RP028_24 Ad2.pdf

July 31, 2024

Addendum #2

RP028-24

Provision and Implementation of a Legal Matter Management Solution on an Annual Contract

The date to receive proposals has been changed from 2:50pm on August 1, 2024, to 2:50pm on August 15, 2024.

Revisions:

R1: The County now requires one (1) unbound single-sided original, seven (7) exact, bound copies, and one (1) electronic copy on a flash drive should be submitted, with the fee schedule on a separate flash drive from the technical response.

Please see the below summation of questions and answers for the above solicitation.

Questions:

Q1. Does the County require any legacy data conversion to the proposed solution? If so, please provide the following for source environment(s):

a. Name all software packages and versions.

b. Describe any deployment customizations.

c. Data Hierarchy (How is the data stored in the source system? For example, documents are stored on the file system, meta-data, security are stored in SQL).

d. Total number and size of documents in repository.

e. Number and size of documents to be migrated.

f. Types of documents to be migrated (Include both file types and type of content).

g. Number of non-document objects (folders, workspaces, database records, etc.) in repository.

h. Number of non-document objects to migrate.

i. Metadata profiles used for those documents to be migrated (Please include samples).

A1. Yes, the County does require legacy data conversion.

RP028-24 Addendum #2 Page 2

a. The following are file extensions stored in the County’s system:

ASF

AVI

BIN

CDA

CSV

D

DAT

DBF

DGN

DOC

DOCM

DOCX

DOT

DOTM

DOTX

DWG

EML

EMZ

EPS

EXE

FDF

GIF

HEIC

HTM

HTML

ICS

IDX

JPEG

JPG

JSON

KMZ

LEF

LOG

MHT

MHTML

MOV

MP3

MP4

MPG

MSG

MXD

ODS

ODT

OLD

OML

OPX

PDF

PNG

PPSX

PPT

PPTM

PPTX

PRJ

PST

PTX

PUB

RTF

SHP

SHX

STR

SVG

TIF

TIFF

TS

TXT

VCF

VFS

VIDEO

VSD

WAV

WEBARCHIVE

WMA

WMV

WPD

XLS

XLSB

XLSM

XLSX

XMEF

XML

XPS

ZIP

b. N/A

c. SQL

d. Approximately 500,000 documents totaling 300+ MB.

e. Please see A1.d.

f. Please see A1.a.

g. Folders on a shared network total 3.67 TB of used space. This consists of both current and former employees and only a subset of those will need to be migrated. Further discovery will be required.

h. Please see A1.g.

i.

Q2. Does the County require any migration to the proposed solution? If so, please identify:

a. Source document selection (How will the source documents to be migrated be selected?)

b. Location mapping (How will the source system content be mapped to the proposed solution location? For example, how will the proposed solution site and folder location where content should be migrated be determined? Are folder hierarchies to be maintained or created – Maybe based on attribute values?)

c. Metadata mapping (How will source metadata be mapped to the proposed solution metadata? What are the source profiles used and how will the target location be selected?)

d. Version Handling (How will the source versions be mapped to target versions?)

e. Peripheral document Handling (What other types of information about documents – or part of document items in the source system – need to be migrated? For example, attachments, access history, related links, etc. How should those files be migrated to the proposed solution?)

f. What are the non-document types that need to be migrated? How will they be migrated to the proposed solution?

g. Security Handling (Will security be part of the migration? If so, how will the source security (users and groups) be mapped to the proposed solution security?)

h. Data Conversion (Will documents or metadata be converted, changed, or added as part of the migration?)

RP028-24 Addendum #2 Page 3

i. What is the target date for completed migration?

j. Services (Does the County want to be trained on migration software and conduct the migration with internal resources or does the County prefer that vendor services conduct the migration?)

A2. Yes, the County does require migration to the proposed and awarded solution.

a. All current/open matters, as well as documents, emails, calendar entries, and scanned images will need to be migrated. Closed matters will need to be migrated as well, but the priority will be the current matters.

b. Service providers should recommend appropriate structure in their proposal.

c. Please see A2.b.

d. All versions should be carried over from Aderant.

e. The County does not wish to migrate Audit History.

f. Folders on a network share. Service providers should recommend appropriate structure in their proposal.

g. Please see RP028-24 Page 34, Q3.5.

h. Documents should remain in the Native Format.

i. Unknown at this time.

j. The County prefers that service providers conduct the migration with the assistance of the County.

Q3. Integrations - Please confirm all products which require integration. Please identify:

a. the requested use case for the integration

b. what information needs to be transferred

c. whether this is a one way or bi-directional integration

d. If one-way, from which direction?

e. the sync schedule/frequency rate

f. if the objects to sync are documents, is sync doc metadata required and how to treat versions of documents

g. should sync rules be built manually (admin rules), or should the rules be created automatically with the proposed product

h. if the objects are users or financial information, how many fields per object need to sync

(i.e. how many columns per row)?

A3. Please see below.

a. Please see RP028-24 Exhibit B Functional Requirements Response Workbook – Interface and Integration Requirements tab.

b. All current matters, legal opinions, and other documents, emails, calendar entries, scanned images will need to be migrated.

c. Bi-directional.

d. N/A.

e. Real time.

f. Meta data is required and allow for versioning.

g. Please see RP028-24 Exhibit B Functional Requirements Response Workbook.

h. The County is uncertain what this question is asking.

Q4. For Legacy Migrations: Will the County have an IT resource available to export legacy data, documents, and/or metadata?

A4. Yes.

RP028-24 Addendum #2 Page 4

Q5. Is this project currently funded? If so, please identify the budgeted project amount.

A5. Yes; the County will not disclose specific budget information.

Q6. Is the County currently utilizing Windows or Mac products?

A6. Windows.

Q7. Please indicate the total amount of vendor-hosted storage requested.

A7. Unknown at this time. It will be determined during the discovery period.

Q8. Please confirm the total number of internal users for the proposed and provide a breakdown by group/department/unit of total number of users and roles. Please identify any applicable IT staff that will require access to the proposed solution.

A8. Please refer to RP028-24 Inv, Page 22.

Q9. When is the County’s desired “Go-Live” date?

A9. Unknown at this time, as it depends on procurement timeline, contract negotiation, and data migration.

Q10. Would it be possible to allow for two (2) weeks between the issuance of answers to the question and answer period and the proposal due date? This will ensure adequate time to scope necessary technical aspects identified in the amendment.

A10. Please see the new opening date above.

Q11. Is the County able to utilize any procurement vehicles for this solicitation (i.e. NASPO, OMNIA, etc.)?

A11. No.

Q12. Would the County be amenable to, rather than having a OneDrive interface for storage, using the system’s integrated database and document tools? Service providers like our company opt for data migrations in these circumstances.

A12. Please see RP028-24 Exhibit B Functional Requirements Response Workbook.

Q13. Can the County confirm that there is no standard naming convention for cases and documents? If so, this implicates service providers’ ability to reference incumbent records/migrate incumbent data and OneDrive links to the new system. What percent of total incumbent records are expected to be available in the new system?

A13. Some naming conventions exist. The percent is unknown at this time.

Q14. If the system is capable of fulfilling the same features as requested integrated softwares can service providers propose the use of the out-of-the-box feature as an alternative instead of the integration?

A14. Please see RP028-24 Exhibit B Functional Requirements Response Workbook.

Q15. In the price proposal, can service providers break out integrations in the situation that the proposed out-of-the-box capability meets the requirement, so that the County can ignore that integration line-item?

A15. Service providers should provide pricing as laid out in Exhibit C – Pricing Response Workbook.

RP028-24 Addendum #2 Page 5

Q16. Has the County received demonstrations from any prospective service providers?

A16. The County reviewed demonstrations and information from various service providers during the early stages of research.

Q17. Did any service provider aid in the design of this proposal, and if so, are they eligible for participation?

A17. No service providers aided in the design of this proposal.

Q18. Is there a designated budget for this procurement? If so, what is the budget?

A18. Please see A5.

Q19. What is the incumbent case management solution?

A19. Aderant Total Office.

Q20. Rather than sending one unbound single sided original, seven (7) exact, bound copies, and one (1) electronic copy on a flash drive should be submitted, with the fee schedule on a separate flash drive from the technical response, will the County accept electronic responses?

A20. No. Please refer to RP028-24 Inv, Page 1.

Q21. What is the budget for this project?

A21. Please see A5.

Q22. How many total named users will be using the software?

A22. Please refer to RP028-24 Inv, Page 22.

Q23. What is the name of the current case management system?

A23. Please see A19.

Q24. When will answers to these questions be supplied?

A24. Questions and answers are provided in this addendum.

Q25. Will all questions and answers from all vendors be shared?

A25. Yes. All questions received before the deadline specified (RP028-24 Inv, Page 1) are addressed in this addendum.

Q26. What incumbent document management system (OneDrive, FileNet, Hyland OnBase, SharePoint) will the County use for the case management system?

A26. Please refer to RP028-24 Inv, Page 3.

Q27. For cloud solutions does the County have a preferred cloud environment such as AWS GovCloud or Microsoft Azure Government, or is the County planning hosting on premise?

A27. Please see RP028-24 Inv, Page 6, for the County’s technology ecosystem. Please see RP028-24 Inv, Page 3, for hosting.

Q28. Has the County evaluated or viewed any other service provider’s products? If yes, please provide details.

A28. Please see A16.

RP028-24 Addendum #2 Page 6

Q29. Will preference be given to browser-based applications?

A29. Please see RP028-24 Exhibit B Functional Requirements Response Workbook.

Q30. Are solutions that utilize VDI technology (Citrix, RDP, VMware View) acceptable?

A30. Please see RP028-24 Exhibit B Functional Requirements Response Workbook.

Q31. Will any users be accessing the system via VPN? If yes, please provide technical requirements.

A31. Please see RP028-24 Exhibit B Functional Requirements Response Workbook.

Q32. If planning on migrating data to the new system what sample data, record layouts, schema, ERD, etc. is available for analysis?

A32. None during the procurement process.

Q33. How many data sources are to be converted?

A33. Aderant database; Microsoft Office Documents (Entire suite).

Q34. Does the County have technical staff to assist with data extraction?

A34. Yes.

Q35. What is the desired timeframe for implementation?

A35. Unknown at this time.

Q36. Will any service provider be assisting with product selection or implementation? If a service provider is involved, please identify them. If assisting with the implementation, what systems have they had experience within the past?

A36. No.

Q37. What systems will be integrated into the new case management system? For each provide functional and technical requirements.

A37. Please see RP028-24 Exhibit B Functional Requirements Response Workbook.

Q38. What is being used for file room/records management to track physical paper-based files?

Is the desire to replace or integrate with it?

A38. Digital Inventory List assists with tracking paper-based files that are located in our

Records Management facility. There is potentially an interest in integrating with Digital Inventory List. Currently, all County records are tracked by using Versatile.

Q39. Does the County wish to create and maintain court rules internally or to use a third-party service?

A39. No preference.

Q40. Is legal hold functionality a requirement?

A40. Please see RP028-24 Exhibit B Functional Requirements Response Workbook.

RP028-24 Addendum #2 Page 7

Q41. Our company’s solution is a browser-based application but at this time we do not provide hosting services. Can the County select and manage a cloud space using hosting providers such as Azure, AWS, etc., that our software is installed in and managed by the County’s IT department?

A41. Please see RP028-24 Exhibit B Functional Requirements Response Workbook.

Q42. Is this an acceptable deployment model or is the County only looking for solutions that are service provider-hosted?

A42. Please see RP028-24 Exhibit B Functional Requirements Response Workbook.

Q43. Can more information be provided regarding data migration in order to provide an estimate for scope of services?

A43. Please review the questions and answers in this addendum. Anything additional would need to be determined in Discovery.

Q44. How many different data sources is the service provider expected to convert data/documents from?

A44. Please see A43.

Q45. What are the data sources?

A45. Please see A43.

Q46. Is there any data/documents that are duplicative in the sources?

A46. Yes.

Q47. Is there a unique identifier between the sources to tie them together?

A47. document_sk.

Q48. How many users will need access to the solution on day one?

A48. Please refer to RP028-24 Inv, Page 22.

Q49. What does the County use for MFA?

A49. Please refer to RP028-24 Inv, Page 7.

Thank you, Casey Beauston Purchasing Associate II

This addendum should be signed in the space provided below and returned with your proposal.

Failure to do so may result in your proposal being deemed non-responsive.

Company Name

Authorized Representative