Amendment_No.__5--Response_to_Questions--DCSC-19-RFP-0013_--_DC_Superior_Courts_Case_Management_System.pdf

Anne B. Wicks Executive Officer

TO:

AMENDMENT

ISSUE DATE:

SUBJECT:

FOR:

CLOSING DATE:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS

Administrative Services Division

Office: Gallery Place 616 H Street NW, 6th Floor Washington, DC 20001

Mailing Address: 500 Indiana Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001-2131

AMENDMENT NO. 5

ALL PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS

November 28, 2018

Solicitation No.: DCSC-19-RFP-0013

Louis W. Parker Administrative Officer

DC Superior Courts Case Management System

Monday, December 3, 2018, 2:00 p.m. , EST

The subject solicitation is amended as follows:

1. Delete: Closing date and time and Proposal Due Date and Time:

November 30, 2018

Insert: Closing date and time and Proposal Due Date and Time:

Monday, December 3, 2018, 2:00 p.m., EST. The response due date and time is hereby been extended until Monday, December 3, 2018, 2:00 pm, EST.

2. Responses to written questions received from prospective offeror(s) are included as attachment Appendix J 15 -- Question Submission Template.

ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED.One (1) copy of this amendment is being sent to only those offerors who received a copy the solicitation. Offerors shall sign below and attach a signed copy of this amendment to each proposal to be submitted to the Courts in response to the subject solicitation. Proposals shall be mailed or delivered in accordance with the instructions provided in the original sol icitation documents.

Offerors shall submit their proposals in sealed envelopes, identified above in conjunction with this Amendment No. 5.

Administrative Services Division Office of the Administrative Officer

Phone: 202.879.2874 Fax: 202.879.7575

E-mail: louis.parker@dcsc.gov

This amendment, together with your Proposal , must be received by the District of Columbia Courts no later than the date and time specified for proposal submission. Revisions or price changes occasioned by this amendment must be received by the Courts no later than the date and time set for Proposal submission.

Failure to acknowledge receipt of this amendment, for the subject solicitation may be cause for rejection of any proposals submitted in response to the subject solicitation.

vPPt6 -+~~~--+-F~~'+-1~~~ ) eoffrey A Ma Contracting Officer

This Amendment is acknowledged and is considered a part of the subject solicitation.

Signature of Authorized Representative Date

Name of Authorized Representative

Title of Authorized Representative

Name of Firm

D.C. Courts Case Management System

INSTRUCTIONS: Offerors shall submit questions pertaining to this RFP by populating the blue-shaded cells. Questions are due to the contact person and by the due date and time listed in the RFP. Add rows as necessary.

OWEROR auesTION I RFP SECTION &

PAGE NUMBER

For accurate estimation of level of effort for the interface exchanges, how many individual exchange points (end-points) are anticipated for each of the 26 exchanges in appendix J.16.

For example, Warrant Add, Warrant Update, Case Initiation, Appendix J.16 - Case Update, Charge update, Docket Add, Document Add, Interface etc.? Descriptions

For each of the end-points (following up from the above Appendix J.16 -question), please provide an approximate size of the Interface message/file (payload) for sizing the servers. Descriptions

For accurate estimation of level of effort for the interface exchanges, please provide the data schema or data elements - Outbound and Inbound for the data exchanges that are currently in place for the current CMS? Appendix J.16 -

Interface Descriptions

For the exchanges identified in Appendix J.16, can the DCC identify the "type" of exchanges currently in place - e.g. SOAP WebService, APl-based, FTP, etc.? Appendix J .16 -

Interface Descriptions

If a vendor is proposing a state-of-the-art CMS COTS solution that meets and exceeds the specifications of this RFP and can demonstrate such, but has no production implementations Appendix J.13 (solution users) of the proposed CMS yet, will they be considered unfavaroble for evaluation/scoring purposes?

Table C.5.18 provides information to the number of Case Records in the current CMS. What would be the approximate

C.5.18 Page 22 number of dockets, hearings, and parties that will be required to be converted?

--~ . ,j ~ .. -........ ~~-

The Court has elected not to provide that level of detail within the solicitation. We understand the difficulty of estimating the level of effort for these interfaces with the information given. Offerors should make assumptions based on the information provided in the RFP, and provide a cost for each one. The price proposal template (Appendix J.14) contains space to detail your assumotions related to these costs.

The Court has elected not to provide that level of detail within the solicitation. We understand the difficulty of estimating the level of effort for these interfaces with the information given. Offerors should make assumptions based on the information provided in the RFP, and provide a cost for each one. The price proposal template (Appendix J.14) contains space to detail your assumptions related to these costs.

The Court has elected not to provide that level of detail within the solicitation. We understand the difficulty of estimating the level of effort for these interfaces with the information given. Offerors should make assumptions based on the information provided in the RFP, and provide a cost for each one. The price proposal template (Appendix J.14) contains space to detail your assumptions related to these costs.

The Court has provided a high level description of each interface in J.16. Within each description is an indicator of exchange type such as webservice, sFTP, restful, etc.

Additionally the Court has described it's needs for future interface development in Section C.5.11 Interface Tools and C.5.12 Specific Requirements for Interface Creation.

Please note the previous response.

Please reference Section M Evaluation Factors. As stated "The Courts intend to make an award to the responsible firm whose proposal represents the best value to the Courts and in accordance with the evaluations factors listed below in Section M.2. "

The Court has elected not to provide that level of detail within the solicitation. We understand the difficulty of estimating the level of effort for data conversion with the information given. Offerors should make assumptions based on the information provided in the RFP, and provide a cost for each one. The price proposal template (Appendix J.14) contains space to detail your assumptions related to these costs.

Page 1 of2 Printed 11/28/2018

D.C. Courts Case Management System

For sizing of the servers, what is the approximate volume of Appendix J.16 -inbound and outbound transanctions that the DCC is expecting Interface for the 26 exchanges? Descriptions

Will the DCC provide a high-level diagram of their current Appendix J.16 - Interface exchange/interface architecture?

Descriptions

Access Management for the interfaces: How do the interfaces/exchanges authenticate and authorize consumers Appendix J.16 - (e.g. CFSA, CJCC, etc.) for the interfaces implemented Interface currently? What Identity Provider is used? Username, Descriptions Password, etc.

The RFP states that " .. If the Offerer is proposing to meet public access and payment requirements through an integration in lieu of native CMS functionality .. " If the offerror is proposing an

iii. Public Access integration option for public access, isn't eAccess (public and Electronic access) part of the current CourtView2 CMS replacement or is it

Payment, Page 32 DCC owned? In other words, how should a vendor provide integration to a component that is part of the CMS that is being replaced?

Is the intent of the DCC to replace the existing eFiling application - CaseFileExpress - EFSP and EFM? Or just the CS.10 Page 20 EFM as part of the new CMS solution?

It is difficult to estimate the approximiate volume of transactions for the 26 exchanges. As indicated in an earlier response, approximately 1/3 of the overall DCC filing volume is attributed to the existing electronic interfaces described J.16. Offerers should make assumptions based on the information provided in the RFP, and provide a cost for each one.

No

The Court does not currently employ a single authentication method for the existing interfaces described in J.16. Rather, the method of authentication varies depending on the interface. Application level User Name and Password is the most commmon form of authentication across Court interfaces.

It appears you have misunderstood the statements on page 32. The intent of these statements were to provide flexibility. We are allowing for propsoals to include solutions for public access and electronic payment outside of the CMS via integration. The RFP does not include any requirement for integrating with the Court's current electronic access facility or electronic payment processor.

Relative to efiling, our intent is to evalaute propsosed solutions based on the specific efiling functional requirements included Appendix J.11.

Printed 11/28/2018