ESBD_511230_1780705608444_696-IG-26-O012 A-005.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Page 1 of 12 Pages

1. SOLICITATION NO.

696-IG-26-O012

2. AMENDMENT NO.

A-005

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

June 5, 2026

4. ISSUED BY

Texas Department of Criminal Justice Contracts and Procurement Department Two Financial Plaza, Suite 703 Huntsville, Texas 77340

5. The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 6. The hour and date specified for receipt of Responses is extended, is not extended. Respondents shall acknowledge receipt of all amendments to this RFO by signing the Response Cover Page of the RFO.

6. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT

The purpose of this amendment is to provide answers to questions submitted regarding the solicitation.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the solicitation, as heretofore changed, remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

696-IG-26-O012 Clarifying Questions and Answers

QUESTION 1 The solicitation mentions a requested five years of experience in record retention. My company has not been around for five years but our team has more than five years handling similar projects and data volumes. Does that count, and how do you suggest expressing/supporting our claim of experience in our application?

ANSWER 1 Respondents should thoroughly explain their experience in their solicitation Response.

QUESTION 2 Section C.2.3.D states that "if applicable, cloud services must be TX-RAMP Level 2 certified" and that "the Department will determine applicability based on the data classification and impact level of the information resource and in consultation with the Department of Information Resources (DIR)."

Please confirm:

a. Whether the Department has discretion to determine that TX-RAMP certification is not applicable to this engagement (either at the time of award or at any point during the Contract Term) such that the awarded Contractor could perform the full Contract Term, including all option years, without ever obtaining TX-RAMP certification;

b. f the Department has such discretion, the criteria the Department will apply in making that determination, and whether Respondents may request a non-applicability determination as part of their Response or during contract negotiations;

c. Whether, in the event the Department determines TX-RAMP certification is applicable, the Department will accept equivalent third-party authorizations (e.g., FedRAMP Moderate or High, StateRAMP, SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001) in lieu of TX-RAMP certification for the duration of the Contract Term;

d. Whether TX-RAMP Level 2 (as opposed to Level 1 or any higher tier) is the required certification for this engagement.

e. Can we submit a response with a goal to become TX-RAMP certified before go-live?

ANSWER 2 TX-RAMP certification is not required prior to Response submission.

QUESTION 3 Sections C.2.1.E, C.2.3.C, and C.2.3.R require the Contractor to comply with the TDCJ IRSP, described as the Department's security policy based on NIST 800-53. The IRSP is not included as an exhibit. Will the Department make the current IRSP available to Respondents prior to the proposal deadline so that Respondents can accurately scope their compliance posture?

ANSWER 3 The TDCJ IRSP is a sensitive document and will not be released prior to negotiations.

QUESTION 4 Section L.8.9 invites the Respondent to "propose an alternative and the reasons for such" for any instance of non-compliance with Sections E through K. Please confirm (a) the Department's process and criteria for evaluating such proposed alternatives, (b) whether proposed alternatives will be considered as part of the technical evaluation or in a separate negotiation phase following selection (consistent with Section L.6.C contemplating BAFO negotiations), and (c) whether the Department is willing to negotiate from the awarded Contractor's standard SaaS master agreement, with TDCJ's mandatory clauses (including Exhibit J.1) and any statutorily required Texas provisions incorporated by reference or addendum, in order to align the resulting Contract with industry-standard SaaS commercial terms.

ANSWER 4 All proposed alternatives and additional documents will be eligible for the same negotiation sessions.

QUESTION 5 To assist Respondents in scoping their proposals and pricing risk appropriately, will the Department indicate whether it is open in principle to negotiating commercially reasonable modifications to provisions including, without limitation: limitations of liability and mutual liability caps; the scope of intellectual property indemnification (Section I.16); the scope of "State Ownership" under Section I.18 to clarify that it does not extend to Contractor's SaaS platform IP; and the broad audit, withholding, and offset rights in Sections E.1, G.4.4, and G.4.5? A general indication of openness would help Respondents calibrate their risk assumptions.

ANSWER 5 All assumptions and exceptions should be included in the Response for consideration.

QUESTION 6 Our solution is licensed by the features included with each user. Please provide the estimated user count of each type.

a. How many full users are required? (full repository access: scan, add, edit / version documents, build forms / workflows, participate in workflows, admin. system)

b. How many participant users are required? (unlimited submission and participation in forms processes, read-only repository access)

ANSWER 6 The user count is dependent upon the Respondent’s proposed solutions.

QUESTION 7 Do you have any estimates for the amount of content that will be stored in the system? Number of documents, number of pages, diskspace estimation, etc.?

ANSWER 7 Please submit your best solution for the scope and size of the OIG.

QUESTION 8 Will any data conversion or migration be needed for this project?

a. Do you have any estimates for the amount of content that will be converted or migrated?

i. Number of documents

ii. Number of pages

iii. Diskspace estimation

iv. Database size

v. How many database tables contain information we will need for the migration? (ex. documents, versions, metadata, annotations, etc.)

vi. Any additional information you can provide on the system that may be helpful.

b. Please provide the make, model, and version of system that we will be working with.

c. If the current system is utilizing a database, what platform is it on? (SQL, Oracle, etc.)

i. Is there backend access to the database, or do we have to do an export through the current system?

d. Do you have a set number of document types or metadata categories to be converted?

e. Do you want annotations from your current system migrated

ANSWER 8 Please review Section C.5.E for Data Migration Import/Export Tools.

A.a. Number of attached files as on 165,184 A.b. This is a relational database, so all data is stored in databases, tables, and rows/columns. Please see response to A.e. below.

A.c. Initial 3 TB and should be expandable as more data and file attachments are stored.

A.d. 1.234 TB A.e. Tables Count = 340; Rows Count = 40,873,661, Columns Count = 7,709 A.f. OIG will provide the latest data from all the lookup tables of the existing system. There are about 35 lookup tables.

B. Make: SHSU/PRC, model: CRIMES, Version: 7.2 C. Microsoft SQL Server – currently SQL Server 2019, but we are planning to upgrade it to 2025 or 2022.

C.a. Yes, there is backend access to the database.

D. No E. No

QUESTION 9 For forms and workflow development, will the selected vendor be responsible for building the required forms and workflows, or will the proposer’s staff be performing development after proper training?

a. If vendor development is preferred and within project scope, please provide some examples of forms and workflows, as well as an estimated count, for cost estimation purposes.

ANSWER 9 Please submit your best solution for the scope and size of the OIG. Example forms and workflows are not releasable.

QUESTION

Will any applications need to be integrated? If so, please provide a list of applications (with version) and a short description of the desired functionality.

ANSWER 10 The RMS must integrate with TDCJ Micro Focus, Texas DPS for TCIC/NCIC and NIBRS.

Are 5 separate environments- dev, staging, testing, training, prod required or can some be combined (dev/testing)?

ANSWER 11 The Respondent’s SaaS solution must provide a minimum of three separate environments that accommodate the listed functions in Section C.9 for the Solicitation.

Of the 172 sworn indicated in the RFO, could you provide a breakdown of frontline investigators and command staff?

ANSWER 12 The staffing numbers provided are for design scope, are estimates only, and are subject to change.

The RFO mentions NIBRS and TLETS integration. Are there any additional integrations needed?

ANSWER 13 The RMS must integrate with TDCJ Micro Focus, Texas DPS for TCIC/NCIC and NIBRS.

Regarding Letter N (Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning) of Section C.2.1 (Data Requirements), could you provide your definition of “resource optimization”?

ANSWER 14 Please submit your best solution for the scope and size of the OIG.

In Section C.6 (Training), you ask for the training of all OIG personnel which is typically considered “end-user” training. However, you also request all training be provided with a “train-the-trainer” model. Could you please clarify which strategy you wish to employ? We could provide end-user training while also utilizing the train-the-trainer model for a subset of “super users” if desired. If so, please provide the number of super users to be training. This number is required to provide an accurate quote.

ANSWER 15 An end-user training, while also utilizing the train-the-trainer model for a subset of “super users”, is preferred. The user count is dependent upon the Respondent’s proposed solution.

Please confirm your need for five (5) Cloud environments. Other than Production, which will be available 24/7/365, how often would you need access to the remaining four (4) environments (e.g., 8, 16, 24 hours/day; upon request). Could you also provide your definition of a Staging environment along with example use cases?

ANSWER 16 The Respondent’s SaaS solution must provide a minimum of three separate environments that accommodate the listed functions in Section C.9 for the Solicitation. The staging environment is the pre-production environment.

The RFO states the project would kick off on November 1, 2026, and need to be completed by August 31, 2027. With full data migration, this would be a challenging timeline to meet. Would you consider extending the date? Would you also commit to having the necessary resources available over the Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s holidays?

ANSWER 17 It is expected that full implementation will be completed by August 31, 2027. OIG commits to staff availability throughout the process, including holidays.

Regarding Letter A of Section C.3 (Statement of Work), do you intend to deploy physical backend infrastructure (servers, storage arrays, data storage), or are you requesting the Contractor procure and maintain end-user hardware (workstations, mobiles)?

ANSWER 18 No physical infrastructure is required.

For third-party licensed components, do you expect the prime Contractor to be liable for vendor-caused outages or defects beyond the prime Contractor's operational control, or will liability be limited to the prime Contractor’s failure to enforce subcontractor SLAs and coordinate incident response?

ANSWER 19 Respondents shall include all assumptions and exceptions in their Response.

Regarding Letter B of Section C.3 (Statement of Work), do you expect a documented process for AWS Cloud infrastructure component replacement (which is automated by AWS), or does this requirement only apply to RMS application software, integrations, and any on-premises hardware provided by the Contractor?

ANSWER 20 The requirements stated in C.3.B solely apply to the Contractor’s SaaS solution.

Regarding Letter C of Section C.3 (Statement of Work), does this include Contractor liability for service degradation caused by OIG network outages, TDCJ data feed failures, NCIC/TLETS system downtime, or user errors outside of the Contractor’s operational control? If so, how should the Contractor mitigate risks for factors beyond our reasonable control?

ANSWER 21 Respondents shall include all assumptions and exceptions in their Response.

Regarding Letter D of Section C.3 (Statement of Work), do you expect unlimited security customizations at no additional cost, or will customizations requiring significant engineering effort (> 40 hours) or third-party platform modifications be subject to change order approval? Additionally, will customizations be limited to those technically feasible within AWS SaaS architecture and maintain CJIS/TX-RAMP certification?

ANSWER 22 Security modification requests may be made if the SaaS is found to be insufficient per Solicitation requirements and will be the responsibility of the Contractor to correct at the Contractor’s expense.

Enhancements requested by the Department that exceed the Contract award amount may be negotiated.

Customization requests would be limited to those technically feasible with AWS SaaS architecture without impacting CJIS/TX-RAMP certifications.

Exhibit J.3 (Compliance Standards) specifies payment adjustments for non-compliance. Are these penalties cumulative, or would there be a cap on aggregate penalties per billing period? Additionally, will severity levels be mutually agreed upon?

ANSWER 23 Respondents shall include all assumptions and exceptions in their Response.

Regarding Letter F of Section C.3 (Statement of Work), does “prior to the full deployment” refer to:

(a) pre-Go-Live User Acceptance Training in the Staging environment or (b) a post-Go-Live “pilot” period before final system acceptance? Additionally, what are the objective criteria for your Quality Assurance review and acceptance of deliverables?

ANSWER 24 The OIG anticipates a fully operational and integrated SaaS solution.

Regarding Letter E (Data Migration and Import/Export Tools) of Section C.5 (Technical Requirements), are you able to deliver a data file(s) to the selected vendor? Please explain any challenges with obtaining data (e.g., cloud-hosted, third-party involvement, ownership/MOU issues, encryption).

ANSWER 25 Please refer to C.5.E.1 of the Solicitation. Data files can be provided and there are no known challenges.

Certain sections of the RFO form refer to the form as a Contract, while other sections appear to contemplate that there may be different/additional terms. Can you confirm that it is TDCJ’s understanding that no contract will be formed until TDCJ and the vendor of choice have agreed upon all terms and conditions (including any vendor service agreement) and executed a final agreement?

ANSWER 26 The Contract is developed from the Solicitation after negotiations are held and mutually agreed upon.

Will information submitted to the Legislative Budget Board be limited to information required by Texas Government Code 322.020 (i.e., the resulting contract, if it is a major contract, and the request for proposal or solicitation?)

ANSWER 27 Confidential or proprietary information will be redacted as needed for documents submitted to the Legislative Budget Board, in accordance with Texas Government Code 322.020.

RE: Data Conversion of existing data - who is the current vendor we will be converting from - How much data needs to be converted and what data do you need converted ?

ANSWER 28 Please reference C.5.E.1 of the Solicitation.

How many internal and external users need to access the system, and what are their roles while using the system?

ANSWER 29 Please submit your best solution for the scope and size of the OIG.

User Base and Access: The RFP prohibits pay-per-user licensing. Can the Department provide an estimated number of concurrent users to help us size the infrastructure appropriately?

ANSWER 30 Please submit your best solution for the scope and size of the OIG.

C.2.1.E.g. and C.2.1.E.h. reference biometric identifiers, and biometric authentication. Question : What biometrics are utilized by the TBCJ, and how will the collected biometric data be stored within the new Records Management System?

ANSWER 31 The current biometrics being utilized are fingerprints. Respondents should provide options for consideration in their Response.

C.6. Training requests in-person training. Would TBCJ consider remote training sessions in an effort to encourage cost-savings?

ANSWER 32 Yes, we will consider remote training sessions.

C.5.E. states that there is approximately 900 GB of data that must be migrated to the new system. In addition to the 900 GBs referenced in the RFP, can you please provide the estimated volume (in terabytes or number of records) and the database format of the existing SHSU-CRIMES system and other TDCJ data that needs to be migrated?

ANSWER 33 Please reference Answer 8.

Has TBCJ attended any demonstrations of records management systems before the issuance of this

RFP?

ANSWER 34 Some Department and OIG personnel have attended demonstrations..

What is the anticipated spend/budget for this new solution?

ANSWER 35 The TDCJ does not disclose budgets for Solicitations to encourage vendor competition and competitive pricing. Please submit your best pricing for the scope and size of the project.

For the data exchange development toolkit, are there specific preferred languages or APIs (i.e., RESTful, SOAP) that the OIG staff currently utilize?

ANSWER 36 No, there is not a preferred language or API that the OIG staff currently utilize.

Does the OIG have preferred barcode/RFID hardware vendors already in use, or should the Respondent propose the hardware as part of the total solution?

ANSWER 37 Please submit your best solution for the scope and size of the OIG.

Regarding offline data capture, can you describe the typical field environment (e.g., specific mobile devices or ruggedized laptops) where connectivity is most frequently lost?

ANSWER 38 Offline data capture is most frequently lost when there is no service for connectivity while attempting to use mobile devices.

Will the Department of Public Safety (DPS) provide a sandbox environment for the required integration testing and successful delivery of NIBRS data?

ANSWER 39 The OIG will coordinate with DPS for testing and delivery of NIBRS data.

The RFP requests a development, staging, testing, training, and production database for five total environments. Would the TDCJ and the OIG consider utilizing one environment for production data, and a second for staging, testing, development, and training purposes for two total environments? If two environments would not suffice, would three environments work combining development, staging, and testing into the third?

ANSWER 40 The Respondent’s SaaS solution must provide a minimum of three separate environments that accommodate the listed functions in Section C.9 for the Solicitation.

Would all 172 Peace Officers be interested in utilizing mobile reporting on various devices like toughbooks, tablets, or phones?

ANSWER 41 Yes, the OIG would be interested in utilizing mobile reporting on various devices.

Is the TDCJ or OIG currently utilizing a vendor for video storage or video recording that would need an integration with the RMS?

ANSWER 42 Yes, all records within the current system are stored in a single Microsoft SQL Server.

Will TDCJ or OIG provide a list of vendors they are requiring the RMS to integrate to?

ANSWER 43 The RMS must integrate with TDCJ Micro Focus, Texas DPS for TCIC/NCIC and NIBRS.

Will vendors be allowed to add rows to the pricing schedule in section B.2 to clarify costs? Is it acceptable to provide an ancillary pricing sheet further detailing costs?

ANSWER 44 Yes, Respondents will be allowed to add rows to the pricing schedule and provide an ancillary pricing sheet for further detailing costs.

Section B.1.1 requires the Contractor to provide "all necessary personnel, hardware, software, training, licensing, implementation, storage, materials, and supplies," and Section C.3.A confirms the Contractor is responsible for "the entire RMS, including software, hardware, all components and parts." However, Section C.4.C describes field reporting capabilities including offline mobile access, and Section C.4.B requires barcode and RFID support for evidence management. The solicitation does not explicitly distinguish between server-side infrastructure and OIG-side endpoint hardware.

Is the Contractor expected to procure and supply field-use endpoint hardware including mobile devices (smartphones/tablets) for the 172 Peace Officers, and physical RFID readers and barcode scanners for evidence room operations or does OIG already own or intend to independently procure compatible endpoint hardware?

If OIG will procure endpoint hardware, what device platforms and operating systems are currently deployed or planned, and will the Contractor be provided device specifications prior to system design?

ANSWER 45 The TDCJ provides all equipment for staff and the network for accessing the internet. The OIG will provide the information for device specification when it becomes available.

Section C.2.3.J requires an independent report from a certified contractor confirming no vulnerabilities exist for all RMS components prior to go-live, and further requires that each version of any mobile application or public-facing website storing or processing confidential or sensitive information undergo a penetration test before going live, with all shortcomings resolved before that version is released.

Section C.2.3.H additionally states that TDCJ shall perform its own security penetration testing of the RMS as the Department deems necessary, with shortcomings to be resolved within 30 days of written results.

Does OIG or TDCJ OCISO have an existing contracted penetration testing vendor it intends to use for the testing described in C.2.3.H, or is the Contractor expected to independently engage and fund a qualified third-party penetration testing firm to satisfy the independent certification requirement in C.2.3.J? If both the Department-led testing (C.2.3.H) and the Contractor-furnished independent certification (C.2.3.J) are required concurrently, can OIG clarify the sequencing and acceptance criteria for each, and whether the results of one satisfy the requirements of the other?

ANSWER 46 The TDCJ will establish contracts for penetration testing.

For response to resistance incidents, what specific reporting formats or report types are required? For example, are Use of Force (UOF) reports expected?

ANSWER 47 The OIG does not have a preference for reports. Yes, Use of Force reports are expected.

Should archived incident records remain accessible for statistical reporting and search functionality, or be excluded?

ANSWER 48 Yes, archived incident records shall remain accessible for reporting and search functionality.

Does warrant management require integration with any external or third-party systems? If so, please specify.

ANSWER 49 Yes, Texas DPS for TLETS/NLETS.

Should the system strictly prevent duplicate incidents, or allow users to proceed after a warning?

ANSWER 50 Yes, the system should allow users to proceed after a warning.

Should evidence management support barcode tracking, RFID tracking, or both?

ANSWER 51 Please refer to Section C.4.B.1 of the Solicitation.

Is there an existing evidence management system that must be integrated with the RMS?

ANSWER 52 Please refer to Section C.5.E of the Solicitation.

QUESTION

Are integrations required with specific body-worn camera vendors (e.g., Axon, Motorola)?

ANSWER 53 Yes.

Section C.5.C requires the RMS to support Microsoft Active Directory authentication to enable Single Sign-On and other forms of user authentication, including SAML for non-OIG domain users and federated access for external agencies or county units of government. The solicitation assumes this integration but does not describe the current OIG identity environment.

Can OIG confirm whether an existing Microsoft Active Directory or Azure Active Directory (Entra ID) environment is currently in place and available for SAML 2.0 federation with the CLEAR-MS platform? If so, what AD version, domain structure, and federation capabilities are currently deployed?

If an on-premise AD environment is in use without existing federation capability, will OIG be responsible for upgrading or extending the AD environment to support SAML 2.0, or is the Contractor expected to provision an independent identity provider as part of the RMS delivery?

ANSWER 54 SAML 2.0 is supported by the TDCJ Active Directory. OIG Active Directory has AD Federation Services role which is one of the SAML 2.0 identity providers to authenticate visitors/non-OIG domain users/external agency users.

Is integrated sketch/diagram capability required, or are file attachments sufficient for crime scene documentation?

ANSWER 55 File attachments are sufficient for crime scene documentation.

Is offline functionality required only for field reporting or across additional modules?

ANSWER 56 Offline functionality will only be required for field reporting.

Are there defined rules or workflows for resolving synchronization conflicts between offline and server data?

ANSWER 57 No.

Which external systems must the RMS integrate with (e.g., NCIC, NIBRS, DPS, TDCJ systems)?

ANSWER 58 The RMS must integrate with TDCJ Micro Focus, Texas DPS for TCIC/NCIC and NIBRS.

Which integrations require real-time data exchange versus batch processing?

ANSWER 59 The specific system integrations that require real time data or batch processing are sensitive data which is not available for public disclosure and be will discussed in negotiations.

Are there preferred technical standards for the data exchange toolkit (e.g., NIEM, APIs)?

ANSWER 60 No.

When records are expunged, should they be permanently deleted or retained in a restricted format?

ANSWER 61 The expunged records should be permanently deleted.

QUESTION

After retention periods expire, should data be archived or fully deleted?

ANSWER 62 Please refer to Sections C.2.1.D, C.2.1.D.3, and H.5 of the Solicitation.

What advanced administrator-configurable validations are required beyond basic field validation?

ANSWER 63 Please submit your best solution for the scope and size of the OIG..

Should Master Indexes operate at the agency level only or support a broader (e.g., statewide) scope?

ANSWER 64 Master Indexes shall operate and support statewide scope.

Is Microsoft Office 365 calendar integration required in addition to Word and Excel integration?

ANSWER 65 No. Please submit your best solution for the scope and size of the OIG.

Should spellchecking apply only to narrative fields or all user-entered fields?

ANSWER 66 Please submit your best solution for the scope and size of the OIG.

Is OCR limited to typed documents, or should handwritten recognition be supported?

ANSWER 67 The OIG does not have a preference. Please submit your best solution for the scope and size of the

OIG.

Are there preferred MFA identity providers (e.g., Azure AD, Okta)?

ANSWER 68 This information is not available for public disclosure. Please submit your best solution for the scope and size of the OIG.

Please clarify the scope and use cases for predictive policing capabilities.

ANSWER 69 Please submit your best solution for the scope and size of the OIG.

Is support for hybrid or on-premise deployment required in addition to the cloud model?

ANSWER 70 No.

Please provide detailed requirements for the Fusion Cases Report, including data elements and use cases.

ANSWER 71 Please submit your best solution for the scope and size of the OIG.

Does your organization currently have multifactor authentication (MFA) implemented? If so, please describe the current authentication workflow. If not, what MFA approach and user flow are expected for the new system?

ANSWER 72 Please submit your best solution for the scope and size of the OIG.

What is the anticipated monthly data growth rate (e.g., records, storage volume, or file uploads) that should be accounted for in system sizing?

ANSWER 73 Please submit your best solution for the scope and size of the OIG.

Please provide details on your data retention policy, including retention periods, archival requirements, and deletion practices.

ANSWER 74 Please refer to Sections C.2.1.D, C.2.1.D.3, and H.5 of the Solicitation.

Are there any estimates or historical metrics for monthly network bandwidth usage that should be considered when sizing and pricing the cloud solution?

ANSWER 75 Please submit your best solution for the scope and size of the OIG.

Are attachments or files (e.g., documents, images, videos) currently used within the system? If so: How are they stored (e.g., database, file system, cloud storage)? What is the approximate total storage size and typical file size?

ANSWER 76 Please refer to Section C.5.E.1 of the Solicitation. Please submit your best solution for the scope and size of the OIG.

Is the expectation to migrate all existing data into the new system? If not, are there specific cutoff dates or historical data limitations?

ANSWER 77 Yes, it is the expectation to migrate all existing data. Please submit your best solution for the scope and size of the OIG.

In what format will the data be provided for migration: Full database copy/backup, or Structured data exports (e.g., CSV, XML)? Additionally, please confirm the current database platform (e.g., SQL Server, Oracle).

ANSWER 78 A full copy or backup of SQL Server will be provided. Please refer to Section C.5.E.1 of the Solicitation.

Please provide a comprehensive list of all external systems and interfaces that the RMS must integrate with, including any current or planned integrations.

ANSWER 79 The RMS must integrate with TDCJ Micro Focus, Texas DPS for TCIC/NCIC and NIBRS.

Does the requirement include direct integration with body-worn camera systems, or only the ability to upload video files manually with a tagging feature?

ANSWER 80 Direct integration is preferred.

Is the requirement to provide integration with third-party crime scene software? If so, which system are currently in use?

ANSWER 81 A crime scene software system is not currently in use.

What integration mechanism is required for national/state databases - standard API or FoxTalk, or another interface?

ANSWER 82 Standard API is the integration mechanism required.

Does ‘redact sensitive details’ specifically refer to PII (e.g., names, addresses, SSNs) and apply the redaction to printed reports ?

ANSWER 83 No, confidential or proprietary information will also be redacted.

Does the expungement apply only to individuals, or must it apply to all related cases and records involving that individual?

ANSWER 84 Expungement orders apply to individuals and all related cases and records involved.

Does this requirement refer to workflow-based follow-up tasks (e.g., investigations) or a scheduling system?

ANSWER 85 Please submit your best solution for the scope and size of the OIG.

Does the predictive policing requirement refer to visualization of crime hotspots on maps ?

ANSWER 86 Please submit your best solution for the scope and size of the OIG.

1. How many sworn officers?

ANSWER 87 The staffing numbers provided are for design scope, are estimates only, and are subject to change.

2. How many users need to be trained?

ANSWER 88 The staffing numbers provided are for design scope, are estimates only, and are subject to change.

3. How many records clerks?

ANSWER 89 The staffing numbers provided are for design scope, are estimates only, and are subject to change.

4. How many investigators?

ANSWER 90 The staffing numbers provided are for design scope, are estimates only, and are subject to change.