPOSAL QUESTIONS:

Thornton shall not be bound by and the Vendor shall not request or rely on any oral interpretation or clarification of this RFP. Therefore, any questions regarding this RFP are encouraged and shall be submitted in writing by email to the Purchasing Analyst of Record listed within this RFP.

Questions received up to deadline to submit question in the Schedule of Events will be answered in writing per the Schedule of Events. Answers to questions from any Vendor will be provided to all Vendors via a written addendum.

E.3 ADDENDA:

In the event it becomes necessary to revise, change, modify or cancel this RFP or to provide additional information, addenda will be issued and made available on BidNet® Direct and on Thornton’s website. Changes, clarifications, and answers to RFP questions that have been posted in a written addendum that affect or change the RFP’s Scope of Work shall be considered as to have replaced and superseded the original proposal’s Scope of Work.

It is the responsibility of the proposer/ contractor to confirm that they have acquired all addenda related to this proposal and they have reviewed/ complied with the requirements therein.

E.4 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS:

Submission of proposals for this RFP may be done electronically through a Vendor portal (currently done via BidNet Direct®). Proposals can be submitted at www.bidnetdirect.com, but shall not be completely submitted later than the date and time indicated in the Schedule of Events.

http://www.bidnetdirect.com/ https://solicitations.thorntonco.gov/solicitations http://www.bidnetdirect.com/

If you experience problems with BidNet Direct®, please call 1-800-835-4603 for assistance.

There is no charge by BidNet Direct® for this service.

Proposing Vendors who are unable to submit a proposal through BidNet®, may request to submit a physical copy of their proposal for consideration. A proposing Vendor shall email the Purchasing Analyst of Record prior to the question due date listed in the Schedule of Events, for instructions on where and how to submit their physical proposal. All physical proposal submissions shall be submitted and recorded no later than the date and time indicated in the Schedule of Events.

E.5 DOCUMENTS FOR FINAL VENDOR SUBMISSION:

Proposing Vendors are solely responsible to ensure that their submission is complete and responsive prior to a final submission. As a reminder this RFP contains the following documents that will require completion by the proposing Vendor to be considered as initially responsive:

1) Section C.2 – Proposal Questions – Answers provided by the proposing Vendor;

2) Section D.7 – Proposal Items;

3) All additional technical information in support of your proposal;

4) Section G.1 – Acceptance and Addenda Acknowledgement Form;

5) Section G.2 – Sample Agreement Acknowledgement Form, including any proposed redlines to Thornton’s Sample Agreement;

6) Section G.3 – References and Authorization Release Form; and

7) Section G.4 – Disclosure of Generative Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) Usage Form

It is not necessary for a proposing Vendor to submit this entire RFP document that has been provided by Thornton with the Vendor’s response. Only the above-mentioned items are currently required with your proposal submission. Thornton reserves the right to request any clarification, ask any questions, or request additional documents that may aid in the evaluation of your proposal.

E.6 PAGE LENGTHS FOR FINAL VENDOR SUBMISSION:

Thornton is seeking proposals from qualified firms with proposals from prospective Vendors that contain relevant information, answers to proposal questions, pricing, technical information, sample reports, and other items that support that Vendor’s proposal submission.

With this in mind, Thornton is requesting that proposing Vendors work to limit their submissions to thirty (30) pages or less, not inclusive of any sample works that are required to be provided as part of your firm’s proposal submission.

E.7 CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

As a Colorado home rule municipality, Thornton is subject to and must comply with the Colorado Open Records Act (“CORA”), C.R.S. § 24-72-201 et seq. All Vendor submitted documents are subject to requests for public records pursuant to CORA. Proposing Vendors must clearly identify within their submissions any information that is confidential and proprietary by marking such information as “Confidential” or “Proprietary” information.

Any information a Vendor marks as confidential or proprietary shall comply with CORA and any other applicable statute(s).

Prior to a final award and agreement, Vendor submitted information that is contained within the proposal may be held by Thornton as confidential and proprietary at Thornton’s sole discretion.

In accordance with CORA, upon the conclusion of a final award and agreement, Thornton may, in its sole discretion, release any and all portions of Vendor submissions not marked as confidential or proprietary. Thornton shall be held harmless from any claims arising from the release of confidential and proprietary information not clearly designated as such by the proposing Vendor within their proposal documents to Thornton that are submitted to Thornton as part of their final submission package or any subsequent clarification documents during Thornton’s evaluation of the Vendor’s submitted proposal.

In general, it is not acceptable to Thornton for a proposing Vendor to mark information other than the following items as confidential or proprietary:

1) Financial statements;

2) Project financing data;

3) Litigation history;

4) Tax audit history; and

5) Client lists and references.

Thornton does not generally find it acceptable to mark proposal pricing, nor the entirety of your proposal, as confidential or proprietary. Failure to adhere to these restrictions may result in your proposal being deemed non-responsive.

For more information about Thornton’s processes related to CORA, including using Thornton’s Public Records Request Form or for submission of a CORA request, please visit the website of the office of Thornton’s City Clerk at https://www.thorntonco.gov/government/city-clerk/Pages/default.aspx or you can reach the Clerk’s office by email at Clerk@ThorntonCO.gov or by phone at (303) 538-7615.

https://www.thorntonco.gov/government/city-clerk/Pages/default.aspx https://www.thorntonco.gov/government/city-clerk/Pages/default.aspx mailto:Clerk@ThorntonCO.gov

E.8 LATE PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS:

Proposing Vendors are expected to allow adequate time to upload a complete submission for consideration through the electronic Vendor portal (currently BidNet Direct®). The Vendor portal will not allow a Vendor to modify, save, nor upload their proposal after the submittal date and time have passed. It is highly recommended that as a proposing Vendor you do not wait until the last minute to submit your proposal.

Late proposals will not be accepted. Sole responsibility rests with the proposing Vendor to ensure that its proposal is completely uploaded through the Vendor portal or is received in the Purchasing Office prior to the submission deadline. Proposals that are left in a “Draft” status in the Vendor portal will not be accepted by Thornton for consideration.

All physical proposals received in the Purchasing Office after the submittal date and time will be immediately rejected without consideration.

E.9 AWARDS:

Award will be made on an "all or none" basis. Prices must be shown for each item listed.

Proposals submitted without individual item prices listed will be considered as non-responsive and rejected.

E.10 ACCEPTANCE PERIOD:

Submissions in response to this proposal shall remain valid until an award has been made to a proposing Vendor or at a minimum of one hundred twenty (120) Calendar Days from the time of submission, whichever date comes last.

E.11 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS:

All proposals will be evaluated by a Selection Committee assigned by the City Manager, or their designee. Proposals shall be evaluated on the basis of qualifications, experience, and the applicability of the solutions offered to meet Thornton’s needs as they pertain to the Evaluation Criteria noted herein and in the context of best value received for the required goods and/or services. Note that any tools utilized by the Selection Committee in their evaluation process are only intended to facilitate the understanding of the submissions received and facilitate the member’s ability to weigh the merits of each proposal. Therefore, any tools utilized by the Selection Committee have no binding effect on their vote or the final award made by Thornton as a result of this RFP.

In addition, other pertinent information which becomes available during the evaluation, interview, or negotiations may be considered in the evaluation. The committee may make a selection on the basis of the Proposals received, or may choose to "short list" prospective firms for further consideration, which may include interviews and or negotiations. The firm selected for the Award will be chosen on the basis of the apparent greatest operational and financial benefit to Thornton, and not necessarily on the basis of lowest price. The City Manager, or their designee, shall make the final determination of the firm selected.

E.12 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

Evaluation criteria for this RFP may include, but is not limited to, the following items:

1) Responsiveness to the needs of Thornton, including the time required to complete the implementation of the awarded Vendor’s solution.

2) Responsibility of the proposing Vendor.

3) The written responses provided by the proposing Vendor to the Proposal Questions –

Section C.2, and all clarification questions asked by Thornton during the RFP evaluation.

4) The proposing Vendor’s submitted pricing.

5) The results of the Vendor’s reference checks.

6) The degree to which the Vendor’s proposal meets or exceeds the needs as defined in the

RFP, including any additional value-add items.

7) The results of any Vendor samples, and/or interviews from this RFP.

8) The agreeability of the Vendor to Thornton’s terms and conditions and the ability to contract with the awarded Vendor.

9) All other applicable information and documents submitted by the Vendor and received by

Thornton in the evaluation of the proposal.

E.13 POST AWARD PURCHASE ORDER:

The resulting award from this proposal will be a Purchase Order (PO) generated by Thornton’s Contracts and Purchasing Division.

E.14 STANDARD PROPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Thornton maintains a standard set of RFP considerations and terms and conditions for RFPs that are non-federally funded and are not through a cooperative awarded process. These considerations are static between each RFP process. It is the sole responsibility of the proposing Vendor to have read all RFP considerations. A copy of these standard RFP considerations has been uploaded with this RFP document as a separate cover.

SAMPLE AGREEMENT

F.1 SAMPLE AGREEMENT:

At Thornton’s sole discretion, the Vendor may be awarded through the issue of a purchase order, with Thornton’s simplified purchase order terms and conditions as the ruling document, or through the completion of a formal agreement. A sample General Services Agreement has been provided under separate cover as part of this solicitation. This Sample Agreement has been provided to inform the proposing Vendor of Thornton’s terms and conditions expectations for the awarded Vendor from this solicitation. This Sample Agreement is subject to change at Thornton’s sole discretion.

The Sample Agreement that has been provided by Thornton may serve as the overarching agreement for this project, and all work performed by the Vendor and if applicable, their subcontractors for the duration of the entire agreement period. The opportunity for a prospective Vendor to provide any proposed redlines to Thornton’s Sample Agreement is during the submittal process and all Vendor proposed redlines shall be submitted with the Vendor’s final proposal. This Sample Agreement is subject to change at Thornton’s sole discretion.

Thornton does not anticipate signing any separate Vendor contractual documents, including separate general or online terms and conditions, Vendor agreements, Vendor quotations with separate terms and conditions, etc. Vendors who have such documents that are required for their solution must submit these documents for Thornton’s review and potential incorporation into the final agreement between both Parties as part of their final proposal submission.

The Vendor does not need to complete any of the information within the Sample Agreement as part of the initial proposal submission process. At Thornton’s sole discretion and as part of a final evaluation process by Selection Committee, the Purchasing Analyst of Record may contact a proposing Vendor for any clarifications.

REQUIRED VENDOR SIGNATURE FORMS

G.1 ACCEPTANCE AND ADDENDA ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM:

1) Vendor indicates acceptance of the following conditions:

City of Thornton Charter Section 7.4 prohibits Thornton from issuing a Purchase Order to firms which employ certain family members of employees unless the Thornton Council determines it is in Thornton's best interest. For the purposes of this Charter Section, a domestic partner shall be considered equivalent to a family member. The Vendor attests to the following:

No City Council Member, member of a board or commission, Municipal Judge, City Manager, City Attorney, or employee of the City of Thornton, or any such person's family member, domestic partner, or person assuming a relationship being the substantial equivalent of the above, has an existing or pending, direct or indirect, financial, pecuniary or personal interest in the proposing firm or this Invitation for Bid, except as follows: (list, if…