The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
RFI - REQINN-22-00-035 Case Management Software
| Question # |
| Question/Comment/Clarification |
| Government Response |
| 1. |
| How many users of the software does the government anticipate? |
| Approx 320-350 users |
| 2. |
| Does the government have a preference for a cloud service? or cloud service provider? |
| No. |
| 3. |
| Would you kindly confirm if this is an entirely new effort or is there an incumbent currently providing these services? If so, would you please provide the incumbent contract details? |
| The current solution is TeamMate. |
| 4. |
| The RFI states a solicitation does not exist for this requirement. Can the government share what systems are on-premise vs. systems that are operating in the cloud related to case management, document management, and records management? If there is an incumbent vendor(s) for these systems, would you be able to provide the contract details (such as: Vendor Name, Contract Number, Award Date, Value)? |
| The current solution is TeamMate. |
| 5. |
| Has the DHS-OIG or OIN seen a vendor / product demo related to case management or document management in the past year? If so, can you share the vendor(s)? |
| TeamMate+ |
| 6. |
| Can the government share the desktop operating platform (e.g. Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office / Microsoft 365)? |
| No, not at this time. |
| 7. |
| Could you please provide examples of the types and examples of evidence that would be managed through the applications Evidence Management Suite? |
| GAO’s Government Auditing Standards, 2018 Revision, Technical Update April 2021, Section 8.104 describes evidence – noting that it may be categorized as physical, documentary, testimonial and that auditors frequently use analytical processes to analyze any evidence gathered to determine whether it is sufficient and appropriate. |
· Physical evidence is obtained by auditors’ direct inspection or observation of people, property, or events. Such evidence may be documented in summary memos, photographs, videos, drawings, charts, or maps.
· Documentary evidence is already existing information, such as letters, contracts, accounting records, invoices, spreadsheets, database extracts, electronically stored information, and management information on performance.
· Testimonial evidence is obtained through inquiries, interviews, focus groups, public forums, or questionnaires.
· Auditors frequently use analytical processes, including computations, comparisons, separation of information into components, and rational arguments, to analyze any evidence gathered to determine whether it is sufficient and appropriate.
| 8. |
| Could you please provide an estimate on the number of system users expected? |
| See response to Q1 |
| 9. |
| Is 24x7 support required? |
| No. |
| 10. |
| On average, how many cases does the OIG start and/or complete in a given year |
| Approximately less than 200. |
| 11. |
| Is there an incumbent on this contract? If so, who currently provides the services stated in this RFI? |
| Yes. Wolterskluwer - TeamMate |
| 12. |
| What commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) solution, if any, does DHS-OIG currently use to support case management? |
| TeamMate |
| 13. |
| Has budget already been allocated for this work? |
| No |
| 14. |
| When do you anticipate awarding the work? |
| TBD |
| 15. |
| How many users do you anticipate using the new case management solution? Of that number, how many would be concurrent? |
| See response to Q1 |
| 16. |
| What other systems will the new case management solution need to interface with? |
| Unsure at this time |
| 17. |
| How many legacy systems would the data be migrated from into the new case management solution? |
| One (TeamMate) |
| 18. |
| On page 2, in the Case Management Functional Requirements section, under Section 3 – Document/Data/Records Management, can you provide some representative use cases for this requirement “3.5 – Enable the creation, update, maintenance, storage and archival of document templates that can be used for OIG business processes, such as document templates for Engagement Memos, Audit Reports, Management Alerts.” |
| The GAO Yellow Book states in Section 8.23 that “Auditors may use an engagement letter to communicate key information early in the engagement.” In this regard, the tool would contain a current document template (or shell) for an engagement letter or memo that staff would access and populate in preparing their correspondence with the auditee. Similarly, the tool would accommodate making changes to the template itself as well as storing and archiving superseded versions of the template. |
Reports and management alerts are documents that communicate the results of audits, inspection, and evaluations. In this regard, the tool would contain document templates (or shells) for various types of audit reports and management alerts. Staff would access and populate these templates in preparing their respective reports. The tool would accommodate making changes to the templates as well as storing and archiving superseded versions of them.
| 19. |
| Regarding Volume II > Capabilities: Does OIG prefer that Table 1 simply have boxes checked for the Case Management Functional Requirements? Or is it also expected that responses include narrative descriptions confirming our ability to meet the requests? We noticed that the requirements seemed to be different from Table 2 which included a field for narrative responses. |
| Up to the vendor to decide how they want to respond, as long as there is enough information in both sections for us to gain knowledge of what the vendor has to offer that fits into our requirements. |
| 20. |
| Regarding Volume II > Approach: Is it expected that we address each request from Table I and 2 in this document or instead provide an overview of our capabilities relating to the general description provided in the “Purpose and Objectives” section of the RFI on page 1? |
| Please provide responses to each item in tables, vendor can also provide an overview of product. Would be nice if overview was tied to each item in tables for clear outline and to minimize assumptions. |
| 21. |
| Related to the product we are proposing. For purposes of this RFI shall we assume that responses will be based on the capabilities of the Server model of Relativity currently deployed at OIG in its most current version? Alternatively, we can respond with our SaaS offering which we believe to be more aligned with the stated objectives in the “Background” portion of the RFI |
| No. This RFI is not related to the current Relativity version deployed at OIG. This is in relation to an Audit Case Management Tool. |
