RFP S-40400-00011842 FCMS Add 2-Pre-Prpsl QstnsRqst4Clrf 2024 1126~2.pdf

OPDC Financial and Case Management System \ RFP S-40400-00011842 Addendum 2 1

Oregon Public Defense Commission Request for Proposals S-40400-00011842 for a

Hosted, Commercial Off-the-Shelf, Software-as-a-Service Public Defense Financial and Case Management System Addendum #2

1. RFP Addendum Purpose:

The purposes of this Addendum #2 to Request for Proposals S-40400-00011842 (“Addendum #2) for a Hosted, Commercial Off-the-Shelf, Software-as-a-Service, Public Defense Financial and Case Management System (the “RFP”) are:

a. To update and provide clarification regarding various provisions of the RFP and its Attachments including, but not limited to, those affecting:

i. Targeted implementation completion date;

ii. System requirements, including, but not limited to, those affecting Data Migration and Integration; and

iii. RFP Attachment adjustments, including some related to Attachment A, Price Proposal Worksheet, Attachment G, Statewide Security Standards Terms, and Attachment J, Technical Requirements Matrix; and

b. To respond to pre-Proposal questions posed by, and requests for clarification from, prospective Proposers in response to the RFP.

2. RFP Modifications:

a. Unless indicated otherwise, added language is reflected in bold and underlined font; deleted language is reflected in bracketed (“[]”) and italicized font. Proposers are not required to submit this Addendum #2 but shall reflect its content within their Proposals.

b. Except as revised by Addendum #1, published on November 13, 2024, and this Addendum #2, the terms and conditions of the RFP published on October 15, 2024 remain in effect.

c. Pursuant to the second paragraph of RFP Section 4.1 and related provisions, the RFP is hereby amended as follows:

i. Attachment A, Price Proposal Worksheet as published on OregonBuys on October 15, 2024, is hereby replaced in its entirety with Attachment A, Price Proposal Worksheet v2.0, made a part of this RFP and incorporated by this reference. Please note updates throughout the document, including, but not limited to, the Instructions on the “Instructions” Tab.

ii. Attachment G, Statewide Security Standards Terms, Instructions tab, Rows 9 and 10 of the Instructions, are amended to read:

“Low (All) (Column F): The proposed solution meets all security controls within the security control set Moderate (Column G): There are some controls that the proposed solution does not meet or fully meet”

iii. Attachment G, Statewide Security Standards Terms, Instructions tab, Rows 13 and 14 of the Instructions, are amended to read:

“On Premise (Column H): An application hosted by Agency at the State of Oregon Data Center Off Premise (Column I): A SaaS application hosted by Proposer

Agency anticipates the FCMS to operate in a cloud-based environment with all data stored and to exist in the cloud.”

iv. Attachment G, Statewide Security Standards Terms, Instructions tab, Row 23 of the Instructions, is amended to read:

“Comments (Column Q): Proposer shall provide clear and complete comments on how all [the] controls are [is] met. This includes items that are not currently supported. If the control is not supported, indicate your Plan of Action and Milestones for full compliance to be ready by “Go Live” date. Proposer may point to sections of its Project Management Plan to provide this information.”

v. Attachment J, Requirements Traceability Matrix, Instructions tab, Row 17 of the Instructions, is amended to read:

“Instructions: Proposals shall include a response indicator on sheets 1 – 8 of this Attachment J in the columns titled “Proposer Response” based on the descriptions of the five indicators below; and a description of the method the proposed solution uses to meet each requirement in the “Comments” field on tabs 1 – 8 of this Attachment J, including tabs 7, Interfaces, and 8, Data Migrations.

Tabs numbered 1 - 8 in this Attachment J must be filled out completely.

Proposer shall provide clear and complete comments on how all requirements are met. This includes items that are currently not supported. If a requirement is not supported, indicate your Plan of Action and Milestones for full compliance to be ready by “Go Live” date. Proposer may point to sections of its Project Management Plan to provide this information.”

vi. The fourth paragraph of RFP Section 1.1, Introduction, is amended to read:

“The Agency anticipates negotiating a Contract resultant of this RFP with the FCMS implemented, operational, and compliant with the requirements of this RFP within 12 to 24 months from Contract execution. Agency may negotiate an initial Contract term of up to five (5) years for an FCMS and associated products and services within the RFP’s scope, including, but not limited to, implementation and subsequent and ongoing FCMS cloud-hosting and SaaS management, operations, and support, FCMS technical and data administration, management and support, and other support services such as technical support and training, [of up to five (5) years].

OPDC Financial and Case Management System \ RFP S-40400-00011842 Addendum 2 2

At its option and without further solicitation, Agency may extend the term of the Contract to continue such [hosting and other] on-going services, and to procure products and/or services within the RFP’s scope, for extension terms of varying duration totaling up to an additional ten (10) years following expiration of the initial Contract term.”

vii. The title of RFP Section 3.3.1.4, Section 4: Mandatory Submission of Non-scored RFP Attachment, is hereby amended to read:

“3.3.1.4 Section 4: Mandatory Submission of [Non-scored] RFP Attachments.”

viii. RFP Section 5.4.1, Contract Negotiations, is replaced in its entirety with the following, incorporated into the RFP by this reference:

“After selection of the apparent successful Proposer, Agency may enter into negotiations for a Contract and related agreements with the successful Proposer.

If Agency makes a determination that (a) the Proposer is not negotiating in good faith; (b) the highest ranked Proposer is not responsive to the process, or (c) that the parties will be unable to negotiate a mutually agreeable Contract in a timely manner, or if the Proposer decides not to continue participation in the negotiations, Agency may suspend negotiations with the highest ranked Proposer and initiate negotiations with the next highest ranked Proposer, if any, to arrive at a mutually agreeable Contract.

At its option, Agency may continue this process of negotiation with Proposers in descending rank order in the Competitive Range until negotiations result in a mutually agreeable Contract, or until there are no remaining participants within the Competitive Range.

After such Contract is executed, Agency will cease negotiations and not negotiate with any other Proposers.

a. Negotiation of Draft Model Contract Terms

i. By submitting a Proposal, Proposer agrees to comply with the requirements of the RFP, including the terms and conditions of the Draft Model Contract (RFP Attachment H), specified in RFP Section 5.4.1(a)(ii).

ii. Proposer shall review the Draft Model Contract and note its objections. Agency may agree to negotiate changes to the negotiable provisions of the Draft Model Contract as set forth in Section 5.4.1(a)(iii).

iii. If Agency elects to negotiate with the highest ranked Proposer, Agency will offer all items in the Draft Model Contract for negotiation, including, but not limited to, the Scope of Work/Specifications, and the Contract price as it is affected by the results of negotiating the Scope of Work/Specifications, with the exception of:

1. Choice of law;

2. Choice of venue;

3. Constitutional requirements; and

4. Requirements of applicable federal and State law.

However, Agency is not required to make any changes and many provisions cannot be changed. Proposer is cautioned that the State of Oregon believes modifications to the standard provisions constitute increased risk and increased cost to the State.

iv. Proposer shall submit requests for revisions to address its objections to the Draft Model Contract terms and conditions as a separate file included with its Proposal, Otherwise, Agency intends to enter into a Contract with the successful Proposer substantially in the form set forth in Draft Model Contract .

Any subsequent negotiated changes are subject to prior approval of the Oregon Department of Justice.

b. Negotiation of Peripheral Agreements

i. Agency will also consider for negotiation and inclusion into the Contract, proposed terms and conditions included in Proposals which provide for:

1. Software license agreements;

2. Software maintenance agreements;

3. Technical support agreements;

4. Hosting services agreements; and

5. Related agreements.

All such agreements must be related to Contractor’s delivery of offsite operations and maintenance services, and related services, which shall be consistent with the requirements set forth in this RFP (“Peripheral Agreements”), which do not materially conflict with this RFP, including the Contract, that would not materially change the nature of this RFP, and would not adversely affect competition.

Agency will only consider terms and conditions contained in such Peripheral Agreements reasonably related to this RFP and which supplement, and are not materially in conflict with, the terms and conditions contained in the Draft Model Contract and this RFP.

Please note: Proposer shall include such proposed Peripheral Agreement terms and conditions that Proposer desires to be included as part of the Contract as a separate file included with its Proposal.

OPDC Financial and Case Management System \ RFP S-40400-00011842 Addendum 2 3

By accepting delivery of these terms and conditions from Peripheral Agreements, Agency is not bound to accept them as part of the Contract, and the acceptability of these items shall be determined in consultation with Agency’s legal counsel. Agency may reject the Proposal of the highest ranked Proposer who refuses to accept the terms and conditions approved by Agency with respect to such Peripheral Agreements.”

ix. The following information is added to and made a part of RFP Section 1.1, Introduction, and is hereby incorporated into the RFP:

Paragraph 5: “Agency provides the following information and estimates for Proposers’ consideration:

1. Agency estimates that there are approximately 807 fields of data across three SQL databases that may be migrated to the FCMS.

The number of unique field names are not known at this time. Agency anticipates that this information will be available as part of the use cases that Agency will develop as part of the FCMS project.

At this time, Agency anticipates that use cases may be available during the competitive phase and contract negotiations. Use cases must be approved by an external agency, whose schedule is not within Agency’s control.

2. There are no spreadsheets that contain data at this time. However, during the competitive phase or later, there may be data contained within spreadsheets. Agency needs the FCMS to have the capability to import or export data from an Excel file or .csv file. Please see Attachment J, Technical Requirements Matrix for specific requirements referring to importing and exporting these file types.

3. Agency’s desire is for data migration capability. In terms of fields from Clio, Agency desires at this time to migrate active Clio information, but it is not the critical path. Please see Attachment J, Technical Requirements Matrix for migration-related requirements. Specifically, see Tab 5, General, for file formats required.

4. At this time, Agency is aware of three SQL databases: Attorneys database, Accounts Payable Vouchers, Pre-Authorized Expenses.

Database is referred to internally as CSS.

5. Agency's FCMS project budget, available by eMailed request to the SPC at the address identified in Section 1.3 and the RFP Cover Page, has been approved by the internal State governance Department of Administrative Services. The FCMS budget is projected out 4 years through 2027. Agency's funding source is secure and with preparation to be bonded but it is always subject to Legislative oversight and approval as well as OPDC Commission budget oversight and approval. Various layers of approval exist at the State for projects over $5 million and we have strict guidelines that ensure our project budget to date as disclosed is fully provisioned pending the State regulatory approval process in place for future budget reviews and approvals.

6. In terms of migrating files, several different formats are needed: .pdf, video from discovery, images (JPEG, PNG), and other types (examples: word files, Excel files, gif, tif, jpeg, mp3, eMail).

7. Agency anticipates a greater understanding of the data migration volume details during the competitive phase or later. Agency is aware of the following data locations: Drop box, Clio, and on the file server, with other various databases in the cloud as well as on premise.

Agency desire a robust document repository included with the FCMS or a document management module included with the FCMS.

8. At this time, the file volume is as follows for a total migration: CSS database: 94 GB; Attorneys database: 3.84 GB; and APV: 140 GB; Drop Box: 8.3 TB (terabytes), and CLIO: 7 MB. Please be aware that the total volume of files to be migrated is still to be determined and the data volumes provided are a snapshot in time. Data (especially from Clio) could be a much larger size. While links to data outside of the system may be acceptable, Agency desires to explore the option of keeping all related data in a central document repository.

Document transfer will be expected. The size and frequency will depend as each case is unique and has differing requirements.

Agency currently has document sizes in the hundreds of gigabytes with multiple documents per case. Agency anticipates that more details will be known once the use cases are completed. Depending upon the data repository solution, there may be large sized documents that will need to be attached to case files based on file type. Use cases will describe the process related to attaching / associating supporting documents as each case is opened / transferred.

9. Agency requires cost breakdown information for each integration for initial deployment. Please see Attachment A, Price Proposal worksheet, Tab 3, software Development, Implementation Services section, as revised by Addendum #2, and refer to the information provided in Section 2(c)(ix)(8) for current volumes.

10. As to Judicial Branch ("OJD")-related data sharing, Agency is transitioning from the Judicial Branch to the Executive Branch. As a result, Agency is negotiating an update to its OJD data sharing agreement. Agency does not anticipate availability of OJD data sharing details until after the competitive phase and possibly further into 2025, as Agency sets new policies under the Executive Branch.

Impacted Systems:

State Appeal CMS - relevant case information Odyssey - Oregon Judicial Department CMS Oregon State Bar - Attorney Bar status and data

OPDC Financial and Case Management System \ RFP S-40400-00011842 Addendum 2 4

11. The data Agency currently uses is located:

Outlook – Calendaring: cloud / Outlook – eMail: cloud;

R*STARS - Accounting and Reporting: mainframe at DAS State Appeal CMS - relevant case information: originally built on SQL, but now exists on the cloud; Thomson Reuters Odyssey - Oregon Judicial Department CMS: Tyler Technologies Contracts Database - Attorney / Vendor data: ON PREM SQL SERVER Access Oregon State Bar - Attorney Bar status and data: Tyler Technologies (a part of Odyssey)

12. In terms of integration, Attachment J appears to show data as one-way direction of data flow. However, bi-directional data flow capability may be needed as part of an exception process that is to be determined as part of the use cases. At a minimum, a one-way share either as a push or a pull is acceptable. Agency's need is for the FCMS to have the capability of sharing data between systems either via a push or pull. All field names are not known at this time. Use cases will identify the data transfer direction and frequency for the various processes.

The new FCMS is expected to push and pull data. Depending on the system to be integrated, Agency does not know all of the specifics around triggers and the processes related to triggering data transfers. Use cases will identify the data transfer direction.

13. In terms of cases volume, the total number of cases on average per day is 350. This amount does not include Appeals cases.

Agency anticipates that this amount may increase in the future.

14. FCMS up-time and down-time Service Level Agreements are negotiable outside of the requirements listed within Attachment J. Agency's current minimum standards for its Service Desk under OJD are:

Critical and High Impact Issues: Response Time: 2 business hours; Resolution Time: Within 4 business hours and/or same business day.

Medium Impact Issues: Response Time: 4 business hours; Resolution Time: 8 business hours, or next business day.

Low Impact Issues: Response Time: 8 business hours, or next business day; Resolution Time: 3 business days.

Agency operates in Pacific Time Zone and would require support at a minimum during its operating hours of 8am to 5pm Pacific Time, Monday through Friday. There is an expectation that Service Desk assistance will be provided during scheduled maintenance windows outside of normal operating hours.

After Agency transitions to the Executive Branch, the SLAs may change based on the result of data sharing agreement negotiations.

15. As to managing attorney conflicts, internal to Agency, attorney conflicts are identified independent of the current system (CLIO or the appellate system, as applicable); externally, each contracted attorney maintains their respective conflict identification independent of Agency.

Please see the following Attachment J, Technical Requirements Matrix requirements related to case conflicts:

CM-003; CM-128; CM-153; CM-218; CM-256

For data conflicts - Agency identifies the source of record.

Please see the following Attachment J, Technical Requirements Matrix requirements related to data conflicts:

NF-082; NF-083

16. As to RFP Attachment J, Technical Requirements Matrix, Tab 7, Interfaces, Specification ID IF-004, State Appeals CMS, Agency anticipates that more detailed information will be available during the competitive phase. Appeals CMS (ACMS) is a public facing portal that allows limited access to state data. There is a dependency on the OJD data sharing agreement currently under negotiation as Agency transitions to the Executive Branch. The ACMS is currently owned by OJD.

17. As to API documentation for systems Agency currently uses, Agency is not aware of an API that can be plugged into for R*STARS, State Appeal CMS, or OJD CMS. Currently, Agency writes to an Excel spreadsheet, which is used to populate the applicable R*STARS and State Appeal CMS field values, respectively. As to API documentation for the Contracts Database, it is an SQL database developed in-house with no formal integration documented at this time. Data elements from the Contracts Database are needed for the FCMS process, but Attorney Contracts are out of scope for the initial implementation. In Attachment J, Technical Requirements Matrix, Tab 7, Integrations, “API” refers to a relevant form of SQL connection. As to API documentation for the Oregon State Bar, which is currently owned by OJD, this documentation is not available to Agency. There is a dependence on the OJD data sharing agreement under negotiations. Oregon State Bar data is not currently integrated. Though there is a desired requirement to integrate it, it is not clear whether integration with Oregon State Bar is possible for the initial stand-up and Go Live. The Oregon State Bar data fields have not been identified at this time.

18. In terms of integration or middleware software products, Agency is not aware of any standard middleware required by the state to be used; Agency has not finalized the method by which to connect / integrate with external systems. Agency uses Power BI for business intelligence. OJD uses middleware to connect with Nintex; Agency will be moving away from using Nintex and OJD’s middleware a part of Agency’s transition to the Executive Branch.

OPDC Financial and Case Management System \ RFP S-40400-00011842 Addendum 2 5

19. As to Agency FCMS resources knowledgeable about the Agency’s current processes and available for the project, Agency anticipates that its subject matter experts, business analysts, and process documents will be available.

The FCMS Project Team is staffed with the current resources: Executive Sponsor, FCMS Executive Steering Committee, Oversight and Support team comprised of representative from seven (7) key business functional areas: Legislative Fiscal Office, Chief Financial Office, Department of Administrative Services (DAS) Enterprise Information Services, Agency’s General Counsel, Agency Procurement Office, Business Owner, Agency Chief Information Office, Agency Chief Data Office, Key Partners and Stakeholders, Additional contracted support by for iQMS, Senior Lead Information Technology (IT) Project Manager, Technical Team comprised of Technical Lead, Enterprise Architect, Data Architect, Infrastructure Engineer, Project Management Team including: IT Project Manager, two (2) Business Analysts, Organizational Change Management Team comprised of: Engagement Partner, Agency Director, Manager Process and Technical Lead, Senior Financial Analyst, Human Resources Analyst, Case Management Analyst and close to 35 project Subject Matter Experts. All the foregoing resources have dedicated capacity and assignments in FCMS currently. Numerous project organizational artifacts that outline each stage and function of Agency’s FCMS project are available upon request eMailed to the SPC at the address indicated in Section 1.3 and the RFP Cover Page. Artifacts include, but are not limited to, the Business Case, Project Charter, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, and Change Management plans. Agency’s FCMS project is currently in Stage 3 of our State Governance work for FCMS.

FCMS users and stakeholders are comprised of an estimated 1600 external providers consisting of contracted attorneys and other staff roles for external provider case support that require access to FCMS. Internally, there are an estimated 300 users across three to four levels of permissions who need access to FCMS with the following roles identified in our Stakeholder Management Plan listed in the Reference Tab. The entire existing Agency matrix is available in Agency’s Stakeholder Registry artifact in the Reference column categorized by Program Stakeholders, OPDC EE Stakeholders, Attorney External Providers, Contractor External Stakeholders, and Vendor External Stakeholders. Further, Agency’s RACI artifact is also available.

20. As to Contract Management, Agency expectations for signature are being designed as part of future state process discussions.

Agency anticipates that related requirements will be available during the competitive phase and the majority of use cases regarding contract management will be available during contract negotiations. Please see Attachment J for specific requirements related to eSignatures.

21. In terms of payment processing functionality, the current project scope does not include a payment process upon initial stand-up of the FCMS, as there will be an integration with R*STARS. However, this functionality may be needed in future phases of the FCMS project. Please see Attachment A, Price Proposal Worksheet, Tab 3. Software Development, as amended by this Addendum #2 to include system functionality costs that reflects a future state payment system / module as an additional cost option line item below the "Total Costs" line item.

22. As the requirements relate to Electronic Intake Forms: Agency would like the FCMS to have the capability to migrate data as it relates to Electronic Intake Forms. For example, a Web-based form being completed by an external user that can be consumed by the new FCMS System. Per requirement CM-184, Attachment J; "System shall have the ability to receive electronic intake forms." Agency’s expectation is that this functionality be built into the system as part of the Case Management component.

23. Relating to sealed cases: Sealed cases are not a unique interface. However, data pertaining to sealed cases is handled through interfaces as detailed in RFP Attachment J, Tab 7. Please see requirements IF-004 – 6 and on Tab 2, CM-283 and CM-284.

24. Relating to the ability to share daily information with Agency’s BI Reporting Tools for Further Detailed Analysis and Reporting:

25. As to onsite requirements vs virtual participation, there are not any onsite requirements that relate to the implementation of the project. However, please see the updated Attachment A, Price Proposal Worksheet, as amended by this Addendum #2, for requirements for cost information related to two work arrangement options: a) 100% virtual implementation and b) hybrid virtual/onsite.

26. As to accounts payable data Agency exports: The values currently being passed to R*STARS are: Service Provider Name, Service Provider Number, Service Provider Mail Code, Service Type, Case Number, County, Case Type, Rate Type, Rate, Service Dates, and Service Times. This list of data values may change as use cases are identified and completed.

27. A searchable version of Attachment J, Technical Requirements Matrix, as published on OregonBuys on October 15, 2024, is available on request eMailed to the SPC identified in RFP Section 1.3 and the RFP Cover Page.

3. Questions / Requests for Clarification; Agency Responses Pre-Proposal Questions posed by and Requests for Clarification from, prospective Proposers, as well as Agency’s responses, attached to this Addendum #2 as Attachment 1, are made a part of the RFP, and incorporated by this reference. Except for the names of the prospective Proposers and their respective question numbers having been redacted, the pre-Proposal Questions and Requests for Clarification are published as submitted.

OPDC Financial and Case Management System \ RFP S-40400-00011842 Addendum 2 6

4. RFP Addendum Process / Protests:

a. Except as revised by Addendum #1, published on November 13, 2024, and this Addendum #2, the terms and conditions of the

RFP published on October 15, 2024 remain in effect.

b. Proposers are not required to submit this Addendum #2 as part of their respective Proposals, but shall reflect its content within their Proposals.

c. Any prospective Proposer may submit a written protest of particular provisions contained in this Addendum #2, to the SPC identified in RFP Section 1.3 and on the RFP Cover Page, by the “Protest Period Ends” date and time specified in RFP Section 1.2, Schedule. Notwithstanding RFP Section 4.4.2, any such protests must meet all other requirements of RFP Section 4.4.3.

RFP S-40400-00011842

November 26, 2024

OPDC Financial and Case Management System \ RFP S-40400-00011842 Addendum 2 7

Request for Proposals S-40400-00011842 / Attachment 1 Pre-Proposal Questions and Requests for Clarification; Agency Responses

Pre-Proposal Question / Request for Clarification Agency Response

1 Pertaining to the wording in Attachment J: On

Row 17 of the instructions where it says “6” should that be “5?”

Please see RFP Addendum #1, Items 10 – 12 and Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(v) regarding Proposal requirements for Attachment J, Technical Requirements Matrix.

2 Regarding Attachment J – Functional and Technical Requirements: The instructions tab instructs respondents to provide additional information in the Comments column for responses with an indicator other than 6, however the indicators only go up to 5.

Can you confirm whether Comments are required for all specification responses, or just responses with indicators other than 5?

Please see RFP Addendum #1, Items 10 – 12 and Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(v) regarding Proposal requirements for Attachment J, Technical Requirements Matrix.

3 In 'G2 Security Standards'... It says in the instructions tab the Agency needs to note location (On Prem or Off Prem) in Columns H and I. None are noted. Please advise.

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ii - iv).

4 In 'G2 Security Standards'.... In columns F and

G what does 'All' and 'Moderate' signify/mean?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ii - iv).

5 In 'G2 Security Standards'.... Some of the standards don't really need a comment. Can we comment where warranted??

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(iv).

6 The RFP, Section 3.1.2 states the following minimum requirement: Proposer must have at least three systems in current use by State, Federal, or Private public defense offices of comparable size to OPDC; this includes approximately 300 staff members and 1400 external stakeholders, all of whom may need some level of system access. The systems must include the functionalities desired by OPDC as described in this RFP. At least one identified system must be in use in a State or Federal Agency.

Our firm, which has provided services for the State of Oregon for over seven consecutive years, is technically unable to meet this requirement. The written requirement is probably mandated to ensure the State receives bids from mature and capable firms. We have over 20,000 people. We also created X to deploy a nearly identical system for the X Public Defenders and Alternative Public Defenders Offices (not a state, federal, or private entity); Used by over 1,000 staff members, 200,000+ cases managed, 100M+ records migrated from their legacy system.

Please see RFP Addendum #1, Attachment #1, Sections 3.1.2 and 3.3.1.1(2)(a)(i) and (ii), which expand the types of government-client entity installations which qualify prospective Proposers to submit a Proposal in response to the RFP.

7 Can you share the budget for this project? Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(5).

OPDC Financial and Case Management System \ RFP S-40400-00011842 Addendum 2 8

8 Can you provide a copy of the specifications matrix that allows the rows to be resized, and which allows the text of the specifications to be shown in text search?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(16).

9 The following three [grouped] questions pertain to Tab 8 in Attachment J (click on the "+" sign to expand the rows and view the questions):

Please see responses to questions numbered 9.1 - 9.3.2.

9.1 The system we will be proposing prices data

migration based on the number of fields [first name, last name, zip code are three example field names] you'd like to migrate from the current database(s).

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(1).

9.2 Only counting the same field name once, please

estimate the total number of fields with “meaningful data” that needs to be migrated to live on in the new system. Drop down pick lists and case notes are treated as one field.

9.2.1 a. How many columns of data (only counting the same column names once) need to be migrated from spreadsheets?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(2).

9.2.2 b. How many SQL databases need to be migrated? Please name (by function) the different SQL databases to be migrated.

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(4) and (8).

Please see Attachment J, Technical Requirements Matrix, for migration requirements, and Attachment A, FCMS Price Proposal Worksheet, as amended by this Addendum #2, for cost option requirements related to migration.

9.2.3 c. How many fields from Clio have meaningful data that needs to be migrated?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(3) and (8).

Please see Attachment J, Technical Requirements Matrix, for migration requirements, and Attachment A, FCMS Price Proposal Worksheet, as amended by this Addendum #2, for cost option requirements related to migration.

9.3 Do you plan on migrating files (documents, video, etc) to the new system?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(6) and (8), RFP Attachment J, Tab 5. General, for file formats required, and Attachment A, Tab 5. Migration, Implementation Services section, as revised by this Addendum #2.

9.3.1 a. If yes [to question 2], where do these files reside today?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(7) and Attachment A > Tab 5. Migration, as revised by this Addendum #2.

9.3.2 b. If yes [to question 2], what is the total file size you wish to migrate?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(7) and (8) and Attachment A, Price Proposal Worksheet, Tab 5, Migration, as revised by this Addendum #2, to provide a breakdown of costs by volume.

10 The following questions [grouped] pertain to Tab 7 in Attachment J (click on the "+" sign to expand the rows and view the questions):

Please see corresponding responses below:

OPDC Financial and Case Management System \ RFP S-40400-00011842 Addendum 2 9

10.1 a. Please name all of the [External / 3rd party / Accounts Payable / Court] systems that will require integration with the new Financial and Case Management SaaS System.

Please see RFP Attachment J > Tab 7. Interfaces, which currently identifies:

Outlook - Calendaring Outlook - Email R*STARS - Accounting and Reporting State Appeal CMS – relevant case information Odyssey – Oregon Judicial Department CMS Contracts Database – Attorney / Vendor data Oregon State Bar – Attorney Bar status and data

10.2 b. With each [External / 3rd party / Accounts Payable / Court] system name please include an explanation of the [External / 3rd party / Accounts Payable / Court] systems function along with a few use cases for how the new Financial and Case Management SaaS System needs to interoperate.

Please see RFP Attachment J > Tab 7. Interfaces, which currently identifies:

Outlook – Calendaring Outlook – Email R*STARS – Accounting and Reporting State Appeal CMS – relevant case information Odyssey – Oregon Judicial Department CMS Contracts Database – Attorney / Vendor data Oregon State Bar – Attorney Bar status and data

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2©(ix)(1), paragraph 2.

10.3 c. For each [External / 3rd party / Accounts Payable / Court] system that requires integration with the new Financial and Case Management SaaS System please indicate whether pricing is needed for each integration to be a part of the initial deployment, or whether you just need to know if it’s possible for future integration consideration, after GoLive.

Please see RFP Section 2©(ix)(9).

Agency requires cost breakdown information for each integration for initial deployment. Please refer to Agency response 9.3.2 for current volumes. Please see Attachment A, Price Proposal Worksheet, as revised by this Addendum #2 under Tab 3, Software Development, Implementation Services section. Proposer may insert additional lines as needed.

10.4 d. Will the Judicial Branch allow us to integrate with the [External / 3rd party / Accounts Payable / Court] system?

Please see RFP Section 2(c)(ix)(10).

10.5 e. Is the [External / 3rd party / Accounts

Payable / Court] system cloud based, or running on a local server somewhere?

Please see RFP Section 2(c)(ix)(11).

10.6 f. What field names from the [External / 3rd party / Accounts Payable / Court] system would be sent to the new Financial and Case Management SaaS System?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(1), paragraph 2 and Section 2(c)(vi)(10)

OPDC Financial and Case Management System \ RFP S-40400-00011842 Addendum 2 10

10.7 g. Please provide a use case description: Are the fields used to create new cases, update existing cases, or create hearings, etc.?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(1), paragraph 2.

10.8 h. Is the integration only from the [External /

3rd party / Accounts Payable / Court] systems to the new Financial and Case Management SaaS System or bi-directional?

Section 2(c)(vi)(12).

10.9 i. If bi-directional what field names from the new Financial and Case Management SaaS System would need data sent to the [External / 3rd party / Accounts Payable / Court] systems?

10.10 j. If data is only being sent to the new

Financial and Case Management SaaS System will the new Financial and Case Management SaaS System need to pull data from the [External / 3rd party / Accounts Payable / Court] system or will someone in the organization push the data from the [External / 3rd party / Accounts Payable / Court] system to the new Financial and Case Management SaaS System?

10.11 k. What trigger or action would lead to data needing to be sent?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(1), paragraph 2 and Section 2(c)(ix)(8) and (12).

10.12 l. How frequent would data be transferred? Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(1), paragraph 2 and Section 2(c)(ix)(8) and (12).

10.13 m. Approximately how many cases per month (from the Court system) would be transferred?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(1), paragraph 2, Section 2(c)(ix)(13), and for the current data traffic, Attachment-J, Columns H and J for quantity, size, and frequency.

10.14 n. Would any documents be transferred? If so please indicate size and frequency of document transfers.

Section 2(c)(ix)(8), paragraph 2.

11 The following [grouped] questions pertain to

Attachment C, where it says Proposer understands and accepts the requirements of this RFP. By submitting a Proposal, Proposer agrees to be bound by the Contract terms and conditions in Attachment K and as modified by any Amendments, except for those terms and conditions that the State has reserved for negotiation, as identified in the RFP (click on the "+" sign to expand the rows and view the questions).

Please see responses to 11.1 - 11.4 (a - d).

11.1 a. Please provide Attachment K. Please see RFP Addendum #1, Item 3, which corrects the Attachment

K reference to Attachment H, Draft Model Contract.

11.2 b. With regards to Attachment C, what do you recommend if we have exceptions with the language in Attachment K?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Item 2(c)(viii) regarding RFP Section 5.4.1, which provides information regarding the method for requesting revisions to Attachment H, Draft Model Contract and associated terms and conditions.

OPDC Financial and Case Management System \ RFP S-40400-00011842 Addendum 2 11

11.3 c. As part of our response would you like Exceptions documented for Attachments K and The State of Oregon IT Services Agreement, or would contract exceptions and subsequent negotiations happen with the chosen vendor?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Item 2(c)(viii) regarding RFP Section 5.4.1, which provides information regarding the method for requesting revisions to Attachment H, Draft Model Contract and associated terms and conditions.

11.4 d. Are there any other required State of

Oregon contracting documents besides Attachment K and The State of Oregon IT Services Agreement that we should be aware of?

Please see RFP Attachment I, Change Order Template as amended by RFP Addendum #1, Items 7 - 9. The negotiated Contract will be informed by and the Statement of Work will be negotiated based upon, Attachment H, Draft Model Contract, including, but not limited to, completed and approved confidentiality, non-disclosure, and background check documentation, and any other documentation required by the Contract, and the Successful Proposer's final Proposal, including, but not limited to, its completed Attachment A, FCMS Price Proposal Worksheet, Attachment C, Proposer Information and Certification Sheet, Attachment D, Certified Disadvantaged Business Certification and Outreach Plan, Attachment E, Responsibility Inquiry Form, Attachment G, Statewide Security Standards Terms, and Attachment J, Requirements Traceability Matrix.

11.5 e. Exhibit B (Service Levels) in the The State of Oregon IT Services Agreement is blank. Please advise.

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(14)

12 Does the document ‘Change Order Agreement’ need to be submitted with our response, or is it provided as a general reference for potential use once under contract?

Please see RFP Addendum #1, Attachment 1, Section 3.2, Minimum Submission Requirements and RFP Addendum #1, Items 7 - 9 regarding Attachment I, Change Order Template.

13 How is the OPDC currently managing conflicts ?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(15)

14 Regarding Attachment J, Tab 7 – Interfaces, spec ID IF-004: Can you identify the State Appeals CMS?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(16)

15 In looking at Attachment A, Pricing, in the

Total Costs Summary Tab, Row 11, Task 8 – Travel, there are figures already entered prior that are unchangeable (we are blocked from modifying the amounts already there). Please advise.

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(i).

16 The Attachment H Draft Model Contract makes references to an Exhibit B dedicated to Service Levels. The Exhibit B attached with the model contract is blank. Will Exhibit B be provided so vendors can review it during this RFP phase, or will it be provided later during negotiations?

17 Can you provide API documentation for

RSTARS for our scope purposes?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(17)

18 State Appeal CMS - do you have the API documentation to provide for our scope purposes?

19 State Appeal CMS - what fields are required for the integration?

Section 2(c)(ix)(12), paragraph 2.

OPDC Financial and Case Management System \ RFP S-40400-00011842 Addendum 2 12

20 Oregon Judicial Department CMS - do you have API documentation for this system available to provide for our scope purposes?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(10) and Section 2(c)(ix)(17)

21 Can you provide API documentation for

Contracts Database for our scope purposes?

22 Oregon State Bar - do you have the API documentation to provide for our scope purposes?

23 Oregon State Bar - what fields are required for the integration?

24 Does the State have an integration or middleware software product to be used for this project?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(18)

25 Is the proposed solution required to run in an on-premise environment (non-cloud) and also in a cloud platform?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(iii).

26 Data Migration - DM-002 SQL - Existing SQL databases. How many different SQL databases house data? What type of data and approximately how many records?

27 Are there other financial management tools of which are expected to integrate?

At this time, Agency anticipates only the systems / tools listed in Attachment J, Technical Requirements Matrix, Tab 7

28 Which tools are, if any, currently in use for business intelligence?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(18)

29 Are there resources of whom know the current processes available as part of this program?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(19)

30 Is there expectation of data management or administrative support of the platform following this program?

Yes, Agency anticipates that Proposals will include data management and administrative support services as part of the overall SaaS. Please see RFP Sections:

1.1 Introduction; Section 1.1.1 FCMS Project Outcomes; Section 2.3.2, Project Overview and Background, 2.4.1, System Replacement, Section 3.3.1.1 Section 1, Executive Summary (part 3i), Section 3.3.1.1(3) regarding FCMS implementation, deployment, and operation, and 3.3.2.1 Section 1, System Capabilities.

31 What is the training and change management resourcing to participate in this program upon release of the technology?

Agency has engaged quality assurance and change management contractors to support its change management efforts. For training, Agency does not have a trainer identified on staff. Agency anticipates that Proposals will include a Training Plan, Transition Lead, and training resources.

Please see the RFP for related information, including, but not limited to:

Sections 3.3.2.2. Section 2. Statement of Work Response Part 1. Project Management; a. Project Management Plan; c. Resource Management Plan; f. Training Plan; Part 2. Key Personnel;

Part 3. Transition Planning; Part 9. Technical and Configuration Training/Support Services

OPDC Financial and Case Management System \ RFP S-40400-00011842 Addendum 2 13

32 Is there an expectation of a mobile interface? There are no requirements that specifically require a mobile application at this time. However, there are requirements for phone alerts. Please see Attachment A, Price Proposal Worksheet, Tab 3.

Software Development, as amended by this Addendum #2 to include system functionality costs that reflect mobile application options.

Please see Attachment J, tab 7 for specific requirements:

TK-052; TK-073; TK-100

33 Does OR have a preferred or existing integration platform in place?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(18)

34 Expectation to process payments from this solution? Is there an existing payment gateway or processor?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(21)

35 What are Contract management expectations?

Esignature? Preferred provider for this (ie.

Docusign?) or open to recommendations?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(20)

36 System Payment Schedule functionality shall ensure that payments are made in accordance with contractual agreements or service-level agreements

The Question/Request for Clarification is published as received.

Agency is unclear as to the information requested.

37 System shall customize configuration for contracts The Question/Request for Clarification is published as received.

Agency is unclear as to the information requested.

38 System shall provide a mechanism to flag contracts for periodic management review

The Question/Request for Clarification is published as received.

Agency is unclear as to the information requested.

39 Electronic Intake forms - “System shall have the ability to receive electronic intake forms” - Assumption is these intake forms would be built within the solution correct? Or are these from other platforms that need to integrated to the solution?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(22)

40 For requirement: “System shall have the ability either to notify other agencies and/or systems when a case is sealed or not to notify” - are these additional interfaces to expected outside of what was included in the interface tab?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(23)

41 System shall have the ability to share daily information with OPDS BI Reporting Tools for further detailed analysis & Reporting” - Toolset outside of Power BI (noted in separate req - RPT-052)? Is there a data warehouse that needs to be written to first?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(vi)(10) and Attachment J, Technical Requirements Matrix, including, but not limited to: RPT-

052; RPT-047; T-068, IF-006, GN-053, GN-054, GN-055

42 “System shall have the ability to import data from PDFs that are text based and searchable” - Are OCR capabilities expected to be included in the solution?

It is not clear at this time.

43 Will the State allow the use of offshore resources?

Please see RFP Section 3.3.2.2 Section 2: Statement of Work Response, Part 3. Transition Planning: "Affirmation that Proposer’s personnel are solely based in the continental United States and that work will not be performed, or data shared, outside of the continental United States."

OPDC Financial and Case Management System \ RFP S-40400-00011842 Addendum 2 14

44 What onboarding requirements are required for key personnel?

Please see the RFP, including, but not limited to, Attachment H, Draft Model Contract sections regarding Key Persons, including but not limited to:

Section 8: Information security;

Section 10.4: Background Check Requirements;

Section 14.6: Agency Intellectual Property license;

Section 14.9: Contractor non-compete;

Section 15: Non-Disclosure and Confidentiality, specifically 15.3;

Section 16: Contractor Proprietary Information;

Exhibit L: Security Requirements;

See also, RFP Attachment J for security requirements for personnel.

45 Will the State conduct a BAFO? Please see Addendum #1, Attachment 1, Sections 4.11, Round 1 Ranking of Proposers and Section 4.1, Additional Rounds, for information regarding addition rounds of competition and best and final offers.

46 Are there any onsite requirements as it relates to the implementation of the project? Or is the State expecting all work to be completed virtually?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(25)

47 What accounts payable data are you exporting? Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(ix)(26)

48 We received this RFP through the system notifications on 11/14/24, but it appears the RFP has been open since October 15th. Is there a way to receive RFP releases as they are opened?

Please see Addendum #1, Attachment 1, Section 4 and especially Subsections 4.1 and 4.5 for prospective Proposer responsibilities related to updates, for internet links and information to register through OregonBuys, and for OregonBuys technical support contact information.

Please contact OregonBuys HelpDesk for assistance in receiving direct notification of updates.

49 Is there opportunity for an extension of the RFP submission?

Please see RFP Addendum #1, Attachment 1, Section 4.4, Solicitation Protests, including, but not limited to, Section 4.4.1, Protests to RFP.

50 Are there any scoring advantages or considerations for being or using Disadvantaged Business entities?

Please see RFP Attachment D, Certified Disadvantaged Business Certification and Outreach Plan, RFP Addendum #1, Attachment 1, Section 6.2.

61 Has there been any schedules or projected timelines for the completion of this project implementation?

Please see RFP Addendum #2, Section 2(c)(vi)

62 What constitutes as out-of-state or in-state for the pricing preference policies?

Please see RFP Addendum #1, Attachment 1, Section 4.10.4, Oregon Revised Statutes 279A.120, and 279A.128 for requirements for application of cost-related preferences

63 If a project team consists of both Oregon residents, and out of state residents, how will it be handled?

The Agency will comply with the requirements of Oregon Revised Statutes 279A.128 to determine preference applicability.

64 What are the expected support hours and SLAs required…