District of Columbia Courts Administrative Services Division

Procurement and Contracts Branch

AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO: ALL PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS

AMENDMENT

ISSUE DATE: September 4, 2026

SUBJECT: Request for Proposal (“RFP”) No. DCSC-26-RFP-118

ServiceNow Enterprise Platform Implementation & Managed Adoption Services

PROPOSAL

SUBMISSION

DATE: No later than 1 P.M. EDT on September 10, 2026

By Email Only. See Section L.2 of the RFP.

This Amendment (“Amendment”) No. 1 is issued and hereby published on the DC Courts’ website and ononON on SAM.Gov effective as of the date shown above. Except as modified hereby, the RFP remains unmodified.

Item No. 1: The Questions & Answers Spreadsheet is hereby issued and attached as Appendix A.

Item No. 2: Sections M.4 through M.8 are deleted in their entirety and replaced with the revised sections set forth in Appendix B.

Item No. 3: All Other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Note: One (1) copy of this Amendment is being sent to only those Offerors who submitted questions.

Offerors shall sign below and attach a signed copy of this Amendment to each offer to be submitted to the

Courts in response to the subject RFP. Offerors shall submit their proposals in accordance with the instructions provided in the original RFP documents and this Amendment No. 1. 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. Failure to acknowledge receipt of this Amendment may be cause for rejection of any proposals submitted in response to the subject RFP.

Geoffrey A. Mack

Director/Administrative Officer

Administrative Services Division

District of Columbia Courts

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

Signature of Authorized Representative Date

Title of Authorized Representative

Name of Firm

Appendix A

Questions & Answers Spreadsheet

RFP No. DCSC-26-RFP-118

Appendix A

ServiceNow Enterprise Platform Implementation & Managed Adoption Services

Deadline for Questions: 12:00 P.M. EDT ON AUGUST 31, 2026

No. OFFEROR QUESTION D.C. COURTS (DCC) RESPONSE

Does the Courts have an established budget range or independent government cost estimate (IGCE) for the 14-month base implementation and the two option years?

DCC does not disclose this information.

Is there an incumbent ServiceNow implementation/support contractor? If so, will the incumbent support transition and knowledge transfer, and can the Courts provide the incumbent contract value and period of performance?

There is no incumbent ServiceNow implementation/support contractor.

What are the primary challenges, technical debt, or operational limitations in the current ServiceNow environment that drove this procurement?

The Courts seek to enhance its ServiceNow IT Service Management platform and improve customer experience. Also, ServiceNow HR and Facilities modules do not currently exist.

Please identify the current ServiceNow environment and integration landscape, including existing modules/licenses, major customizations, integrations, CMDB/CI scale, hardware/enterprise asset volumes, and relevant source systems.

Integrations: Active Directory & SSO, SolarWinds(via API), Forescout (via API). The Courts seek a vendor to implement an

ITOM/CMDB environment to establish accurate operational visibility across infrastructure, applications, cloud resources, and business services.

Are any material changes or reprioritizations to the stated module scope anticipated during the base implementation?

There are no material changes or reprioritizations to the stated module scope.

For training, does the Courts prefer onsite, virtual, or hybrid delivery, and approximately how many users are expected to participate by role?

The Courts prefer onsite and hybrid delivery training. It is unknown how many expected users will participate by role.

Does the Courts anticipate the implementation being performed primarily onsite, remotely, or through a hybrid model, and what onsite presence should offerors include in their pricing?

The Courts anticipate that the implementation will be carried out using a hybrid model. The Courts will determine when onsite presence is required.

What is the anticipated contract award and notice-to-proceed date, particularly given the requirement to upgrade the existing ServiceNow environment to

Australia by December 2026?

The anticipated award date is on or before September 30, 2026, followed by issuance of a Notice to Proceed (NTP), as necessary.

Are there additional optional capabilities or high-priority use cases the Courts would like offerors to propose beyond the minimum requirements?

No additional optional capabilities or high priority use cases required.

We respectfully request a one-week extension to the proposal due date to allow offerors adequate time to incorporate the Courts' responses to solicitation questions into their technical and price proposals.

Due to the timeline constraints, the proposal’s due date and time will remain unchanged.

Would the Courts consider a prime contractor that is not a ServiceNow partner if its proposed subcontractor is a qualified ServiceNow Elite or Premier Partner and will perform the entirety of the ServiceNow implementation and managed services scope?

Reference A.3. The Court System is seeking proposals from qualified

ServiceNow Elite or Premier Partners.

Which ServiceNow products, editions, and license quantities does D.C. Courts currently own, and is the contractor expected to procure any additional licenses or subscriptions?

The Courts have already procured the necessary licenses for the

ServiceNow products stated in the solicitation. Additionally, we are currently seeking implementation services to maximize the utilization of these products.

Please provide the approximate number of customizations, custom applications, integrations, custom tables, and other major configurations in the current

Yokohama environment. Has an upgrade assessment already been performed?

Forescout (via API). No customizations, custom applications, custom tables, or major configurations. No upgrade assessment was performed yet.

What is the anticipated contract award and notice-to-proceed date, and will the requirement to complete the upgrade to the Australia release by December 2026 remain unchanged regardless of the actual award date?

Please see the response to question #8 above. The upgrade to the

Australia release by December 2026 remain unchanged and DC

Courts’ project team will discuss the details with the selected contractor.

Please identify the systems that must be integrated with ServiceNow at go-live, including the approximate number of interfaces, integration direction, API availability, transaction frequency, and whether each integration is expected to be real-time or batch.

Refer to the solicitation regarding integrations and para C.6.2, Current-

State Assessment Requirements.

What source systems and datasets must be migrated into ServiceNow, including approximate record counts, years of historical data, attachment volumes, and expected data-cleansing or transformation requirements?

There are no data migration required.

Approximately how many CIs, servers, network devices, applications, databases, cloud resources, and business services are in scope for CMDB, Discovery, and

Service Mapping, and how many service maps are expected?

Reference paragraph C.7.1.1, CMDB and Discovery Requirements.

Please provide approximate quantities for hardware assets, enterprise/facility assets, stockrooms, locations, maintenance plans, annual work orders, field technicians, dispatchers, and territories that will be in scope for HAM, EAM, and

FSM

The Courts procured 590 Hardware Asset Management Professional licenses.

The Courts procured 697 Enterprise Asset Management Professional licenses.

The Courts procured 25 Field Service Management Professional -

Fulfiller User v2 licenses.

For each option year, what level of effort should offerors assume for platform administration, support, enhancements, integrations, release management, and

ServiceNow family upgrades? Is there an anticipated annual hours ceiling, ticket volume, enhancement backlog, or required support coverage?

This information is undetermined because of the addition of new

ServiceNow modules. The annual hours ceiling is estimated at 1920 hours.

Please identify the external systems that are expected to integrate with HRSD, including any required integration with USA Staffing, and provide the anticipated use cases, data exchanges, and integration methods for each.

The Courts want to integrate with USA Staffing, and details regarding other integrations are currently unknown due to the addition of HRSD.

Please describe the current ITOM/CMDB environment, including approximate CI counts by class, current CMDB data sources, existing Discovery capabilities, and any monitoring or discovery tools currently integrated with ServiceNow.

The Courts seek a vendor to implement an ITOM/CMDB environment to establish accurate operational visibility across infrastructure, applications, cloud resources, and business services.

Please identify the current monitoring solution(s) that will integrate with

ServiceNow ITOM and clarify whether the scope includes implementation or configuration of Service Graph Connectors or other integrations to those solutions.

The Courts do not currently have a monitoring solution.

Please identify the existing asset, inventory, maintenance, and work order management systems that will be replaced or integrated as part of the HAM, EAM, and FSM implementations, including approximate asset, inventory, and work order volumes.

The Courts will be replacing ManagerPlus. The Courts procured 590

Hardware Asset Management Professional licenses.

The Courts procured 697 Enterprise Asset Management Professional licenses.

The Courts procured 25 Field Service Management Professional -

Fulfiller User v2 licenses.

Please provide the approximate number of hardware and enterprise assets anticipated to be managed in ServiceNow, including the number of physical locations, stockrooms, and major asset classes in scope.

The Courts procured 590 Hardware Asset Management Professional licenses.

The Courts procured 697 Enterprise Asset Management Professional licenses.

The Courts procured 25 Field Service Management Professional -

Fulfiller User v2 licenses.

Please provide the approximate number of field technicians, dispatchers, territories, locations, and annual work orders anticipated to be supported by FSM.

The Courts procured 25 Field Service Management Professional -

Fulfiller User v2 licenses.

Please provide the approximate number of HR personnel, HR fulfillers, and employees to be supported by HRSD, as well as the anticipated number of HR services, case types, and lifecycle event processes to be implemented.

The Courts procured 1250 HRSD Enterprise Plus licenses. Reference para C.10, HRSD Enterprise, in the solicitation.

Please identify the customer populations and business functions anticipated to use

CSM, including approximate numbers of customers, customer service agents, expected case volumes, channels, and any existing customer-facing portals or systems to be replaced.

The Courts procured 110 Customer Service Management Professional

- Fulfiller User v7; 110 Restricted Env (incl. GCC) - CSM

Professional Plus - Fulfiller User, and 10 Business Stakeholder User v4 licenses. The Courts comprise approximately 1600 employees.

Please confirm which Now Assist capabilities are currently licensed and available to the Courts and identify the anticipated user populations and approximate volumes for the priority AI use cases identified in Section C.13.1.1.

Now Assist for HR Service Delivery (HRSD); Now Assist for

Employee Center Pro; Employee Slate for Now Assist; Employee

Slate Advanced; External Content Connectors; and entitlement for up to 350 Assists annually per HR User. PROD26881 ServiceNow

Restricted Env (incl. GCC) - HRSD Enterprise Plus Qty 1250

Now Assist for Customer Service Management (CSM); Now Assist for IT Service Management (ITSM); Now Assist for CMDB; and entitlement for up to 10,000 Assists annually per procured Fulfiller

User. PROD23054 ServiceNow Restricted Env (incl. GCC) - CSM

Professional Plus Qty 110

Now Assist for Field Service Management (FSM); Employee Slate for

Now Assist; and entitlement for up to 7,800 Assists annually per procured Fulfiller User. PROD23060 ServiceNow Restricted Env

(incl. GCC) - FSM Professional Plus Qty 25

Now Assist for Creator; App Engine Studio; and entitlement for up to

300,000 Assists annually per Module. PROD25207 ServiceNow

Restricted Env (incl. GCC) - Creator Professional Plus v2 Qty 1

Please provide the approximate number of users expected to receive training by audience group and clarify whether the Contractor is expected to deliver training directly to all end users or utilize a train-the-trainer approach for any populations.

The Courts comprise approximately 1,600 employees who will require end-user training. Training is required for the fulfillers and system administrators. We expect the contractor to deliver the training that best suits the Courts.

Section C.18.1.1 states that the Contractor shall provide 30 to 60 days of post-production support. Please confirm the minimum required hypercare period

Offerors should include in their firm-fixed-price proposals and whether the final duration will be determined based on stabilization criteria.

The minimum is 30 days of post-production support.

Please confirm that resumes are required only for proposed key personnel, rather than for all personnel included in the Offeror’s staffing/resource plan. If so, please identify any positions the Courts considers mandatory key personnel.

Yes, resumes are required only for proposed key personnel.

Please clarify the Courts’ anticipated on-site versus remote delivery expectations, including whether any roles are required to be full-time or regularly on-site at D.C.

Courts facilities.

While most work may occur remotely/virtually, onsite presence will be mutually agreed upon with the Court.

Has the Courts established a budget or anticipated funding range for the base implementation and Option Years 1 and 2? If so, please provide the anticipated budget or funding range to assist Offerors in developing appropriately scaled technical and staffing approaches.

Please refer to the response to the question #1.

May an Offeror use relevant past performance performed by a proposed subcontractor or teaming partner to satisfy the three-to-five-project past performance requirement? If yes, please clarify how subcontractor/team-member past performance will be evaluated.

The offeror must identify that subcontractor in its proposal and explain the subcontractor’s role and how its experience satisfies the requirement and the subcontractor's customer must complete

Attachment J.9.

The Courts will assess the extent to which the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to customer satisfaction and timely delivery of high-quality products and services. The Courts will focus on performance of projects similar in scope, size, and complexity to the requirements. Please refer to Section M.3 for details.

The RFP requires certified personnel across ITSM, ITOM, HAM, EAM, HRSD, FSM, CSM, IntegrationHub, and AI/Now Assist. Please confirm whether a single individual holding multiple applicable certifications may satisfy multiple areas and whether there are any minimum staffing or certification quantities by workstream.

You may assign a single individual with multiple relevant certifications to satisfy the requirements across different areas. There are no minimum staffing quantities by workstream, as long as all necessary certifications are covered.

Please identify which ServiceNow subscriptions the Courts currently hold and which are planned but not yet procured, for each of: HRSD Enterprise, CSM

Professional, FSM Professional, EAM Professional, HAM Professional, ITOM, and Now Assist. For each, please provide the subscription start date and the entitlement counts (fulfiller/agent seats, unrestricted users, and any consumption-based units).

The Courts procured 590 Hardware Asset Management Professional licenses.

The Courts procured 697 Enterprise Asset Management Professional licenses.

The Courts procured 25 Field Service Management Professional -

Fulfiller User v2 licenses.

The Courts procured 1250 HRSD Enterprise Plus licenses.

The Courts procured 755 IT Operations Management Visibility v2 licenses.

The Courts procured 110 Customer Service Management Professional

- Fulfiller User v7; 110 Restricted Env (incl. GCC) - CSM

Professional Plus - Fulfiller User, and 10 Business Stakeholder User v4 licenses.

Now Assist for HR Service Delivery (HRSD); Now Assist for

Employee Center Pro; Employee Slate for Now Assist; Employee

Slate Advanced; External Content Connectors; and entitlement for up to 350 Assists annually per HR User. PROD26881 ServiceNow

Restricted Env (incl. GCC) - HRSD Enterprise Plus Qty 1250

Now Assist for Customer Service Management (CSM); Now Assist for IT Service Management (ITSM); Now Assist for CMDB; and entitlement for up to 10,000 Assists annually per procured Fulfiller

User. PROD23054 ServiceNow Restricted Env (incl. GCC) - CSM

Professional Plus Qty 110

Now Assist for Field Service Management (FSM); Employee Slate for

Now Assist; and entitlement for up to 7,800 Assists annually per procured Fulfiller User. PROD23060 ServiceNow Restricted Env

(incl. GCC) - FSM Professional Plus Qty 25

Now Assist for Creator; App Engine Studio; and entitlement for up to

300,000 Assists annually per Module. PROD25207 ServiceNow

Restricted Env (incl. GCC) - Creator Professional Plus v2 Qty 1

Which ITOM SKU tier does the Courts hold or intend to procure (ITOM

Visibility, ITOM Health, ITOM Optimization)? Discovery and Service Mapping deliverables at C.7.1.1 require ITOM Visibility at minimum; Service Mapping and

Firemaps have additional entitlement dependencies.

The Courts procured 755 PROD14997, IT Operations Management

Visibility v2 licenses.

Which Now Assist SKUs are in scope (Now Assist for ITSM, HRSD, CSM, Creator, Virtual Agent, Now Assist Guidance)? Has the Courts made a determination between ServiceNow-hosted Now LLM and a bring-your-own-

LLM configuration?

See question 28. No determination made on implementing Now Assist.

Please confirm that the Courts procure all ServiceNow subscriptions directly and that the offeror's proposed price includes professional services only, with no license resale or pass-through obligation.

The Courts procure all ServiceNow subscriptions, and this solicitation is for implementation services.

Are there data classification, records retention, or confidentiality constraints (for example sealed cases, juvenile matters, probate, or Crime Victims Compensation records) that restrict what data may reside in ServiceNow or be processed by Now

Assist generative AI features?

ServiceNow will not contain court case-related data.

Is the Courts' ServiceNow instance hosted on the ServiceNow commercial cloud, ServiceNow Government Community Cloud, or another environment? Please confirm any FedRAMP, StateRAMP, or Courts-specific hosting requirements applicable to this engagement.

ServiceNow Government Community Cloud. No other requirements are applicable.

Will the Courts provide current-state data prior to the proposal due date, or at minimum prior to award, to support fixed-price estimating? Specifically: instance and environment inventory (PROD, UAT, TEST, DEV, sub-production clones), current release and patch level, fulfiller user count, annual Incident and Request volumes, active catalog item count, published knowledge article count, and active flow/workflow count.

The Courts will not provide current-state data prior to the proposal due date, or at minimum prior to award, to support fixed-price estimating.

Please provide the count of existing customizations and scoped applications, and the number of skipped or resolved records from the Courts' most recent

ServiceNow family upgrade. This is the primary driver of upgrade effort under

CLIN-3.

There are no existing customizations to the existing IT Service

Management (ITSM). The previous upgrade was done by another vendor; therefore, we do not have the number of records skipped or resolved.

Please provide current CMDB metrics: total CI count by class, current CMDB

Health scorecard results (completeness, correctness, compliance), MID Server count and placement, IP ranges and credential coverage in scope for Discovery, and the number of existing Application Service maps.

The Courts aim to establish a CMDB that is both accurate and actionable, ensuring effective management of information and resources.

What infrastructure is in scope for Discovery (approximate server, network device, storage, and cloud resource counts, and which cloud providers, if any)? Are there network segments, courtroom technology networks, or judicial chambers segments excluded from Discovery scanning?

The Courts seek to establish accurate operational visibility across the infrastructure, including devices and equipment connected to the network.

Approximately how many hardware assets are in scope for HAM Professional, across how many physical locations and stockrooms? Is there an existing asset repository or spreadsheet-based inventory to be migrated?

The Courts procured 590 Hardware Asset Management Professional licenses. Spreadsheets are currently being used.

What asset classes are in scope for EAM Professional (building systems and facilities, courtroom AV and technology, fleet, capital equipment)? Approximately how many assets, and is there an existing CMMS or maintenance system of record with data to migrate?

The Courts procured 697 Enterprise Asset Management Professional licenses.

What is the Courts' HR system of record (product and version), and is the HRSD population limited to the approximately 1,200 employees, or does it also include the 95+ judicial officers? Does a baseline HR case volume exist?

The Courts procured 1250 HRSD Enterprise Plus licenses.

How many field technicians are in scope for FSM Professional, what is the annual work order volume, and how many service territories are contemplated? Is FSM intended for courtroom technology support, facilities maintenance, or both? Who manages the mobile device fleet?

The Courts procured 25 Field Service Management Professional -

Fulfiller User v2 licenses.

Who are the 'customers' served by CSM Professional (members of the public, litigants, the bar, other District agencies, or internal Court System customers)?

What is the intended purpose of the Entitlement Management Model and Major

Account Service Model in a court context? Please provide approximate case volume and the channels in scope for the Omnichannel Service Framework.

The Courts procured 110 Customer Service Management Professional

- Fulfiller User v7; 110 Restricted Env (incl. GCC) - CSM

Professional Plus - Fulfiller User, and 10 Business Stakeholder User v4 licenses. The Courts comprise approximately 1600 employees.

Please identify by product name and version the ERP, financial, procurement, monitoring, and telephony systems in scope for integration, indicate which are

Courts-managed versus externally hosted, and state the Courts' estimate of the total number of integrations in scope.

The Courts ask that the Contractor provide a comprehensive integration strategy for those Preferred Integrations.

The RFP requires the ITSM environment to be upgraded from Yokohama to

Australia by December 2026. What is the Courts' anticipated award date? If award occurs in or after October 2026, will the Courts adjust this milestone, or is

December 2026 firm regardless of award date?

Please refer to the responses to questions 8 & 14.

Is the Australia upgrade to be performed against the existing ITSM footprint before the new module implementations begin, or concurrently with them? Please confirm whether the Courts require the upgrade to complete before any new module is promoted to production.

Yes

Does the fourteen (14) month period of performance begin on the date of contract award or on a Courts-issued notice to proceed or kickoff date?

The period of performance shall commence on the date of contract award and shall proceed upon issuance of the Courts’ NTP.

Are the relative-month timelines shown in the CLIN table mandatory, or may offerors propose an alternate sequencing and month mapping while delivering the full deliverable set? Would a contractor-proposed phased release plan that sequences certain modules into the option periods be evaluated as a strength, or treated as an exception to the requirements?

Offerors are permitted to propose an alternate sequencing and month mapping while still delivering the full set of deliverables. The justification for any proposed phased release plan will be evaluated on its own merit and will be considered in the context of the overall proposal.

Are the assigned payment percentages per CLIN fixed as stated, or may offerors propose an alternate allocation aligned to their proposed schedule? If an alternate allocation is permitted, how will the Courts distinguish it from unbalanced pricing under M.7?

The assigned payment percentages per CLIN is fixed as stated. No alternate allocation is permitted.

Given that CLIN-3 and CLIN-4 include current-state assessments whose findings will materially affect downstream configuration effort, will the Courts consider structuring the assessment work as a separately priced initial phase with a scope re-baseline, or otherwise provide a mechanism to adjust downstream fixed prices based on assessment findings?

The Courts will not consider structuring the assessment work as a separately priced initial phase. Instead, will conduct a thorough review of the assessment findings to determine what is considered within scope for any downstream efforts.

The option year CLINs are firm-fixed-price with no stated level of effort, service hours, ticket volume, coverage window, or service levels. Will the Courts provide an estimated FTE level and labor mix, expected support hours (for example 8x5 versus 24x7), anticipated enhancement release cadence, and target response and resolution times?

This information is undetermined because of the addition of new

ServiceNow modules. The annual hours ceiling is estimated at 1920 hours.

If the Courts do not provide the parameters above, will the Courts accept an offeror-defined level of effort, service catalog, and service level basis stated as a priced assumption in Volume II, Tab B, and will pricing be evaluated against that stated basis?

The Offeror must disclose all pricing assumptions, conditions, and exceptions and the rationale for each and other relevant information.

Do the option periods include continued organizational change management and training, or platform technical services only?

See solicitation Option Year tables for details.

How many ServiceNow family upgrades does the Courts anticipate per option year, and are patching, hotfix application, and store application upgrades included within the option year fixed price?

The Courts wants to stay on ServiceNow General Availability upgrade schedule.

Sections L.10 through L.12 require two separate PDF files organized by tabs.

Please confirm that each tab should be presented as a clearly labeled section within the applicable PDF, identify whether PDF bookmarks are required, and confirm whether any native-format files are required in addition to the two PDFs.

Yes, each tab should be presented as clearly labelled section within the applicable PDF and no bookmarks and native-format files are required.

Please confirm whether the completed Section B.2 Price/Cost Schedule should be included only within the Volume 2 PDF or also submitted as a separate editable

Excel workbook. If a separate workbook is required, please provide or identify the required template.

Yes, Section B.2 Price/Cost Schedule should be included only within the Volume 2 PDF. No separate Excel workbook is required.

What is the maximum total attachment size the Courts' email system will accept?

If the two required proposal PDFs exceed that limit, may an Offeror submit them through a secure, access-controlled file-transfer link? If so, please identify the approved method and explain how timely receipt will be determined.

The maximum total attachment size the Courts' email system will accept IS 100MB. If the attachment size exceeds the allowable limit, the Offeror may submit the proposal in two separate emails, clearly labelled “Part I” and “Part II.” Please indicate the corresponding part in the subject line of each email.

Please confirm whether cover pages, tables of contents, tab divider pages, completed Sections A and K forms, key-personnel resumes, certification copies, and Section J attachments count toward the page limit for the applicable tab.

Section L.11 expressly excludes Section J attachments from Tab A's 20-page limit, but does not address the other listed materials.

The 20-page limit applies to Tab A – Contractor Information and

Disclosures. Section J – Attachments and Section K are not included in the 20-page limit.

Please confirm which Section J attachments must be returned with the initial proposal. Specifically, is the expected package completed Attachments J.2 through

J.7 and one Attachment J.9 for each reference, with J.1 incorporated through acceptance of the solicitation, J.8 reserved for contract closeout, and J.10 used for pricing and compliance but not returned as a completed form?

Please note that all Section J attachments, except for the J.8 and J.10 attachments, must be submitted with the offerors’ proposals. There is no need to return J.10, as it is used for pricing and compliance.

May an Offeror submit a current Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting

System (CPARS) report or another government-issued performance evaluation in lieu of an evaluator-completed Attachment J.9 for a referenced contract when the report addresses comparable performance factors? If so, please identify any additional information that must accompany the evaluation.

No. Offerors must submit the completed Attachment J.9 a past performance evaluation form for each project/contract identified in

Section L.11.Tab C(i).

May an Offeror use the relevant experience and past performance of a proposed subcontractor to demonstrate experience with a requested ServiceNow product or workstream? If so, should the project be identified as subcontractor experience, and must the subcontractor's customer complete Attachment J.9?

Please refer to the response to question #34.

Section L.11, Tab C(ii) requires projects delivered within the last five years, while

Section M.6 refers to projects completed within the last 'five (3) years.' Please confirm that the applicable recency period is five years measured from the proposal due date.

It’s five (5) years. Please see the updated Sections M.3.1-M.3.7 & M.4

(Appendix B to this Amendment). It is five years from the proposal due date.

Please confirm that the prime Offeror must independently hold current

ServiceNow Elite or Premier Partner status and have at least five years of

ServiceNow implementation experience as of the proposal due date, and that these organizational qualifications may not be satisfied solely through a subcontractor.

This is correct.

Please identify the positions the Courts consider Key Personnel. Will every individual named or included by resume in Tab E be subject to Section H.4? For the certification coverage listed in Section C.19.2, must the proposed Key

Personnel collectively hold certifications across every listed domain, or may the

Offeror also demonstrate coverage through qualified corporate practice resources available for reach-back and surge support?

Offeror needs to identify the positions. Yes, every individual named or included by resume in Tab E be subject to Section H.4. Key personnel must hold one or more required certifications for the listed domain.

Please clarify how the Courts will evaluate proposed staffing and level of effort. In addition to key-personnel resumes and certifications, should Offerors provide a staffing matrix identifying labor categories, named personnel, allocation or level of effort by workstream and phase, base- and option-period coverage, and availability, or will the Courts evaluate each Offeror's staffing model as part of its overall technical approach without a prescribed minimum level of effort?

How the Courts will evaluate the proposal is stated in the solicitation.

Each Offeror should submit their proposal in accordance with Section

L.

The RFP requires the ITSM upgrade from Yokohama to Australia by December

2026, while the 14-month base period begins on the date of award. Please provide the anticipated award or notice-to-proceed date and confirm whether the

December 2026 deadline remains mandatory if the award date does not provide sufficient time for assessment, remediation, testing, and production deployment.

May Offerors propose an adjusted upgrade date tied to award?

Please see the responses to questions 8 & 14.

Are the relative-month timelines and assigned payment percentages in Section

B.2.1 mandatory? May an Offeror propose an alternative integrated workstream sequence or milestone allocation that totals 100 percent, completes the required scope within the 14-month base period, and explains the dependencies supporting the proposed sequence?

Offerors are permitted to propose an alternate sequencing and month mapping while still delivering the full set of deliverables. The justification for any proposed phased release plan will be evaluated on its own merit and will be considered in the context of the overall proposal.

Please confirm whether the base period requires configuration, testing, production deployment, and stabilization of every product and capability listed in Section C.1.

If any listed deliverables are intended to be limited to assessment, strategy, architecture, or design during the base period, please identify those deliverables and the expected implementation period.

See paragraphs B.2.1 Base Period and F.4 Deliverables in the solicitation.

Please provide the current ServiceNow instance topology, release and patch level, hosting model, licensed products, subscription tiers, and user quantities. Please include relevant entitlements for IntegrationHub spokes, Discovery, Service

Mapping, Virtual Agent, Now Assist, and non-production instances, and confirm that the Courts will acquire and maintain all subscriptions required for performance.

The current ServiceNow environment: Yokohoma (Patch -13). See question 36 for list of licenses acquired. Also, PROD26897, ServiceNow Workflow Data Fabric Standard, includes Integration Hub

Enterprise.

Please provide available current-state sizing information for ITSM, including licensed fulfiller and requester users; annual incident, request, problem, and change volumes; number of catalog items, knowledge articles, assignment groups, SLAs and OLAs, custom applications or tables, active integrations, open backlog items, and known upgrade-impacting customizations or technical debt.

See question 36 for licenses acquired. The selected contractor shall assess the current state of the ITSM environment and develop a roadmap to improve service delivery, increase automation, enhance self-service capabilities, and establish a scalable foundation for

Enterprise Service Management (ESM).

Please provide the approximate number of configuration items by major class, Discovery targets and network ranges, current Discovery infrastructure, current

CMDB health indicators, number and complexity of business services to be mapped, and any existing discovery, monitoring, or asset data sources that must be reconciled with the CMDB.

The Courts aim to establish a CMDB that is both accurate and actionable, ensuring effective management of information and resources.

Please provide available sizing for HAM, EAM, and FSM, including hardware and enterprise asset counts by major class, stockrooms, facilities and service locations, maintenance plans, annual work orders, field technicians, territories, inventory repositories, procurement sources, mobile requirements, and the historical data expected to be migrated.

The Courts procured 590 Hardware Asset Management Professional licenses.

The Courts procured 697 Enterprise Asset Management Professional licenses.

The Courts procured 25 Field Service Management Professional -

Fulfiller User v2 licenses.

Please provide available sizing and scope information for HRSD and CSM, including employee and customer populations, licensed agents, annual case volumes, HR services and lifecycle events, customer service lines, channels, portals, assignment groups, entitlements, knowledge content, and required HR, identity, telephony, or customer-data integrations.

The Courts procured 1250 HRSD Enterprise Plus licenses.

The Courts procured 110 Customer Service Management Professional

- Fulfiller User v7; 110 Restricted Env (incl. GCC) - CSM

Professional Plus - Fulfiller User, and 10 Business Stakeholder User v4 licenses.

For the preferred integrations listed in Section C.14.1.2, please identify the specific ERP, financial, procurement, monitoring, telephony, identity, and

Microsoft platforms in scope; the expected number of interfaces; available APIs or integration methods; data exchange frequency; system owners; and availability of non-production endpoints and technical documentation.

The Courts ask that the Contractor provide a comprehensive integration strategy for those Preferred Integrations.

Please identify the source systems and data objects expected to be migrated for each workstream, together with available record counts, years of history, attachment volumes, retention requirements, known data-quality conditions, and the party responsible for source extraction, cleansing, transformation, and approval of migrated data.

Except for ITSM, all other ServiceNow products will be new implementations. Data migration is not in scope.

Please identify the security, privacy, records-management, accessibility, and risk-management standards that will govern the implementation; the applicable data classifications; required security assessment or authorization activities; and any background investigation, badge, or clearance requirements for contractor personnel, including anticipated processing time.

Refer to the solicitation.

Please identify the expected remote and onsite performance model, onsite locations, anticipated frequency and duration of onsite activities, and the number or types of personnel expected onsite. Please also confirm whether travel must be included in the firm-fixed prices and how Attachment J.10 applies to personnel performing remotely or outside the District of Columbia.

The Courts anticipate that the implementation will be carried out using a hybrid model. The Courts will determine when onsite presence is required. Offerors shall include all anticipated travel costs, if any, in their proposals.

As a general rule, the Service Contract Act (SCA) applies to federal service contracts performed within the United State.

Please identify the Courts roles and anticipated availability for product ownership, process decisions, platform administration, data preparation, integration coordination, security review, testing and user acceptance, deliverable acceptance, organizational change management, and training. Please also identify the expected turnaround time for decisions, reviews, and approvals that affect the implementation schedule.

See paragraph C.4.1 Program Governance and Delivery in the solicitation.

Please provide the estimated number of learners by role, required training modalities and locations, train-the-trainer expectations, training-environment and learning-management-system availability, content accessibility standards, and any required training completion or adoption thresholds that will be used for acceptance.

The Courts prefer onsite and hybrid delivery training. It is unknown how many expected users will participate by role. The Courts comprise approximately 1,600 employees who will require end-user training.

Training is required for the fulfillers and system administrators. We expect the contractor to deliver the training that best suits the Courts.

Please specify the review and acceptance period for each deliverable, the anticipated number of comment and revision cycles, and the objective criteria that will authorize milestone payment. Where the RFP identifies outcomes without quantitative thresholds, please confirm that baselines, targets, and acceptance measures will be established jointly during the assessment and governance activities before configuration begins.

The Courts and Offeror will collaboratively identify the review and acceptance period for each deliverable.

Section C.18 requires a minimum of 30 to 60 days of hypercare. Please clarify the required duration, whether a separate hypercare period is expected after each module or release, the required support hours and severity-response expectations, and whether the stated exit criteria will be applied separately to each deployment.

The minimum is 30 days of hypercare. The Courts will take into consideration the Offeror justification to have separate hypercare periods for each module.

Please provide the expected annual service capacity and operating requirements for each option year, including anticipated enhancement or release volume, required staffing coverage, business hours, service levels, after-hours or on-call support, platform administration activities, upgrade expectations, and any minimum onsite presence.

All required works must be completed within the base period, and the two one-year option periods are basically for the Platform administration, configuration and development services, enhancement delivery, release management, platform optimization, and ServiceNow family upgrade services.

Section B.2.2 assigns 100 percent of each option-year price to a single line item, while Section G.1 describes fixed-fee milestone and deliverable-based payments.

Please clarify the expected option-year invoicing and acceptance cadence, such as monthly, quarterly, by release or milestone, or upon completion of the full option year.

The 2 one-year option periods if exercised are for ongoing

ServiceNow platform administration, development, enhancement, release management, and upgrade services, including configuration and application development, workflow and integration support, platform optimization, environment management, knowledge transfer etc., as detailed in Section B.2.2. This is one line for each option period.

Is there an established or preferred project delivery methodology (e.g., Agile/Scrum, SAFe, Waterfall, or hybrid) that the selected contractor will be expected to follow for the ServiceNow implementation? If so, please identify the methodology, including any required sprint cadence, planning ceremonies, governance gates, reporting requirements, or tools.

Agile delivery methodology. See paragraph C.4.1 Program

Governance and Delivery in the solicitation

Do the Courts have a preferred prioritization or deployment sequence for the

ServiceNow modules and workstreams included in the Scope of Work, or should

Offerors recommend the sequencing and rollout strategy they believe will best achieve the Courts' objectives within the 14-month base period?

The Courts will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach in their proposal.

Can the Courts clarify their expectations regarding onsite versus remote delivery, including whether specific activities such as discovery workshops, testing, training, go-live, or hypercare will require onsite presence at DC Courts facilities?

The Courts anticipate that the implementation will be carried out using a hybrid model. The Courts will determine when onsite presence is required. The Courts prefer onsite and hybrid delivery training.

Can the Courts identify the specific third-party systems/products currently in use for the preferred integrations and indicate which integrations exist today versus which are expected to be net-new?

Integrations: Active Directory & SSO, SolarWinds(via API), Forescout (via API).

Have the Courts established an anticipated budget, funding range, or not-to-exceed amount for the 14-month base implementation and/or the two one-year option periods? If so, please provide the applicable budget information

Please refer to the response to question #1.

Do completed Attachment J.9 Past Performance Evaluation Forms count toward the 10-page limit for Volume 1, Tab C, or can the forms be included following the

Tab C narrative?

Attachment J (Past Performance Evaluation Forms) shall not count toward the 10-page limit for Volume 1, Tab C.

Can Offerors provide key personnel resumes in an appendix to Volume 1 and exclude them from the 5-page Tab E page limit, and reference those resumes within Tab E?

Key personnel resumes shall not count toward the 5-page limit for

Volume 1, Tab E.

Can Offerors use a smaller font size in tables, charts, and graphics, provided the content remains legible?

Yes.

Can the Courts provide additional information on the anticipated scope of the data migration, including source systems, approximate data volumes, historical data retention requirements, and whether data cleansing and remediation are expected to be performed by the Contractor?

Data migration is not in scope.

Can Offerors include relevant projects and past performance performed by proposed subcontractors or teaming partners to satisfy the three (3) to five (5) project requirements, or must the Prime Offeror have performed the referenced projects/contracts?

Please refer to the response to question #34.

Can Offerors propose personnel employed by subcontractors or teaming partners as key personnel, and will the qualifications, experience, and ServiceNow certifications of those individuals receive the same consideration as personnel employed directly by the Prime Offeror?

Yes

Are all ServiceNow module licenses referenced in Section C.1 (ITSM, ITOM, HAM, EAM, HRSD, CSM, FSM, Now Assist) already procured and active in the

Courts' current ServiceNow instance, or is procurement of any module licenses part of the awarded contractor's scope?

The licenses were procured but are not yet active.

Can the Courts provide a summary of existing customizations, integrations, and technical debt in the current Yokohama environment, to support Offerors' Current-

State Assessment (Section C.6.2) planning and level-of-effort estimation?

Forescout (via API). No customizations, custom applications, custom tables, or major configurations.

What is the estimated number of assets for HAM and/or EAM The Courts procured 590 Hardware Asset Management Professional licenses.

The Courts procured 697 Enterprise Asset Management Professional licenses.

Staffing Location: Is on-site presence required for any portion of this engagement or may the majority of implementation, configuration, and support work be performed remotely?

The Courts anticipate that the implementation will be carried out using a hybrid model. The Courts will determine when onsite presence is required.

Independent Government Cost Estimate: Will the Courts disclose whether an independent cost estimate or budgetary ceiling exists for this procurement?

Please refer to the response to the question #1.

DC Business License: For Offerors headquartered outside the District of

Columbia, please confirm the specific license, permit, or registration referenced in

Section L.11 Tab A(v) that must be submitted or certified as an intent to obtain prior to award.

In order to receive a contract award, the prospective contractor/offeror must be registered through the Federal System

For Award Management (SAM) at https://www.sam.gov.

Please refer to Section A.6 SAM REGISTRATION and Tab A (v) for details.

Use of AI: Does the Courts have approved AI tools that the vendor can use? Can meetings be allowed to be transcribed? This will be a huge time saver for business analysts and would allow for more efficient, faster, and ultimately will require less time and effort.

The Offeror should indicate what AI tools will be use in their proposal.

What are the current use cases for CSM and FSM?

The Courts can provide use cases to the contract awardee.

Are vendors permitted to use offshore resources as part of the proposed staffing approach? No.

https://www.sam.gov/

If the implementation will involve data migration, can DC Courts provide approximate data volumes for the following?

o IT Service Management transactions, including incidents, problems, changes, and requests o Existing asset repositories and approximate asset counts o Existing Configuration Management Database sources and approximate configuration item volumes o Existing Field Service Management repositories and data volumes o Existing Human Resources data sources and case volumes

Data migration is not in scope.

Can DC Courts provide an inventory of existing integrations, including the source systems and the nature of the data exchanged?

Integrations: Active Directory & SSO, SolarWinds(via API), Forescout (via API). No customizations, custom applications, custom tables, or major configurations.

Is DC Courts considering a phased implementation approach for the ServiceNow modules identified in the RFP? If so, are there target priorities or sequencing considerations?

Offerors are permitted to propose an alternate sequencing and month mapping while still delivering the full set of deliverables. The justification for any proposed phased release plan will be evaluated on its own merit and will be considered in the context of the overall proposal.

Can DC Courts describe the current state of its Configuration Management

Database? Is ServiceNow Discovery the primary mechanism for identifying and importing configuration items, or are additional authoritative data sources currently in use?

Forescout (via API). The Courts seek a vendor to implement an

ITOM/CMDB environment to establish accurate operational visibility across infrastructure, applications, cloud resources, and business…