Responses from agency. posted 9.4.25.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 29 KB Posted Sep 8, 2025

Attached to: Legal Case ManagementBid Documents
Solicitation number: 26-84312
Issued by: Indiana

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Sep 8, 2025

This document is a Request for Information (RFI) issued by the Indiana Department of Administration (IDOA) for a comprehensive Legal Case Management System (LCMS) to serve all state agencies. The LCMS will support the creation, management, and tracking of diverse legal case types including civil litigation, compliance, procurement, FOIA requests, interagency collaboration, legislative support, claims, contracts, employment, real estate, and administrative proceedings. The system must be a scalable, web-based solution capable of supporting approximately 310 internal users across multiple agencies, with key technical requirements including cloud-based deployment, integration with existing systems like PeopleSoft and Office 365, and compliance with state security standards. The RFI response deadline is September 8, 2025, with the state preferring a 12-month implementation timeline and anticipating a phased approach to system rollout.

The state has not previously implemented a statewide legal case management solution and currently manages legal documents across various platforms including internal drives, SharePoint, Office 365, ActionStep, and HighQ. No specific budget has been disclosed, and the state is open to both subscription-based and perpetual licensing models. Vendor requirements include demonstrating capabilities for AI-powered case linking, comprehensive workflow automation, external user portals, and integration via MuleSoft APIs. The solution must comply with Indiana's privacy regulations, CJIS, and HIPAA standards, with all resources and data storage required to remain within the continental United States. The state emphasizes a preference for a train-the-trainer approach to user training and is open to vendor-led change management and agency adoption planning.

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
Addendum 2.docx	DOCX document	Sep 8, 2025
RFI - Legal Case Mgmt - Addendum 2.docx	DOCX document	Sep 8, 2025
Workflow _ Construction Contractor Audit _ Matter types.pdf	PDF	Sep 8, 2025
Workflow _ Worksite Safety Appeals _ Matter types.pdf	PDF	Sep 8, 2025
Addendum 1.docx	DOCX document	Aug 25, 2025
RFI - Legal Case Mgmt - Addendum 1.docx	DOCX document	Aug 25, 2025
Att B - Infrastructure Overview - RTP.docx	DOCX document	Aug 5, 2025
Att B.2 - PaaS Terms - RTP.docx	DOCX document	Aug 5, 2025
Att B.3 - SaaS Terms - RTP.docx	DOCX document	Aug 5, 2025
Att E Practice Mgmt & Legal - RTP.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Aug 5, 2025
Att G - Cloud Questionnaire - RTP.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Aug 5, 2025
Att B.1 - IaaS Terms - RTP.docx	DOCX document	Aug 5, 2025
Att C - AI Response -RTP.docx	DOCX document	Aug 5, 2025
Att D - Resource Usage - RTP.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Aug 5, 2025
RFI - Legal Case Mgmt - RTP.docx	DOCX document	Aug 5, 2025
Att A - scope of work-Tech Proposal - RTP.docx	DOCX document	Aug 5, 2025
Att F - Q&A Template - RTP.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Aug 5, 2025

Show all 17

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Question & Inquiry Form

RFP Document	Page # and/or Section	Question	State Response
RFI - Legal Case Management	Background and Objective of the RFI (page 3)	Has the State previously attempted to implement a legal case management or matter management solution for statewide or multi-agency use? If so, what was the outcome?	No, the State has not attempted to implement a statewide LCMS.
RFI - Legal Case Management	Background and Objective of the RFI (page 3)	Has the State previously seen product demonstrations or presentations from any vendors for a solution in this space? If so, can you share the names of the vendors and products reviewed?	The State is not in a position to share specifics on this.
Attachment A	User Interface and Experience page 5	How many distinct user roles does the State anticipate for the LCMS? Please provide a brief description of each role.	Attorney. Paralegal. Administrator. Internal Staff (statewide employees who may not be within the legal department). External users (tbd the distinct roles).
Attachment A	Technical Requirements (Page 9)	Of the anticipated total internal user count, how many will require full access versus read-only or limited access?	Approximately 310. Unknown full access v read only access
Attachment A	Technical Requirements (Page 9)	Approximately how many total internal users are expected across all agencies?	Approximately 310
Attachment A	Implementation Methodology (page 14)	Will all agencies be migrated to the new system at once, or will implementation occur in phases?	The State anticipates a phased approach
Attachment A	Technical Requirements (Page 10)	Please provide an estimated storage volume and number of database tables for data migration.	Respondents should describe the approach for data migration. If there are dependencies in the respondents approach based on storage volume or number of database tables, the respondent should clarify those depencies and call out any assumptions that are made.
Attachment A	Technical Requirements (Page 10)	Where are case and matter documents currently stored (e.g., file shares, SharePoint, agency-specific systems)?	internal drives. Sharepoint. Office365. ActionStep. HighQ
Attachment A	Implementation Methodology (page 14)	Is the State open to an agile or hybrid-agile development methodology for implementation?	Yes
Attachment A	Implementation Methodology (page 14)	What is the ideal overall implementation timeline, and what is the target date for the system to be live?	"The State prefers a 12 month timeline. However, respondents should provide a timeline that they consider aggressive but not overly aggressive causing undo risk to the success of the project."
Attachment A	Data Privacy (page 12)	Does the State permit the use of off-shore resources for any portion of the project, including development or support?	The State's requires resources, including contractors and subcontractors reside within the continental United States.
RFI - Legal Case Management	RFI Timeline (page 4)	Would the State consider granting a two-week extension to the September 8, 2025, response deadline to allow for more comprehensive input from vendors?	yes
Attachment A	Functional Requirements (Page 4)	Please provide a list of the enterprise systems, court e-filing systems, and other agency-specific applications the LCMS must integrate with, including any current integration standards or middleware in use.	Peoplesoft 9.2, Docusign, Office 365, Exchange, MyCase, Pacer
Attachment A	Functional Requirements (Page 2)	Are there any existing enterprise content management platforms (e.g., SharePoint, OnBase, OpenText) currently used by agencies for legal documents that the LCMS will need to integrate with or migrate from?	ActionStep, HighQ
RFI - Legal Case Management	NA	Will the State include MBE/WBE/VBE/XBE participation goals or scoring incentives in the future RFP? If so, please provide anticipated requirements.	We have not established the evaluation requirements at this time
Attachment A	Training and Support (Page 16)	Does the State have a preferred approach for statewide end-user training (e.g., centralized training sessions, train-the-trainer, virtual modules), and will agencies require customized training content?	Train the trainer is the State's preferred approach
Attachment A	Implementation Methodology (page 14)	Will the State expect the vendor to lead change management and agency adoption planning, or will this be handled by the State?	The State is open to having the Vendor lead change management and agency adoption.
Attachment A	Testing and Deployment Procedures (Page 15)	Does the State require vendor-led user acceptance testing (UAT) for each agency, or will testing be consolidated at the enterprise level?	The State will will have an approach for UAT that will include the various agencies impacted by the project to participate at some level in UAT activities.
Attachment A	Technical Requirements – Scalability (Page 9)	Beyond the initial 250+ end users, what is the anticipated annual growth in user count and data volume over the first five years?	The State anticipates no growth in user counts over the first 5 years.
Attachment A	Client and Matter Onboarding (Page 4)	Will the LCMS need to provide access to external parties (e.g., law firms, outside counsel, claimants) via secure portals, and if so, how many external users are anticipated?	Yes, the LCMS will need to provide access to external parties. It is unknown how many external users are anticipated.
RFI - Legal Case Management	N/A	Does the State request prospective vendors to complete Attachment G (Cloud Questionnaire) as part of its response to this RFI?	The completion of Attachment G (Cloud Questionnaire) is not required in response to this RFI, but will be required if an award is made. However, completing Attachment G, or speaking to the controls covered Attachment G will aid the State in understanding the inherent and/or assumed risk of the proposed solution.
Attachment A	Page 1, Functional Requirements	Are there any specific functional or technical requirements outlined in Attachment A that the State considers to be of higher priority or more critical than others?	Respondents should indicate how their solution will meet all of the requirements outlined in Attachment A.
Attachment B	Cloud-Based Service Offering	Is it a hard requirement that the solution be deployed within a State-owned Azure/GCP/AWS tenant?	The State prefers the proposed solution be deployed within a State-managed tenant. If the respondent can demonstrate significant value of a solution deployed in a non-State-managed tenant, it could be considered.
Attachment A	Data Management	Could the State clarify its definition and expectations for "physical isolation" in the context of a multi-tenant SaaS cloud environment? How does the State typically interpret this requirement for commercially available SaaS solutions where underlying infrastructure is shared, but data is logically segregated with robust security controls?	The physical isolation component of data is only applicable to vendor-hosted solutions hosted on vendor-managed physical assets. For a vendor-hosted SaaS solution, in which the vendor utilizes a cloud service provider such as Azure, AWS, GCP, etc., per Executive Order 25-19, vendor-hosted solutions shall comply with an IOT-approved RAMP policy.
Attachment A	Data Exchange	Beyond data exchange, does "enterprise-standardized technologies" imply specific databases, middleware, or application servers that a SaaS solution must conform to, or does it primarily refer to the integration standards and APIs for data exchange with State systems? Please clarify what specific technologies fall under this umbrella.	The standard technologies are defined here, https://www.in.gov/iot/policies-procedures-and-standards/.
Attachment A	Data Privacy (page 12)	Could the State provide details on its specific CJIS compliance requirements for cloud-based solutions and any existing CJIS policy documents or assessment frameworks applicable to vendors? Does the State have a specific CJIS impact level (e.g., moderate, high) in mind for this system?	Per Executive Order 25-19, vendor-hosted solutions must comply with an IOT-approved RAMP policy.
Attachment A	GovRamp/StateRamp	For a SaaS solution, is the prime vendor responsible for generating and submitting these continuous monitoring documents for the underlying Salesforce platform, or are these provided directly by Salesforce to the StateRAMP Program Management Office (PMO)?	It will be the awarded vendor's responsibility to configure and provide the required reports to the State.
Attachment A	Scalability	To better address scalability and performance, please provide the current approximate numbers for: • The total active legal cases/matters managed by All-State Agencies • The approximate number of new cases/matters initiated annually • The distribution of users across different roles (e.g., attorneys, paralegals, administrative staff, investigators) and their anticipated concurrent usage.	At this stage, the State doesn't have consolidated data on total or annual legal case volumes across all state agencies, as reporting is not yet standardized. User role distribution and concurrent usage estimates are still being developed, but approximately 310 internal users are expected statewide.
Attachment A	Time Tracking, Billing and Financial Management	Could the State elaborate on the required complexity and specific types of "integrated financial calculations" for tracking disgorgement, restitution, civil fines, and examination costs? Are there specific formulas, financial rules, or reporting formats required for these financial aspects?	Respondents should describe the solution's flexibility to handle complex calculations required by the State.
Attachment A	Integrations with Enterprise Systems	Please provide a list of the specific names and versions of existing systems currently in use for integrations such as accounting software, e-signature solutions, court e-filing systems, practice management software, and other State systems.	PeopleSoft 9.2, Docusign, Office365, Exchange, Sharepoint
Attachment A	Page 4, Integrations with Enterprise Systems	For "other existing State systems that host case and assignment data," could the State identify these systems and their primary data formats or APIs used for integration?	ActionStep - will need to provide an API. HighQ - will need to provide an API
Attachment A	Page 5, Case Linking and Allegation Management	The RFI states the system should "intelligently suggest relevant cases for linking based on common subjects, witnesses, or schemes." Could the State define what "intelligently suggest" means in this context? Does it imply the expectation of artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) capabilities, or a rule-based matching system based on configurable criteria?	We are implying the expectation of AI/ML capabilities
Attachment A	Page 6, Communication Management (Email, Text)	The RFI requires the ability to send and receive text messages directly through the case file. Is this primarily for internal communication among State staff, or for external communication with case parties and witnesses? Is there a preferred SMS gateway or service provider for integration?	We would like to be able to have internal and external communications captured within the LCMS
Indiana RFI - Legal Case Mgmt - RTP	Page 3 of 5, "RESPONSE FORMAT AND ATTACHMENTS"
1. The instructions say "Respondents should submit responses to the RFI, utilizing Attachment A". Can the Agency confirm that this is the only required attachment we need to submit?	At this time, it is the only required response document however it would be beneficial to the State for purposes of a possible RFP for this same subject matter.
Indiana RFI Att A - scope of work-Tech Proposal - RTP	Page 15, "Data Migration Strategy and Support"
2. Attachment A states "The implementation plan must explicitly include the conversion and importation of all legacy data from current systems, ensuring that this imported data is fully readable and usable within the new LCMS solution."

What system(s) does the Administration currently use?

Can data be provided in Microsoft SQL Server format?

How much data does the Administration intend to bring into the new LCMS?	I suggest something like "Respondents should provide an overall data conversion approach and describe the options that exist in that approach to successfully convert and migrate State legacy data."
	Indiana RFI Att A - scope of work-Tech Proposal - RTP	Pages 3-4, "Integrations with Enterprise Systems"	3. Attachment A states the new LCMS "must facilitate common integration with other relevant legal and business systems, such as accounting software, email platforms, e-signature solutions, court e-filing systems, and practice management software."

Can the agency list which systems they would like integration with?

Do any of these systems have an existing APIs?

For each desired integration, can the administration describe the data that will be shared between both systems.	Integrations with all common, State-managed systems will be done utilizing MuleSoft API integrations. The awarded vendor must be capable of utilizing and integrating via MuleSoft APIs.
	RFI		There are a number of attachments included, but the instructions only mention returning Attachment A. Do we need to submit any of the other attachments (like the cloud questionnaire)?	Any IT specific documents are not a requirement for the RFI however it would be beneficial that the respondent(s) return and/or review it.
	Attachment A	Page 15 / Section Data Migration Strategy and Support	Could the State share the expected volume of documents and volume of data to be migrated into the new LCMS?	Respondents should descibe a data migration approach that is scalable to meet the volume of data ultimately identified for migration and to identify limits in the data and document volume based on that approach.
	Attachment A	Page 17 / Section Client and Matter Onboarding	Does the term 'Client' refer to the general public or the agencies' internal users?	Client generally refers to the Agencies.
	Attachment A	Page 3 / Integrations with Enterprise Systems	Can the State share what other systems need to be integrated with the LCMS, specifically document management systems/repositories, eDiscovery systems, public records portals, etc.?	Integrations with all common, State-managed systems will be done utilizing MuleSoft API integrations. The awarded vendor must be capable of utilizing and integrating via MuleSoft APIs.
	Attachment A	Page 3 / Time Tracking, Billing, and Financial Management	Is the desire to integrate with an existing centralized time tracking and financial management tools or for these to exist solely within the LCMS?	Time tracking should be within the LCMS.
	Attachment A – Scope of Work/Technical Proposal	I. Functional Requirements – Core Case Creation, Management, and Tracking	Can the State clarify the expected number of different case types and approximate volume of cases per year to help in sizing and performance planning?	Respondents should descibe the solution's capabilities and scalability to handle both the number of different case types and assocated volume and to identify limitations in the solutions that exist.
	Attachment A – Scope of Work/Technical Proposal	I. Functional Requirements – Document and Forms Management	Can the State clarify the expected number of different case types and approximate volume of cases per year to help in sizing and performance planning?	At this stage, the State doesn't have consolidated data on total or annual legal case volumes across all state agencies, as reporting is not yet standardized. Respondent should describe the solution's capabilities and scalability to handle both the number of different case tyes and associatd volume and to identify limitations in the solutions that exist.
	Attachment A – Scope of Work/Technical Proposal	I. Functional Requirements – Workflow Automation and Task/Deadline Management	Could the State provide examples of complex workflows or processes that should be automated in the LCMS?	yes, please see attachments
	Attachment A – Scope of Work/Technical Proposal	I. Functional Requirements – Reporting, Analytics, and Search Capabilities	What are the preferred reporting tools or formats currently in use that the LCMS should integrate with or replicate?	Respondent's solution needs to be able to report as a .xls, .csv. Respondent should also identify and describe other reporting tools that are either already integrated into the solution or can be integrated in the future.
	Attachment A – Scope of Work/Technical Proposal	I. Functional Requirements – Time Tracking, Billing, and Financial Management	Is there an existing billing or accounting system the LCMS needs to integrate with, and if so, what is it?	PeopleSoft Financials 9.2
	Attachment A – Scope of Work/Technical Proposal	I. Functional Requirements – Integrations with Enterprise Systems	Are there any State-mandated APIs, middleware, or integration platforms that must be used for system interoperability?	Integrations with all common, State-managed systems will be done utilizing MuleSoft API integrations. The awarded vendor must be capable of utilizing and integrating via MuleSoft APIs.
	Attachment A – Scope of Work/Technical Proposal	II. Technical Requirements – System Infrastructure, Architecture, and Deployment	Could the State elaborate on its expectations for vendor access controls within a State-owned cloud tenant, particularly during ongoing maintenance?	The awarded vendor will be required to utilize a State-managed remote access solution to conduct ongoing maintenance for the implemented solution. This could be in the form of utilizing the State-managed VPN client or access the management layer of the application via a State-managed virtual remote desktop.
	Attachment A – Scope of Work/Technical Proposal	II. Technical Requirements – Availability	Does the State have a preferred disaster recovery model (active/active or active/passive) for the LCMS solution?	This will be dependent on the design of the proposed solution. Critical applications typically require an active/active model.
	Attachment A – Scope of Work/Technical Proposal	II. Technical Requirements – Data Management	Will the State provide legacy system data in a standardized format for migration, or will the vendor be responsible for data extraction?	This will be scoped once awarded.
	Attachment A – Scope of Work/Technical Proposal	III. Security and Compliance Requirements – Data Privacy Compliance	Are there any Indiana-specific privacy regulations, in addition to CJIS and HIPAA, that the LCMS must comply with?	Per Executive Order 25-19, vendor-hosted solutions must comply with an IOT-approved RAMP policy. Additionally, the Indiana Fair Information Practices Act and State of Indiana Information Privacy policy can be found here: https://www.in.gov/mph/cdo/policies/
	Attachment A – Scope of Work/Technical Proposal	III. Security and Compliance Requirements – Vulnerability Management and Incident Response	What is the expected frequency of vendor-provided security vulnerability scans and penetration testing?	Vulnerability scans results or reports should be provided monthly at a minimum, and the State will reserve the option to request this information on an ad-hoc basis if it so chooses. Penetration testing results or reports would be required on an annual basis, at a minimum.
	Attachment A – Scope of Work/Technical Proposal	IV. Implementation and Project Management – Implementation Methodology and Key Phases	What is the State’s target go-live date for the LCMS implementation?	Respondents should provide an estimated implementation timeline based on understanding and experience. This can either be one estimate or multiple estimates along with the associated risks of each option. Regardless, respondents should document the risks to the timeline.
	Attachment A – Scope of Work/Technical Proposal	IV. Implementation and Project Management – Data Migration Strategy and Support	What is the anticipated size (in GB/TB) of data to be migrated from the legacy system to the new LCMS?	Respondents should provide a data migration approach that is scalable to meet the size of the data to be migrated. Document any assumptions and limitations that may exist in your data migration approach.
	Attachment A – Scope of Work/Technical Proposal	VI. Vendor Qualifications and Experience – Relevant Experience with Similar Projects and Client References	Will the State accept references from projects in other states with similar functional scope, or must they be Indiana-based references?	yes
	Attachment A – Scope of Work/Technical Proposal	VII. Cost and Commercials – Licensing Model and Pricing Tiers	Is the State open to both subscription-based and perpetual licensing models, or is there a preferred approach?	yes
	Attachment A – Scope of Work/Technical Proposal	VII. Cost and Commercials – Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) Considerations	Should the TCO include optional future modules or only the core LCMS functionalities requested in this scope?	future modules
	Attachment A – Scope of Work/Technical Proposal	III. Security and Compliance Requirements – ISMS and Certifications	Does the State require proof of certification at the RFI stage or only during RFP/contract award?	Proof of Certification, or appropriate attestations showing the certification will be achieved prior to the implemented solution's Go-Live date.
	Attachment A – Scope of Work/Technical Proposal	II. Technical Requirements – Availability	What is the State’s Recovery Time Objective (RTO) and Recovery Point Objective (RPO) expectations?	RTO: < 1 hour

RPO: < 15 minutes Unless otherwise indicated by the posting agency

	Incumbent	Who is the current incument for this project?	none
	Budget	What is the budget allocated for this project?	unknown
IN.pdf	-	The RFI zip file includes multiple attachments, some of which contain blank fields labeled for “vendor response.” Should vendors complete and submit these attachments along with their proposal?	Yes
IN.Pdf	-	Can we anticipate any changes to the response submission date ?	Please continue to check the portal and/or the following webpage as updates will be shown via addendum/update: https://www.in.gov/idoa/procurement/current-business-opportunities/
Att D - Resource Usage - RTP	-	Should Vendor Submit the resource usage plan to the state?	We are not requiring it but it would be beneficial to the State for planning the RFP
Att G - Cloud Questionnaire - RTP	-	Is the state expecting to fill all the cloud Questionaries from the Vendor?	Refer to Line 22
Att E Practice Mgmt & Legal - RTP	-	What is the attachment is about, what the state expecting from the vendor through the Practice management legal?	This is a document outlining the current inventory of LCMS that the State agencies use. It may not be useful to the some respondent(s)
Attachment A - Scope of Work	Integrations with Enterprise Systems	Please confirm the list of State systems (internal and external) that the LCMS will be expected to integrate with, including any existing court e-filing, document management, practice management, or accounting systems. Are there preferred or mandated integration methods (e.g., API standards, middleware, file transfer protocols) for connecting with State systems? Will the State provide documentation and API access for each target system during implementation?	peoplesoft 9.2, Docusign, Office365, Sharepoint, Exchange
Attachment A - Scope of Work	Security Compliance	For the forthcoming RAMP policy (aligned with NIST 800-53 Rev. 5, expected by October 14, 2025), can you clarify if compliance will be required at contract award or after policy finalization?	The policy will be effective on 10/1/25. All new contracts entered into after 10/1 will be required to be compliant with the policy.
Attachment A - Scope of Work	Cost and Commercials	Will the State provide a cost proposal template for the later solicitation, or should vendors structure pricing in their own format for the RFI?	You should structure your cost proposal as this is an RFI and we are looking for estimated costs and what the cost would entail
Attachment A - Scope of Work	Data Management	Confirm the minimum required backup frequency (e.g., real-time replication, hourly, daily) and retention period for LCMS data. For disaster recovery, does the State have target Recovery Time Objective (RTO) and Recovery Point Objective (RPO) values vendors should design to? Are there State-mandated geographic diversity requirements for backup storage locations?	Typically real-time replication is required of critical systems. Storage locations must be within the US. IOT strongly recommends diverse geo location of those locations but does not mandate a requirement. See line 60 for RTO/RPO values
Attachment A - Scope of Work	Document and Forms Management	Please provide the total anticipated number of users, concurrent users, and administrative users for the LCMS.What is the estimated volume of cases that will be managed within the system across all agencies?	Respondents should provide a solution that is scalable to meet the size of the user base and concurrent users. Document any assumptions and limitations that may exist in your solution for this specificially.
Attachment A - Scope of Work	Document and Forms Management	For modules involving permits or licenses, please confirm the expected annual permit/license volumes.	the state anticipates 310 internal users and unknown external users
Attachment A - Scope of Work	Workflow Automation and Task/Deadline Management	Could the State provide sample workflows or process maps for the primary legal domains to be supported (e.g., civil, compliance, procurement, FOIA, contracts)?	yes, please see attachments
Attachment A - Scope of Work	Workflow Automation and Task/Deadline Management	Are there specific statutory or regulatory deadlines that workflows must track and alert against in the LCMS?	Yes. This will be workflow dependent
Attachment A - Scope of Work	Technical Requirement	Will the LCMS be required to process financial transactions (e.g., fines, fees, restitution) directly, or only record them from external systems? If direct payment processing is required, does the State have a preferred or mandated payment gateway/service provider?	This will be outlined in the RFP documents, however State law exists that solutions are required to use one of two State approved credit card processing solutions.
Attachment A - Scope of Work	Data Privacy compliance	Are there PCI-DSS compliance requirements for the payment integration component?	Please see response to above
IN.Pdf	-	Please confirm if any evaluation criteria or scoring methodology will be applied to the RFI responses, or if this process is strictly for information-gathering purposes without formal scoring.	This RFI is for information gathering only and will not be scored
Attachment A - Scope of Work	Data migration Strategy & Support	Could the State identify the legacy systems currently in use, along with available data volumes and data quality considerations, to help vendors assess migration requirements?	ActionStep, HighQ
Attachment A - Scope of Work	Technical Requirements	Are there defined per-transaction performance response-time requirements in addition to the availability targets provided, or should vendors propose these metrics? Will the State define any penalty or credit structures tied to SLA compliance in a future solicitation?

vendors should propose these metrics

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Sep 8, 2025.