Response to Offeror Questions document.pdf

Responses to RFP #26RFP18738 vendor questions

Written inquiries and responses received as of January 9, 2026, for RFP #26RFP18738.

Responses are in RED.

Question 1 Vendor: Key Project Components #1: This section notes that the system will cover Adult and Juvenile offenders across seven circuits. Please confirm that there are only 14 programs total (one Adult and one Juvenile per circuit) to be managed by DIMS for the purposes of this design and quote.

State: The current Supervision CMS is a statewide system broken out into seven circuits and under each circuit are counties that contain an adult node and a Juvenile node. There is only one Adult and Juvenile system across the circuits. Within the Juvenile system there is an intensive juvenile program Current Structure

Statewide o Circuit 1

County 1 County 1 – Adult County 1 – Juvenile

Question 2 Vendor: Key Project Components #4 and #5: These sections specify that training must be provided "onsite." Can this be conducted via our online solutions (Online Meeting, DIMS University, DIMS Tours, and DIMS Wiki)? If onsite training is required, can it be held at a single central location? Additionally, please provide the total number of onsite training sessions required for quoting purposes.

State: The State’s preference is to receive train-the-trainers training to be onsite. It would be in one location. Other trainings would work with online meetings, DIMS University, etc.

Question 3 Vendor: Business Requirements #1, #2, and #3: These requirements mention the ability to interface with other applications. Could you clarify how many interfaces are required and which mechanisms should be used (e.g., SFTP, HL7)? Please provide the specification requirement documents for these interfaces so we can accurately quote these services.

State: The intention of the RFP is to require a solution capable of integration with multiple external system using various mechanisms. The specification for each interface is dependent on the ability for the State to access the case data. The State currently has approximately 10 interfaces/integrations with in-house developed applications and external agencies.

Question 4 Vendor: Business Requirement #60: This section states the product must communicate with entities such as State Radio, Fieldware, and Multi Health System. Are there interface specifications available, and is there a guarantee that these external entities will cooperate with the chosen vendor to meet these requirements? Are these tools what is referenced in #1, 2, and 3?

State: The interfaces specifications will be dependent on the ability for the State to access the case data. The State’s goal is to develop the integrations with the intent the external agencies process does not need to change with the understanding there is potential the vendor will need to assist the State. The State cannot guarantee the level of cooperation of third-party entities. The State will make reasonable, good faith efforts to facilitate coordination with the external partners. Vendors should assume that integration efforts and coordination with third party entities is part of the project scope.

Question 5 Vendor: Business Requirement #73: This mentions the ability to create a pre-trial case management system. Since we currently offer a separate pre-trial system, should our quote for RFP #26RFP18738 exclude the pre-trial solution, with the understanding that it is available for a future engagement with the state?

State: The primary focus will be for the case management system, including the pre-trial case management system is not necessary but would be beneficial.

Question 6 Vendor: Can you describe the extent to which the configurations for the seven Judicial Circuits or between the 66 counties will differ? For example, will each county use their own processes, workflows, etc.?

State: This will be a statewide case management system. All Judicial Circuits and counties will use the same processes and workflows.

Question 7 Vendor: On pg. 9 of the RFP, Business Requirement 1 states: “The ability to retrieve data from other case management systems at case creation.” Do you have a list of these other case management systems?

State: Odyssey Enterprise Justice.

Question 8 Vendor: On pg. 11, Business Requirement 58 states: “The system must provide the capability to capture data related to accounting/bookkeeping such as, but not limited to, amount ordered, fees, restitution, receivables, payments, balances, social/personal information, etc.”

Does the proposed solution need to accept/process payments, or merely track payments processed outside the proposed solution? If the latter, would this need to be accomplished through an interface? If so, what payment processing software will be used?

State: The system would only need to track the payments and amounts owed in the current Odyssey Enterprise Justice System.

Question 9 Vendor: On pg. 11, Business Requirement 60(a) states: “The system must notify a probation officer when a law enforcement officer runs the name of an active probationer via email (this happens through State Radio).” Is this current functionality? Does State Radio have an interface or means of communicating with a separate application?

State: This currently does happen. State Radio does have a means to communicate with a separate application.

Question 10 Vendor: Business Requirements 60(b)(i) through 60(b)(iv) indicates that adult and juvenile assessments must be completed within the proposed solution. A) Can you confirm this need, and B) Can you provide a comprehensive list of the adult and juvenile assessments needed?

State: We currently use the LSI-R and YLS-CMI as our risk and needs assessment. Our current system does score the assessment and prints out a graph of the results.

Question 11 Vendor: On pg. 11, Business Requirement 66 provides a list of case types. Will you also require juvenile detention functionality?

State: We will not require juvenile detention functionality.

Question 12 Vendor: On pg. 12, Business Requirement 73 states: “The system must be able to create a pre-trial case management system. South Dakota will have a pilot pretrial program around July of 2026.” Is it your intention that pre-trial case management functionality and all other functionality detailed throughout the business requirements be completed by the July 2027 go-live date? Alternatively, could the pre-trial functionality be completed as part of phase 2?

State: Pre-Trail functionality can be completed as part of phase 2.

Question 13 Vendor: Can you provide a number of forms or document templates used by your agency?

State: The State has approximately 140 forms in Odyssey Supervision.

Question 14 Vendor: This part of the Web Standards cited in item 4.2.16 on pg.

17, (https://www.sd.gov/bit?id=bit_standards_web) it is stated that Drupal is not supported.

Would a proposal that includes the use of Drupal be disqualified? Alternatively, if the offeror hosted the proposed solution, would the use of Drupal still result in disqualification?

State: It would not necessarily be disqualified, but Drupal is risky, especially if the vendor does not keep it, and its underlying technology, patched and updated (part of Tech Review). Regardless of hosting, the software needs to be updated and patched to remediate vulnerabilities; it may depend on the version too and open source can be risky in general. I highly recommend another Content Management System (CMS).

Question 15 Vendor: On page 3, the RFP states that proposals must be emailed. Page 27 states that a copy of the proposal should be provided “in Microsoft Word or PDF electronic format (flash drive, USB drive, etc.) Offerors may not send the electronically formatted copy of their proposal via email.” Are you asking vendors to provide a copy of the proposal files on a physical USB drive? If so, where should it be mailed?

State: An addendum to the RFP was issued and it states that electronic proposals are fine.

Question 16 Vendor: On page 4, the RFP states that responses to vendor inquiries will be posted on the state’s e-procurement system, but a link is not provided in the document, and the State’s Central Bid Exchange does not appear to have a listing for this RFP. Can you provide a link to this system where these responses will be posted?

State: A copy of the RFP was provided.

Question 17 Vendor: Does the State have a preference between cloud hosted or on-premise hosting models?

State: The State prefers to host in our Azure tenant, but that depends on what is required for hosting.

Question 18 Vendor: Is Appendix B available in a fillable format, or should vendors edit the PDF pages directly?

State: Yes, this can be provided upon request through RFP2618738@ujs.state.sd.us.

Question 19 Vendor: Conversion Sources - Besides Odyssey Supervision, are there any additional sources you will need data converted from?

State: No

Question 20 Vendor: Reports - In section 3.0 Scope of Work, you mention that there are 262 standard and custom reports, and in section B. you indicate that designing and implementing standard reports is an additional task that must be performed. Is it the State’s expectation that the vendor will design and implement all 262 reports, or will the State design and implement these reports?

State: If the state has the capabilities through the system, reports would be implemented by the state.

Question 21 Vendor: User Count - Does the current user count of 300 include the anticipated new users from the pretrial pilot, or will there be additional users? If there will be additional users, can you please provide the estimated number of additional users?

State: The estimated 300 user count at this time would include the pre-trial pilot.

Question 22 Vendor: 6.2 Format of Proposal 6.2.1.2 - This section makes reference to section 6.2.3. that does not exist. Does the State mean to reference section 6.2.2?

State: Yes, this should state Section 6.2.2 instead of 6.2.3.

Question 23 Vendor: 6.2.2 - Where does the State expect these subject headings to be arranged compared to the headings expected in section 8.0 Proposal Response Format (8.2)?

State: Please respond including elements of 6.2.2 within 8.2.3 Detailed Response.

Question 24 Vendor: 6.3 Statement of Understanding the Project - 6.3 states the Executive Summary is to be no more than 4 pages. 8.2.2 states the Executive Summary is to be one (1) to two (2) pages.

Please clarify the expected length of the Executive Summary.

State: Please do your best to respond within 1-2 pages and do not exceed 4 pages for the executive summary.

Question 25 Vendor: 6.8 Security and Vendor Questionnaire - Does the State have a MS Word version of Appendix B for vendors to complete, or does the State expect vendors to create the MS Word version?

State: Yes, this can be provided upon request through RFP2618738@ujs.state.sd.us.

Question 26 Vendor: 6.14 Cost - This requirement makes reference to Section 7 Cost Proposal and Section 6 Cost Proposal. Is there a Section 6 Cost Proposal section missing from the RFP?

State: This should reference Section 7 Cost Proposal as there is not a Section 6 Cost Proposal

Question 27 Vendor: 7.0 Cost Proposal - This section states “Cost will be evaluated independently from the technical proposal” (repeated in 8.2.4). Does the State prefer the Cost proposal to be submitted as a separate document from the Technical proposal?

State: The cost proposal may be submitted as part of the technical proposal but will be evaluated independently.

Question 28 Vendor: Project Scope - Will the new pretrial be included in the scope of the project? If yes, will it continue to be for juvenile assessments, or will it be expanding to include adults as well?

State: The pretrial will be for adults only.

Question 29 Vendor: RFP - It is our understanding that the Unified Judicial System (State) has requested funding for FY 2026 to move from Tyler Odyssey Supervision to the Tyler Enterprise Supervision system. Please clarify and confirm any current or prior funding requests for a Case Management System, including their purpose and approval status, as well as clarify the reasoning and purpose of a RFP for a Case Management System if the State has requested funding for, or otherwise has had discussions or plans to move to Tyler Enterprise Supervision.

State: The Unified Judicial System (UJS) requested additional other fund expenditure authority from the Legislature in FY26 to pay future costs of a new supervision case management system.

The amount requested was an estimate of the potential costs at that time to move to the Tyler Enterprise Solution. No estimates from other possible vendor solutions were used when the request was made.

Question 30 Vendor: Timeline - What is the State's expectation as to a project start (Kickoff) date.

State: This will be determined in collaboration with the State and the selected vendor.

Question 31 Vendor: Go Live - Is the State open to a phased Go Live approach, for example, staggering locations, departments, or certain modules?

State: Yes

Question 32 Vendor: Is the State open to a phased Go Live approach, for example, staggering locations, departments, or certain modules?

State: Yes

Question 33 Vendor: In the last year, what case management systems has the State viewed as part of a demonstration or presentation that are similar in functionality to the system sought by the

RFP?

State: DataGain, Tyler Enterprise Supervision, Field Ware

Question 34 Vendor: Will the State publish a list of all questions and answers and identify all proposers?

State: The State will publish a list of all questions and answers on the state’s procurement website.

Question 35 Vendor: Will vendors who are not selected be given a debriefing opportunity with the State?

State: The State will notify vendors via a letter if they were not selected and of the awardee.

Question 36 Vendor: Did a third party assist in the development of the RFP and/or provide documentation that was reviewed/used by the State or provide other input, comment, or review of the RFP? If so, please identify the third parties and information/documentation utilized/viewed.

State: No third parties reviewed, provided input or comments of the RFP prior to submission.

Question 37 Vendor: Please confirm, using the State’s contract as a base, that the State is willing to negotiate the terms and conditions of specific contract language with the exception of terms mandated by statute.

State: The State is willing to negotiate the terms and conditions of the contract.

Question 38 Vendor: What are the IT staff resources, if any, available to support the proposed solution and anticipated level of State technical support during the implementation and after?

State: UJS has an IT department that consists of Network Services, Business Analysts, Development, CISO and DBA. The State will provide technical support to the best of our abilities.

Question 39 Vendor: For each required interface, please provide:

1. System name, vendor and description

2. Direction of the exchange

3. Is the interface real time, incremental, and/or a batch exchange

4. The number and types of data elements to be exchanged

5. If the State has experience creating or assisting in the creation of a data exchange with this system State: The State’s goal is to develop the integrations with the intent the external agencies process does not need to change drastically with the understanding there is potential the vendor will need to assist the State.

Treatment Court

1. DIMS, Datagain

2. One way file drop and API

3. Daily

4. 14 fields

5. Yes

Department of Public Safety

1. State Radio, DCI

2. One way file drops

3. Hourly and Nightly

4. 25 Fields

5. Yes

Hope

1. UJS

2. One way

3. Real time

4. 40 fields including case and demographic information and test results

5. Yes

EDCIS

1. UJS

2. One Way

3. Real time

4. 40 fields including Case and Probation Officer Information

Risk Assessment

1. MHS

2. Two-way

3. Real time

4. Risk Scores

5. No

Admin Call-in

1. Offender Link, Fieldware

2. 6 files One way

3. Daily

4. 6 files that include Case and demographic information

5. Yes

Question 40 Vendor: What are the State’s expectations regarding roles and responsibilities for integrations?

State: The State expects to have collaboration with the vendor in defining the roles and responsibilities based on the availability of the case data available within replicated databases.

Question 41 Vendor: For any required interface, is the State willing to create, or assist with the creation of APIs for specific interfaces?

State: Yes, the State is willing to assist with interfaces.

Question 42 Vendor: Please list all source systems (including product name and vendor), and the respective number of tables, columns/fields, and records per system.

State: Odyssey Enterprise Justice with Tyler Technologies. The current Supervision system is incorporated within our Clerk and Financial Case Management systems and would be difficult to provide an accurate answer on the number of tables, columns and records.

Question 43 Vendor: For each source system, is the State able to provide a description of the data tables, including a data dictionary and entity relationship diagram?

State: The State will need to consult with the current vendor to obtain this information upon vendor selection.

Question 44 Vendor: What role and level of assistance is the State willing to provide in the data migration process? For example, is the State able/willing to assist with data mapping and identification of business and data transformation rules and testing?

State: The State is willing to provide assistance to the best of our ability for data migration.

Question 45 Vendor: What are the State’s considerations in determining whether data should be migrated in full vs. converted to summarized read only records, vs. continue to be accessed in the old system?

State: The State requests all data be migrated in full.

Question 46 Vendor: Please provide Use Cases or examples of updates the State would apply to multiple cases via a mass update.

State: The State is requesting this as a possibility to meet future unplanned needs.

Question 47 Vendor: Please provide the reasoning and Use Cases where the State desires to copy case data to create a new case, including the data elements that would be copied.

State: The Odyssey EJ Demographic Party record, the Odyssey EJ offenses and offense dates, the Odyssey EJ disposition and sentence the Odyssey EJ case type and case number.

Question 48 Vendor: Please describe your current mobile system vendor and functionality.

State: The State does not currently utilize a mobile system.

Question 49 Vendor: To determine vendor reporting compliance, please provide a copy of the current 262 standard and custom reports, including a short description of the report and purpose.

Additional information, including data elements and selection criteria, if not clear from the copy of the report, is also requested.

State: Upon award of the contract, the State will provide the reports to the vendor.

Question 50 Vendor: What are the State’s expectations regarding vendor vs State (or third party) roles and responsibilities on creation of reports and forms?

State: If the State would be given permissions, creating reports and forms would be the responsibility of the State.

Question 51 Vendor: What reporting tools does the State currently use?

State: Odyssey Supervision case management reports and South Dakota Custom Reports using SSRS. The State has access to a replicated database that allows us to create custom reports and utilize ad hoc reporting from legislative requests.

Question 52 Vendor: What are the current assessments (instrument name and vendor) used by the State?

State: We currently use the LS1-R and YLS-CMI. Both assessments are a product of Multi Health Systems.

Question 53 Vendor: What are the types of services and programs provided internally and externally?

State: Clarification is required before the State can answer this question.

Question 54 Vendor: What are the rules and process the State follows when assigning clients to officers/case managers?

State: Each circuit determines who is assigned to which client. Some are juvenile only, some are adult only, some are a combination, some are sex offender only, etc.

Question 55 Vendor: Please provide an org chart or other document that identifies the organizational structure of the State Court Administrator’s Office and Division of Court Services, including management and the number of staff of Adult and Juvenile Probation departments/units, as well as their office locations.

State: Attached is a general organizational structure chart. Further information may also be obtained in the Unified Judicial System’s annual report at:

https://ujs.sd.gov/media/twmhzo2x/ujsfy2025annualreport.pdf.

Question 56 Vendor: Are there any state-mandated assessment tools (risk, needs, evaluations) that must be embedded natively, or should the system support external assessment integrations?

State: The State uses the LSI-R and YLS-CMI that are both Multi Health System tools.

Question 57 Vendor: Could you please share the usage profile? What is the expected number of internal, external and concurrent users using this system? Please share the individual counts for the above mentioned.

State: The current system has approximately 295 internal users and 3 external users.

Question 58 Vendor: Are there any county-specific variations in supervision processes that must be configurable without code changes?

State: The State does not believe this will be needed.

Question 59 Vendor: Can the State clarify the expected volume/range of active vs inactive cases and historical data to be migrated?

State: The State estimates approximately 300,000 cases to migrate.

Question 60 Vendor: Are sanctions and incentives rule-driven (configurable thresholds) or manual officer decisions?

State: The State utilizes a sanctions and incentive grid to direct officers.

Question 61 Vendor: Can the State clarify the extent of client service billing – is this tracking-only, or does it require integration with financial/payment systems?

State: It would only be for tracking.

Question 62 Vendor: Are there mandatory milestones other than the July 2027 go-live?

State: The vendor will collaborate with the State to determine milestones.

Question 63 Vendor: Are there any performance guarantees, liquidated damages, service credits, or penalties associated with missing the mandatory July 2027 go-live date?

State: These terms will be negotiated in the contract.

Question 64 Vendor: The RFP references a July 2026 pretrial pilot. Is this expected to be a fully operational production pilot, and is it a mandatory milestone prior to July 2027 go-live?

State: This is not mandatory by 2027. Would like it by the end of 2027.

Question 65 Vendor: Do the required $1M General Liability and $1M Professional Liability insurance policies need to be in place at proposal submission or only at contract award?

State: At the awarding of the contract.

Question 66 Vendor: Can the State confirm whether adult and juvenile supervision workflows are expected to be delivered as separate configurable modules or a single unified workflow with role-based variations?

State: They can be delivered as a single unified workflow with role-based variations.

Question 67 Vendor: Is HOPE Probation (three-tier UA system) required to be implemented at initial go-live, or can it be delivered as a Phase 2 enhancement?

State: It can be delivered as a Phase 2 enhancement.

Question 68 Vendor: Are fee waivers, adjustments, or partial payments expected in scope?

State: An integration to Odyssey Enterprise Justice will be needed to retrieve this information to be displayed in the supervision CMS.

Question 69 Vendor: Are escalation workflows (e.g., violation → hearing → jail) required to be automated?

State: Clarification is required before the State can answer this question.

Question 70 Vendor: Should the CMS support offline data capture (e.g., field officers) with later synchronization?

State: Yes.

Question 71 Vendor: Does the CMS need to manage documents, forms, evidence, and attachments (PDFs, photos, scanned reports)?

State: Yes.

Question 72 Vendor: Should business users be able to configure workflows, forms, and rules without vendor support post go-live?

State: Yes.

Question 73 Vendor: Are policy or legislative changes expected during the contract term that would require frequent rule updates?

State: At this time no. This could be a possibility.

Question 74 Vendor: Is the CMS expected to support legal discovery / evidence extraction workflows?

State: No.

Question 75 Vendor: Are system-generated notifications required (email, SMS, internal alerts) for violations, hearings, or deadlines?

State: The vendor will collaborate with the state to determine required notifications.

Question 76 Vendor: Are probation officers expected to use the system primarily in-office or in the field (mobile/tablet usage)?

State: It would be a combination of both.

Question 77 Vendor: Is there a need for a mobile-optimized or responsive UI, or a native mobile app in later phases?

State: Yes.

Question 78 Vendor: Will Tyler Technologies provide data extraction support, migration tooling, APIs, or documentation for Odyssey Supervision as part of this transition?

State: The State will do our best to provide support and will only include Tyler Technologies if necessary.

Question 79 Vendor: Is full historical transaction-level migration required, or is read-only summarized data acceptable for older cases?

State: Full historical.

Question 80 Vendor: Will the State provide data dictionaries, ER diagrams, and data quality reports for the existing Odyssey Supervision system?

State: The State will provide as much of this information as possible upon approval of the contract.

Question 81 Vendor: Is parallel run period expected where both legacy and new systems operate simultaneously?

State: Will be negotiated with the vendor.

Question 82 Vendor: What is the expected data reconciliation and acceptance criteria for migrated data?

State: Clarification is required before the State can answer this question.

Question 83 Vendor: Will Odyssey CMS APIs or database-level access be made available for integration, or is file-based exchange expected?

State: Will depend on the integration.

Question 84 Vendor: Are there other external agency systems (law enforcement, corrections, treatment providers, billing systems) that must integrate in Phase 1?

State: Yes.

Question 85 Vendor: Is realtime integration required, or are near-realtime/batch integrations acceptable?

State: Realtime is expected.

Question 86 Vendor: Are reports expected to be operational (in-app), analytical, or both?

State: Both.

Question 87 Vendor: Can the State clarify whether external BI tools (e.g., PowerBI) are preferred for advanced analytics?

State: The State has no preference on analytical tools.

Question 88 Vendor: What is the expected number and complexity of standard reports in Phase 1?

State: It will depend on the standardized report available in the vendor’s CMS.

Question 89 Vendor: Is ad-hoc report creation by business users required?

State: Yes, many of these ad-hoc requests come during our legislative session.

Question 90 Vendor: Will the State provide existing copies of the 262 standard/custom reports from the current system for analysis, or only functional reporting requirements?

State: A combination of both will be provided upon vendor selection.

Question 91 Vendor: What is the expected number of trainees per role (officers, clerical, supervisors, IT)?

State: There are 130 Court Services Officers, 14 supervisors, 15 IT, 40 clerical, 3 administrators at State office.

Question 92 Vendor: Is remote training acceptable in addition to onsite sessions?

State: Train the Trainer training would be in person. Other training remote will be fine.

Question 93 Vendor: What are the support SLAs expected post go-live?

State:

Support Availability Hours: 24/7 support for critical issues; standard business hours (8:00 AM – 5:00 PM CT) for non-critical issues.

Channels: Phone, email, and online ticketing system.

Incident Prioritization and Response Times Critical (System Down / Major Impact):

Response Time: Within 15 minutes.

Resolution Time: Within 4 hours or provide a workaround.

High (Significant Impact, No Workaround):

Response Time: Within 1 hour.

Resolution Time: Within 8 hours.

Medium (Minor Impact, Workaround Available):

Response Time: Within 4 hours.

Resolution Time: Within 2 business days.

Low (General Questions / Cosmetic Issues):

Response Time: Within 1 business day.

Resolution Time: Within 5 business days.

Escalation Process Clear escalation path for unresolved issues, including access to senior technical resources and account management.

Communication Regular status updates for open tickets.

Notification of resolution or workaround within SLA timeframes.

Question 94 Vendor: Will UJS handle Level 1 support, with the vendor handling Level 2/3?

State: Yes, UJS will provide Level 1 support.

Question 95 Vendor: Is a knowledge transfer and platform handover expected to enable State-led enhancements?

State: Yes.

Question 96 Vendor: Is the State open to a phased delivery / MVP-first approach, followed by incremental enhancements?

State: Yes.

Question 97 Vendor: Is the State open to configurable low-code accelerators to reduce delivery time?

State: No.

Question 98 Vendor: What constitutes final acceptance – functional sign-off, performance benchmarks, security clearance, or all of these?

State: All of these.

Question 99 Vendor: Can a single individual have multiple concurrent supervision cases (across circuits or time), and how should cross-case visibility be handled?

State: Yes, a client can have more than one case but supervised by one probation officer.

Question 100 Vendor: Is case reassignment (officer transfer, circuit transfer) expected mid-lifecycle, and should history be retained?

State: Yes, it should be expected mid-lifecycle and the history should be retained.

Question 101 Vendor: Are sealed / expunged cases required to be handled differently in terms of visibility and reporting?

State: Yes.

Question 102 Vendor: Is realtime data validation required at entry time (e.g., cross-system checks with Odyssey)?

State: Yes.

Question 103 Vendor: Are there mandatory data quality dashboards or monitoring reports expected?

State: Depending on what the vendor’s CMS offers.

Question 104 Vendor: Are there requirements for advanced search (partial matches, phonetic search, filters across cases)?

State: Yes.

Question 105 Vendor: Is cross-circuit or statewide search restricted by role or jurisdiction?

State: Yes.

Question 106 Vendor: Is hypercare period expected post go-live, and for how long?

State: Yes, 4-6 weeks.

Question 107 Vendor: For State Radio integration, can the State clarify the technical specifications, API availability, authentication mechanism, and real-time vs batch expectations?

State: The State can upon vendor selection.

Question 108 Vendor: Are Multi Health Systems (MHS) assessment licenses already procured by the State, or should vendors include MHS licensing costs in their proposals?

State: Licensing has been purchased by the State.

Question 109 Vendor: Can the State clarify what Fieldware is (system purpose, owner (and the expected depth of integration (data sync, workflow triggering, read-only access)?

State: This vendor provides a call-in system for lower risk offenders. If the State has access to the replicated data, the integration will be handled by the State.

Question 110 Vendor: Is bilingual or accessibility support (e.g., WCAG 2.1) required for end users?

State: Yes.

Question 111 Vendor: What integration standards are preferred (REST, SOAP, message queues, SFTP)?

State: The integration will depend on how the agency is receiving the information. All forms are currently being utilizes.

Question 112 Vendor: Will the State provide a central API gateway or ESB that the solution must integrate with?

State: The State does not currently provide a central API gateway or Enterprise Service Bus (ESB). However, the proposed solution must support standards-based APIs (e.g., REST, SOAP) and be capable of integrating with a gateway or ESB should one be implemented in the future.

The vendor should describe how their solution can accommodate such integration scenarios.

Question 113 Vendor: How many environments are expected (DEV, TEST, UAT, TRAINING, PROD, DR)?

State: The State’s preference on the number of environments would be 5 (Conversions/Dev, Test, Training, Stage, Production).

Question 114 Vendor: Are retention and archival policies defined for documents and case data?

State: Yes.

Question 115 Vendor: Is a full audit trail required for: Case updates, Assessment changes, Sanctions/incentives, Data corrections?

State: Yes.

Question 116 Vendor: In case of future platform transition, does the Sate require: Full data export capability?

Schema documentation and API access? Are there any data residency or sovereignty constraints?

State: Yes, the State would require full data export as well as Schema documentation and the API access. Yes, all data must reside within the United States and comply with U.S. federal and state regulations. No data may be stored or processed outside U.S. jurisdiction.

Question 117 Vendor: Will notifications need to integrate with State-approved messaging services?

State: Yes.

Question 118 Vendor: Are operational dashboards required for system health, integrations, and job monitoring?

State: Yes.

Question 119 Vendor: Are there retention holds (litigation freezes) that override standard retention rules?

State: No.

Question 120 Vendor: When must fingerprint-based background checks be completed-proposal stage, contract award, or prior to staff deployment?

State: Upon vendor selection.

Question 121 Vendor: Should the cost proposal explicitly break out platform licenses, implementation services, infrastructure/hosting, training, and ongoing support, and is a multi-year pricing structure expected?

State: Yes, please break out the pricing structure and include a multi-year pricing structure.

Question 122 Vendor: Are there usability benchmarks or user adoption KPIs defined by UJS?

State: UJS has not defined formal usability benchmarks or user adoption KPIs at this time.

However, we expect the vendor to propose best practices and assist in establishing measurable goals to ensure successful adoption and ease of use.

Question 123 Vendor: Will the State provide dedicated business SMEs for continuous sprint reviews and UAT? If so, please provide the FTE hours per week.

State: Yes, the State will provide Subject Matter Experts for sprint review and user acceptance testing. The vendor should outline the expectations for the SME involvement and time commitment.

Question 124 Vendor: What is the preferred delivery methodology (Agile, Hybrid, Waterfall)?

State: The UJS has no preference.

Question 125 Vendor: Is Single Sign-On (SSO) mandatory, and if so, which identity provider is used (AD, Azure AD, Okta, etc.)?

State: BIT Response: An offeror’s responses to Appendix B Security and Vendor Questions should be filled out based on your solution and how it functions/is set up. Any requirements for SSO are set out in the RFP Section 4.2.3.

Question 126 Vendor: Is multi-factor authentication (MFA) and role-based access control (RBAC) sufficient, or is attribute-based access control (ABAC) required?

State: BIT Response: An offeror’s responses to Appendix B Security and Vendor Questions should be filled out based on your solution and how it functions/is set up.

Question 127 Vendor: What are the data classification and encryption requirements (at rest and in transit)?

State: BIT Response: An offeror’s responses to Appendix B Security and Vendor Questions should be filled out based on your solution and how it functions/is set up.

Question 128 Vendor: Are security testing, penetration testing, and code scanning required prior to go-live?

State: BIT Response: An offeror’s responses to Appendix B Security and Vendor Questions should be filled out based on your solution and how it functions/is set up.

Question 129 Vendor: Will the State require SOC 2 / ISO 27001 alignment from the platform or vendor?

State: BIT Response: An offeror’s responses to Appendix B Security and Vendor Questions should be filled out based on your solution and how it functions/is set up.

Question 130 Vendor: Are audit logs required to be immutable and exportable for legal review?

State: BIT Response: An offeror’s responses to Appendix B Security and Vendor Questions should be filled out based on your solution and how it functions/is set up.

Question 131 Vendor: Are there specific deficiencies or limitations in Odyssey Supervision that the State would like to improve in a new solution?

State: Yes.

Question 132 Vendor: What is the State’s current annual budget for Supervision Case Management?

State: The State’s current Supervision Case Management System is encompassed within the Odyssey Enterprise Justice platform so there is not a separate budget line item for just Supervision.

Question 133 Vendor: Has funding for this project been approved?

State: Yes.

Question 134 Vendor: What level of integration is required between the probation system and the Odyssey Case Management System? Is this one way or bidirectional integration?

State: The probation system would need to collect client demographics, payments, hearings and charges from Odyssey Enterprise Justice.

Question 135 Vendor: Please list all external systems the solution must integrate with and the specific requirements for each integration.

State: Please see response in Question #39.

Question 136 Vendor: Can the State break down the 300 users by role? (probation officers, supervisors, clerks, IT) State: a. Approximately 300 users have query access which include Probation Officers, Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, Support Staff, Judges, IT Staff, State Court Administrator Staff, Juvenile Detention Staff.

Question 137 Vendor: Will stakeholders require access to the system? If yes, please describe access requirements.

State: No.

Question 138 Vendor: Approximately how many active and inactive probation cases must be migrated?

State: The State estimates approximately 300,000 cases to migrate.

Question 139 Vendor: How many conversion sources are there?

State: One.

Question 140 Vendor: On average, how many new cases are created annually?

State: On average, about 6,300 new cases are created annually.

Question 141 Vendor: What is the target implementation timeline?

State: July 2027.

Question 142 Vendor: Does the State prefer a phased go-live approach or one go-live?

State: This will be determined in collaboration between the State and the selected vendor.

Question 143 Vendor: Is pretrial case management capability required at initial go-live?

State: No.

Question 144 Vendor: How many Counties will be included in the pilot pretrial program?

State: One.

Question 145 Vendor: Should the vendor provide pricing information for the pretrial pilot counties?

State: Yes.

Question 146 Vendor: Can Appendix B Security and Vendor Questionnaire be provided in an editable format?

State: Yes, this can be provided upon request through RFP2618738@ujs.state.sd.us.