OCA-DGCP-071 QA_FINAL ADA.pdf

OCA-DGCP-071 Judiciary Civil Legal Services Legal Empowerment

Questions and Responses

The New York State Unified Court System (UCS) thanks the vendors that submitted the question below concerning the Judiciary Civil Legal Services Legal Empowerment (RFP) issued on June 18, 2026.

Below are the responses to the questions UCS received in connection with this

RFP.

Question #1:

Are nonprofit guardianship services eligible for funding under RFP # OCA-DGCP-071 Judiciary Civil Legal Services, Legal Empowerment?

UCS Response:

No. This RFP is for the services described in Article V Project Services. UCS issued OCA-DGCP- 070 for guardianship services on 6/26/2026.

Question #2:

We came across this RFP on the NYS Contract Reporter Site. We were wondering if this funding would replace our existing contract or if we would be applying for additional funding under this RFP. We noticed that the grant would start on 10/1/2026 where our current grant doesn’t end until 12/31/2026. We just want to make sure we are understanding this correctly.

UCS Response:

This RFP is for the services described in Article V Project Services. Contracts awarded under this RFP will not impact existing UCS contracts.

Question #3:

Could you all please clarify the scope of “legal services related to residency and related administrative processes” and whether OCA intends this category to include immigration representation and administrative advocacy before federal immigration agencies.

UCS Response:

UCS intends this category to include any and all legal services related to residency and related administrative processes. The RFP does not impose any exclusions based on the type of such legal services or the type of residency matter.

Question #4:

Are applicants permiƩed to request funding through this RFP for the same staff posiƟons that were included in the anƟ-evicƟon RFP (OCA-DGCP-066) submiƩed in April?

UCS Response:

Staff positions can be partially funded under more than one UCS contract so long at the total percentage is no more than 100% and there is no duplication of funding among for those positions.

Question #5:

If funding is requested for specific posiƟons under this RFP, would those same posiƟons also be eligible for inclusion in an applicaƟon for the main five-year contracted OCA funding opportunity expected to be released later this summer?

UCS Response:

Staff positions can be partially funded under more than one UCS contract so long at the total percentage is no more than 100% among all outside funding for those positions.

Question #6:

If a posiƟon is funded through this contract, would the staff member be permiƩed to serve clients throughout New York City, or would services need to be limited to the borough for which the organizaƟon applied for funding?

UCS Response:

The program budget must show the portion of each staff member’s time that will be spent serving clients who reside in or require legal services within the geographic area covered by the resulting contract.

Question #7:

Do proposals from organizations that solely provide immigration legal services qualify under this RFP?

All organizations that meet the minimum qualifications set forth in Article IV of the RFP, and that are authorized to provide the Project Services set forth are Article V of the RFP, are eligible to submit proposals and qualify for awards.

Question #8:

Why is Suffolk County not listed?

UCS Response:

Suffolk County is listed in the RFP as one of the counties where services will be provided.

Question #9:

Will there be an RFP for proposals from organizations providing solely immigration legal services to clients and if so, when will it be released?

UCS Response:

At this time, we do not plan to issue a separate RFP for organizations providing only immigration legal services. If any future competitive procurements are developed, they will be publicly announced once finalized.

Question #10:

Must all partner enƟƟes submiƫng a joint proposal provide direct civil legal services, or may a partner enƟty be a non-legal community-based organizaƟon that provides complementary human services to eligible clients?

UCS Response:

The lead applicant must meet the minimum qualifications set forth in Article IV of the RFP, and must be authorized to provide the Project Services set forth are Article V of the RFP. The lead applicant may partner with other organizations, including through subcontract arrangements, provided that the subcontractor is providing Project Services as described in Article V of the RFP. Reimbursement of costs for Project Services must be in accordance with Article VIII(e) of the RFP.

Question #11:

I have a quesƟon about Exhibit 7 - Board of Directors ComposiƟon Summary. I don't see it anywhere in the RFP or online here: hƩps://www.nycourts.gov/grants-contracts-procurement/current-solicitaƟons.

Can you please share this file? Apologies if I missed it in the materials.

UCS Response:

Pursuant to Amendment #1, this has been corrected and reference to it removed. Please note that Exhibit 7 Board of Directors Composition Summary does not apply for this RFP.

Question #12:

ArƟcle V lists a broad range of priority civil legal service areas. May an applicant propose to focus its services on one or two of these priority areas, such as public benefits and consumer or debt-related maƩers, rather than covering all listed service areas? If so, will a focused scope affect scoring under the Proposed Service Delivery criterion or the determinaƟon of best overall value?

UCS Response:

Proposals can focus on one or more priority areas. Scoring will be based upon consideration of a wide variety of factors.

Question #13:

ArƟcle V and ArƟcle VIII(b)(2)(b) reference “legal services related to residency and related administraƟve processes.” Please define the scope of this category. Specifically, does it refer to immigraƟon and immigraƟon-related administraƟve maƩers, residency requirements for public benefits or other programs, landlord-tenant or housing residency maƩers, or something else?

UCS Response:

UCS intends this category to include any and all legal services related to residency and related administrative processes. The RFP does not impose any exclusions based on the type of such legal services or the type of residency matter.

Question #14:

Can a proposal limit the program to a parƟcular county populaƟon such as veterans or older adults or must anyone who meets the eligibility definiƟon described in Point II* be enƟtled to receive some civil legal services under this program. Thank you.

*those at or below 200% of the federal poverty threshold who are experiencing condiƟons that contribute to increased/heightened vulnerability or reduced access to legal resources, including those affected by violence, displacement, disability, service-related challenges, or other barriers to safety and stability

UCS Response:

Programs may define and limit services to a specific priority populaƟon within a specific county so long as such limitaƟons comply with applicable law.

Question #15:

If an organizaƟon is successful in receiving this award and also is successful in securing or maintaining separate JCLS funding via that RFP process, would work that is performed under this award also be reported pursuant to our other JCLS obligaƟons?

The organizaƟon would be obligated to meet the reporƟng requirements of each contract separately.

Question #16:

Do "Project Services" as defined in SecƟon V of the RFP include training provided to lawyers at other non-profit legal services organizaƟons if such training will aid those organizaƟons in providing quality legal services to their clients (including "eligible clients") in the "priority civil legal service areas" described in SecƟon V of the RFP?

UCS Response:

ArƟcle V of the RFP sets forth the Project Services, “including but not limited to” the specific services listed in that arƟcle. There is no prohibiƟon against offering training to other organizaƟons.

QuesƟon #17:

With respect to ArƟcle V, we are seeking clarificaƟon as to what "legal services related to residency and related administraƟve processes" means. Does it refer to immigraƟon maƩers, housing/tenancy maƩers, administraƟve proceedings related to public benefits eligibility, or some combinaƟon thereof?

UCS Response:

UCS intends this category to include any and all legal services related to residency and related administrative processes. The RFP does not impose any exclusions based on the type of such legal services or the type of residency matter.

QuesƟon #18:

With respect to ArƟcle V, are applicants expected to provide services across all listed priority civil legal service areas, or may applicants focus on a subset of areas aligned with their organizaƟonal experƟse?

UCS Response:

Proposals can focus on one or more priority area.

QuesƟon #19:

With respect to the physical office space requirement in ArƟcle IV, Minimum QualificaƟon #2:

The RFP states that acceptable proof of site control may include an executed lease agreement for the duraƟon of the five-year contract period, or other legally binding wriƩen documentaƟon demonstraƟng control of the space. If an applicant's current executed lease does not extend through the full five-year contract period (October 1, 2026 – September 30, 2031), but the applicant is acƟvely negoƟaƟng a lease renewal or extension with its current landlord, what forms of documentaƟon would UCS consider sufficient to demonstrate control of the space? For example, would a leƩer from the landlord confirming the applicant's conƟnued occupancy and intent to execute a renewal, or a leƩer of intent to lease, consƟtute acceptable proof?

UCS Response:

Yes, a leƩer from the landlord confirming the applicant's conƟnued occupancy and intent to execute a renewal, or a leƩer of intent to lease would be acceptable for the scenario in quesƟon.

QuesƟon #20:

For several years, ______ and I have discussed creaƟng a regional Civil Division, with shared resources structured similarly to our _______ Center. The goal would be to provide civil legal representaƟon to our exisƟng clients involved in criminal or Family Court maƩers in ______ counƟes who are also facing significant civil legal issues affecƟng their stability and well-being.

AŌer reviewing the RFP, we immediately recognized it as a potenƟal opportunity to build this collaboraƟve model and expand our capacity to serve clients more holisƟcally.

We would appreciate your guidance as to whether a joint regional proposal from our two organizaƟons would even be considered under this RFP, or whether the grant is intended only for nonprofit organizaƟons that are already engaged in providing civil legal services.

UCS Response:

Joint proposals will be accepted; however, a single enƟty must be idenƟfied as the lead applicant responsible for fiscal management, reporƟng, and performance. The lead applicant must meet the minimum qualificaƟons set forth in ArƟcle IV of the RFP, and must be authorized to provide the Project Services set forth in ArƟcle V of the RFP.

QuesƟon #21:

The available funding under the OCA Legal Empowerment RFP is capped at $600,000 per borough (which will support a limited number and there are a wide variety of legal problem areas (family, access to public benefits, income support and health care, immigraƟon, disability rights and access to accommodaƟons, consumer and debt, and veterans) that OCA is seeking bidders to provide. Could OCA please provide any guidance about whether or not applicaƟons which seek to provide some service in each substanƟve area will be given a higher score than those applicaƟons who propose to provide deep services in 2 or 3 service areas.

Likewise, can OCA provide any guidance about whether or not applicants who seek to provide significant services to a limited number of target populaƟons vs. fewer services to a greater number of populaƟons will be rated higher?

UCS Response:

Applicants are not required to propose projects that include every service type listed in SecƟon V. The RFP states that Awarded Providers must deliver comprehensive civil legal services “including but not limited to” the categories listed, which are presented as examples—not mandatory areas.

Proposals may focus on certain service types as long as the proposal clearly explains how those services meet community needs and align with the goals of the Legal Empowerment Project.

QuesƟon #22:

One of the criteria is “reasonableness of cost.” Does OCA have a framework for the evaluaƟon of # of cases per total contract amount?

UCS Response:

This RFP does not establish a case-to-cost raƟo requirement. The reasonableness of cost evaluaƟon framework rates how the proposed program budget supports the project goals.

QuesƟon #23:

For organizaƟons who already receive JCLS funding AND are awarded funding under the Legal Empowerment RFP, will OCA issue a separate contract for Legal Empowerment funding OR will the Legal Empowerment funding be added through an amendment to the organizaƟon’s JCLS contract? Likewise, how will contract goals be treated—will there be separate Legal Empowerment goals that are disƟnct from the regular JCLS funding or will the Legal Empowerment deliverables be subsumed in the regular JCLS goal structure?

UCS Response:

Contracts awarded under this RFP will be separate standalone contracts, NOT Ɵed into any other JCLS contracts. The contract scope of services awarded under this RFP (071) will be separate and disƟnct from the general operaƟng JCLS contract scope of services.

QuesƟon #24:

Prior to the release of the RFP, it was our understanding that addiƟonal JCLS funding was intended to support the work that civil legal services organizaƟons were already doing, given our funding challenges.

Is JCLS Legal Empowerment funding intended to support the high quality and broad civil legal assistance that civil legal services orgs are already providing in the areas listed below (seemingly all but evicƟon prevenƟon) or is OCA seeking new services, new programs or addiƟonal services beyond those funded under the JCLS contract?

UCS Response:

This RFP is designed to expand overall service delivery and capacity of civil legal services. Applicants’ program plans should describe services that will be funded under this RFP award. Program plans may include new services, or the conƟnuaƟon, expansion or enhancement of exisƟng services, provided that applicants clearly idenƟfy the addiƟonal capacity or improvements supported by this RFP award.

QuesƟon #25:

On page 10 of the RFP, the following requirement appears:

“Applicants must describe their organizaƟon’s experience and demonstrated capacity to provide high-quality representaƟon across a range of civil legal maƩers, including but not limited to:

a. Family-related legal maƩers, including issues involving safety and orders of protecƟon

b. MaƩers related to residency or administraƟve processes

c. Public benefits hearings and appeals

d. Consumer maƩers involving financial stability or debt-related issues

e. Accessibility-related maƩers under disability or other laws

f. Service-related benefits and associated administraƟve proceedings

Responses should include examples of prior work, measurable outcomes achieved, and staff experƟse relevant to these areas.”

Does this language mean that an applicant MUST show experience and demonstrated capacity in ALL SIX of the areas of the law listed, or will a proposal to provide legal services in only one or two of the listed areas of the law be considered responsive to the RFP? Your guidance would be greatly appreciated.

UCS Response:

Proposals that demonstrate experience in one or more of the listed areas of the law will be considered responsive to the RFP.

QuesƟon #26:

In the RFP, it states that proposers must demonstrate the ability to leverage exisƟng federal, state and local resources. Does this mean that we must reflect these kinds of funds in the budget as a match?

UCS Response:

No, there is no required budget match. However, the proposal must include how applicants plan to leverage exisƟng federal, State, or local funding to enhance and/or sustain the program.

QuesƟon #27:

How does OCA disƟnguish between a partner and a subcontractor for purposes of this RFP?

A subcontractor is any partner that will perform part of the scope of work under your direct contract with UCS. All subcontractors are partners, but not all partners are subcontractors.

QuesƟon #28:

Is there a cap on fringe benefits, either as a percentage of salary or as a maximum dollar amount for any individual benefit?

UCS Response:

No, there is not a cap on fringe benefits, however, fringe benefits should be reasonable and appropriate for the proposed budget and align with the requirements of the UCS Financial Planning and Control Manual.

QuesƟon #29:

If an applicant requests $300,000 and OCA determines the amount is too high due to other applicants, will the applicaƟon be rejected, or will the applicant have an opportunity to revise the budget?

UCS Response:

The proposal would not be rejected. UCS will determine the level of funding for an award. The applicant would have an opportunity, post award, to revise the budget accordingly.

QuesƟon #30:

If services will be delivered from two locaƟons, one operated by the primary applicant and one operated by the partner or subcontractor, is a cerƟficate of insurance required from both organizaƟons?

UCS Response:

Subcontractors are required to provide insurance documentaƟon if the value of the subcontract funded by UCS exceeds $100,000 over the life of the agreement.

QuesƟon #31:

Should the OrganizaƟonal Capacity secƟon include informaƟon about the partner or subcontractor, or only the primary applicant?

UCS Response:

The NarraƟve DescripƟon – Proposed Service Delivery secƟon is the only secƟon required for the partner or subcontractor.

QuesƟon #32:

Are any addiƟonal documents required from a partner or subcontractor (aside from vendor responsibility quesƟonnaire), such as an organizaƟonal chart, IRS determinaƟon leƩer, or other items listed in Exhibit 1?

UCS Response:

No addiƟonal documents are required from the partner or subcontractor as part of the iniƟal submission.

QuesƟon #33:

Should the applicaƟon include a separate budget for the subcontractor, or a single consolidated budget?

UCS Response:

The applicant should submit a single consolidated budget.

QuesƟon #34:

Should the indirect cost rate be applied for both the primary applicant and the subcontractor, or only the primary applicant?

UCS Response:

The primary applicant should apply their own approved indirect cost rate to their porƟon of the budget.

Any subcontractor with their own federally-negoƟated or approved rate may likewise apply it to their porƟon of costs.

QuesƟon #35:

The RFP requires a Vendor Responsibility QuesƟonnaire for any partner receiving more than $100,000.

We plan to partner with _________________ to fund a staff aƩorney posiƟon. ______ is a private, not for profit law school. Please confirm whether a Vendor Responsibility QuesƟonnaire is required from _______, and whether any exempƟon applies to all accredited colleges and universiƟes.

UCS Response:

The Office of the State Comptroller’s guidance on Vendor Responsibility requirements and exempƟons can be found here:

hƩps://www.osc.ny.gov/state-vendors/vendrep/vendor-responsibility-documentaƟon

Private accredited colleges and universiƟes are not exempt from compleƟng the vendor responsibility quesƟonnaire.

QuesƟon #36:

For the legal service types listed on secƟon V “PROJECT SERVICES” page 6. bullet point #2 (provide legal advice and representaƟon in priority civil legal service areas, including but not limited to: Family-related law maƩers etc.) must an organizaƟon provide services that fall under at least one, or all the categories menƟoned? Must an organizaƟon provide mulƟple services related to family law, consumer rights, veteran’s benefits, etc. in order to be eligible?

UCS Response:

UCS does not require applicants to provide services in every listed legal area in ArƟcle V. Project Services.

Applicants must deliver services in at least one priority civil legal services area.

QuesƟon #37:

If an organizaƟon focuses on a specific area within a county, but accepts clients county-wide, is this allowable?

UCS Response:

Yes, awards will be made on a county-by-county basis.

QuesƟon #38:

When should applicants expect to receive a noƟficaƟon about whether applicaƟons were awarded or declined?

UCS Response:

UCS is unable to give a Ɵmeline for this other than what is esƟmated in the RFP. The evaluaƟon will be conducted aŌer the proposal due date.

QuesƟon #39:

Does workplace jusƟce legal work count as eligible civil legal service work under this grant, under the “financial stability” or another category?

UCS Response:

Yes. Workplace jusƟce legal work may be considered an eligible civil legal service, provided the services directly support an eligible client’s financial stability.

QuesƟon #40:

Does this RFP cover housing civil legal service work?

UCS Response:

Article V of the RFP sets forth the Project Services, “including but not limited to” the specific services listed in that article. There is no prohibition against offering housing legal services work.

QuesƟon #41:

Will this RFP allow for health access/navigaƟon services to be counted as reportable deliverables under this contract?

UCS Response:

Yes. Those services are listed under ArƟcle V.

QuesƟon #42:

Is there a minimum number of cases/deliverables applying organizaƟons need to meet to apply/be awarded this contract?

UCS Response:

No, there is not a minimum number of cases/deliverables applicants must meet to qualify for award.

Awards will be based on the overall strength of the proposal and alignment with program goals.

QuesƟon #43:

There is a reference to Exhibit 6 on pages 2 and 25 but no Exhibit 6 aƩached. What informaƟon is provided in this exhibit?

UCS Response:

Pursuant to Amendment 1, there is no Exhibit 6 for this RFP.

QuesƟon #44:

There is a reference to "Board of Directors ComposiƟon Summary (See Exhibit 7)" on page 14 but no Exhibit 7. What are the specifics of the composiƟon summary requested?

UCS Response:

Pursuant to Amendment 1, there is no Exhibit 7 for this RFP and is not a required document for submission.

QuesƟon #45:

What does "MaƩers related to residency or administraƟve processes" refer to- is this primarily about housing cases or immigraƟon cases or something else?

UCS Response:

UCS intends this category to include any and all legal services related to residency and related administrative processes. The RFP does not impose any exclusions based on the type of such legal services or the type of residency matter.

QuesƟon #46:

Is it acceptable to provide resumes for the supervisors of the services rather than every individual staff person?

No. SecƟon VIII(d) requires applicants to submit resumes for all staff who will provide Project Services.

Providing resumes only for supervisors would not meet the requirement. If certain posiƟons are vacant, applicants may submit job descripƟons instead.

QuesƟon #47:

Are applicants required to propose projects that include all types of Legal Service Providers outlined in SecƟon V, or may applicants propose projects that focus on only certain service types?

UCS Response:

Applicants are not required to propose projects that include every service type listed in ArƟcle V. The RFP states that Awarded Providers must deliver comprehensive civil legal services “including but not limited to” the categories listed, which are presented as examples—not mandatory minimums.

Applicants may propose projects that focus on only certain service types, as long as the proposal clearly explains how those services meet community needs and align with the goals of the Legal Empowerment Project.

QuesƟon #48:

Can you provide more detail on the program reporƟng requirements noted in secƟon VIII(c), including what data collecƟon is required?

UCS Response:

Programs will be required to submit quarterly and annual reports detailing progress, acƟviƟes, and outcomes under the award. Providers must also respond in a Ɵmely manner to any inquiries from UCS related to program operaƟons, data, or performance.

QuesƟon #49:

If an organizaƟon is awarded a contract under OCA-DGCP-071, is it eligible to apply for and receive funding under future JCLS RFPs whose contract terms overlap with OCA-DGCP-071, provided the services are disƟnct and there is no duplicaƟon of funding?

UCS Response:

Yes. Receiving an award under this RFP does not preclude an organizaƟon from applying for or receiving funding under other UCS or JCLS solicitaƟons, even if contract terms overlap, provided the services are disƟnct and funding is not duplicated. Please note that organizaƟons holding mulƟple UCS contracts will be required to meet separate reporƟng requirements for each contract.

QuesƟon #50:

Under the proposed service delivery narraƟve secƟon, please clarify what you mean by the category "maƩers related to residency or administraƟve processes."

UCS Response:

UCS intends this category to include any and all legal services related to residency and related administrative processes. The RFP does not impose any exclusions based on the type of such legal services or the type of residency matter.

QuesƟon #51:

Under the proposed service delivery narraƟve secƟon, please clarify the difference between the "public benefits hearings and appeals" and "service-related benefits and associated administraƟve proceedings" categories.

UCS Response:

“Public benefits hearings and appeals” refers to maƩers involving government benefit programs such as public assistance, disability benefits, SNAP, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and similar programs, including any hearings or appeals related to eligibility, denial, reducƟon, or terminaƟon of those benefits.

“Service-related benefits and associated administraƟve proceedings” refers to benefits linked to military or military service-connected status, such as veterans’ benefits and related legal issues, along with any associated administraƟve processes.

In other words, “public benefits hearings and appeals” concerns civilian public benefit programs, while “service-related benefits and associated administraƟve proceedings” concerns benefits Ɵed to military or military service-connected status.

QuesƟon #52:

If the applicant intends to contract with other organizaƟons to provide services, must we submit the documents listed in Exhibit 1 for each sub-contracƟng organizaƟon?

UCS Response:

No. Applicants do not need to submit the documents listed in Exhibit 1 for subcontracƟng organizaƟons.

Exhibit 1 idenƟfies documents that the lead applicant must submit, and the RFP does not require applicants to provide the same set of documents for subcontractors.

If a partner is a subcontractor and will receive more than $100,000 in total compensaƟon, they must submit a Vendor Responsibility QuesƟonnaire, as noted in ArƟcle XII under “SubcontracƟng,” but no other Exhibit 1 documents are required.

QuesƟon #53:

Does “Legal services related to residency and related administraƟve processes” include immigraƟon maƩers?

UCS Response:

UCS intends this category to include any and all legal services related to residency and related administrative processes. The RFP does not impose any exclusions based on the type of such legal services or the type of residency matter.

QuesƟon #54:

Can we provide any housing-related legal services under this contract?

UCS Response:

Pursuant to ArƟcle V Project Services, “At a minimum, services provided by Legal Service Providers, including but not limited to: Legal services related to residency and related administraƟve processes”

QuesƟon #55:

Can this contract support legal work that is also supported in part by other City or State funding?

UCS Response:

Yes, provided there is no duplicaƟon of funding.

QuesƟon #56:

When reporƟng under this contract, will we be able to report those cases that we’re also reporƟng to other public (City, State) funders?

UCS Response:

ReporƟng requirements will be set forth in the contracts executed with the Awarded Contractors, and will include reporƟng of cases where Project Services were provided using UCS funding. Legal services funded to Awarded Contractors by other public and private enƟƟes cannot be counted as an outcome achieved pursuant to an award under this RFP.

QuesƟon #57:

Will the resulƟng contract budget be performance-based or line item reimbursement?

UCS Response:

The budget in the resulƟng contracts will be line-item reimbursements.

QuesƟon #58:

Will this contract’s deliverables only count full representaƟon cases or can we also report brief services?

UCS Response:

Pursuant to ArƟcle V Project Services, “At a minimum, services provided by Legal Service Providers, including but not limited to: Provide legal advice and representaƟon in priority civil legal service area”

QuesƟon #59:

If brief services are allowed to be reported under this contract, is each brief service case counted as one unit of service or a percentage of a full representaƟon case?

UCS Response:

Guidance on reporƟng requirements will be provided to Awarded Contractors as the program is implemented. Applicants should demonstrate how their proposed approach to all service levels will appropriately meet the idenƟfied needs of the community.

QuesƟon #60:

How will roll-over cases (i.e., cases iniƟated in one contract year that conƟnue to be worked on in subsequent contract years) be handled for the contract deliverables?

UCS Response:

Rollover cases, those iniƟated in one contract year and conƟnuing into subsequent contract years, may be counted toward contract deliverables in each year, provided that acƟve, UCS award funded work is performed during the reporƟng period. Providers will be expected to track ongoing cases and report updates, outcomes, and services delivered for each contract year in which the case remains open.

AddiƟonal guidance on reporƟng rollover cases will be provided to Awarded Contractors as part of the contract reporƟng requirements.

QuesƟon #61:

How will we be expected to verify income eligibility for clients?

UCS Response:

The RFP does not specify how applicants must verify clients’ income eligibility but defines Eligible Clients as individuals at or below 200% of the federal poverty threshold.

Accordingly, applicants may use their standard intake and income verificaƟon procedures, so long as those procedures are sufficient to determine income eligibility.

QuesƟon #62:

Can a non-legal service provider be the lead applicant and subcontract with a legal service provider for the legal representaƟon services?

UCS Response:

The lead applicant must meet the minimum qualifications set forth in Article IV of the RFP, and must be authorized to provide the Project Services set forth are Article V of the RFP. The lead applicant may partner with other organizations, including through subcontract arrangements, provided that the subcontractor is providing Project Services as described in Article V of the RFP. Reimbursement of costs for Project Services must be in accordance with Article VIII(e) of the RFP.

QuesƟon #63:

How is OCA expecƟng grantees to verify that clients served are at or below 200% of the federal poverty threshold (and other eligibility criteria)?

UCS Response:

The RFP does not specify how applicants must verify clients’ income eligibility but defines Eligible Clients as individuals at or below 200% of the federal poverty threshold.

Accordingly, applicants may use their standard intake and income verificaƟon procedures, so long as those procedures are sufficient to determine income eligibility.

QuesƟon #64:

Would an applicant be disqualified if they don’t have an “executed lease agreement for the duraƟon of the five-year contract period” but have a lease for a shorter term? Could proof of past site control be used to demonstrate longevity?

UCS Response:

Applicants are not automaƟcally disqualified if their lease does not run through the full five-year contract period. ArƟcle IV.2 requires proof that the applicant “owns, leases, or otherwise controls” the office space, and while a lease covering the enƟre contract term is listed as an example, the RFP also permits “other legally binding wriƩen documentaƟon” demonstraƟng control.

An executed lease for a shorter term is acceptable as proof of current site control. UCS may, however, request addiƟonal documentaƟon demonstraƟng the likelihood of conƟnued occupancy (such as records of long-term tenancy, past renewals, or correspondence indicaƟng an expectaƟon of renewal) if the exisƟng lease ends before September 2031.

QuesƟon #65:

To confirm, if an applicant is proposing to serve more than one county, are the three-page limit for the budget narraƟve and eight-page limit for “Proposed Service Delivery” the total page limits, or are they three pages and eight pages per county?

UCS Response:

The page limits apply per county, not in total. Applicants proposing to serve more than one county must submit a separate Proposed Service Delivery narraƟve for each county and a separate Budget NarraƟve for each county.

QuesƟon #66:

Is there a page limit for the “Deliverables, ReporƟng, and Data CollecƟon” secƟon?

The “Deliverables, ReporƟng, and Data CollecƟon” secƟon does not require applicants to submit a wriƩen response with the proposal. ArƟcle VIII(c) simply describes the reporƟng requirements that will apply aŌer award. Therefore, applicants are not expected to include any narraƟve or documentaƟon for this secƟon as part of their submission.

QuesƟon #67:

Is any porƟon of the funds supporƟng these awards federal funding?

UCS Response:

These awards are state-funded and appropriated as part of the NYS Judiciary Budget. Annual appropriaƟons beyond the current state fiscal year are subject to legislaƟve approval and subsequent appropriaƟons.

QuesƟon #68:

If an applicant is applying with a partner, must they provide a memorandum of understanding or leƩer of commitment at the Ɵme of proposal?

UCS Response:

The RFP does not require applicants to submit a memorandum of understanding or leƩer of commitment from a partner at the Ɵme of proposal, but it is encouraged especially if it is a pre-exisƟng partnership. ArƟcle VIII(b) requires applicants to idenƟfy the partner enƟty and clearly describe which components of the Project Services will be delivered by each party, but it does not mandate submission of a formal agreement with the proposal.

QuesƟon #69:

Are electronic signatures acceptable for the required forms?

UCS Response:

No. All signatures on the required forms submiƩed must be in wet ink.

QuesƟon #70:

RFP, p.4, SecƟon II: Are we correct that this funding can be used for “aƩorneys, legal advocates, family advocates, social workers, benefits specialists, and other professionals” i.e., that this funding can be used for non-aƩorney posiƟons such as social workers and paralegals?

UCS Response:

Yes. ArƟcle II states that the Project Services may be delivered through “aƩorneys, legal advocates, family advocates, social workers, benefits specialists, and other professionals.” This means the funding may be used for non-aƩorney posiƟons such as social workers, paralegals, legal advocates, benefits specialists, and similar professional staff who support service delivery.

QuesƟon #71:

RFP, p. 6. ArƟcle V: Does “Legal services related to residency and related administraƟve processes” mean immigraƟon cases and related maƩers, such as special immigrant juvenile status in family court are eligible acƟviƟes?

UCS Response:

UCS intends this category to include any and all legal services related to residency and related administrative processes. The RFP does not impose any exclusions based on the type of such legal services or the type of residency matter.

QuesƟon #72:

RFP, p.11, ArƟcle VIII.b.9: Please define “service types” as used in this sentence, “Applicants must explain how resources will be allocated across service types to effecƟvely meet idenƟfied community needs.”

UCS Response:

The RFP does not define “service types” in ArƟcle VIII(b)(9). In context, the term refers to the different categories or components of services that applicants propose to deliver under the Legal Empowerment Project, such as legal representaƟon, legal advice, advocacy, outreach, educaƟon, navigaƟon services, and supporƟve services described elsewhere in ArƟcle V. Applicants should explain how resources will be allocated under one or more of the various service components to meet community needs.

QuesƟon #73:

RFP p. 3 ArƟcle II describes eligible parƟcipants to be “at or below 200% of the federal poverty threshold and underserved populaƟons.” RFP p. 4 states eligible clients as “living at or below 200%.”

For eligibility, must an individual be both living at or below 200% FPIG and a member of an underserved populaƟon? Or can an individual be eligible if they are either living at or below 200% FPIG, OR a member of an underserved populaƟon as describe on p.4 “affected by violence, displacement, disability, service-related challenges…”?

UCS Response:

ArƟcle II states that: For purposes of this RFP, eligible clients are defined as New York State residents living at or below 200% of the federal poverty threshold who are experiencing condiƟons that contribute to increased/heightened vulnerability or reduced access to legal resources, including those affected by violence, displacement, disability, service-related challenges, or other barriers to safety and stability.

In other words, an individual must meet both criteria: Live at or below 200% of the federal poverty threshold; and be experiencing condiƟons that increase vulnerability or barriers to access (as described in the RFP).

ArƟcle II defines eligible clients as individuals that meet both criteria: 1. Income at or below 200% for the FPL and 2. Circumstances that heighten vulnerability or reduces access to legal resources and support.

QuesƟon #74:

RFP p.5, ArƟcle IV. 2. We intend our project staff to be located in one of our mulƟple offices within the County while serving the enƟre County, including meeƟng with clients in our other office locaƟons as needed. This secƟon states, "Proof must be submiƩed : ...executed lease agreement for the duraƟon of the five-year contract period". Does merely providing proof for this one office that these staff are located in suffice? Or must we also submit proof for all of the offices that these staff may use?

UCS Response:

ArƟcle IV (2) requires proof that an applicant “owns, leases, or otherwise controls” the physical office space within the county being applied for. The RFP does not require applicants to submit proof of site control for every addiƟonal office where staff may occasionally meet with clients.

QuesƟon #75:

RFP p.5, ArƟcle IV. 2. Regarding "Proof must be submiƩed : ...executed lease agreement for the duraƟon of the five-year contract period”: For most of our mulƟple county locaƟons, the leases terminate before September 2031, the intended end of this funding, and leases do not provide us with an opƟon to renew before this date. These leases are not ready for renegoƟaƟon, so there is nothing that we can do with respect to the end date prior to September 2031. Do such leases suffice as “other legally binding wriƩen documentaƟon demonstraƟng control of the space”? If we need to provide something in addiƟon to these leases, what do you need us to provide?

UCS Response:

ArƟcle IV (2) requires applicants to submit proof that they “own, lease, or otherwise control” the office space for the county. While the RFP lists a lease covering the full five-year contract term as an example, it also permits “other legally binding wriƩen documentaƟon” demonstraƟng control of the space.

Leases that extend short of September 2031 can sƟll serve as acceptable proof of current site control, even without renewal opƟons. UCS may, however, request supplemental documentaƟon showing that you reasonably expect to maintain occupancy (such as renewal history, correspondence about future lease discussions, or documentaƟon of long-standing tenancy).

QuesƟon #76:

RFP p.5, ArƟcle IV. 2. Regarding "Proof must be submiƩed : ...executed lease agreement for the duraƟon of the five-year contract period": For one of our mulƟple locaƟons in the county, under an annual contractual services agreement, we use certain designated space in a county building in order to provide legal services to county residents. This is the space where we intend to place our project staff if we are awarded. Each year, the county calculates the space cost and determines the payment for the use of the space by deducƟng this cost from the amount of the contractual services agreement with our organizaƟon. Each service agreement covers a calendar year. This agreement for space is memorialized in each annual contract in lieu of a lease agreement and has been a stable and mutually beneficial arrangement between LSHV and the County for the past nineteen years.

Importantly, we do not have a contract for 2026 yet because the county takes months to process its contracts. We were able to get a leƩer from our county contract manager aƩesƟng to the arrangement that we have described. Will this leƩer suffice to meet the requirement of, “"Proof must be submiƩed :

...executed lease agreement for the duraƟon of the five-year contract period"? If we need to provide something in addiƟon to this, what do you need us to provide?

UCS Response:

ArƟcle IV.2 requires proof that an applicant “owns, leases, or otherwise controls” the physical office space. Because your space is provided through an annual contractual services agreement rather than a tradiƟonal lease, you may submit this agreement as documentaƟon of space control. The County’s leƩer confirming the longstanding arrangement and conƟnued access to the designated space should be submiƩed together with your most recent executed service agreement.

Since the 2026 agreement is not yet available, UCS may request addiƟonal supporƟng documentaƟon. If possible, include any draŌ agreement, renewal confirmaƟon, or official correspondence showing that the 2026 contract with the County is in process.

QuesƟon #77:

RFP p.5, ArƟcle IV. 2. Some of our leases do not include the commencement and expiraƟon dates because the commencement date is conƟngent upon when the landlord’s work is substanƟally complete and the landlord delivers possession. In these leases, it says that the landlord and tenant will execute an agreement seƫng forth the commencement date, fixed rent commencement date, and the expiraƟon date. In such instances, can we merely submit the aforemenƟoned agreement without needing to also submit the lease?

UCS Response:

ArƟcle IV.2 requires applicants to submit legally binding documentaƟon that demonstrates control of the physical office space. The RFP lists an executed lease for the duraƟon of the five-year contract period as an example of acceptable proof.

If a lease does not yet include commencement and expiraƟon dates because those dates depend on substanƟal compleƟon of the landlord’s work, UCS will sƟll need documentaƟon showing that the applicant currently owns, leases, or controls the space. The commencement-date agreement you referenced is not, on its own, is insufficient.

In such instances, applicants should submit:

1. the full lease, even if the commencement and expiraƟon dates are to be finalized later; and

2. the commencement-date agreement once executed, to supplement and clarify the effecƟve dates.

QuesƟon #78:

RFP p.5, ArƟcle IV2. We own a building in the county, but our deed for the building references a different street address (Address A) from the one that the city, county, and USPS use (Address B). However, it has the correct legal descripƟon of the locaƟon of the property in terms of metes and bounds and secƟon, block, and lot. Will you accept as proof of ownership: 1) our deed; 2) tax records for the property that reference Address B and the same secƟon, block, and lot as the secƟon, block, and lot as are on the deed, and 3) our mortgage for the building which likewise references the same secƟon, block, and lot as are on the deed and Address B. Does the combinaƟon of these documents suffice to prove our ownership of the office locaƟon at the address that we use for it (Address A)? If we need to provide something in addiƟon to these leases, what do you need us to provide?

UCS Response:

ArƟcle IV(2) requires applicants to submit “proof that the Applicant currently owns, leases, or otherwise controls the physical office space,” and lists a deed of ownership as acceptable documentaƟon. The RFP does not require a parƟcular streetaddress format, only legally binding documentaƟon demonstraƟng control of the space.

Based on the RFP, the documents should collecƟvely saƟsfy the requirement to prove ownership, even if the deed lists Address A and government/USPS systems use Address B.

UCS reserves the right to request addiƟonal clarifying documentaƟon, if necessary.

QuesƟon #79:

RFP p.6 ArƟcle V states, " At a minimum, services provided by Legal Services Providers, including but not limited to:....Conduct intake, screening and eligibility...Ensure compliance with all confidenƟality, ethics, professional responsibility...ParƟcipate...with OCA, courts, and community partners to improve service delivery, idenƟfy systemic barriers and enhance access to jusƟce.” We prefer to provide some or all of these services through in-kind funding and would describe this in our proposal. Is this allowed, or must we include these services within our project budget?

UCS Response:

Any services being provided with in-kind funding should be fully described in the proposal. There is no need to include the services in the project budget, which should only describe the expenditures proposed to be covered by the funding provided pursuant to this RFP.

QuesƟon #80:

RFP p. 12, ArƟcle VIII Are client expenses and fees eligible expense that we can include on a budget line?

For example, fees for evaluaƟons (psychological), transportaƟon fees (metro cards, uber and similar), applicaƟon fees(credit check fees required by landlords), essenƟal needs (food, diapers when benefits are cut off) to promote beƩer outcomes for the client, and to help clients maintain household stability while we work on connecƟng them to services, or any expenses for emergencies ( help relaƟve get to the client’s children for care if client is hospitalized) that may impact their case?

UCS Response:

Allowable expenses can be found in the UCS Financial Planning and Control Manual and RFP, as arƟculated in ArƟcle VIII (2) Line-Item Budget Proposal.

QuesƟon #81:

Please confirm the allowable percentage of indirect costs. In the Budget template, it states at the boƩom "If budgeƟng indirect costs in excess of 15% of modified direct costs, the rate must be approved by UCS."

However, in the Financial Planning and Control Manual, it states "De Minimis Indirect Cost Rate of 15% or less of Total Direct Costs." There is a difference in language, one is Modified Total Direct Costs and the other is Total Direct Costs. We would like to know which calculaƟon base amount we can use, whether it is Modified Total Direct Costs or Total Direct Costs.

UCS Response:

The RFP Budget Template states that indirect costs above 15% of Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC) require UCS approval. The Financial Planning and Control Manual references a 15% de minimis rate applied to Total Direct Costs (TDC).

Because the RFP governs this solicitaƟon, applicants should follow the RFP’s instrucƟon and use Modified Total Direct Costs as the base for calculaƟng indirect costs. If an applicant wishes to budget indirect costs above 15% of MTDC, the documentaƟon for the federally approved rate must be provided to UCS for review and approval.

QuesƟon #82:

RFP p. 14, ArƟcle IX states, “Applicants must submit their proposals by hand delivery or mail.” Are applicants allowed to deliver by FEDEX or UPS, and if so, are there changes to the address that are needed?

UCS Response:

Yes. Although ArƟcle IX states that proposals must be submiƩed “by hand delivery or mail,” the RFP does not prohibit use of commercial carriers such as FedEx or UPS. These carriers are generally treated as mail for procurement submission deliveries. No changes to the address are required; packages should be sent exactly as listed in the RFP, and must arrive by the deadline to be considered Ɵmely.

QuesƟon #83:

RFP p. 15, ArƟcle IX states that informaƟon that applicants want to keep confidenƟal “must be easily separable from the non-confidenƟal secƟons of the proposal.” There will be some proprietary informaƟon in our applicaƟon that we will want to keep confidenƟal, and we want to know how to answer within the page limit while keeping that informaƟon separate. Does the document with our confidenƟal informaƟon and jusƟficaƟon for the confidenƟality count against the page limit?

UCS Response:

The narraƟve page limits apply only to the required narraƟve secƟons in ArƟcle VIII. Applicants should ensure that the materials they feel are proprietary or confidenƟal are clearly separated and labeled, with jusƟficaƟon included as required. However, this separate folder is not subject to the narraƟve page restricƟons.

OCA-DGCP-071 Judiciary Civil Legal Services Legal

Empowerment

Questions and Responses

The New York State Unified Court System (UCS) thanks the vendors that submitted the question below concerning the Judiciary Civil Legal Services Legal Empowerment (RFP) issued on June 18, 2026.

Below are the responses to the questions UCS received in connection with this

RFP.

Question #1:

Are nonprofit guardianship services eligible for funding under RFP # OCA-DGCP-071 Judiciary Civil Legal Services, Legal Empowerment?

UCS Response:

No. This RFP is for the services described in Article V Project Services. UCS issued OCA-DGCP- 070 for guardianship services on 6/26/2026.

Question #2:

We came across this RFP on the NYS Contract Reporter Site. We were wondering if this funding would replace our existing contract or if we would be applying for additional funding under this RFP.