RFP 13259 Final.pdf

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) 13259

ASSESSOR/RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK AND AUDITOR & CONTROLLER

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

August 25, 2026

A. KEY INFORMATION

1. The County of San Diego is seeking proposals from firms interested in providing document management system services (“Offerors”).

2. The contract term is anticipated to be an initial (base) period of one (1) year with nine (9) one-year options.

3. The County has posted this solicitation on its official BuyNet website at https://sdbuynet.sandiegocounty.gov/. In order to see all information related to this RFP, to submit Questions, and to receive notifications of updates, Offerors must select “Participate in RFx” for this solicitation in BuyNet.

4. The Contracting Officer for this solicitation is Joseph Craft, Procurement Contracting Officer, joseph.craft@sdcounty.ca.gov.

5. Schedule: This timeline is subject to change at any time, at the County’s sole discretion. The County will issue an addendum for changes to the Pre-Proposal Conference date, Questions due date, or Proposal due date.

Event Description Date and Time (San Diego Time) Pre-Proposal Conference August 31, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.

Questions due September 3, 2026, prior to 5:00 p.m.

Proposals due September 22, 2026, prior to 3:00 p.m.

6. Pre-Proposal Conference. The County will hold a pre-proposal conference by Video/Teleconference using the Microsoft Teams platform on the Date and Time listed in the Schedule. To participate, join the virtual conference at https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/256896145811685?p=gfdJL9aUJU0uZKaKZK. The County will provide an overview of the RFP process and may provide a program/technical overview and other information. Attendance at the pre-proposal conference is encouraged but not mandatory.

7. Questions:

7.1. Offerors should submit all Questions, including requests for clarification related to definition or interpretation of this RFP, in writing by the Date and Time specified in the Schedule. Questions should be submitted via BuyNet, by sending a message to the Contracting Officer through the “Discussions” functionality.

7.2. Non-Offerors should direct inquiries regarding this solicitation to the Contracting Officer.

8. Table of Contents:

A. Key Information B. RFP Instructions and Rules C. Evaluation Criteria D. Submittal Items E. Required Forms F. Statement of Work G. Payment Schedule H. Draft Agreement

MAGGIE RAMSBERGER

INTERIM DIRECTOR

DEPARTMENT OF PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING

5560 OVERLAND AVENUE, SUITE 270, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123-1204

Phone (858) 505-6367 Fax (858) 715-6452

BRENDA G. MILLER

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

https://sdbuynet.sandiegocounty.gov/ https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/256896145811685?p=gfdJL9aUJU0uZKaKZK

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO – REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP 13259)

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

B. RFP INSTRUCTIONS AND RULES

1. INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL

1.1. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to submit a proposal based on the most current RFP, addenda thereto, responses to Questions, any other information posted on BuyNet, and any diligence material made available by the County. Offerors are advised to regularly check BuyNet for information. The County has no obligation to contact Offerors directly with any such RFP-related information.

1.1.1. In order to see all information related to this RFP, to submit Questions, and to receive notifications of updates, Offerors must select “Participate in RFx” for this solicitation in BuyNet.

1.2. Forms required to be submitted with Offerors response to this RFP are included in this RFP or posted on the County’s web site at https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/purchasing/purchasing-forms.html.

1.2.1. Posted forms may be updated from time to time. Unless otherwise specified, offerors may submit the version of a form in place as of the date of the posting of this RFP or any later version.

1.3. Offerors are advised to allow for sufficient time to obtain all necessary documents and forms, resolve any technical difficulties obtaining or completing documents or forms, and, if necessary, obtain documents and forms by an alternate method. If you are unable to download documents or forms, you may request a hard copy or technical assistance from Purchasing and Contracting’s front desk or contact clerical support at (858) 505-6367.

1.4. Offeror must submit a complete original proposal in accordance with the format provided in this solicitation to the County of San Diego, Department of Purchasing and Contracting, through electronic upload to BuyNet before the Date and Time listed in Schedule.

1.4.1. If Offeror is unable to submit via BuyNet for any reason, Offeror may submit by providing the Purchasing and Contracting front desk with either (i) electronic files on CD/DVD or, (ii) a printed proposal. Offeror must prominently mark such submissions with the RFP number on the outside of the packaging. Please use this method only if unable to submit through BuyNet.

1.4.2. When submitting via BuyNet, Offerors are advised to allow for sufficient time to submit by an alternate method in the event of technical difficulties.

1.4.3. For proposals submitted electronically through BuyNet, the time on the BuyNet server shall be considered the official time for the purpose of determining timely submittal.

1.4.4. For proposals submitted at the Purchasing and Contracting front desk, the time stamp at the front desk shall be considered the official time for the purpose of determining timely submittal.

1.4.5. In the event of multiple submittals of an original proposal by an Offeror, the County will only consider the most recent submittal submitted before the due date and time. The County will not review or consider previous submittals, whether submitted at the front desk or through BuyNet.

Offerors are strongly encouraged to submit only one original proposal and to withdraw or replace any previous submittals in the event they update their proposal. Proposals may be found non-conforming if the County is unable to determine which proposal is the most recent, timely submittal.

1.5. A proposal that is untimely or otherwise not submitted in conformance with 1.4 above will not be considered for award unless: it is received before award is made; the County determines that it is in its best interest to accept the proposal; and

1.5.1. It is determined by the County that the late receipt was due solely to mishandling by the County, or

1.5.2. No timely and conforming proposal was submitted.

https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/purchasing/purchasing-forms.html

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

1.6. Proposals may not be modified after the due date, except for modifications resulting from the Contracting Officer’s request for a revised proposal, Best and Final Offer (BAFO), or an addendum to the proposal.

1.7. Proposals may be withdrawn by written notice signed by a duly authorized representative of Offeror if received prior to Notice of Intent to Award. After Notice of Intent to Award, all proposals constitute firm offers, subject to negotiation, that will remain open and cannot be revoked, withdrawn, or modified for a period of six (6) months.

1.7.1. All proposals become the property of the County upon submission. An Offeror may request the return of its proposal upon withdrawal, which return the County may grant or deny in its sole discretion.

1.8. By submitting a proposal, Offeror agrees to these RFP Instructions and Rules and all other terms of this

RFP.

2. QUESTIONS

2.1. Offerors shall direct requests for explanation regarding the RFP or related documents to the Contracting

Officer in writing as a question (“Question”). Submit Questions by sending a message to the Contracting Officer through the “Discussions” functionality in BuyNet.

2.2. The County may choose not to respond to Questions received after the date and time stated Schedule.

Offeror is responsible for ensuring that Questions are received by the County.

3. PROPOSAL FORMAT

3.1. Submit electronic proposals as files in .pdf format, except where specified otherwise. For pages other than signature pages, converted and searchable formats are preferred.

3.2. Proposals shall be formatted to print on 8-1/2” x 11” page size, with no less than ½” margins and eleven

(11) point font and to be suitable for black and white reproduction with no loss of information.

3.3. All proposals shall be signed with a handwritten signature by an authorized officer or employee of the Offeror.

3.3.1. Electronic or digital signatures will not be accepted.

3.3.2. Pages requiring signatures must be scanned from an original handwritten signature. If Offerors are unable to submit a .pdf with scanned signatures, Offerors may optionally submit clear pictures of signature pages containing original handwritten signatures.

4. PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION

4.1. Your proposal must be organized in accordance with the Submittal Items in this RFP.

4.1.1. Content shall be organized to correspond to the applicable exhibit and question or item within each exhibit.

4.1.2. Offerors shall separate each exhibit into one or more files, clearly named as to the exhibit and order.

4.1.3. Pages shall be consecutively numbered within each exhibit at the bottom or top margin of each page.

4.1.4. Cost/Price information:

4.1.4.1. All cost and pricing information must be contained within Cost/Price exhibit and be inclusive of all proposed compensation. No price data is to be included in the Program/Technical or other exhibits.

4.2. Confidential/Proprietary information:

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

4.2.1. The County is a public agency subject to the California Public Records Act, Government Code § 7920.000, et seq. Some or all of the documents submitted in response to this RFP may be subject to disclosure, and the County intends to publish any resulting contracts to its public website.

4.2.2. It is Offeror's responsibility to identify and separate into a "CONFIDENTIAL/PROPRIETARY” exhibit and to provide a signed Nondisclosure Indemnification Agreement for:

4.2.2.1. all confidential information that should be protected from disclosure, including PI (Personal Information), PII (Personally Identifiable Information), or PHI (Protected Health Information), and

4.2.2.2. any proprietary or other information Offeror determines is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act and wishes to protect from disclosure.

4.2.3. The “CONFIDENTIAL/PROPRIETARY” exhibit must be clearly labeled with all pages marked as “CONFIDENTIAL/PROPRIETARY”

4.2.4. Refence material in the “CONFIDENTIAL/PROPRIETARY” exhibit where it is needed to respond to a Submittal Item (for example “See response 1 contained within the “CONFIDENTIAL/PROPRIETARY” exhibit” for staff Social Security numbers”).

4.2.5. If the County determines that a submission improperly designates information as confidential or proprietary, the County may, at its sole discretion: (i) deem the information releasable; (ii) declare the submission non-conforming/non-responsive; (iii) remove such information, or (iv) take any other appropriate action. (Note: pricing and terms and conditions are generally not considered confidential under the California Public Records Act).

5. PROPOSAL EVALUATION

5.1. Evaluations shall be based on the criteria contained in the Evaluation Criteria and Submittal Items to determine the proposals(s) that provide the best value to the County.

5.2. The County shall have the discretion, but not the obligation, to construe any submission as non-conforming and ineligible for consideration if it does not conform to the requirements of this Request for Proposals.

The County shall also have the discretion to waive any irregularities or deviations from the requirements of this Request for Proposals in any submission.

5.3. Small-Local Business preference: In accordance with Section 405 of the San Diego County Code of Administrative Ordinances, when evaluating competing proposals, the County will give a fifteen percent (15%) price preference to offerors that meet the definition of a Small-Local Business set forth in Board Policy B-53 and that have completed the Small-Local Business Self-Certification Form.

The price preference will be applied to the proposed price portion of the evaluation only. Fifteen percent (15%) or one hundred and fifty-thousand dollars ($150,000), whichever is less (“Price Adjustment”), shall be subtracted from any Small-Local Business’s proposed price being evaluated for award (“Adjusted Price”). A Small-Local Business’s Adjusted Price shall be the basis for evaluating the proposal’s price.

Contract award will be made to the proposer(s) providing the best value to the County after consideration of the price preference and will be made at the unadjusted price. For example, a Small-Local Business submitting a proposal for $100,000 would be evaluated as if the proposed price was $85,000. If, based on the Adjusted Price, the Small-Local Business is evaluated to be the best value, the Small-Local Business would be awarded a contract at the unadjusted price of $100,000.

5.4. Reserved.

5.5. During evaluation, County may appropriately consider the sustainability and social, human health, environmental, and economic impact of Offeror’s proposed products and approach to providing goods and services, in accordance with Board Policy B-67. Therefore, Offerors are encouraged to include relevant information in their proposals.

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

5.6. During evaluation, the County may appropriately evaluate the cultural competency of Offeror and Offeror’s proposed approach to providing goods and services. Therefore, Offerors are encouraged to include relevant information in their proposals.

5.7. When evaluating an Offeror’s cost or pricing, the County may also consider the effect of the proposal on the overall total cost to the County.

5.8. In evaluating an Offeror’s ability to satisfy the requirements of this RFP and any resulting contract, the County may also consider any parent, subsidiary, or related legal entity of Offeror, including, without limitation, a legal entity that Offeror acquired or merged with or will use as a guarantor in providing services to the County.

6. EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS

6.1. Proposals received, including any additions, revisions, and clarifications, will be evaluated by a Source

Selection Committee (SSC) appointed by a Source Selection Authority(s) (SSA). The County may evaluate information known to the County, in addition to the information provided in response to the RFP.

6.2. The County reserves the right to request clarification and/or additional information (“Clarification”) from Offerors. The Contracting Officer will determine the appropriate means of requesting and obtaining Clarification, which may include telephonic communication, email, letter, presentation, oral interview, or an addendum or revision to the proposal. The County may invite Offerors to make presentations to, or participate in interviews with, the County at a date, time, and location determined by the County.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the County is not obligated to seek Clarification, therefore Offerors are advised to submit complete and accurate information in their proposals.

6.3. At any point in the evaluation process, the County may determine that a proposal is unacceptable in any area or that a proposal is no longer in the competitive range, and no longer consider it for award. In such cases, the Contracting Officer will attempt to notify the Offeror.

6.4. At any point in the evaluation process, the County may hold discussions with one or more Offerors in the competitive range. Discussions may include requests for revised proposals, Best and Final Offers (BAFOs), or addenda to the proposal that may contain additional selection factors.

6.5. The SSC may recommend to the SSA that award be made to one or more Offerors. After receipt and approval of the SSA’s decision, the County will post a Notice of Intent to Award (NOI).

6.6. Upon posting of the NOI, the County will enter into contract finalization negotiations with the selected Offeror(s) and, upon successful completion, award a contract(s).

6.7. The County may rescind or modify the NOI at any time due to unsuccessful negotiations or if the County otherwise determines that it is in its best interest to do so.

6.8. The actual timing and sequence of events resulting from this RFP shall ultimately be determined by the County, in its sole discretion. The County may, at any time cancel this RFP, reject all proposals, restart evaluations, modify or replace the membership of the SSC, or correct any deficiencies in the procurement process or evaluation.

7. DEBRIEF AND REVIEW OF CONTRACT FILES

7.1. After an Offeror has been notified by the Contracting Officer that that Offeror’s proposal is no longer being considered for award, the Offeror may request a debriefing from the Contracting Officer. For debriefings held prior to contract execution, the Offeror will be limited to a review of the information pertaining to the County’s evaluation of their own proposal, in accordance with Section 9.4 of these RFP Instructions and Rules. After contract execution, debriefings may include review of other proposals, the Source Selection Committee Report, and other releasable documents.

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

8. PROTEST PROCEDURE

8.1. Board Policy A-97 sets forth the procedures for the filing and resolution of protests related to this RFP.

Board Policy A-97 is available from the Clerk of the Board, 1600 Pacific Highway, San Diego, CA 92101, or on the County’s website at https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/cob/ocd.html .

8.2. All protests must be filed in accordance with Board Policy A-97, which requires, among other things, that a protest must be filed timely, be submitted in writing to the Contracting Officer identified in the solicitation package, and be based on a protestable action and established grounds for protest.

9. COUNTY COMMITMENT

9.1. This RFP does not commit the County to award a contract, nor does it commit the County to pay any of

Offeror’s costs incurred in the preparation or submission of the proposal. Further, no reimbursable cost may be incurred in anticipation of a contract award.

9.2. Neither Offeror nor any of its representatives shall have any claims whatsoever against the County or any of its respective officials, agents, or employees arising out of or relating to this RFP or these procedures (other than those arising under a definitive contract with Offeror in accordance with the terms thereof).

9.3. The County reserves the right to separately procure the same or similar goods or services.

9.4. The County may withhold all information regarding this procurement until after negotiations are complete, including, but not limited to: the number of proposals received; the identity of Offeror(s); the content of proposals; the County’s evaluation and results thereof; and, the identity of the members of the SSC.

Information releasable after the conclusion of negotiations is subject to the disclosure requirements and withholding exemptions of the California Public Records Act.

9.5. Pursuant to County Charter §§ 703.10 and 916, award of a contract resulting from this RFP may be subject to the County’s requirement to determine that the services can be provided more economically and efficiently by an independent contractor than by persons employed in the Classified Service

9.6. In the event that an Offeror is involved in a merger, acquisition, or other change in control, the County reserves the right to award a contract to a resulting entity.

10. DILIGENCE AND DUTY TO INQUIRE

10.1. Should an Offeror find discrepancies in or omissions from, or be in doubt as to the meaning of, the RFP or related documents, Offeror shall have a duty to submit a Question to the County.

10.2. Offerors are expected to perform reasonable due diligence with regard to this RFP and the work required, including, but not limited to, information that is publicly or otherwise reasonably available and, if applicable, information that can be obtained during a site visit (including verification of measurements, conditions, and other attributes). Neither the selected Offeror(s), nor any Offerors, shall be entitled to any price adjustment or other relief based upon information that was discovered or should have been discovered through due diligence.

10.3. The County makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of any diligence material or other information provided by the County or any of its agents, representatives, contractors or consultants. Such information may reflect good faith assumptions, estimates, or projections, which may or may not prove to be correct.

10.4. Offeror should not rely upon oral statements made or explanations given by the County, including any oral responses to Questions or other inquiries. No prior, current, or post award communication(s) with any officer, agent, or employee of the County shall affect or modify any terms or requirements of this RFP, except as explicitly provided for in this RFP.

https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/cob/ocd.html

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

11. OFFEROR COMMUNICATIONS

11.1. All communications from the Offeror (including its employees, agents, and representatives) to the County or its officers and employees (including consultants working on or assisting with this procurement), related to this RFP or the Offeror’s proposal, must be directed in writing exclusively to the Contracting Officer, unless otherwise authorized in writing by the Contracting Officer. Offerors shall not communicate with or attempt to contact any other County personnel about this solicitation, except as otherwise allowed for in this RFP or by law. Any improper contact may, at the County’s sole discretion, cause the Offeror to be removed from consideration for contract award.

11.2. If Offeror issues any public announcement, or otherwise engages in communication that, in the County’s sole determination, compromises the integrity of this RFP process or attempts to restrain competition, Offeror may be removed from consideration for award.

11.3. Audio and/or video recording of pre-proposal conferences, presentations, discussions, negotiations, debriefings, or other communications with the County regarding this RFP are prohibited, unless specifically authorized in writing by the Contracting Officer.

12. SOLICITING EMPLOYEES

12.1. Until contract award, Offerors shall not, directly or indirectly, solicit any employee of the County to leave the County’s employ in order to accept employment with the Offeror, its affiliates, actual or prospective contractors, or any person acting in concert with the Offeror without prior written approval of the County’s Contracting Officer. This paragraph does not prevent the employment by an Offeror of a County employee who has initiated contact with the Offeror.

13. PROHIBITED CONTRACTS AND SUBCONTRACTS

13.1. In accordance with Section 67 of the San Diego County Administrative Code, the County shall not contract with, and shall reject any bid or proposal submitted by the person or entities specified below, unless the Board of Supervisors finds that special circumstances exist which justify the approval of such contract:

13.1.1. Persons employed by the County or of public agencies for which the Board of Supervisors is the governing body;

13.1.2. Profit making firms or businesses in which employees described in subsection 13.1.1 serve as officers, principals, partners or major shareholders;

13.1.3. Persons who, within the immediately preceding twelve (12) months, came within the provisions of subsection 13.1.1, and who (1) were employed in positions of substantial responsibility in the area of service to be performed by the contract, or (2) participated in any way in developing the contract or its service specifications; and

13.1.4. Profit making firms or businesses in which the former employees described in subsection 13.1.3 serve as officers, principals, partners or major shareholders.

13.2. Per Board Policy A-79, a successful Offeror that is a non-profit corporation shall not subcontract any work under the agreement with a related for-profit subcontractor where an interlocking directorate, management, or ownership relationship exists, unless specifically authorized by the Board of Supervisors.

13.3. Offeror certifies that if awarded a contract under this RFP, such contract will be in compliance with Sections 13.1 and 13.2 above. Offeror shall promptly notify the County of any change in circumstance affecting these provisions.

14. CALIFORNIA REVENUE & TAXATION CODE § 18662

14.1. In compliance with California Revenue and Taxation Code § 18662, if Offeror is a non-resident of

California (out-of-state invoices) that receives California source income and has not completed Franchise Tax Board Form 590, there may be a backup withholding on all payments. Fifteen (15) business days prior

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

to the first payment from the County, new suppliers, or suppliers with expired forms or forms with incorrect information, must submit new forms to the County (forms are available from the Franchise Tax Board website listed below).

14.2. Under certain circumstances, Offerors may be eligible for reduced or waived nonresident withholding. If Offeror has already received a waiver or a reduced withholding response from the State of California and the response remains valid, Offeror should submit the response to the County in lieu of the forms. Failure to submit the required forms will result in withholding of payments. Offerors should access the Franchise Tax Board websites, listed below, for tax forms and relevant information regarding non-resident withholding, including waivers or reductions. The County will not give Offerors any tax advice. It is recommended that Offerors speak with their tax advisers and/or the State of California for guidance.

Franchise Tax Board Websites:

https://www.ftb.ca.gov https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/search/

14.3. If selected for award, the Offeror must submit applicable forms to the Auditor & Controller via fax, at

(858) 694-2060, or mail originals to: County of San Diego, 5530 Overland Avenue, Suite 410, San Diego, CA 92123. The P.O. Number or Contract Number (if available) and “California Revenue and Taxation Code § 18662” must appear on fax cover sheet and/or the outside of the mailing envelope.

15. W-9 FORM

15.1. If selected for award, the Offeror must complete and submit a W-9 form if a current form is not on file with the County.

(Remainder of this page left blank) https://www.ftb.ca.gov/ https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/search/

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

C. EVALUATION CRITERIA

Proposal Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation criteria listed below are in descending order of importance by paragraph, not subparagraph, and will be considered in the evaluation of the Offeror’s written and oral proposals accordingly. Proposals should give clear, concise information in sufficient detail to allow an evaluation based on these criteria.

1. Technical Approach.

1.1 The extent to which the proposal clearly and comprehensively describes how the proposed DMS will replace ApplicationXtender (AX) and related document management applications, and how each major system component, configuration, migration activity, training activity, testing activity, and support activity will be achieved.

1.2 The extent to which the proposed technical approach fulfills the County’s requirements, including the extent to which the Offeror will deliver an efficient, reliable, and compliant cloud-hosted, browser-based Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Document Management System (DMS) to meet the needs of the County and its stakeholders.

1.3 The extent to which the Offeror identifies issues and risks related to implementation and proposes effective mitigation strategies, including risks related to migration complexity, legacy system dependencies, and phased delivery of requirements.

1.4 The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates the ability to implement, test, accept, and make available for production use all requirements promptly, including the reasonableness, completeness, and feasibility of the implementation plan, milestones, dependencies, configuration, migration, testing, training, cutover, go-live, post-go-live, and transition to ongoing support.

2. Offeror Experience, Qualifications, Capacity and Compliance.

2.1 The extent to which the Offeror (including Offeror’s proposed subcontractors) demonstrates experience and qualifications relevant to providing enterprise document management systems of a similar scope to the County’s requirements and Statement of Work;

2.2 The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates successful implementation and deployment of cloud-hosted, browser-based, COTS document management systems for public-sector, government, or similarly regulated customers; the provision of favorable references that support stated experience and the provision of quality services; and the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates their capacity including the provision of financial information that supports the organization’s financial stability and ability to maintain the services throughout the contract period.

3. Price including:

3.1 Price reasonableness

3.2 The extent to which the offer provides stable, comprehensive, and predictable pricing that limits pricing risk or variance to the County.

4. Terms and Conditions and Compliance including:

4.1 The acceptance or non-acceptance of the terms and conditions, including insurance, and the extent to which any exceptions increase risk to the County; and Offeror demonstration of a history of compliance and ethical behavior including risk of contracting with the offeror, which may be based on, among other

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

things, prior, current and potential future lawsuits, investigations, and regulatory actions as they relate to this contract and/or the offeror’s ability to deliver performance under this contract.

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

SUBMITTAL ITEMS

Proposals should give clear, concise information in sufficient detail and in the order presented below to allow for a comprehensive evaluation. Any submission may be construed as non-conforming and ineligible for consideration if it does not conform to the Submittal Requirements described by these Submittal Items. The County, at its sole discretion, may waive any variances from these Submittal Items and/or seek Clarification.

Each proposal shall begin with an Executive Summary, not to exceed five (5) pages, that provides a concise overview of the proposed Document Management System (DMS), implementation approach, major assumptions, key differences, project risks, dependencies, and any material exceptions to the County’s requirements. The Executive Summary should provide evaluators with a high-level understanding of the proposed system prior to reviewing the detailed proposal.

Offerors shall avoid relying primarily on generic marketing materials, boilerplate language, or standard product literature. Proposal responses shall be sufficiently detailed to permit a comprehensive evaluation without requiring the County to infer capabilities from generalized product descriptions or external references.

Although the Submittal Items below are organized by Evaluation Criteria, the headings are only for purposes of organization and clarity. The County may evaluate the information provided under any section of the Submittal Items for each Evaluation Criterion (e.g., when evaluating the offeror’s Technical Approach, the County is not limited to reviewing the information submitted in response to the Technical Approach section and may, for example, also rely on information submitted in response to the Offeror Experience, Qualifications, and Capacity, etc.).

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

EXHIBIT 1 - REQUIRED FORMS

1.1. Submit a completed and signed Offeror’s Cover Page (PC600) form

• Required for all Offerors

• located at:

https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/purchasing/docs/PC600_dpc_Offerors_Cover_Page.pdf

1.2. Submit a completed and signed Representations and Certifications form (PC601)

• Required for all Offerors

• located at:

https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/purchasing/docs/PC601_dpc_Reps_and_Certs.pdf

1.3. Submit a completed and signed Small-Local Business Self-Certification Form (PC610)

• Required if claiming Small-Local Business Preference; All other Offerors are encouraged to complete this form to support County data collection.

• located at:

https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/purchasing/docs/PC610_dpc_Small_Local_Self_Cert.pdf

Submit a completed and signed Nondisclosure Indemnification Agreement (PC620) (if applicable).

• Required if submitting Confidential/Proprietary Information (see RFP Instructions and Rules section 4.2)

• located at:

https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/purchasing/docs/PC620_dpc_Nondisclosure_Indemnity.pdf

2) EXHIBIT 2 – TECHNICAL EXHIBIT

1 TECHNICAL APPROACH

1.1 Confirm (YES/NO) that Offeror is willing to provide a demonstration of the proposed Document Management System (DMS) that demonstrates conformance to Exhibit A - Statement of Work, Exhibit A – Information Technology Requirements, Attachments 1 – 6, additional RFP Submittals, and the proposed user experience for end users and administrative support users as the County may conduct demonstrations.

Yes ☐ No ☐

The County may elect to conduct demonstrations and evaluate those demonstrations as part of this section. In the event that the County does not allow all Offerors to provide demonstrations, the County will determine a competitive range of this procurement, based on an evaluation of the Offeror’s written proposal, and notify Offerors whether they are in the competitive range.

1.2 Confirm (YES/NO) Offeror's agreement to Exhibit A - Statement of Work (SOW) as stated.

Yes ☐ No ☐ If Offeror has exceptions to the SOW requirements, identify the specific section, describe the exception, explain the business reason for the exception, and provide proposed alternative standards/ language or approach. Failure to specifically identify an exception will be deemed acceptance of the requirement.

1.3 Following the format of Exhibit A - Statement of Work, clearly describe how the proposed DMS meets the County's business need to replace ApplicationXtender (AX) and related document management applications with a cloud-hosted, browser-based, Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) DMS. The response shall provide a detailed explanation of each system component and its implementation.

https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/purchasing/docs/PC600_dpc_Offerors_Cover_Page.pdf https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/purchasing/docs/PC601_dpc_Reps_and_Certs.pdf https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/purchasing/docs/PC610_dpc_Small_Local_Self_Cert.pdf https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/purchasing/docs/PC620_dpc_Nondisclosure_Indemnity.pdf

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

1.4 The Offeror’s proposal shall describe its approach to project management, configuration, migration, integrations, testing, training, go-live, and ongoing support. The proposal shall identify assumptions, dependencies, exclusions, required County resources, and any third-party products, optional services, or limitations of the proposed system.

1.5 Complete all requirements listed in Exhibit A – Information Technology Requirements, Attachments 1 - 6, in accordance with the Functional Requirements Compliance instructions.

1.5.1 Offeror shall provide a response for every requirement row and shall not leave any requirement row blank.

1.5.2 Offeror shall clearly distinguish requirements that are included in the current production version and included in the proposed price; requirements that do not exist in the current production version but will be delivered as planned enhancements or planned upgrades at no additional cost to the County; and requirements that are unavailable or may be developed after go-live through customization or third-party product, and require separate County authorization and fee.

1.6 Describe any added-value characteristics included in Offeror's proposed cost. Added-value items may include functionality, automation, workflow accelerators, training support, analytics, service level enhancements, or other benefits that improve value to the County without creating additional cost or implementation risk.

1.6.1 Clearly identify whether each added-value item is included in the base price, optional, or is dependent on third-party products or through customization.

1.7 Describe Offeror's implementation methodology and project management approach used in similar-sized projects, including governance, roles and responsibilities, decision-making, issue escalation, risk management, change control, status reporting, deliverable review, and requirements traceability.

1.8 The County is requesting that the Offeror complete all configuration necessary to implement, test, accept, and make the DMS available for production use by the proposed go-live date. The proposed configuration approach shall address document types, metadata, and any other configuration necessary to meet the County’s requirements following go-live and support future ARCC and A&C business needs or systems.

1.8.1 Identify configurations County staff can perform independently and configurations which require Offeror support, advanced technical expertise, or third-party support after go-live.

1.8.2 Describe how Offeror will train County staff after go-live to perform County-managed configuration tasks.

Include any training materials, documentation, or job aids provided as part of County training.

1.8.3 Identify any proposed customization, third-party products, or non-standard configuration needed to meet

County requirements, including costs, support impacts, upgrade impacts, and long-term maintenance responsibilities.

1.9 Describe Offeror's data migration and conversion plan for historical documents, images, metadata, index values, audit information where available, retention-related information, and other County-approved data from AX and other legacy repositories or source systems.

1.9.1 The response shall include how migration completeness, accuracy, reconciliation, and usability will be achieved for County acceptance.

1.10 Describe how the proposed system supports scalable data storage, efficient document retrieval, robust security measures, and ensures data integrity, performance, and compliance with relevant regulatory standards as document volume and organizational needs grow.

1.11 Describe Offeror's testing approach, including system testing, migration testing, regression testing, and user acceptance testing (UAT), as applicable.

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

1.11.1 The response shall describe test planning, test cases, test data, requirements traceability, defect tracking, retesting, UAT support, acceptance criteria, and how Offeror will support County review, revision, and resubmission of deliverables.

1.12 Describe Offeror's proposed operations, maintenance, and support model for the hosted DMS throughout the contract term.

1.12.1 The response shall address standard support hours, critical production/outage support, go-live and post-go-live support, and coordination with County IT and the County's IT Outsourcer, and whether Offeror accepts or proposes changes to the County's minimum expected support targets.

1.13 Describe all documentation, knowledge transfer materials, and transition support that will be provided throughout implementation and upon project completion.

1.13.1 Project management documentation

1.13.2 Configuration documentation

1.13.3 Testing documentation

1.13.4 Training Materials

1.13.5 System administration documentation

1.13.6 Backup and restore procedures

1.13.7 Disaster recovery procedures

1.13.8 Maintenance and release procedures

1.13.9 Support and escalation procedures

1.13.10 Project closeout documentation

1.14 Describe Offeror’s proposed exit strategy in the event of contract expiration, termination, or transition to another solution. The response shall describe the process for exporting County-owned documents, images, metadata, index values, and audit history data in a commercially-usable format.

1.14.1 The response shall also identify any tools, services, assistance, costs, or dependencies associated with transitioning the County to another solution.

1.15 The Offeror's proposal shall include a proposed implementation timeline for County approval that reflects the fastest realistic schedule for implementation, testing, County acceptance, go-live, and transition to ongoing support. The proposed timeline shall identify assumptions, dependencies, County responsibilities, critical path activities, and risks that may affect delivery.

The County expects the AX-replacement DMS to be implemented, accepted, and available for production use as quickly as practicable. Offeror shall propose an implementation timeline that reflects a realistic approach for delivering the proposed system. Exhibit A – Information Technology Requirements Attachment 6 identifies requirements as “Must” or “Should” for implementation and planning purposes. “Must” requirements are expected to be delivered, tested, accepted, and available for production use by the proposed go-live date, unless otherwise approved by the County in writing. “Should” requirements are desirable or high-value requirements and may be delivered by the proposed go-live date or as part of a phased delivery.

Confirm (YES/NO) whether Offeror’s proposed timeline includes delivery, implementation, and acceptance of all County-designated Must requirements by the proposed go-live date.

Yes ☐ No ☐

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

1.15.1 If yes, provide an implementation plan in the form of a Gantt chart or equivalent project schedule demonstrating how Offeror will implement, test, obtain County acceptance of, and make the proposed DMS available for production use by the proposed go-live date. At a minimum, the implementation schedule shall identify:

1.15.1.1 Major project phases and milestones

1.15.1.2 Critical path activities and dependencies

1.15.1.3 County and Offeror responsibilities

1.15.1.4 Configuration activities

1.15.1.5 Data migration activities

1.15.1.6 System, integration, migration, and user acceptance testing

1.15.1.7 Training activities

1.15.1.8 Deliverable review and acceptance milestones

1.15.1.9 Cutover and go-live

1.15.1.10 Transition to operations, maintenance, and ongoing support

1.15.1.11 Major decision points and contingency activities

1.15.2 If No, explain which Must requirements are not included in the proposed implementation plan, why they cannot be delivered, implemented, and accepted by the proposed go-live date, and whether they are proposed for a later phase. Provide a written explanation and a proposed Gantt chart or equivalent project schedule demonstrating the earliest achievable delivery timeline. The Gantt chart/project schedule shall identify:

1.15.2.1 Major project phases and milestones

1.15.2.2 Critical path activities and dependencies

1.15.2.3 County and Offeror responsibilities

1.15.2.4 Configuration activities

1.15.2.5 Data migration activities

1.15.2.6 System, integration, migration, and user acceptance testing

1.15.2.7 Training activities

1.15.2.8 Deliverable review and acceptance milestones

1.15.2.9 Cutover and go-live activities

1.15.2.10 Transition to operations, maintenance, and ongoing support

1.15.2.11 Major decision points and contingency activities

1.15.3 If any requirements are identified with a “B” or “C” response and will be delivered in a separate phase or after the proposed go-live date, identify each requirement, the response code, the estimated delivery date, and cost if separate from the base proposal.

1.15.3.1 Offeror shall indicate whether delaying the requirement affects system usability, compliance, migration, or operational readiness.

1.15.4 Identify issues or risks related to system implementation and include proposed mitigation strategies. At minimum, address risks related to migration complexity, legacy system dependencies, third-party dependencies, and phased delivery of requirements.

1.15.4.1 If Offeror believes implementation of a “Must” requirement by the proposed go-live date is not advisable because certain requirements, such as planned enhancements or upgrades, are necessary for usability or operational readiness, identify those requirements and explain the impact of the delay.

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

2 OFFEROR’S EXPERIENCE, QUALIFICATIONS, AND CAPACITY

2.1 Confirm (YES/NO) that Offeror has successfully implemented and deployed a cloud-hosted, browser-based, Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) DMS for a public-sector or government environment of similar scope and complexity to the County Yes ☐ No ☐

2.1.1 If yes, please provide supporting documentation as part of references.

2.2 Provide at least three (3) references for current or previous customers within the last five (5) years for projects of similar scope and complexity. Include at least one (1) reference and supporting information to support your answer to the submittal item question above. Do not include County of San Diego personnel as references.

2.2.1 For each reference, provide:

2.2.1.1 Customer/Government Agency Name

2.2.1.2 Contact details (address, phone number, and email address)

2.2.1.3 Contract award date and contract expiration date

2.2.1.4 Description of similar services provided (system implemented, document volume or user population if available, migration scope, and explanation of how the project is of similar scope and complexity to the County’s DMS requirements).

*The County will make reasonable attempts to contact references. The County’s inability to reach a reference after reasonable attempts may be treated as an unfavorable reference for evaluation purposes. An unfavorable response is a response from a listed reference stating that they would not enlist the company to perform services again in the future, or comments that the County deems to be substantially negative or reflective of substandard service. The County also reserves the right to make its own inquiries to other sources for which services have been performed but are not listed.

2.3 Describe Offeror's organizational experience, qualifications, staffing, capacity and any proposed subcontractors, including background and experience relevant to providing support to enterprise document management systems of similar size, complexity, security posture, and public-sector or regulated records environment.

2.4 Describe Offeror’s demonstrated experience implementing Cloud‑Hosted, Browser‑Based, COTS Document Management Systems for Public‑Sector, Government and Regulated Customers.

2.5 Provide a staffing plan identifying key personnel proposed for this engagement, including project manager, solution design architect, training lead, and any other key roles. Include each person's role and whether the individual is an employee, subcontractor, or third-party resource.

2.6 Describe Offeror's anticipated use of subcontractors or third-party products in fulfilling this contract. If Offeror does not intend to use subcontractors or third-party products, state 'Not Applicable (N/A) in your answer for this subsection.

2.6.1 For each subcontractor or third-party product, identify:

2.6.1.1 The subcontractor’s or third-party vendor’s name

2.6.1.2 Subcontractor’s or third-party vendor’s role

2.6.1.3 A description of the requirement to be met and if it is to satisfy a “Must” or “Should” requirement.

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

2.7 Provide documentation to support your organization’s financial stability and ability to maintain the services throughout the contract period. Documentation may include cash and/or credit reserves. Documentation relating to another entity will not be considered by the County unless the other entity commits to assuming the obligations of the agreement under the same terms and conditions into which you seek to enter. The commitment should be in the form of a parent guaranty or similar legally binding agreement, which the County may accept or reject at its sole discretion.

2.7.1 In addition, provide the following information for the last three (3) fiscal years.

2.7.1.1 Audited financial statements with the applicable notes

2.7.1.2 Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance and Internal Control over Financial Reporting based on Audit of the Financial Statements in accordance with Government Accounting Standards, and Independent Auditor’s Statement of Findings and Questioned costs.

2.7.2 If Offeror has not had an audit conducted, Offeror shall provide the following unaudited financial statements.

2.7.2.1 Statement of Financial Position (Balance Sheet)

2.7.2.2 Statement of Activities (Income Statement)

2.7.2.3 Statement of Cash Flows

3) EXHIBIT 3 - COST/PRICE EXHIBIT

3.1. Complete Exhibit C - Pricing Schedule

3.2. Applicable sales or use taxes, if any, shall be separately identified and shall be calculated at the rate required by applicable law.

3.3. Identify all pricing assumptions, exclusions, optional items, and third-party product assumptions.

3.3.1. Offeror shall identify any cost associated with a “C” response in Exhibit A – Information Technology Requirements, Attachment 6 that may be developed after the proposed go-live date or as part of a phased delivery approach and ensure the cost is reflected in Exhibit C.

The County requests that the payment schedule be structured to provide adequate security for the County and incentive to the Offeror throughout the Project to timely complete the Project and each phase thereof and to correct any problems that arise during the Project in a timely fashion.

In all events, the Offeror’s proposed payment schedule should provide that an amount equal to no less than 20% of the total amount payable with respect to delivery of all Deliverables will be payable only upon Acceptance of the system as a whole.

4) EXHIBIT 4 – ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND COMPLIANCE

4.1 The County’s terms and conditions have been provided…