PCS RFP - Questions and Responses.pdf

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL:

APPLICATION DESIGN SERVICES

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

Proposals Due: March 4, 2022

UPDATED: FEBRUARY 11, 2022

PENNSYLVANIA COMMISSION ON SENTENCING

204 E. Calder Way, Suite 400, State College, PA 16804-1200

General

1. When are proposals due?

The Commission has extended the deadline for proposal submission to Friday, March 4, 2022, due to an administrative delay in posting the RFP to the Pennsylvania eMarketplace portal. Consequently, the “Award Contract to Vendor” date has been changed to March 18, 2022.

2. How does a vendor submit a proposal?

All responses to this RFP should be sent via email to Kristie Bundro at PCSRFP@psu.edu

3. Can companies from outside of USA apply for this that has done similar work with clients across North America?

Applications are welcome from all qualified firms. A preference will be given to US-based firms.

4. Will vendor staff have to attend meetings or perform tasks in-person, or can all the work be performed remotely?

The vendor should anticipate regular meetings with the PCS team throughout the life of the project. These meetings can be held remotely, but project efficiencies may be achieved through periodic in-person meetings with the Commission’s substantive and technical experts.

5. We wish to object the following term and condition: "The Commission may, at its discretion, cancel the project in part or in whole, at any time." Requesting that the entity provide a substantial time period of at least 30 days (or any other period of time higher than 24 days) to consider in mutual agreement the cancellation of the project, in order to be able to act quickly and cancel all activities in such a way that it does not represent a sudden drawback to the successful bidder.

The language in the RFP has been revised as follows:

The Commission reserves the right to cancel and terminate any resulting contract, with a 30-day written notice to the vendor. Any contract cancellation notice will not relieve the vendor of the obligation to deliver and/or perform on all services prior to the effective date of cancellation. Cancellation of the contract would become effective the thirty-first day after notification.

6. Are there any specific experience requirements for the team that's going to be part of the proposal? (Specialization/Master, Certifications, etc.)

Team members should have the necessary experience and expertise to accomplish the project defined by the RFP. No specific degrees or certifications are required.

mailto:PCSRFP@psu.edu

7. Do you require any other type of coverage besides the liability insurance, such as a reliability coverage? What's the percentage required for the coverage/insurance? What's the coverage/insurance validity period? In favor of whom the insurance is generated?

Vendors are required to provide proof of liability insurance in the form of a certificate of insurance, summarizing the coverage limits and effective dates.

8. Could we request an extension of time for the Proposal Due Date, from February 25th to March 2nd, 2022?

The Commission has extended the deadline for proposal submission to Friday, March 4, 2022, due to an administrative delay in posting the RFP to the Pennsylvania eMarketplace portal.

9. Could we request an extension of time for the project completion date, from October 30 to November 30, 2022?

If the completion date specified in the RFP is not attainable, the vendor response to this RFP should include a request for an extension, providing a detailed task plan and deliverables with a proposed timeline.

10. What is the budget limit/not-to-exceed amount for this project?

The budget limit/not-to-exceed amount for this project is $250,000. Vendors should include a cost proposal in their responses that outlines the level of effort and estimated costs for each task and deliverable.

11. What is the most important factor in awarding this project (e.g., cost, experience)?

The primary deliverable for this project is a design that considers current functionality of the application and incorporates new requirements and future needs to produce a blueprint that the Commission can implement. The contract will be awarded to the vendor whose proposal best demonstrates the experience, expertise, and capacity to successfully complete the project. The Commission is not obligated to and does not intend to award the contract based on cost alone.

Vendor Relationships

12. Who developed the current SGS Web application?

The current SGS Web application was developed by Cross Current Corporation.

13. Who currently maintains the SGS web application? Is there an incumbent firm that is currently handling this type of work for the Commission?

Historically, there have been two external firms that have maintained and supported the SGS Web application, Cross Current and BrickSimple. The Commission recently reorganized and expanded the in-house Applications and Information Technology Unit and terminated all service contracts with external firms. All SGS Web development and maintenance is currently performed by the in-house unit.

The Applications and Information Technology Unit consists of a manager, 3 full-stack developers, and a business systems analyst. All unit staff are full-time employees of the Commission.

14. After this design phase, will the Commission release the RFP for the implementation phase? Can the successful vendor of this RFP can participate in the implementation phase of the future state SGS Web Application?

It has not been decided if the Commission will release an RFP for the implementation of the design generated through the project defined by this RFP. If an RFP is issued, then the successful bidder on this RFP would be welcomed to submit a proposal.

Requirements

15. Does the Commission expect the vendor to provide detailed requirements as a deliverable in addition to screen mockups? Will there be an approved set of detailed requirements provided before design commences?

The Commission will provide a set of detailed functional requirements to the successful vendor before the project begins. The Commission does expect that some project time will be spent to further refine or expand upon the documented requirements.

16. Is the Commission intending to hold user interviews, requirements elicitation workshops, etc. as part of the UX design process?

User interviews and requirements/design workshops can be scheduled as deemed necessary by the vendor.

17. Will we have access to the few selected users/SME’s for feedback on the current application? Does Commission have access to clerks that have experience with the system for research sessions? Do you think there would be value to meeting with judges that reference the GL form?

The following subject matter experts and stakeholders will be available to participate in interviews and workshops:

• Commission’s Education & Outreach Unit – This unit provides training and help desk support to SGS Web users, along with delivering education seminars on sentencing and the application of sentencing guidelines. Most of the unit staff were SGS Web users in former positions before joining the Commission and are knowledgeable of sentencing policies and practices in the Commonwealth.

• Commission’s Applications & Information Technology Unit – This unit designs, develops, and maintains the SGS Web application and will be responsible for implementing the proposed design once approved.

• Commission’s Executive Team – The Executive Director has been with the Commission for over 20 years, was intimately involved in the development of the existing SGS Web application, and is an expert on sentencing, resentencing, and parole policies and practices in the Commonwealth. The Deputy Director provides leadership and oversight for the Research and Analysis and Data Management work units and is knowledgeable about the backend use of data generated through SGS Web and with visual display, including the design principles associated with the Commission's new website.

• User Advisory Group – The Commission will identify a group of end users (e.g., judges, district attorneys, clerks, probation officers, parole board staff) who can provide feedback on existing processes, the current application, and the proposed design.

• Technical Staff from Partner Agencies – The Commission will identify technical staff from partner agencies, such as the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC), the Pennsylvania Justice Network (JNET), the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC), and the Pennsylvania Parole Board, that can be consulted as needed during the project.

18. Will the 8th Edition of the sentencing guidelines be completed before this project commences? Since the 8th Edition is only formally due in 2023, are we still to assume what is there would be sufficient for the work we would do this year?

When this project begins, the proposed 8th Edition guidelines will be available and can be used to inform application design. While it is possible that modifications may result from public hearings, evaluation by Commission members, or review by the General Assembly before they are formally adopted, substantial deviations from the proposed guidelines are not expected. If that were to occur, the Commission understands that an extension of the project or a subsequent contract may be required to revise the design.

19. Is there any UI/UX work to be done on the administrative interface in the backend?

Not as part of the project defined by this RFP.

20. We assume that all aspects including the overall information architecture (e.g., navigation), can change with this process. Is this correct or are there limitations to the changes we can make?

The Commission is seeking professional expertise to improve all aspects of the user experience, including navigational elements. There are no specified limitations for the proposed design.

21. Can you confirm that speeding up response time for the application, especially speeding up API response time, is a major focus of the implementation initiative?

While response time is important, it is not currently a significant issue in the application. The focus should be on improving efficiencies instead of response time.

For example, in the current application, there are several tasks that kick off an asynchronous process, such as the Offense Tracking Number (OTN) search which retrieves data from AOPC’s case management system. In SGS Web, the user must continually refresh the screen to determine if the search results are available. To improve the efficiency, one solution might be to implement a notification feature to alert the user when the results are ready for a search they have initiated.

22. Is there an offender-based view today and is tracking supported throughout the criminal justice process? What is the expected vision and scope of the offender-based functionality?

There is not an offender-based view in the current application. The current application is designed around the judicial proceeding. A judicial proceeding is a proceeding in which all offenses for which the offender has been convicted are pending before the court for sentencing at the same time.

The offender-based view would provide a way to see the data “rolled-up” to the offender level. For example, in the currently application, if a user wanted to see all the sentences for John Smith, they would need to open each JP associated with John Smith and navigate to the Sentencing Dashboard screen to view the sentence ordered for each offense. The new offender-based view is expected to provide the ability to easily view/access all offenses, sentences, revocations/resentences, parole decisions and recommitments for an offender regardless of the JP.

23. How are parole guidelines, recommitment ranges, and reporting of parole decisions supported in the current state of the SGS Web Application?

Parole guidelines, recommitment ranges, and the reporting of parole decisions are not currently supported in SGS Web.

24. Are there example application process flow diagrams or wireframes for what is in the application that can be shared pre-submission?

The Appendix section of the RFP includes a detailed description of the 4 primary process flows and includes screenshots for each step a user performs. There is also SGS Web documentation available on the Commission’s website at https://pcs.la.psu.edu/sgs-web/sgs-web-documentation.

https://pcs.la.psu.edu/sgs-web/sgs-web-documentation

25. Can you please provide the total number of pages that the vendor needs to design?

Are all screens and significant layers/modals in the current application included in the appendix?

All significant screens that currently exist in the application are included in the Appendix section of the RFP. At a minimum, new screens will need to be designed to account for requirements related to implementing an offender-based view, parole guidelines and recommitment ranges, in addition to any new screens needed to implement the vendor’s proposed solution.

26. Are all forms in the current application included in the appendix? How many printable forms will need to be redesigned? Will the 8th Edition impact the current forms?

All significant forms that currently exist in the application are included in the Appendix section of the RFP. Due to the differences between the 7th and 8th Editions of the guidelines, the application will need to support a 7th Edition version of the guideline form and an 8th Edition version; the application will produce the appropriate version based on the offense date. For this project, the 8th Edition version of the form needs to be designed by referencing the proposed 8th Edition guidelines and the existing 7th Edition form. The Commission does not expect to redesign the 7th Edition version as part of the scope of this project.

As noted in the RFP, new forms are required for parole and recommitment ranges.

27. How will the 8th Edition guidelines impact the redesign of SGS Web? Will the current site stay as is to cover the 7th Edition and will the new design solely cover the 8th Edition? Will there be one application that needs to simultaneously support both editions and provide a switch to change modes?

The current approach is that one application would support both the 7th and 8th Edition of the guidelines. Overall, the data entry and process flows will be similar for both editions. Any differences between the 7th and 8th Editions will require functionality needed to switch between the editions.

28. Regarding “SGS Web should also provide the ability to record county parole decisions”, are there significant functional/data differences between State and County interfaces?

There will not be significant functional/data differences between state and county interfaces for parole decisions other than the source of the decision.

29. Will we be able to access the current application for assessment?

Vendor staff will be given access to a test version of the current application.

Design

30. Do you have any preference in terms of branding guidelines (font, color, format, and template)?

The Commission recently rebranded its public-facing website:

http://pasentencing.us. The new design for SGS Web should complement the design theme used for the redesigned website.

31. Does the Commission intend for the UX Style Guide and Pattern Library to be delivered as a standalone website with code annotation? For the UX style guide, pattern library, mockups, etc.; is there any need for interactivity or is this just visual?

The UX style guide and pattern library should include all necessary design assets and components to implement the proposed design, and be delivered in a format that can be utilized for future development. It would be desirable for the vendor to produce a high-fidelity prototype to clearly represent the proposed design. The Commission will rely on the vendor to recommend and follow best practices in this area.

32. Does the implementation team have a preferred pattern library (e.g., Storybook)?

The implementation team does not have a preferred pattern library.

33. Do you expect the vendor needs to provide mockups along with the response?

Mockups are not required as part of the response to the RFP, however vendors may provide mockups to illustrate their experience/expertise.

34. Which standards of web accessibility must be met?

Compliance with Level AA of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 should be targeted.

35. We assume the SGS Web branding will remain as-is as it looks like it may not pass accessibility as it is?

No, the SGS Web branding does not need to remain as-is. The Commission is amenable to any design suggestions that will improve accessibility.

36. Do design patterns established by the Commonwealth for websites such as PA.GOV need to be incorporated into the design of SGS Web?

No.

37. On page 4 of the RFP, Section 2 Scope of Work states that the Commission is looking for vendor assistance with “Developing an application design/architecture…” Application design/architecture normally includes more than the deliverables http://pasentencing.us/ https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/ defined in Section 2.4 Deliverables. Can you please confirm the deliverables required for the RFP?

For the project defined by this RFP, the Commission is focused on the front-end of the application, the user experience, and process flow.

The language in the Expected Deliverables section of the RFP has been revised as follows:

The primary deliverable for this project is an application design proposal that considers current functionality of the application and incorporates new requirements and future needs.

Design proposal should include:

• Documented findings from subject matter expert and stakeholder interviews/workshops conducted by vendor (any recordings should be shared with the Commission).

• UX design system.

• Sitemap and navigation.

• User/process flow diagrams.

• High-fidelity prototype (wireframes and mock-ups can be used for discussion and design validation purposes throughout project).

Technology

38. What are the technologies used by the current SGS Web application? What is the technology stack planned to be used for the SGS NextGen implementation?

The current SGS Web application is built on the Microsoft technology stack, leveraging C#, HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and JQuery, which will be used for the SGS NextGen implementation as well.

The current application is an ASP.NET Web Forms application on .NET Framework 4.8.

The application is hosted on an IIS Server. The backend database is MS SQL Server.

SGS NextGen is taking a phased approach mixing ASP.NET MVC with the current ASP.NET Web forms application. Once all .aspx pages have been replaced, the project will be upgraded to the latest .Net Framework and technologies.

The Commission recently purchased the DevExpress UI Components package to use for the SGS NextGen implementation.

39. Does the application need to be device responsive (i.e., desktop, laptop, mobile, and tablet)?

Most users currently access SGS Web via a desktop or laptop computer. However, to future-proof the application, the expectation is that the new design will be device responsive so that it can be used on tablets or mobile devices, however, a dedicated mobile version is not required.

40. Which browsers should be supported?

SGS Web is accessed through the Pennsylvania Justice Network (JNET). The only browser that JNET fully supports is Microsoft Edge. For SGS Web, the Commission supports the use of Chrome and Firefox in addition to Edge.

Legacy browsers, such as Internet Explorer, are not supported and do not need to be considered in the design.

Integrations

41. Are there additional details you can share about the integration details for AOPC’s case management system? Authentication methods, API structure, request structure/details, etc.

The data integration between SGS Web and AOPC’s case management system already exists and does NOT need to be designed/implemented as part of this project. The data currently ingested into SGS Web by the existing integration is used to facilitate the input of the offender and offense information and to calculate the criminal history scores for the sentence risk assessment instrument.

There are additional opportunities in the application where the data ingested from AOPC could be leveraged to reduce manual data entry thereby improving data quality, which should be considered in the design proposed by this project. For example, when entering sentencing information, the user interface could present the user with sentencing data imported from AOPC and allow the user to modify as needed before saving to SGS Web.

Specific integration details will be provided to the successful vendor at the start of the project, as needed.

42. Is the integration between SGS Web and the Court Case Management System in “real time”? What is the current number of data integrations? What are the current data integration interfaces?

The integration between SGS Web and AOPC’s case management system is “near real-time.” SGS Web uses these JNET services for integrating with AOPC’s case management system:

• Court Case Event Request/Reply – Agencies may submit an Offense Tracking Number (OTN) request through this JNET Web Service to receive a reply containing up-to-date case information from AOPC related to the OTN.

• Court Case Event Message Service – When an event is triggered in AOPC’s system, a message is sent to the subscribing agency. Examples of events include case initiation and sentencing/disposition.

43. Are there additional details you can share about the integration details for CAPTOR?

Authentication methods, API structure, request structure/details, etc.

Agencies may subscribe to various events published by the DOC and the Parole Board. JNET makes this information available to subscribing agencies as specific events occur. Examples of events include prison release, sentence update, begin parole supervision, and parole status change.

SGS Web does not currently integrate with this service, so additional analysis of the data available will be required.

44. Do you expect to integrate any in-house/third-party applications with the application?

No.

Users, Roles, Session Management

45. Can you please specify the number of users and roles (e.g., owner, admin) that will be interacting with the system? Will user role permissions and/or individual account profiles control access, content, or functionality?

There are approximately 1,300 users actively engaging with SGS Web on a daily basis. The existing roles that control access to data and functionality include:

• SGS System Administrators – Full access to all functions of application, including admin data management. [Commission staff only]

• PCS Administrators – This user can view, update, and delete submitted judicial proceedings statewide. This user can modify statewide judicial proceedings with a final status. This user has all the privileges of a PCS User. [Commission staff only]

• PCS Users – The user can manage a judicial proceeding from creation through submission for any county. [Commission staff only]

• County Administrators – This user can set specific permissions for individual users in the county, such as submit privileges for specific judges. This user can submit judicial proceedings and modify judicial proceedings with a submitted status. This user may physically delete any Offenders, judicial proceedings, or components of a judicial proceeding, within their county that have not been submitted. This user has all the privileges of a County User.

• County Users – The County User can view, add, and update un-submitted judicial proceedings, and their components, within their counties. This user can view (e.g., read-only) submitted or final judicial proceedings within their county. This user can logically delete any Offenders, judicial proceedings, or components of a judicial proceeding, within their county that have not been submitted.

• County Read Only – The user can only view judicial proceedings and their components within their county.

• SAG Users – This user is a member of the State Attorney General’s staff.

The creation of new roles will be needed to control permissions related to Parole Guidelines and Recommitment Ranges.

46. Regarding, “Create a home page that promotes efficiency by providing search options, task shortcuts, and data representations,” what level of personalization is expected? For example: will users be able to save searches, mark files/items as favorites, enter personal/shared notes for an item, flag items etc.?

Personalization is not a core requirement of the application; however, the Commission would be receptive to appropriate user personalization features.

47. Is there multi-factor security for Log-in?

SGS Web is accessed through the Pennsylvania Justice Network (JNET). SGS Web relies on JNET’s user provisioning and authentication services, which include multi-factor authentication.

48. Is there a timed-out limit based on inaction?

The application times out after 20 minutes of inactivity.