SGAL RFP - CCMS Solicitation Document.docx

Request for Proposals for Software and Implementation Services for a Client Case Management System (CCMS) Software Systems Environment

Solicitation Due Date: Friday, January 30, 2026 Time: 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) All Proposals must be received by The Florida Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office (SGAL or Office) by the date and time cited above. It shall be the Proposer’s sole risk to ensure submission by the designated time.

VENDORS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO READ THE ENTIRE SOLICITATION.

Solicitation packages can be obtained by downloading from the Office’s website www.guardianadlitem.org - Guardian ad Litem Request for Proposal 2025-26. Those who experience problems downloading the solicitation documents from SGAL’s website should email RFP20252601@gal.fl.gov. The subject line in the email must read “Request for Solicitation Documents”.

All questions concerning the RFP must be submitted via email as identified in Section 1.8 of solicitation. Communications with other the Office staff may disqualify you from the evaluation process.

Forms, Worksheets, and Other Attachments

Attachment A – Vendor Certification Form (See MS Excel document “SGAL RFP - Attachment A – Vendor Certification Forms – xls”) Attachment B – Proposal Response Forms (See MS Word document “SGAL RFP - Attachment B - Proposal Response Document – docx”) Attachment C – Functional and Technical Requirements/Capabilities (See MS Excel spreadsheet “SGAL RFP - Attachment C - Functional and Technical Requirements and Capabilities.xlsx”) Attachment D – Financial Stability Review (See MS Word document “SGAL RFP - Attachment D – Financial Stability Review.docx”) Attachment E1 – Proposal Cost Worksheet (Instructions) (See MS Word document “SGAL RFP - Attachment E1 - Proposal Cost Worksheet Instructions.docx”) Attachment E2 – Proposal Cost Worksheet (See MS Excel spreadsheet “SGAL RFP - Attachment E2 - Proposal Cost Worksheet.xlsx”)

Section Page

1 RFP Introduction and Background

1.1 Introduction

The Florida Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office (SGAL or Office) is soliciting Proposals from Proposers capable of satisfying the needs for software and consulting services to implement an integrated platform for data and file management, communications, and document processing.

In addition to soliciting written responses, this document provides information to assist Proposers in preparing their responses and facilitates the subsequent evaluation and comparison process. In that regard, this RFP:

· Provides information essential to soliciting meaningful recommendations and realistic commitments from the Proposers

· Specifies the desired format and content of Proposals in response to this RFP

· Outlines the Office’s evaluation and selection procedures

· Establishes a schedule for the preparation and submission of Proposals in response to this RFP This RFP and the selected Proposal in response to this RFP will be incorporated into the contract resulting from this solicitation.

1.2 About the Florida Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office

The Florida Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office (Office) is a governmental budget entity with local offices in each of Florida’s twenty (20) judicial Circuits and a headquarters office in Tallahassee, Florida. The mission and statutory obligation of the Office is to provide high-quality legal representation to every child under the jurisdiction of Florida’s dependency court system. In 2024, the Statewide Office provided legal representation to 30,095 children assigned to Florida’s dependency court system using a multi-disciplinary team that included an attorney, a child welfare professional, and, where applicable, a community volunteer.

Sec. 39.8296(2)(b), F.S., assigns oversight responsibility for all guardian ad litem and attorney ad litem offices within Florida’s twenty (20) judicial circuits to the Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office (SGAL). Furthermore, SGAL must provide independent representation for every child under the jurisdiction of Florida’s Dependency Courts [Sec. 39.013(11) and 39.822(1) F.S.] utilizing a multidisciplinary team of attorneys, staff and volunteers who investigate the facts of each child’s case and file reports with the court as required by general law [sec. 39.822(2)(a)2 and sec. 39.8296(2)(b)7., F.S]. To meet its statutory oversight, representation and reporting mandates for these children, the SGAL must maintain a case file for every child. Each case files includes all records related to the child’s safety, welfare and best interests, as well as the pleadings and documents filed with the court in the child’s circuit court dependency case, appeals and collateral matters.

In addition, files related to the staff and volunteers must be created and maintained including but not limited to applications, references, background checks, training, and case assignments. Data collection, reporting and tracking is required for both case data and volunteer management The following table contains statistics related to the Office. These statistics are provided for planning purposes only. Additional information has been provided in Table 04: Functional Area Statistics.

Table 01: SGAL Statistics

1.3 Project Objectives

The overall goal of this project is to take advantage of the newest technology and harness efficiencies by reviewing business processes or implementing technology to enhance existing business processes performed by the Office. SGAL is planning to replace its current case file system environment with a new system and to adopt systems functionality to support its core court-related processes. In doing so, the Office seeks to address several challenges in the current environment, and gain future efficiencies, including, but not limited to:

· Key Objectives and Outcomes:

· Enhance operational effectiveness by making more timely, accurate, and complete information available to the Office’s personnel.

· Robust reporting capabilities, including but not limited to ad hoc reporting, statistical reporting, and configurable scheduled reports

· Improve internal and external communications using information technology and data exchanges with justice partners

· Enhance features and functionality to support increased automation and operational efficiencies by streamlining use of systems

· Primary Challenges in the Current Environment:

· The current environment is divided into 20 separate siloed accounts, one for each of SGALs local offices located in the twenty judicial circuits. This makes it difficult and time consuming to collect and analyze data at the statewide level. Our current system creates new, duplicative profiles for every case file, rather than maintaining one unique individual record. This structure fosters data silos, prevents a comprehensive view of an individual's history, and leads to redundancy and inevitable data inconsistencies across multiple "accounts" for the same person.

· The system lacks robust reporting features.

· The Office is unable to customize or alter the existing system unless the customization is made for all license holders.

· Data storage.

· The lack of a global search feature necessitates manual navigation and manual information retrieval, severely hindering timely access to crucial records and data. The interface is non-intuitive and requires multiple steps to complete simple tasks, increasing process time and error rates. To address these challenges and others, the Office has initiated a project to adequately plan for, select, and implement a replacement or upgraded Software Systems environment. Section 2 - Project Scope, outlines the features and functionality desired in a future system(s), as well as the professional services necessary to implement that system(s).

1.4 Definitions

To simplify the language throughout this RFP, the following definitions shall apply:

ADDENDA – Written instruments issued by the Office prior to the date for receipt of Proposals that modify or interpret the RFP documents by addition, deletions, clarification, or corrections.

CASE FILE SYSTEM (CFS) – Refers to the current Optima database system the Statewide Office uses to store is case files.

CLIENT CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CCMS) – Means the court case management system software system that is described in this RFP and in the Attachments hereto.

CONTRACT DOCUMENTS – The RFP, submitted Proposals, including any diagrams, Addenda, and a form of agreement between the Office and the Contractor, including all change orders, insurance certificates (to be provided at time of contract negotiations), exhibits, amendments, and attachments.

CONTRACTOR – The Contractor(s)/consultant(s) that may be awarded a contract to provide software system(s) and professional services to implement the Case Management System for the Office.

DAYS – Means calendar days unless otherwise specified EVALUATION COMMITTEE – The team of the SGAL staff that will participate in the review, evaluation, and scoring of proposals and subsequent evaluation processes, including demonstrations and reference checks.

EXTERNAL USERS – Refers to the non-employee, volunteer users who will access the Client Case Management System via portal access PROJECT – The project to configure and implement the CCMS System for the Office as described in this RFP and in the Attachments hereto.

PROJECT MANAGER – The person designated by the Office to be the primary point of contact assigned to act on behalf of the Office during the term of the resulting Contract.

PROJECT SCOPE – Scope of services to be provided by the Contractor(s).

PROPOSAL – A complete and properly signed Proposal to provide goods, commodities, labor, or services for the sum stated and submitted in accordance with the RFP.

PROPOSER or VENDOR – The person, Contractor, corporation, partnership, or other entity submitting a Proposal on items listed in the RFP documents and thereby agreeing to meet the specified Contract terms and conditions if awarded the contract.

SERVICES or WORK – All services to be performed by the Contractor to successfully complete the Project to the satisfaction of the Office.

SUBCONTRACTOR or SUBCONSULTANT – Any individual, corporation, company, or other entity that contracts to perform work or render services to a Contractor or to another subcontractor as part of this Contract with the Office.

VENDOR – See “PROPOSER.”

1.5 RFP Schedule of Events

The following RFP Schedule of Events represents the best estimate of the schedule the Office will follow, which is subject to change at SGAL’s discretion. Vendors are encouraged to hold the demonstration dates listed. If a component of the schedule is accelerated or delayed, it shall be anticipated that the remaining components may also be adjusted by a similar number of days via RFP Addendum prior to the submittal deadline.

Table 02: RFP Schedule of Events

1.6 Minimum Qualifications

For Proposals to be evaluated and considered for award, Proposals must be deemed responsive to this RFP as determined in the discretion of the SGAL Evaluation Committee. To be deemed responsive, the submitted Proposal documents shall conform in all material respects to the requirements stated in the RFP, and Proposers shall document and validate the capability to fully perform all requirements defined by the RFP. Factors to be considered in connection with a Proposer’s capability to fully perform all requirements of the RFP include, and may not be limited to: experience, integrity, reliability, capacity, and other factors required to provide the Services defined by the RFP.

1.7 Vendor Qualifications and Certification

The Office has not employed a prequalification process. No Vendors located within the United States are either prequalified or precluded from responding to this RFP unless previously prohibited from doing business with the State of Florida.

Prior to issuing this RFP, the Office solicited quotes and previewed case management systems from multiple vendors. Information provided by these vendors was used, in part, to prepare this RFP.

All Vendors that submit a Proposal for this RFP must include a completed Attachment A – Vendor Certification Form with their proposal. Failure to include a completed Attachment A with the proposal will result in the Proposal being disqualified and rejected as non-responsive. Specific information addressed on Attachment A includes:

Section 1. Respondents must provide sufficient information for SGAL to identify the name and contact information of the business replying to this RFP and the contact person(s) assigned to work with SGAL on this project.

Section 2. Pursuant to Florida Statute 287.057 (17), SGAL must avoid or attempt to mitigate any potential conflicts of interest that may exist prior to the execution of any contract associated with this RFP. Responsive replies must include, to the best of Respondent’s knowledge, one (1) answer to each question in Section 2 of Attachment A.

Section 3. Pursuant to Florida Statute 287.057, SGAL must evaluate each reply to ensure the Respondent’s company can reliably provide the services required in this RFP. For this reason, Section 3 provides a series of questions intended to assess the overall responsibility of each Respondent. Responsive Replies must include one (1) answer to each question in Section 3 of Attachment A.

Section 4. To ensure the security and integrity of its network and data, all responsive Replies must identify the system(s) used to secure and protect both the website infrastructure and any data provided by SGAL to the Respondent.

SGAL has identified two generally recognized IT security systems – SOC2 Type 2 and ISO 27001. SOC 2 Type 2 is a report that focuses on demonstrating the effectiveness of an organization's internal controls for security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy over a specified period. ISO 27001 is a certification that provides a framework for establishing, implementing, and continuously improving an Information Security Management System (ISMS).

Responsive replies must include a copy of the current SOC 2 Type 2 report or IOS 270001 Certification with Attachment A – Vendor Certification Form. Respondents that do not use either of the IT Security systems/standards must answer all questions included on the Information Technology Questionnaire and include a copy of those answers with Attachment A – Vendor Certification Form in the Reply to this RFP. Failure to respond to the IT Security Section of Attachment A will result in Respondent’s disqualification from this RFP.

1.8 Questions and Inquiries

It shall be the responsibility of the Proposers to inquire about any portion of the RFP that is not fully understood or that is susceptible to more than one interpretation prior to the question period closing.

· All questions concerning the RFP must be submitted via email only, to the email designated specifically for communications related to this Request for Proposals (RFP20252601@gal.fl.gov)

· Questions and answers will be issued in accordance with Section 1.10 – Amendments and Addenda.

· Only questions and answers publicly published through Addendum shall be binding. The Addendum will be published on both the Florida Statewide Guardian ad Litem website and as an additional attachment to this procurement on the Florida Vendor Information portal.

Respondents to this solicitation or persons acting on their behalf may not contact, between the release of the solicitation and the end of the 72-hour period following the agency posting the notice of intended award, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and state holidays, any employee or officer of the executive or legislative branch concerning any aspect of this solicitation, except in writing to the procurement officer or as provided in the solicitation documents. Violation of this provision may be grounds for rejecting a response. The decision to reject a Proposal is solely that of the SGAL Evaluation Committee.

1.9 Non-Mandatory Pre-Proposal Vendor Videoconference

A non-mandatory Pre-Proposal Vendor Videoconference will be held on Tuesday January 6, 2026, at 11am Eastern Standard Time via Zoom.

Vendors interested in participating in the Pre-Proposal Vendor Videoconference shall submit an email to RFP20252601@gal.fl.gov. The subject line of the email MUST say “Add to the Pre-Proposal Vendor Conference”. Vendors who do not submit an email or submit an email with the appropriate subject line may not receive a link to the Videoconference.

The format of the Pre-Proposal Vendor Videoconference will be an overview presentation of the RFP, its contents, the RFP Schedule of Events, and additional topics. Following the presentation, Vendors will be able to ask questions related to the RFP or the overall process. The Office will attempt to answer all questions at that time, but answers provided during the Videoconference shall not be binding. Following the Pre-Proposal Vendor Videoconference, the Office will post the material questions asked during the Videoconference and their respective answers in an addendum on the Florida Vendor Information Portal and the Guardian ad Litem website at https://guardianadlitem.org/guardian-ad-litem-request-for-proposal-2025-26/

1.10 Amendments and Addenda

All questions & answers, clarifications, corrections, or revisions to this RFP will be documented in an addendum, which will be publicly published on the Florida Vendor Information Portal and the SGAL website:

https://guardianadlitem.org/guardian-ad-litem-request-for-proposal-2025-26/ Only questions and answers in the posted addendum shall be considered by vendors when responding to this RFP. The Office reserves the right to revise the RFP prior to the deadline for Proposal submissions. Revisions shall be documented in an addendum and publicly published on its official website (website url provided above) The Office will attempt to publicly publish periodic addenda on a timely basis between the RFP publishing date and the close of the question period. Vendors are responsible for monitoring the Request for Proposals section of the Office’s website for the periodic posting of addenda prior to the submittal due date.

1.11 Non-Warranty of RFP Information

Due care and diligence has been exercised in the preparation of this RFP and all information herein is believed to be substantially correct. However, the responsibility for determining the full extent of the exposure to risk and verification of all information herein shall rest solely on those parties making Proposals. The SGAL Office, its representatives, and its agents shall not be responsible for any error or omission in this RFP, nor shall they be responsible for the failure on the part of any Proposers or their representatives to verify the information herein and to determine the full extent of that exposure.

2 Project Scope

2.1 Functional Areas

The following table contains the list of functional areas of the desired future systems environment.

Table 03: Functional Areas

Functional Areas

The list of Functional and Technical Requirements/Capabilities contained in Attachment C – Functional and Technical Requirements/Capabilities contains the detailed functionality the Office requires within each functional area in a future systems environment, as well as general and technical system requirements and interface scope.

The following table contains case and case file statistics from the prior four years. These statistics are estimates and are provided for planning purposes only.

Table 04: Case Metrics and Statistics

2.2 Alternate Proposals, Partnerships and Proposers of Subsets of Functionality Alternate Proposals:

· Software companies that deliver their solution through one or more consulting firms (system integrators) are also allowed to submit more than one Proposal for consideration through differing consulting firms provided the software solution can be customized to meet the specific needs of the SGAL Office.

Partnerships:

Proposers are encouraged to establish partnership relationships to fully provide all requirements defined by the RFP.

· Proposers engaged in a partnership relationship shall submit a single proposal in response to this RFP. An Attachment A - Vendor Certification Form must be completed for each company/vendor that is part of a partnership. All completed Attachment A forms must be included with the final Proposal for that proposal to be deemed responsive.

· Partnership relationships shall be clearly defined by proposal responses Such definition shall identify the entity in the partnership relationship deemed to be the Prime Vendor.

· Each Vendor engaged in the partnership shall respond to any and all applicable portions of this RFP that relate to the work that will be performed, or the capabilities provided. For example, each Vendor shall provide references, and each Vendor shall respond to the Company Background and History questions.

Proposers of Subsets of Functionality:

The SGAL Office will not be accepting proposals from Proposers offering a subset of functionality.

2.3 SGAL Office and Project Staffing

The Office intends to have functional and technical resources available during Project implementation, though it is noted that the Office does not anticipate dedicating staff full-time to the implementation in addition to managing their core job responsibilities. This applies to both functional resources as well as technical resources internal to the SGAL Office. It is anticipated that some functional leads will serve as the functional lead, or a subject matter expert, across one or more modules during the implementation process.

Staffing considerations are a consideration for the SGAL Office in terms of both the implementation process as well as supporting the software once in an operations mode. Vendors are encouraged to submit questions to the Office during the RFP questions period to solicit such additional information as is necessary to adequately estimate the resource commitments that would be expected of the Office during implementation, and post go-live for ongoing support of the system(s). Additional resource planning will be performed based upon the selected Proposer(s).

To allow the Office to perform adequate planning, Proposers shall clearly indicate in the proposal responses the estimated level of resource involvement expected of the SGAL Office in the implementation process. The Office will utilize the response to Proposers’ Resource Hour Estimates in Tab 3 – Project Approach and Implementation Methodology, of Proposals as an input into the staffing plan the Office develops, and requests that Proposers clearly articulate estimated staffing considerations in their responses.

2.4 Deployment Model

The Office is open to considering various deployment models and has structured the RFP to allow for the evaluation of the deployment model as but one factor in the overall procurement process. The Office wishes to evaluate the greatest range of marketplace offerings feasible through this process.

The Office recognizes there are many factors contributing to a comparison of cost Proposals for these various deployment methods including needed infrastructure and/or hardware costs, the potential for reduced hardware and support costs in hosted/SaaS models, a particular Proposer’s approach to managing upgrades, and technical staffing needs. The SGAL Office has a preference toward a Software as a Service (SaaS) deployment model, but also recognizes that the scope of this opportunity could result in the award to two or more vendors to address all functionality and the Office wishes to evaluate the greatest range of available solutions in the market including those that may be locally hosted by the Office. As such, the SGAL Office is open to considering all deployment models considering the breadth of functionality and available solutions in the marketplace to address those functional areas. The Office will consider, in no particular order, the following deployment models:

a. On Premise (locally hosted at the Office, perpetual licenses, in its Microsoft Azure Cloud environment)

b. Proposer hosted (hosted and managed by the Proposer, perpetual licenses)

c. Software as a Service (SaaS or subscription-based models) Cost sheets have been provided under Attachment E1 – Cost Worksheets for pricing each of the deployment models.

This solicitation is not a bid process nor will it follow a lowest-priced responsive Proposal process, but will be based on most advantageous Proposal(s) utilizing the Evaluation Criteria listed in the RFP, including the review of life cycle costs (i.e., recurring costs, hardware, third-party licenses, etc.).

In developing proposals, Proposer’s shall clearly define the proposed deployment model including the licensing model as well as any perceived benefits of the proposed model. In the event two or more products are proposed under the same proposal (e.g., through a partnership or offered by the same company) the Proposer shall clearly indicate in both the technical proposal (Attachment B, Tab 2) and cost proposal (Attachment E1) the deployment model for each proposed software product.

The Office does not have a preference as to a specific hosting location but does have a requirement toward the hosting being within the contiguous United States. Vendors are requested to specify the hosting location in proposal responses, specifically as part of Tab 8 to proposal responses (please see Attachment B for further instruction).

2.5 Data Conversion

The Office recognizes the size and criticality of data conversion in a project such as this one. The Office also recognizes the risk, time, and cost inherent in converting data from its legacy system to a new CCMS. For that reason, the Office is open to alternatives to full data conversion and invites Vendors to propose effective strategies for managing legacy case data in a way that ensures continued digital accessibility. Specifically, the Office seeks recommendations on:

· How to assess and classify legacy cases to determine which should be archived versus partially or fully migrated;

· The technical and functional approach to archiving cases, including how archived cases can be searched and accessed;

· Whether archived cases can be linked to or integrated with the new CCMS; and

· Workflow and system considerations for efficiently reactivating archived cases when action is required.

Additional documentation about the Data Conversion plan may be found in Attachment B – Proposal Response Forms, Tab 7, attached to this RFP

2.6 Number of Users

The following user counts by module contained in the table below are estimates and are provided for planning purposes only. The number of users represents the anticipated future number of users of a new system.

· Named Users: In the event a vendor licenses software using a named user basis only, the Office expects that there will be approximately 863 named users in a future environment.

· Concurrent Users: In the event a vendor licenses software using a concurrent user basis, the Office would expect that there will be a need for approximately 863 concurrent user licenses to be in place.

· External Users: The office expects its volunteers and pro-bono attorneys to access the system via public-facing portal. No licenses will be purchased for volunteer or pro-bono attorney portal access. The Office currently has 9,354 children assigned to 6,552 volunteers and pro-bono attorneys.

2.7 Potential Phasing and Target Live Dates

The Office requests that offerors provide potential phase start and target go-live dates in proposal responses per Attachment B – Proposal Response Forms, Tab 5. These dates should be estimates based on anticipated resource requirements and dependencies between functional areas. These dates are subject to negotiation. The Office anticipates that implementation activities would begin as soon as a contract is executed in March/April 2026. The project and all required modules must be completed, tested and fully deployed on or before June 30, 2027.

2.8 Current Applications Environment

The Office implemented Optima in 2015. This is proprietary software is owned and administered by Evinto Solutions, LLC and treated as a sole source SaaS agreement by the SGAL office. More information is below in Table 05.

Table 05: Legacy System and Data Metrics

Legacy System Information

Programming language

Database type

Legacy Data Metrics

Reporting tool challenges

· Data points are spread across multiple Circuit accounts

· Only the Vendor can create new reports at an additional cost to the Office

Known data challenges

· The Office continues to experience system outages as it exceeds available file storage.

· The Office currently has more than 10 TB of data stored on the Optima servers

Other Major Applications The Office currently uses the following third-party applications outside of the CCMS. Many of these applications are listed in Table 06. Identification of potential future system interfaces is also provided in Attachment B to this RFP.

Table 06: Additional Software Applications

Additional Software Applications

2.9 Project Management Documentation

The following information establishes the expectation of the minimum level of project management documentation to be provided by Proposers as a part of, but not exclusively, the resulting implementation services offered. As part of the implementation scope, following signing of a contract, the selected Contractor(s) shall develop and provide the Office with the following items:

· Project Management Plan: a detailed Implementation Project Plan that, at a minimum, includes the following:

· Objectives

· Deliverables and Milestones

· Project Schedule

· Resource Management Processes

· Scope Management Processes

· Schedule Management Processes

· Risk Management Processes

· Quality Management Approach

· Communication Management Approach

· Organizational Change Management Approach

· Status Reporting

· Data Conversion Plan

· Training Plan

· System Interface Plan

· Testing and Quality Assurance Plan

· Pre- and Post-Implementation Support Plan

· System Documentation

· Risk Register Additional documentation about each Plan may be found in Attachment B – Proposal Response Forms, Tab 3, attached to this RFP.

2.10 Budget

The Office is committed to fully funding the one-time and recurring annual costs for the acquisition of the software (whether a licensed model or a subscription model is selected because of this process). The Office intends to use the proposals received through this process to inform the budget development process. The Office has performed initial, high-level estimations for the acquisition of either an On-Premises, proposer-hosted, or cloud-based software solution including professional services and recurring maintenance/subscription costs. Recognizing the cost and payment differences between deployment models, a final budget will be programmed based on the results of this RFP and final contract negotiations.

The Office is sensitive to the total costs and has listed cost as one of the several evaluation criteria in the RFP; however, this is not an opportunity to identify the lowest priced solution. This RFP opportunity is being presented as a best value solicitation, and not a lowest priced bid opportunity.

2.11 Personnel

All of Contractor’s personnel providing goods and services under the contract shall possess the necessary skills, experience, and knowledge, to perform their assigned duties. In the event assigned personnel are providing non-conforming or unsuitable services, the Office shall notify Contractor and provide the opportunity to rectify the deficiency. If unable to cure the nonconforming services, Contractor shall remove from the project and replace the Contractor’s personnel that the Office deems unsuitable for the project with a resource possessing the necessary skills, experience, and knowledge, to perform their assigned duties in a satisfactory manner.

2.12 Software Upgrades

The Office shall be entitled to any and all upgraded versions of the software covered in the contract that becomes available from the Contractor. Such upgrades shall be provided at no additional cost to the Office or State of Florida so long as a valid maintenance and support agreement, or if applicable software as a service licensing agreement, is in place.

2.13 Performance Review

The Contractor may be required to meet with the SGAL Office’s Project Manager not less than once per quarter to conduct a performance review of the Contractor. These meetings will be conducted via phone, teleconference or web-conference. This performance review will include a review of the pricing, delivery performance, customer service, and improving operational efficiencies.

3 Proposal Evaluation and Award

3.1 Evaluation Process

The following subsection outlines the intended proposal evaluation process the Office has identified. The Office reserves the right to deviate from this process at its own discretion, and to (i) negotiate any and all elements of the RFP, (ii) amend, modify, or withdraw the RFP, (iii) revise any requirements under the RFP, (iv) require supplemental statements of information from any Proposer,

(v) extend the deadline for submission of Proposals, (vi) cancel, in whole or part, this RFP if the Office deems it is in its best interest to do so, (vii) request additional information or clarification of information provided in any Proposal without changing the terms of the RFP, (viii) award this project in whole or in part to a vendor other than the highest scoring vendor based on the determination of the best overall value and/or fit for the Office, and/or (ix) waive any portion of the selection process in order to accelerate the selection and negotiation with the top-ranked Proposer. The Office may exercise the foregoing rights at any time without notice and without liability to any Proposer, or any other party, for expenses incurred in the preparation of responses hereto or otherwise.

a. Vendor Shortlist: The Office Evaluation Committee will initially review and evaluate each Proposal received to determine the Proposer’s ability to meet the requirements of the Office. The evaluation criteria described in Section 3.3 will be the basis for evaluation. The Evaluation Committee will determine the Proposers best suited to meet the needs of the Office based on the scoring of the evaluation criteria. These Vendors will form the Vendor Shortlist.

b. Vendor Demonstrations: The Office, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to have system demonstrations with those Proposers on the Vendor Shortlist, or any other Proposer. Demonstrations may be conducted at the Office offices or via teleconference. Demonstrations will involve a scripted demonstration. The schedule, scripts, and demonstration requirements will be provided with the invitation to participate in demonstrations. A Pre-Demonstration Vendor Teleconference will take place for those Vendors that have been shortlisted, and Proposers will have an opportunity to review the format of the demonstrations and ask questions related to procedure and specific demonstration scenarios. Vendors that are invited to participate in demonstrations are advised that the provided scripts must be strictly adhered to while presenting. Optional modules or functionality shall not be presented if they fall outside the scope of requested functionality or that functionality which has been proposed by the Proposers. The proposed version of the software must be shown and must not include any software that is under development or in beta testing. Evaluation Committee members will view the demonstrations, and additional Office staff may also be in attendance to observe and provide informal feedback.

c. Reference Checks: The Office may employ a process of contacting references provided through Proposers’ proposals. This process may include teleconference meetings, web conferences, and in-person meetings with references. The Office reserves the right to conduct reference checks at any point in the evaluation process, and to contact other known users of the proposed system(s) beyond just those references provided.

d. Best and Final Offer and Request for Clarification: A Best-and-Final-Offer process may be initiated if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Office. Such process may be initiated following the identification of the Vendor Shortlist or at any other evaluation process step. Additional processes of scope and cost clarification may be employed as part of the evaluation process if it is deemed to be in the Office’s best interest.

3.2 Clarification and Discussion of Proposals

The Office may request clarifications and conduct discussions with any Proposer that submits a Proposal, including requesting additional information. The Office reserves the right to select the Proposal or Proposals that it believes is the most responsive as determined by the Office Evaluation Committee, which will best serve the Office business and operational requirements, considering the evaluation criteria set forth below. Proposers shall be available for a system demonstration to the Office staff on dates specified in Table 02 or as otherwise requested by the Office if selected for system demonstrations. Failure of a Proposer to respond to such a request for additional information, clarification, or system demonstrations may result in rejection of the Proposal. The initial evaluation may be adjusted because of a clarification under this section. The Office reserves the right to waive irregularities in the Proposal content or to request supplemental information from Proposers.

3.3 Evaluation Criteria

As described in the preceding Evaluation process sub-section, the Office intends to follow a cumulative approach to scoring based on key evaluation activities (e.g., scoring is conducted in a progressive manner, following various steps in the process). The Office hereby reserves the right to evaluate, at its sole discretion, the extent to which each Proposal received compares to the stated criteria. Vendor proposals shall be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria, subject to variation at the sole discretion of the Office:

3.3.1 Short-List Identification: The Office intends to utilize the criteria presented in Table 07 following the Evaluation Team’s review of Proposals.

Table 07: Short-List Identification Criteria

Functionality This criterion considers but is not limited to the following:

· The proposer’s written responses to the Functional and Technical Requirements for proposed functional areas and overall software solution.

· The ability for the proposed software to integrate with SGALs current information technology environment.

Technical This criterion considers but is not limited to the following:

· Alignment of the proposed software to the Office’s preferred technical specifications.

· The proposer’s written response to each Potential Interface.

· The level of integration among proposed functional areas.

Approach This criterion considers but is not limited to the following:

· The described approach to implement an enterprise system to achieve the Office’s goals and objectives.

· The alignment of the proposed implementation timeline to the Office’s desired timeline.

· The distribution of implementation tasks among the Office and proposer teams.

· The proposed resources hours among the Office and proposer teams.

· The proposer’s approach to key implementation tasks including but not limited to data conversion, testing, and training.

· The proposer’s planned ongoing support and maintenance services

Proposer Experience This criterion considers but is not limited to the following:

· The proposer’s experience delivering the services requested in the RFP.

· The proposer’s experience with similar implementations for comparable organizations.

· The proposer’s experience deploying comparable interfaces to the Office’s related applications.

Proposed Staff Experience This criterion considers but is not limited to the following:

· The experience of named staff delivering services requested in the RFP.

· The experience of named staff with similar implementations for comparable organizations.

· The qualifications of named staff to deliver the services requested in the RFP with a focus on business process optimization.

3.3.2 Finalists Identification: the Office intends to utilize the criteria presented in Table 08 following the demonstrations by Short-List vendors.

Table 08: Finalist Identification Criteria

Functionality Demonstrated This criterion considers new information learned through proposer demonstrations including but not limited to the demonstrated user interface and the alignment of demonstrated functionality with preferred business processes.

Reference Feedback & Comparability This criterion considers the feedback received from references related to the proposer’s performance in the implementation, including meeting project objectives and timelines, as well as the knowledge, skills, and experience of implementation staff; capabilities of the software; and ongoing proposer performance with support and maintenance. This criterion will also consider the relevance of references related to organization size and location, structure of the organization, entity type (e.g., Office/town/village), comparable scope, similar software version, and deployment model.

Functionality Demonstrated This criterion considers new information learned through proposer demonstrations including but not limited to the demonstrated user interface and the alignment of demonstrated functionality with preferred business processes.

3.3.3 Cost Point Allocation: The Office will evaluate cost proposals based upon this criterion. Cost points will be applied at the timing in the evaluation process as may be determined by the Evaluation Team. The Office reserves the right to review cost proposals at any stage in the process to ensure pricing is within internal budget planning ranges. Proposers will be given an opportunity to refine or replace cost points in the event the Office issues a subsequent Request for Clarification or Request for Best and Final Offer (BAFO).

Table 09: Cost Point Criteria

Cost This criterion considers, as applicable, the price of the software licensing, services, and terms of any offered ongoing maintenance and support (including applicable service level agreements, disaster recovery, etc.) proposed in response to the information solicited by this RFP. Proposers will be evaluated on their pricing scheme, as well as on their price in comparison to the other proposers.

In evaluating cost, the Office may evaluate on a fully loaded ten-year cost of ownership. Fully loaded is defined to include (but is not limited to): software purchase and implementation costs; ongoing support and service costs; hardware costs; and associated hardware support costs. the Office reserves the right to add their own estimates of the costs (including any anticipated savings) associated with the required level of internal staffing (business users and IT staff) for implementation and for ongoing support, hardware and overhead costs and savings, and may rely on the Proposer’s resource estimates as a basis for their calculations.

3.4 No Obligation, Right of Rejection, and Multiple Award

The inquiry made through this RFP implies no obligation on the part of the Office. This RFP does not constitute an offer or a contract with any Proposer or other party. The Office reserves the right to:

· Reject any or all Proposals, in whole or in part, and to waive any informality in proposals received, deemed to be in the best interest of the Office or to accept or reject all or any part of any Proposal. Proposals deemed to be received from debarred or suspended Vendors will be rejected.

· Reject any Proposal that is not responsive to all of the material and substantial terms, conditions, and performance requirements of this RFP.

· Award all, part, or none of the components/functional areas included in this RFP.

· Make one or more awards to competing Proposers for subsets of functionality because of this RFP.

· Refrain from making an award if it determines it to be in its best interest.

· Abandon the Project and/or re-advertise and solicit other Proposals.

· Create a Project of lesser or greater expense than described in this RFP or the Proposer's reply, based on the component prices or scope submitted.

· Cancel this solicitation or change its scope if it is in the best interest of the Office.

3.5 Offer Held Firm

Unless otherwise specified, all bids/proposals submitted shall be valid for a minimum period of 180 calendar days following the date established for receiving bids/proposals. At the end of the 180 calendar days the bid/proposal may be withdrawn at the written request of the bidder/proposer. If the bid/proposal is not withdrawn at that time, it remains in effect until an award is made or the solicitation is cancelled.

3.6 Contract Negotiation

After final evaluation, the Office may negotiate with the Proposer(s) of the highest-ranked Proposal. If any Proposer fails to negotiate in good faith, the Office may terminate negotiations and negotiate with the Proposer of the next highest-ranked Proposal or terminate negotiations with any or all Proposers. If contract negotiations are commenced, they may be held in person at the State Office in Tallahassee, Florida or via video conference. If contract negotiations are held, the Proposer will be responsible for all of Proposer’s costs including, without limitation, its travel and per diem expenses and its legal fees and costs.

3.7 Failure to Negotiate

If the selected Proposer:

1. Fails to provide the information required to begin negotiations in a timely manner

2. Fails to negotiate in good faith

3. Indicates it cannot perform the contract within the designated timeframes or within budgeted funds available for the Project

4. If the Proposer and the Office, after a good-faith effort, cannot come to terms; then The Office may terminate negotiations with the Proposer initially selected and commence negotiations with the next highest-ranked Proposer.