RFP_30227-00725_Amd_3-FINAL_9_11_25.pdf
PDF 217 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFP 30227-00725
- Issued by
- Davidson County, Tennessee
About this file
This is Amendment #3 to Request for Proposals #30227-00725 issued by the State of Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts for a Statewide Court Case Management System (CMS) and eFiling Application. The amendment updates the RFP schedule of events and provides clarifications through a comprehensive question-and-answer section addressing vendor inquiries. The RFP originally issued on July 31, 2025, seeks a commercial off-the-shelf SaaS solution to replace disparate case management systems across Tennessee's 95 counties and 32 judicial districts, serving approximately 400 Trial Courts (Circuit, Chancery, Criminal, Probate, General Sessions, and Juvenile Courts) with 238 clerks and 319 judges as internal users. The revised response deadline is September 22, 2025, at 4:30 p.m. Central Time. The State will open and score cost proposals on September 23, 2025, complete technical evaluations by November 3, 2025, conduct oral presentations for the top three ranked respondents from November 12-14, 2025, negotiate terms from November 17 through December 1, 2025, and issue a Notice of Intent to Award on December 2, 2025. The protest period ends December 12, 2025, with contract signature by the contractor required by January 31, 2026. The contract term is 120 months with potential 12-month renewal options, with implementation planned to occur in phases between October 2025 and early 2026.
The amendment clarifies that no prior contracting experience with Tennessee is required; vendors may be US-based or offshore entities but must comply with state statutory and regulatory requirements. Tennessee does not prefer pre-existing system integrator partnerships and is open to best-of-breed approaches with subcontractors, provided all associated pricing is included in proposals. The State will not accept alternative pricing models beyond the required Cost Proposal Scoring Guide format, though transaction-based pricing for e-filing services may be proposed within that structure. References may be obtained from current Tennessee court customers, including those with existing vendor relationships, with conflict-of-interest concerns addressed through consultation with the Solicitation Coordinator. The RFP evaluation criteria are detailed in Section 5 and Attachment 6.2, emphasizing configurability, integration capabilities, past performance, and cost. Gartner, Inc. assisted the State in developing the RFP requirements. The amendment specifies that SOC 2/ISO/CMMC certifications must be held by any entity (prime, subcontractor, or owner) with access to State data; no restrictions apply to SaaS hosting in US-based data centers outside Tennessee, and remote team members working outside the US are permissible if project management, hosting, and client-facing support remain US-based.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
50 files listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFP # 30227-00725 – Amendment # 3 Page 1 of 7
STATE OF TENNESSEE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 30227-00725
AMENDMENT # 3
FOR STATEWIDE COURT CMS AND eFILING
APPLICATION
DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2025
RFP # 30227-00725 IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
1. This RFP Schedule of Events updates and confirms scheduled RFP dates. Any event, time, or date containing revised or new text is highlighted.
EVENT
TIME
(central time zone)
DATE
1. RFP Issued July 31, 2025
2. Disability Accommodation Request Deadline 3:30 p.m. August 5, 2025
3. Pre-response Conference 1:00 p.m. August 6, 2025
4. Notice of Intent to Respond Deadline August 8, 2025
5. Written “Questions & Comments” Deadline 3:30 p.m. August 15, 2025
6. State Response to Written “Questions & Comments”
August 29, 2025
7. Written “Questions & Comments” Deadline (2nd round)
3:30 p.m. September 5, 2025
8. State Response to Written “Questions & Comments” (2nd round)
September 12, 2025
9. Response Deadline 4:30 p.m. September 22, 2025
10. State Opening & Scoring of Cost Proposals September 23, 2025
11. State Completion of Technical Response Evaluations
November 3, 2025
12. State Schedules Respondent Oral
Presentations (Top 3 Ranked Respondents
Only)
November 4, 2025
13. Respondent Oral Presentations November 12 – 14, 2025
14. Negotiation November 17 – December 1,
15. State Notice of Intent to Award Released and RFP Files Opened for Public Inspection
2:00 p.m. December 2, 2025
RFP # 30227-00725 – Amendment # 3 Page 2 of 7
16. End of Protest Period December 12, 2025
17. State sends contract to Contractor for signature December 23, 2025
18. Contractor Signature Deadline . January 31, 2026
2. State responses to questions and comments in the table below amend and clarify this RFP.
Any restatement of RFP text in the Question/Comment column shall NOT be construed as a change in the actual wording of the RFP document.
RFP
SECTION
PAGE
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
1. Some vendors, either CMS or efiling, are currently doing business in the state of Tennessee and those customers might be some of the best references.
When asked to provide a reference, some court leaderships are being advised that it would be a conflict of interest to provide anything written (i.e. the required RFP Reference Form).
Could we get some clarification from the AOC for both vendors and clerks as to the appropriateness of providing written references, in order to fully meet the requirement?
Except for specific individuals, TN Court leaders may provide a reference. Any court leader who wishes to provide a reference but has concerns about conflict of interest may contact the Solicitation Coordinator to discuss.
2. Do you currently have a preferred vendor or system integrator for CMS and eFiling projects?
No
3. Are you open to selecting a technology platform independently from the system integrator?
Respondents may propose subcontractors to perform any services required of the Respondent.
Any proposal must include all pricing associated in using all subcontractors.
4. Would you consider a best-of-breed approach where the CMS/eFiling technology is sourced separately from implementation services?
See the Answer to Question #3.
5. What criteria are most important when evaluating vendors - past performance, cost, configurability, or integration capabilities?
Please review RFP Section 5.
Evaluation & Contract Award with indication of the evaluation categories and maximum points possible per section. Additionally see RFP Attachment 6.2 – Section C – Technical Response & Evaluation
RFP # 30227-00725 – Amendment # 3 Page 3 of 7
PAGE
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
Guide with the questions and evaluation factors.
6. Can you elaborate on why a COTS solution is preferred over a custom-built system?
The State declines to respond.
7. What level of configurability is expected from the COTS solution, and are there specific workflows that require customization beyond standard capabilities (e.g., UI changes, workflow logic, integrations)?
State is requesting a configurable
COTS solution. Utilize the totality of the RFP and attachments to support your response and cost proposal. Respond to the best of your ability. Note any limitations of your system.
8. Is it mandatory for the vendor to have an existing office or legal entity registered in the State of Tennessee, or will a US-based or India based entity outside Tennessee be acceptable?
An entity does not have to be incorporated or otherwise formed in Tennessee to do business in TN. A non-TN entity may do business in the state but must follow all statutory and regulatory requirements for doing business in the state (including any required registration or the obtaining of necessary licenses). Check with your legal counsel and the Secretary of State for further information on those requirements.
9. Is prior contracting experience with the State of Tennessee required, or will relevant US court CMS/eFiling experience in other states be acceptable?
Prior contracting experience with the State of Tennessee is not required.
10. The eFiling application requirement mentions at least one (1) US court jurisdiction in active use. Can this also be outside Tennessee?
Yes.
11. Is there any preference or scoring advantage for vendors already registered with Tennessee’s Department of Revenue, or can registration be completed post-award?
There is no preference or scoring advantage to pre-registration.
12. Will vendors without an existing Tennessee business license be required to obtain one prior to contract signing, and is that process facilitated by the State?
See the Answer to Question #8.
13. Does the SOC 2 / ISO / CMMC certification need to be held by the prime contractor’s US entity, or will certification held by our Indian development center be acceptable if the project is delivered through our
The certification should be held by any entity (prime or sub or owners) that is handling or has access to State data.
RFP # 30227-00725 – Amendment # 3 Page 4 of 7
PAGE
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
US entity?
14. Are there any restrictions on hosting the SaaS solution in data centers outside Tennessee, provided they are within the US and meet security requirements?
No.
15. Will having team members working remotely from outside the US (e.g., India) be acceptable if project management, hosting, and client-facing support are US-based?
See RFP Attachment 6.7 Pro Forma Contract Section A.35.
16. Could you please clarify your preference for implementation resources—do you require U.S.-based and onsite personnel, or are offshore or hybrid models acceptable?
See the Answer to Question #15.
17. For training delivery, do you prefer onsite classroom-based sessions or virtual training conducted via web-based platforms?
See RFP Attachment 6.7 Pro Forma Contract Section A.13 Training Plan.
Utilize the totality of the RFP, amendments and attachments to support your response and cost proposal. Respond to the best of your ability. Note any limitations of your system or services.
18. Can we refer to functionality already implemented by ServiceNow—even if our team hasn’t deployed it yet—to demonstrate capability alignment and confirm that we can deliver the same solution?
Respond to the best of your ability.
Note any limitations of your system or services.
19. Can you provide an estimate of the total volume of documents (by count or size) that will need to be migrated into the new CMS and eFiling system?
Specific information is not available.
Refer to RFP section 1.1 Statement of Procurement Purpose., and section
1.1.2 Estimated Volume of Users and
Cases. Utilize the totality of the RFP and attachments to support your response and cost proposal. Respond to the best of your ability. Note any limitations of your system.
20. Can you provide more detail on the expected workflows for referral tracking and electronic referrals—such as the types of services being referred, external systems involved, and whether bidirectional communication is required?
Respond to the best of your ability.
Note any limitations of your system or services.
RFP # 30227-00725 – Amendment # 3 Page 5 of 7
PAGE
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
21. Can you confirm whether each district/county operates a single instance of TNCIS for multiple court types, or if each court type has its own independent system?
This is different among the counties/clerks. Respond to the best of your ability. Note any limitations of your system or services.
22. Please provide a detailed description of the current TNCIS technical stack, including database type, middleware, and hosting environment, and any plans for Azure migration.
This detail will be provided to the chosen Contractor as needed.
Respond to the best of your ability.
Note any limitations of your system or services.
23. What are the specific data conversion requirements for each legacy system (TNCIS, Quest, CNET, Courtview, Icon, Tyler, custom systems)?
See the Answer to Question #22.
24. What level of integration is required with the Quest juvenile justice system—data migration, API connectivity, or other methods?
Respondent should plan for the same level of integration with Quest as there is with all other legacy CMS.
See the Answer to Question #20.
25. Are there any Tennessee-specific reporting requirements or mandatory data fields that must be supported in the new system?
See the Answer to Question #20.
26. What is the expected resource availability at each court for migration and training, especially for larger courts?
Refer to RFP Attachment 6.2 Section C, item reference number C.3.
27. Is there a mandate or preference for standardized configuration tables across courts, or is local customization expected?
See the Answer to Question #7.
28. Is the proposed 10-year rollout timeline a financial constraint, or is there flexibility for a faster deployment if resources allow?
Refer to RFP Amendment 1, answers to questions #143, #172, #190, #217, and #219
29. Are there known data quality challenges in legacy systems (e.g., inconsistent field usage, missing data), and what support will be available for data validation during migration?
Yes, there are data quality challenges. See the Answer to Question #26.
30. Will the State provide first-line support with the vendor as second-line support?
See the Answer to Question #26.
31. Will eFiling be mandatory for all courts and their users?
This policy decision has not been made. For purposes of your response, you can assume that eFiling will be mandatory with some exceptions.
RFP # 30227-00725 – Amendment # 3 Page 6 of 7
PAGE
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
32. Will the State participate in on-site training and rollout, or should the vendor handle all implementation activities independently?
See the Answer to Question #26.
33. What is the full technical stack of TNCIS, including database, middleware, and application layers, and what are the specific requirements or constraints for migrating each component to Azure?
See the Answer to Question #22.
34. Will the migration require moving existing SQL Server databases to Azure SQL, and are there known compatibility or schema issues that must be addressed?
See the Answer to Question #18.
35. Are there APIs, ESB, or other middleware components currently in use that will need to be refactored, redeployed, or replaced for Azure integration?
See the Answer to Question #18.
36. What is the required integration approach for Quest and other legacy systems—should this leverage Azure API Management or other Azure-native services?
See the Answer to Question #18.
37. Is there a preference or mandate to use Azure-native ETL/data transformation tools (e.g., Data Factory, Synapse), and what are the expected data volumes and frequency of migration?
There is no preference or mandate.
See the Answer to Question #19.
38. Will each court or district require a separate Azure tenant or resource group, or is a centralized multi-tenant architecture preferred for all courts?
Refer to RFP Attachment 6.6 RTM - Non Functional Requirements, Requirement #2 - "Ability for CMS and eFiling Solution to be a multi-tenant solution (i.e. ability to host multiple courts)”
39. What are the security, privacy, and compliance requirements for storing and processing court data in Azure, including any state or federal mandates?
See the Answer to Question #7.
40. What data quality, referential integrity, or legacy data issues are anticipated, and what level of remediation or cleansing is expected during migration?
See the Answer to Question #18.
41. What is the expected process for validating, testing, and signing off on data migrations in the Azure environment, and who will be responsible for acceptance?
RFP # 30227-00725 – Amendment # 3 Page 7 of 7
PAGE
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
42. Is constant hybrid network connectivity required between on-premises systems and Azure during migration, and if so, what are the bandwidth, latency, and security expectations for this period?
43. Does the TN AOC expect respondents to include integration costs- including state integration unit pricing-within Tab 4 of Attachment 6.3? In order to provide a more accurate pricing model, additional granularity beyond simple, moderate, and complex categories for state integrations would be preferred.
The State has only identified potential statewide integrations in the RFP and the cost for those integrations should be included in RFP Attachment 6.3 Cost Proposal Tab 2. Implementation Services.
RFP Attachment 6.3 Cost Proposal Tab 4. Local Integrations should be completed for use in pricing local integrations only.
44. Is providing a bid with an hourly rate sufficient for completing Tab 4 of Attachment 6.3?
No.
45. Which vendors and state departments or local governments, if any, participated in or were consulted by TN in building the RFP and its requirements?
That information is not available. See the Answer to Question #7.
46. Section 5.2.1 identifies "3 or more state employees and designated non-state employees” being on the evaluation team. Please identify the vendors the "non-state employees" work for/with.
Please include the vendor names contracted with to evaluate the needs for this RFP and participated in the building and writing of the RFP.
All evaluators work for the State or a local TN government entity. Local government entities engage numerous vendors for services so it would be too burdensome to attempt to list all vendors with whom a local government employee works.
Gartner, Inc. was engaged to assist the State in writing the RFP.
47. Has the AOC considered implementing a transaction-based pricing model specifically for e-filing services within the scope of this project?
If so, would the AOC permit vendors to propose such a model in addition to the recurring charges for software licensing, hosting, maintenance, and operations as outlined in Attachment 6.3?
Yes, however, regarding Attachment 6.3, all Respondents will be required to submit pricing in accordance with Attachment 6.3, Cost Proposal Scoring Guide. The State will not accept alternative cost proposals.
Also, keep in mind the limitations set forth in the Note following the first paragraph of RFP Section 3.1.1.
3. RFP Amendment Effective Date. The revisions set forth herein shall be effective upon release. All other terms and conditions of this RFP not expressly amended herein shall remain in full force and effect.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .