Posted April 5, 2006: Notice To Vendors

An executed (1) Request for Confidentiality or an executed (2) Waiver of Confidentiality must be received by the Division no later than 4:00 p.m., April 10, 2006.  Any Waiver of Confidentiality or Request for Confidentiality which is not fully executed by an authorized representative of the Company will be considered by the Division to be an insufficient response and will result in the Waiver of Confidentiality or Request for Confidentiality being disregarded by the Division and no further consideration will be given to the proposal submitted by the Company in response to the PNCO.

Through the Public Notice of Contracting Opportunity (PNCO) process, the Division of State Court Administration (Division) has received several proposals from vendors which indicate that all or part of their proposal contains proprietary/confidential information without indicating by what authority this assertion is made.  The PNCO states:

Section C.  Bidding Instructions 

2. Confidential information.   Respondents are advised that materials contained in any proposals responsive to this announcement are subject to Indiana Supreme Court Administrative Rule 9 and may be subject to the Indiana Public Records Act, Indiana Code § 5-14-3, et. seq.  Respondents claiming a statutory exception to disclosure of information under the Act must place all such information in a separate sealed envelope, clearly marked “Confidential,” and must indicate on the outside of the envelope that confidential materials are included and specify the statutory and/or rule exception provision that applies.  The Division reserves the right to make its own determinations of confidentiality.  If the Division does not agree that the information designated as confidential should be withheld from public access under the act, it will so advise the respondents prior to release.  The Division expects that submissions in response to this announcement will contain sufficient non-restricted data to permit the review to proceed without delay for consideration of extensive claims of confidentiality.  Overly burdensome claims for exemptions from public access may cause the Division to view the proposal with disfavor.

(Words printed in bold within this paragraph are done so for purposes of this document.)

YOU MUST SUBMIT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TO THE DIVISION:

(1)  Request for Confidentiality

If you request that any portion(s) of your response to the PNCO be treated as confidential, you must indicate with specificity which portion(s) you are requesting remain confidential and identify (for each portion) the statute or administrative rule which would authorize the Division to classify the portion as confidential. 

OR

(2)  Waiver of Confidentiality

Attached is a waiver indicating that your proposal does not contain any confidential or proprietary information.

Questions about the Waiver of Confidentiality or Request for Confidentiality should be directed to Mary L. DePrez, Director and Counsel for Trial Court Technology, at 317-233-9926 or mdeprez@jtac.state.in.us.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THIS PNCO

Posted March 17, 2006

1. Question: Please elaborate on what the system needs to do to “handle out-of-state protective orders” in requirement 4.11.2?

Answer: This requirement seeks the ability to enter the protective order into the CMS so that the out-of-state orders are transferred to the Indiana State Police.

2. Question: Please elaborate on the specific data requirements of 4.11.4, including any interface requirements with other agencies.

Answer: Please see IC 31-17-3 for additional information. This requirement seeks the same data fields as found in Indiana 's custody, support and visitation orders. There will be no interface requirements at this time.

3. Question: On requirement 3.4.30, explain what is going to be “computed”?

Answer: This requirement seeks to compute the net due to a party when “off-set” judgments are awarded. E.g. The plaintiff recovers $1000 from the defendant on the original claim. The defendant, however, recovers $300 from the plaintiff on a counterclaim. The system should calculate that the plaintiff is to recover a net of $700 from the defendant.

4. Question: In requirement 4.22.4, please explain what is meant by “only the first time”. Is the user only able to affix a specific code to a case one time and if the case modified at a future date, a different set of codes needs to be presented in the code list?

Answer: A case may go into a dormant status multiple times, or have multiple decisions because of the existence of multiple claims. However, the system should not permit a user to show the case as disposed more than one time. Thus, the first time a case is made dormant, that constitutes a disposition of the case. Should it be reopened and later disposed, the second disposition should not be counted, only the first. An example of a situation in which a case is deemed disposed when it is placed in a dormant status is a traffic ticket in which the defendant fails to appear. Upon the failure to appear, the ticket (case) is placed in a dormant status. Statistical disposition is shown at this time. Assuming the defendant later appears to pay the ticket, the case is removed from a dormant status, the ticket is shown paid and the case is closed. The second closing does not constitute a statistical disposition to assure that only one statistical disposition occurs.

Furthermore, all claims in a case should be disposed before the case is deemed disposed. Thus, the dispositions of one or more multiple claims within a case should not constitute a disposition of the case until all claims have been disposed in the case. An example of this situation is when a plaintiff files a claim against a defendant. The defendant files a counterclaim against the plaintiff. The plaintiff dismisses the complaint and the counterclaim proceeds to trial by jury. In this instance, the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint does not dispose of the case and is not a statistical disposition of the case. The statistical disposition will occur when the court enters judgment upon the jury's verdict on the counterclaim, as it is at that point where the case is totally disposed. The statistical disposition is then shown as “disposed by jury trial.” Procedures require that a court user subjectively assign a type of disposition to the case based upon a list of statistical dispositions defined by the Division.

For additional details, please see the Instructions for 2005 Statistical Reports .

5. Question: In requirement 6.4.4, at what specific data entry points do you want this technology imbedded? (I.E. Case Initiation or Ticket Initiation)

Answer: This requirement seeks to enter data at the case initiation point.

6. Question: Requirement 4.8.7 refers to routing data electronically to appropriate agencies. Please explain if this is referring to an interface with other agencies or just generating a report that is automatically sent to other agencies. If this is an interface and multiple agencies are involved please indicate the number of interfaces needed.

Answer: This requirement does seek to route data electronically through interfaces. Specific interfaces have been identified in Section H. Interfaces.

7. Question: In requirement 5.3.2, is this requirement referring to setting up ticklers that will remind staff that records can be removed from files and destroyed or sent to storage or it is referring to electronically moving the data in the system to another location?

Answer: This requirement seeks to provide a notification to staff when specific records are eligible to be removed from files and destroyed or sent to storage. Data archiving is addressed within Section E. Technology. A tickler is an acceptable means of notification but other means of notification would be acceptable as well.

8. Question: Please explain what process requirement 4.3.7 is referring to.

Answer: This feature provides the ability to produce checks where, under normal circumstances, a hold on the voucher would prevent the check from being issued.

9. Question: On requirement 3.11.7, how do you want cases where “no fees were due” to be reported on? What selection criteria is being sought for this type of report?

Answer: In this requirement, ‘no fees were due” refers to when a pertinent statute provides that no filing fees are to be assessed upon case initiation. As examples please see: protective orders IC 34-26-5-16; guardianship IC 33-37-3-2; appeals de novo IC 33-37-3-5 and some name change requests IC 33-37-3-8.

10. Question: In requirement 4.23.5, are you seeking a report that can be generated to the probation department on data collected from within the case management system on parties that are flagged by the probation department?

Answer: A report is one acceptable means of notification proposed by the vendor. Other means of notification may also be acceptable.

11. Question: In requirement 4.1.7, does the phrase “each motion” refer to individual cases initiated by a motion or individual motions (events) within a case?

Answer: This requirement refers to individual motions within a case.

12. Question: In requirement 4.10.7, is the status that is referred to here attached to the juvenile or to the cases associated with the juvenile?

Answer: This requirement seeks to associate statuses to the individual.

13. Question: Where can the specifications for the Remittance Report referred to in requirement 3.11.27 be found? Please provide a specific link, including page number and paragraph of information.

Answer: This information can be found on Form 46CR .

14. Question: In requirement 4.24.16, please elaborate on what is needed to meet this requirement. Are you looking for a tool to pick any two events and calculate the period between those events or, are you wanting the time period between each docketed event to appear on the screen, or are their only certain events that should be affected by this type of rule?

Answer: This requirement seeks to access a tool which will allow a user to select any two events and calculate the elapsed time between the two events.

15. Question: In requirement 4.10.8, do you want to put a flag on the juvenile party or the juvenile case in this process?

Answer: This requirement seeks to enter the emancipation date for a juvenile. This should be linked to the juvenile's party or participant record on a case and not linked directly to the juvenile.

16. Question: Please elaborate on what “permanency timelines” are in requirement 4.10.10.

Answer: Permanency timelines are established in permanency plans adopted by a court in a Child in Need of Service (CHINS) case. Please see IC 31-34-21-7.5. The system should track the timelines set forth in the permanency plan.

17. Question: In requirement 4.3.51 is the requirement requesting the ability to access contact information on the specified parties via a case, or the ability to lock down said information on each case?

Answer: This requirement seeks the ability to enter and maintain an address for the individual or entity at the case level, with the option to simultaneously enter the information at the directory level.

18. Question: A vendor desires to respond to the sections of the RFP regarding interfaces to other systems (H and I). Can you offer any clarification as to how the vendor would relate that to the pricing table which seems geared to the CMS roll-out to counties. Should the vendor target any specific interfaces for any particular quarter or year?

Answer: The pricing table provided in Section L. Pricing. of the PNCO is provided for Vendors who are responding to more definitive areas of the PNCO. Section H. Interfaces. notes in the first paragraph that “specifications adequate to provide accurate cost estimates for these interfaces are not available. Specific cost estimates for these interfaces will be discussed in later stages of the proposal process.” In addition, Section I. Interfaces states that “At this time we do not have adequate specifications for converting data from all existing CMS's in use in Indiana . Therefore, responses should not contain pricing information for data conversion. Specific cost estimates for data conversion will be discussed in later stages of the proposal process.”

Posted March 15, 2006

1.  Question:   Does the system need to be available 24x7 or are 3-6 hours of scheduled downtime per week for backup and maintenance acceptable (possibly early Sunday morning or some other low utilization period)?

Answer: The Division does understand that system maintenance will be required for the statewide CMS.  Limited, negotiated downtime during low utilization periods will be considered acceptable. 

2.  Question:   It is understood that the Division is not accepting submissions for ancillary products/services such as e-filing.  It was noted that the PNCO, in fact, does not address any requirements for e-filing.  Does the Division contemplate a separate PNCO for services such as e-filing or is it assumed that the CMS project will expand to address that need at a later date. 

Answer:   The Division anticipates that the items outlined in Section D. Qualifications and Registration. 5. Other Services. will be considered in the future.  No immediate plans are made regarding which services will be initiated or the procurement/implementation process to begin such programs.  It is a requirement that the proposed CMS solution have the capability to interact with programs and/or products that perform the listed services.

Additional Questions Posted March 14, 2006

1.  Question:   Pg 6 states “Submissions must also include a proposed deployment schedule that specifically describes the timeline…”  Pg 17 states “…prepare a deployment schedule by showing the number of small, medium and large county deployments for each quarter up to and including deployment in all 92 Indiana counties.”  Will the implementation schedule be directed by the Division or be controlled by individual counties / courts?

Answer:   The Division will manage the deployment schedule within the parameters established by the Division and the vendor in cooperation with the counties/courts adopting the statewide CMS.

2.  Question:  Is there a proposed time frame and implementation schedule for this project?

Answer:  In producing the PNCO, the Division was careful to avoid publishing proscriptive guidelines regarding deployment approaches and timelines. This was done for several reasons:

(i) It provided vendors with the opportunity to describe and propose the approach that they felt was most conducive to project success;

(ii) It provided the Division with the capability to evaluate multiple different approaches to deployment in order to explore ideas that may be more effective than others; and

(iii) It provided an opportunity for the Division to gain additional insight into the rationale for the varying, and sometimes conflicting, approaches to statewide deployment that have been suggested by different vendors in the past.

(iv) It provided an opportunity for the Division to seek vendor proposals for deployment with the ultimate vision of deploying a statewide system in all 92 counties. There is flexibility in the planning approach – and in correlated cash flow and headcount spreadsheets – for the vendor to propose that over time the responsibility and personnel for deployment will transition to the Division partially or exclusively.

Despite this design and intention, it has been suggested that additional insight into the deployment approaches previously considered by the Division may be useful to vendors submitting responses to the PNCO.  The following paragraphs attempt to communicate these ideas, but should not be taken as a directive that the ideas contained herein are compulsory in nature .  The Division is primarily interested in a vendor proposing the deployment approach and schedule that is most likely to lead to a successful statewide deployment.  Further, the Division understands that this approach may vary from one vendor to another depending on the software, methodology, skills, resources, experience, and business strategy of each individual vendor.  Therefore, the concepts outlined below should only be taken as offering insight into the Division's experience gained from its prior CMS initiative.  The vendor is encouraged to incorporate, modify, or reject these concepts as they see fit in order to propose what they believe is the deployment schedule and approach that is most likely to be successful for the State of Indiana.

It is important to note that in any of the subsequent information, the term “county” is used to refer to all court operations within the county.  This includes circuit courts, superior courts, city and town courts, clerk offices, and probation offices.

In developing its concept of deployment approaches for the prior CMS project, the Division considered the following key factors:

• Need : Due to the issues on the prior statewide CMS project, several counties have a critical need for CMS software that has gone unsatisfied for several years.  Therefore, the conceived deployment approach attempted to ensure that those counties with the highest need would be the first to receive the new system.
• Phased Approach :  In order to reduce risk and to deploy within resource constraints, the Division planned that the statewide deployment of the CMS would be completed in a phased fashion rather than utilizing a “big bang” approach.
• Early Adopter Risk : In order to decrease the risk of initial deployments, and to increase the likelihood of successful deployments in the future, several risk reducing factors could be used in selecting potential early adopter counties.  In no particular order of importance, these factors include:
  • County Capability – some counties have personnel who are more technology-savvy than others.  The division originally intended to include more tech-savvy counties as early adopters.
  • County Complexity – some counties have a more complex court system than others.  Generally, this is correlated to the number of courts and caseload in a county, but other factors such as specialization of courts, multiple court locations, lack of physical technology infrastructure, existing system conversion issues, or other factors could also lead to a small or medium county being a complex deployment.  The division originally intended to minimize complexity when scheduling counties for initial deployment.
  • County Flexibility – since (i) initial deployments were expected to encounter issues that would serve as “lessons learned” for future deployments, and (ii) initial deployments would be subject to greater scrutiny than later deployments, the division originally intended to include early adopter counties with the understanding and flexibility to work within these expectations.
  • County Proximity – since the statewide project was expected to be managed from Indianapolis , selecting early adopter counties in close geographic proximity to Indianapolis would facilitate the ease of deployment.
  • County Interest – the Division originally acquired Memoranda of Understanding from counties expressing commitment to the prior statewide CMS project.  Careful consideration of that group of counties was central to the original deployment planning.
  • County Cohesiveness – the Division originally intended to consider as early adopters those counties who had the most effective working relationships between the court and clerk.
  • Executive Sponsorship –the Division originally intended to consider as early adopters those counties displaying strong Clerk and/or Court support for implementation of the statewide CMS.
  • County Funding – since several aspects of the statewide CMS roll out within a county were to be funded by the county, the Division originally intended to consider early adopters who had the ability to fund their portion of deployment costs.  The primary costs expected to be borne by the county under the prior CMS project included local networking, hardware (PC's printers, scanners, bar code readers, etc.), and data conversion.  The Division expected to pay the costs for the CMS software, train-the-trainer training, CMS installation and verification testing, county acceptance testing, and project management/coordination of the county deployment.  The Division expected to work with the county and other state agencies to determine the most effective means of providing (i) wide area networking (reliable connection to the IOT data center from the local network), (ii) direct user training for all county personnel who would use the CMS system, and (iii) level 1 help desk support.
• Cost : The Division had limited funds for the statewide CMS project.  These funds were expected to cover not only the software procurement, but the salaries of Division personnel allocated to the project, vendor deployment and support services, hardware, networking, and other operational costs.  Although the Division was seeking to secure additional funds for this effort, it was not assumed that this was possible in its baseline planning.  Therefore, any approach to statewide deployment was expected to be very cost effective, and the Division was interested in any cost proposal that both minimized cost and minimized Division risk in the event of cost overruns.
• Autonomy : The Division understood that, given its cost and cash flow constraints, it would take many years to complete the statewide roll out of the CMS.  In addition, the Division expected to provide level 2 – and in some cases level 1 – help desk support to users of the statewide CMS.  The Division's vision for deployment, therefore, placed emphasis on its ability to rely on its own resources as time progressed to effectively deploy and support the statewide CMS system. 
• Voluntary Usage :  The Division understood that use of the statewide CMS was not compulsory for any county.  Furthermore, it understood that many of the expected benefits to be achieved from a statewide CMS would not be realized unless a large portion of the cases in the state were included in the statewide CMS.  Therefore, the Division's deployment plan had the following provisions:
  • Defined Phases:   The Division's deployment schedule phases were defined to group counties by “profile”.  Scheduling and planning for early adopters was relatively more defined than was scheduling and planning for deployment in later phases.  In fact, the final phase contained those counties that were very complex, very self-reliant, or who had expressed little interest in participating in the statewide CMS.  It was expected that during the course of deployment of early adopters, more detailed scheduling and planning of deployment for later-phase adopters would be developed.
  • Emphasis on Early Success:   The Division's deployment approach intended to ensure that early deployments were very successful and provided a foundation upon which to build for later deployment success.
  • Emphasis on Outreach:   The Division's deployment approach included personnel and activities to reach out to and actively engage all counties, including those supportive of the statewide CMS as well as those who did not expect to participate in the statewide CMS.  These activities were designed to foster communication and transparency during the deployment process.  In addition, it was expected that over time these efforts might cause changes in the CMS program to enable the program to become more inclusive.  Those anticipated changes were envisioned to include: changes in statewide CMS policies, procedures or plans and CMS software required for deployment in late adopter counties.

The Division's original concept of county deployment included forming several joint, collaborative teams of vendor and Division personnel who would work together to deploy a county.  During early deployments, it was expected that the vendor would provide most of the supervision and expertise for these teams, and that, over time, Division personnel would learn from these early deployments and would assume a larger role in subsequent deployment.  It was envisioned that the role for the Division on these teams would grow both in terms of responsibility as well as overall headcount in order to control costs.  The Division expected to begin with one team for the initial two county deployments, and that key members of this team would be selected to establish additional teams in order to handle deployments in multiple counties simultaneously.  The Division expected that up to three deployment teams would be established over time, and that a deployment program office would be created to coordinate current deployments, plan future deployments, coordinate central resources (e.g. data center, help desk, etc.), and engage in communication and outreach activities.  It is important to note that this deployment approach was in response to an expected 3-12 month engagement to deploy a single county - 3 months for a small, relatively uncomplicated county, and 12 or more months for a large, complex county.  If deployments could have been done in a more expeditious fashion, the multiple-team approach may not have been necessary.  In addition, this approach assumed that a court and its related clerk and probation offices would be brought onto the new system contemporaneously.

The original deployment window was comprised of the five phases outlined below.  Note that the phases may have some minor timeline overlaps; for example, phase 3 may have been scheduled to begin while the large county implementation in phase 2 was still incomplete.  Any decision to begin a new phase prior to completion of the prior phase would have been based upon the results and experiences of the deployment effort to that date, balancing the desire for rapid deployment against the risk of deployment failure.

Please note that the timeframes below – like all information in the response to this question - are meant to illustrate the prior understanding of the Division of what was a potentially feasible statewide deployment schedule.  The vendor should propose their own deployment schedule according to their plans and experiences, and should not make a concerted effort to meet the timeframes or approach outlined below if it will lead to a higher risk of project failure during deployment or if a more rapid approach is possible while controlling costs and risks.

Phase 1: Pre-Deployment (3 Counties, Project Months 1-4)

During this phase, the Division originally hoped to engage initial counties in the process of customizing the application to meet county and statewide needs.  Although not technically part of deployment, it was expected that members of the deployment team would help coordinate county involvement in this customization process.

Phase 2: Early Deployment (3 Counties, Project Months 3-8)

During this phase, the Division originally hoped to complete the deployment of the configured statewide CMS in a small, medium, and a large county, the latter entailing a relatively low level of complexity.  The division did not expect that the system deployed during this time would have all required functionality or interfaces constructed, but would have the basic configuration or software modifications in place to provide case management functions according to Indiana law and procedures.

Phase 3: High-Need Deployment (12-17 Counties, Project Months 8-18)

During this phase, the Division originally hoped to complete the deployment of the statewide CMS in the counties with the highest need, which generally corresponded to counties with no CMS system or counties with a problematic CMS system.  During this time, the code base deployed was expected to be the baseline constructed for phase 2, but may have been extended to include key statewide interfaces that may not have been constructed in time for phase 2 roll out.  It was expected that the Division would rely heavily on vendor expertise and personnel at the beginning of this phase, but that by the end of this phase the Division would be significantly more self-sufficient for performing deployment, training, and support tasks.

Note that it was expected that during this phase additional development and configuration changes would be implemented and tested to close the gaps between desired system functionality and the functionality that was available for phase 2 deployment.  The improved functionality developed during this time – with the exception of critical statewide interfaces – was not expected to be deployed until phase 4.

Phase 4: Refresh and General Conversion (45-55 Counties, Project Months 15-48)

During this phase, the Division would have deployed to the bulk of the counties within the state.  In addition, the Division expected to deploy the improved functionality developed in Phase 3 to existing users.  The Division expected to provide the bulk of deployment management and resources, but would have continued to rely on the vendor for overall support and specific deployment requirements on an as-needed basis.  In particular, the division expected to require significant vendor support as part of the code upgrade process, including providing changes to training or other materials necessary to implement the upgrade.  During this phase, the Division originally hoped to finalize the plans for phase 5.

Phase 5: Late Adopters (Remaining Counties, Approx 17-20, Project Months 36-72)

During this phase, the Division would have deployed to any late adopter counties that desired to become part of the CMS system.  Since these included some of the largest and most complex counties, as well as counties that may have specialized needs beyond those envisioned in the “basic” statewide CMS already deployed, it was expected that additional vendor involvement may have been required to ensure the success of deployment in these counties.

3.  Question:   Is the implementation schedule expected to be a phased implementation or the implementation of all counties / courts simultaneously?

Answer:   Please see the answer to Question 2. above.

4.  Question:   If phased, could the Division please identify the phases?

Answer:   Please see the answer to Question 2. above.

5.  Question:   How should the implementation schedule account for those counties / courts that may or may not choose to participate? 

Answer :  Please see the answer to Question 2. above.

6.  Question:   Following the proposed deployment schedule, contained in Section F, with the implementation of one small, medium and large county, please define the scope of the agreement between state of Indiana and the selected vendor regarding the number of users and courts to be implemented and the timeframe in which they will be implemented.

Answer:  Please see the answer to Question 2. above.

7.  Question:   Pg 19 states “…direct user-training, train-the-trainer…”  Pg 35 states “Include costs for training IT developers, network and operations staff, train-the-trainer, and user training costs as applicable.”  How many people will be trained for the End User Training?

Answer:   The Division estimates that on average small, medium and large counties (as defined in Appendix C. will have 35, 75, and 250 users respectively.   However, there is flexibility in the planning approach – and in correlated cash flow and headcount spreadsheets – for the vendor to propose that over time the responsibility and personnel for training will transition to the Division partially or exclusively.

8.  Question:   Please explain the process of transferring a case by traditional mail in question 7.3.6.

Answer:   This process may vary by county.  Generally, the process would entail printing all CCS entries, associated electronic documents and paper documents contained in the case file.  This would then be bundled by the clerk from the sending court to be mailed to the receiving court.

9.  Question:   Requirement(s) 3.3.2, 3.4.9, 3.4.10, 3.4.11 – These all ask to modify financial transactions, and could involve monies that have already been disbursed.   What is your current business process for processing refunds or making modifications when the money has already been disbursed?

Answer:   The business process for these transactions currently vary by county.  These requirements seek to ensure that proper accounting and audit trails are created when an accounting transaction is created which reverses a prior entry.

10.  Question:   In an answer to a question posed (Amendment #2, March 13, 2006, #17) the Division response indicated the number of "non-concurrent users" that would likely be found in the small, medium and large county environments.  We would like to know the anticipated CONCURRENT users for each such environment.  It would be especially helpful to have some idea as to the number of active users who would enjoy most of the available functionality from the CMS, as compared with those who would have limited or "view only" access to the data collected or entered.  Training could then be addressed accordingly.

Answer:   From a technical perspective, the number of concurrent users cannot be derived without knowing the architecture of the proposed application.  The numbers given in the answer to the question cited are the users who would “enjoy most of the available functionality from the CMS” and, therefore, should be trained accordingly.

Posted March 14, 2006

1.  Question:   Would the State of Indiana accept the following Infrastructure proposal in lieu of creating a single application and Database server to run the State of Indiana Court System if that is this is a requirement?

• Please review the diagram below (Diagram A) for a pictorial
• Every County or court agency would house there own Application and File server to be used for faster retrieval of GUI programs and to allow for the use of our advanced technologies for File storage including imaging.
• Every County or court agency would have there own dedicated Database server in which they accessed data on a daily basis.  This will increase the performance of data retrieval as well as provide system stability per Court agency server.  If every court agency was to be hosted on a single server, if the single server goes down the entire state would be down and is not a model we would recommend.
• For the need to see data entered through other counties or court agencies, we would recommend a central index that pulls only the information that needs to be seen for searches (Person or Warrant data for example) from every Individual Database as part of a regular scheduled process.

Diagram A:

(click to enlarge)

Answer:   The Division is willing to consider – as an interim measure – use of a distributed database model. Any proposal for short-term use of a distributed database model should include detailed plans for migration to a centralized model.

2.  Question:   Will the county consider an arbitration clause for dispute resolution?

Answer:  Yes, the Division will consider an arbitration clause.  Please note, it is the Division which intends to enter into a contract with the vendor and not any individual county. 

3.  Question:  Appendix C, FAQs states “The General Assembly has provided JTAC with limited function to provide Indiana with a 21 st Century Case Management System.” What is the proposed budget for this project?

Answer:  The Judicial Technology and Automation Committee receives funding as outlined in IC 33-24-6-12.  All funding received must support the many initiatives undertaken by the Division and are not fully dedicated to the procurement and implementation of the Statewide CMS.

4.  Question:   Page 15 states “Is your application browser-based?” Is a client/server or browser application required?

Answer:   The Division is willing to consider – as an interim measure – use of a non-browser-based presentation layer or a Win32 presentation layer.  Any proposal for short-term use of non-browser-based applications should include detailed plans for migration to a browser-based application.

5.  Question:   Is a client/server or browser application preferred?

Answer:   The Division does prefer a browser-based application.  The Division is willing to consider – as an interim measure – use of a non-browser-based presentation layer or a Win32 presentation layer.  Any proposal for short-term use of non-browser-based applications should include detailed plans for migration to a browser-based application.

6.  Question: If browser, is J2EE or .Net preferred?

Answer:   The Division does not have a preference.

7.  Question:   Pg 19 states “…direct user-training, train-the-trainer…”  Pg 35 states “Include costs for training IT developers, network and operations staff, train-the-trainer, and user training costs as applicable.”  Does the county have a preference for End User Training or Train the Trainer?

Answer:   Assuming “the county” to mean the Division, the Division does not have a preference identified for the type of training provided to users.

8.  Question:   Explain what kind of transmittal is needed for each clerk location regarding credit cards, as per the question 3.1.26. Will an interface be required? 

Answer:     In some counties, a clerk may have multiple physical locations where money is collected. The transmittal referred to in 3.1.26 is a document or report that details the amount of monies which were collected where the tender type was a credit card for each clerk location. See Appendix B – Definitions. “Clerk location”.  No interfaces are anticipated in producing the transmittals.

9.  Question:   Elaborate on the requirements of accepting an electronic payment as described in 3.1.27. Where are those payments originating, who is processing them and how are they verified?

Answer:   The method for processing electronic payments may vary by county.  In the future the Division anticipates accepting credit and debit cards, echecks, and Electronic Funds Transfer(EFT).

10.  Question:   Explain how funds are currently electronically transmitted (question 3.1.32) and what the expectation would be in the CM system regarding this requirement.

Answer:   The method for processing electronic payments may vary by county.  This requirement seeks the ability to automatically transfer funds from a county to various governmental and non-governmental entities, e.g. creation of ACH files.

11.  Question:   What is meant by “unreleased status” in question 3.3.12?

Answer: The requirement should state “Ability to enter a ‘hold status' for a voucher in the CMS.”  Please see the answer to Question 34 issued 3/13/2006. 

12.  Question:   What specifics are required on the G/L Posting? Question 3.6.2

Answer:   This requirement seeks to have a General Ledger reflect balances in the ledger accounts as of the last posting.  A current activity file, including all entries made since the last posting, is processed and applied to the ledger accounts to update the balances.   

13.  Question:   Define what is meant by “early disbursements” and “normal disbursements” in question 3.6.19.

Answer:   Normal disbursements are any checks that are produced in a normal check run.  Normal check runs will produce checks for all vouchers that are to be paid on or before the check run date.  An early disbursement is any voucher that is paid as part of an immediate check run.

14.  Question:   In question 3.8.8, Please elaborate on what needs to be achieved by adding the mentioned calculated fields and what type of reports would be required.

Answer:   Without a complete understanding of the technical implementation for each vendor's solution, the Division is trying to ensure that the ability exists to perform standard mathematical operations on reports.  Examples may include:

• The total amount collected by clerk location, county or statewide
• The average amount collected by day by clerk location, county, or statewide
• The percentage of traffic tickets paid within various time ranges

15.  Question:   What type of keywords would need to be entered and in what circumstances would they need to be retrieved/referenced as set forth in question 3.9.4?

Answer:   The keywords would be freeform text that may be entered at the discretion of the user.  Each office and/or county may use this differently, but the intent is to have an area to associate freeform text with a transaction.  At a later time, a user could retrieve all transactions in which keywords were found within the text.  For example, keyword “adjust”.

16.  Question:   What type of “arrearages” are being referred to in question 3.13.5 and under what circumstances would they be added manually instead of being calculated by the system?

Answer:   “Arrearages” as used in this requirement could be any unpaid portion of any assessment.  It is assumed that, while the system may be configured to compute balances due on assessments, on occasion the court may determine a different balance due (arrearage) on an assessment and will need to enter that determined amount.

17.  Question:   Please explain what a “priority 1 lien” is and what should occur as a result of placing this type of lien on a party.  Question 3.15.2

Answer:  Although this is a specific example, the intent of this requirement is to establish priorities among two or more lien holders.   

18.  Question:   Pertaining to questions 3.15.3-3.15.5, please explain the lien process in general, including the process of civil judgment liens on criminal cases. What functionality should exist and what are software expectations when processing liens and what type of interfaces need to be provided (if any).

Answer:   There exists no general process for the multiple types of liens.  The right to hold a lien is a right created by statute.  If a person or entity is entitled under the law to hold a lien, that person or entity is normally obligated to file a notice of lien with the Clerk.  The notice of lien should then be reflected as an encumbrance in favor of the lien holder against future receipts subject to satisfaction of the lien.  Lien processing would then permit money to be diverted (from a party in the case) to the lien holder.

19.  Question:   IC 31-39-8-1 (reference question 4.1.5) does not set for any software expectations regarding expungements for juveniles. Please elaborate on the expectation in this requirement.

Answer:  Please see IC 31-39-8 (entire chapter).  There are no specific software requirements.  However, software functions must adhere to statutory requirements.

20.  Question:   In requirement 4.4.13, would the statute or rule table be a field requirement during the adding of CCS events? 

Answer:   This requirement seeks the ability to link an authority to a pre-defined CCS event so that a user will have ready reference to the statute or rule pertaining to an event.  This would occur at an administrative level when case events are established per case type.

21.  Question:   How are law enforcement agencies currently being provided a copy of protective orders and all modifications thereof? Does an interface currently exist to provide this information to the appropriate agencies or will one need to be created?  Pertaining to question 4.9.6.

Answer:   Current processes for communication with local law enforcement may vary by county.  In general, it is done manually or via the United States Postal Service.  This requirement seeks the ability to transmit the order electronically with the Indiana State Police as an identified interface within the PNCO Section H. Interfaces.  Local law enforcement agency interfaces may be required upon deployment on a county-by-county basis.

22.  Question:   What special requirements are needed to handle extraditions to and from other states? Question 4.11.1

Answer:   This requirement seeks the ability to produce notices and other documents, schedule and record results of hearings and record all activities in the CCS for these matters.

23.  Question:   What are the requirements for handling data exchanges of case information under the Interstate Compact for Juveniles? Question 4.11.5

Answer:   This requirement seeks the ability to produce notices and other documents, schedule and record results of hearings, register foreign orders and record all activities in the CCS for these matters.

24.  Question:   What is a “special judge” as mentioned in question 4.13.6 and what special requirements accompany the procedure set forth in this question?

Answer:   A Special Judge is a judge that normally has no jurisdiction over the case but is selected to serve as judge in a specific case.  By this requirement the Division contemplates merely an indicator where a Special Judge has been appointed and qualifies pursuant to Trial Rule 79. 

25.  Question:   Please clarify what you would like the system to do with the different time zones as per question 6.4.3.

Answer:   The State of Indiana has counties in both the Eastern and the Central time zones.  It is imperative that the system maintain the capability to accurately “time stamp” events when entered into the system with the local time.   The system should not apply the Eastern time zone to all transactions because the servers are hosted in Indianapolis in the Eastern time zone.

26.  Question:   Please explain what is meant by the “ability to provide multi-layer security over query access to the audit trail” in question 6.8.3?

Answer:   This requirement seeks different user profiles to have different views of the audit trail information.  E.g. one user profile may see who changed information and one user profile may see who changed information and what information was changed.

27.  Question:   Please indicate what types of “unusual or abnormal system activities” need to be identified as per question 6.8.5?

Answer:   Some examples may include but are not limited to:  multiple login attempts from the same workstation in a short period of time, attempts to use a user ID from more than one workstation at a time or excessive login attempt failures.  Some business function activities may include but are not limited to excessive override activities and excessive record changes made by one individual.

28.  Question:   Please explain what is meant by “more than one session” in question 7.2.20.

Answer:  This requirement seeks the ability to save information entered into the system with the ability to log off of the system and, when logging back into the system, resume workflow processing at the logoff point.

29.  Question:   Please provide an example for requirement 7.2.21.

Answer:   An example of this requirement may be when a condition of probation for an individual is to receive “Anger Management Counseling”.  The probation office may have three approved counseling providers.  The probation officer assigns the individual to one of the approved providers.

30.  Question:   Section D. Qualifications and Registration. Paragraph 5. requests information on various other services.  Can you provide any additional detail to assist in the pricing of these options?

Answer:   No additional details are available for these projects at this time.  Cost estimates provided under this section are not required and, if submitted, considered non-binding.  The Division is seeking to identify additional services which may be provided by the vendor and which may compliment the CMS project sought by this PNCO.

Posted March 13, 2006

1.  Question:  Requirement 3.7.33 – Please describe the juror payment process.  Do you anticipate jury management being part of the CMS?

Answer:   As amended on 3/10/2006, requirement 3.7.33 has been WITHDRAWN.

2.  Question:   Requirement 3.8.9. – Please clarify this requirement regarding the application of “jail time”. 

Answer:   As amended on 3/10/2006, requirement 3.8.9 states:  Ability to automatically apply and calculate current balances owed on assessments.

3.  Question:   Requirement 3.13.3 – Please clarify this requirement.  Please define the methods to “automatically” recall a warrant.

Answer:   As amended on 3/10/2006, requirement 3.13.3 is being WITHDRAWN.

4.  Question:   Requirement 4.5.5 – Please clarify this requirement.  Do you anticipate doing a national records search from within the CMS?

Answer:   As amended on 3/10/2006, requirement 4.5.5 has been WITHDRAWN.

5.  Question:   Requirement 4.7.5 – Please clarify this requirement.

Answer:   As amended on 3/10/2006, requirement 4.7.5 has been WITHDRAWN.

6.  Question:   Pg 4 states “…if all Indiana courts have a 21 st century CMS that connects each court's system with every other court's….”  Pg 5 states “…would reside in a state data center, be available to all Indiana courts through the Internet or other high-speed network…”  Is it anticipated that the state of Indiana will have one (1) integrated statewide system or possibly 92 (counties) / 386 (trial courts) systems?

Answer:  The Division anticipates purchasing and maintaining one system which will be made available to all counties.

7.  Question:   Pg 5 states “…and be connected through interfaces…such as government agency (including law enforcement and BMV) information…”  Are interfaces required to local law enforcement agencies?  If so, are they identified in Section H – Interfaces?

Answer:   At this time, the Division is not requiring local law enforcement agency interfaces.  However, on an individual deployment basis, a county may request an interface with local law enforcement.  Please see Section L. Pricing (2.b.iii.)  These interfaces are not identified in Section H. Interfaces.

8.  Question:   Pg 5 states “The Division seeks to have the CMS operating in a limited number of trial courts and clerks' offices within a period of six months…” Please define ‘limited number'.

Answer:   This is further defined in Section F. Proposed Deployment Schedule.

9.  Question:   Pg 6 states “Although the Supreme Court has not required all courts to adopt a statewide CMS and is unlikely to do so in the near future…”  Pg 26 states “Ongoing coexistence.  In an ongoing coexistence scenario, both the statewide CMS system and an existing system will be used within the same county on a permanent basis.  The division of the systems may be by court (e.g., one court uses the statewide CMS and the other uses an existing system) or by case type (e.g., a single court uses the statewide CMS for some case types and another CMS for other case types).”  What is the extent of the procurement?  Will the successful vendor have the exclusive right to sell to all 92 counties?

Answer:  The Division anticipates purchasing and maintaining one system which will be made available to all counties.  The successful vendor will not have the exclusive right to sell to the 92 counties.  This does not preclude the proposal to the Division of a pricing structure on a per county basis.

10.  Question:   Can the Division identify how many of the courts would purchase the new system?

Answer:   The counties will not purchase the system individually for use in their courts.  The Division anticipates purchasing and maintaining one system which will be made available to all counties for use in their courts.

11.  Question:   Pg 6 states “Costs for hardware, if provided by the vendor, should be separate from the overall CMS estimate.”  Pg 15 states “…all server hardware and operating system licenses, and database management system (DBMS) will be purchased or leased through IOT and should not be included in pricing.”  Should the vendor include hardware and related software as separate pricing or not include the pricing at all?

Answer:   It is the desire of the Division to purchase or lease all server hardware and oper at ing system licenses and d at abase management systems through the State of Indiana Office of Technology.  However, if the vendor requires procurement of proprietary hardware devices directly from a specified vendor, these should be included in the price.    

12.  Question:   Pg 12 states “Questions received after Wednesday, March 1, 2006 may not receive a response .”  With the issuance of the Amendment and the change in the proposal due d at e, will questions be accepted after March 1 st ?

Answer:   Yes.  Written questions concerning the PNCO may be submitted via email to mdeprez@jtac.in.gov through March 15,2006 as amended March 10, 2006.  Questions received after Wednesday, March 15, 2006 may not receive a response.

13.  Question:   Pg 35 states “…include every item identified in Section M. Functional Requirements as available but “included” in your product's cost.”  Should this read ‘not available but included' and does this mean any items with an Answer = N or P where the Included = Y?

Answer:   This st at ement should read “not available but included.” This does refer to items where the “Answer” is N or P and “Included” is Y.  This is noted in the PNCO amendment issued March 10, 2006.

14.  Question:   Pg 35 states “…please include costs for source code and object code as applicable.” and “…the selected vendor must enter into a three-party software and documentation escrow agreement with the Division and an Escrow Agent.”  Does the Division wish to purchase the source code or enter into an escrow agreement?

Answer:   The Division does wish to explore the purchase or licensing of source code with the vendor.  However, the successful vendor must at least enter into a three-party software and document at ion escrow agreement.

15.  Question:   Pg 41 defines the instructions to answer the Functional Requirements.  In the Answer column, “F” is if the functionality has been developed and is presently ready for release, but has not yet been implemented in any live CMS installations.” Wh at if the requirement is currently not available, but scheduled for development and will be part of the software package at some future d at e?

Answer:   The vendor should respond with an “N” for Not included in the column titled “Answer”.  The vendor should also answer “Y” in the “Included” column if the pricing is included in the pricing in Section L or “N” if it is not included.  The vendor should also include an explanation in the “Comments” column to identify the stage of development and clarify the functionality offering.

16.  Question:   Pg 41 defines the instructions to answer the Functional Requirements.  What response code should be designated if the desired functional requirement can be accomplished through third-party software such as Crystal Reports?

Answer:   The vendor should respond with a “Y” in the “Answer” column to indic at e th at the functionality is included with the system proposed and with a “Y” or “N” in the “Included” column dependent upon whether the pricing includes the software and licensing purchase.  Please include a comment indic at ing the software proposed.  The vendor should carry this inform at ion to the “Proposed Deployment Schedule” line item titled “3 rd party software” under the IT Infrastructure heading.

17.  Question:   What will be the estimated number of named non-concurrent users per court/county?

Answer:   The Division estimates that on average small, medium and large counties (as defined in Appendix C) will have 35, 75, and 250 users respectively. The Division, however, does not necessarily desire a per-user licensing model.

18.  Question:   What is the estimated number of Scan Station Licenses needed?

Answer:   Document imaging is outside of the scope of this PNCO. However, please see Section D. Qualifications and Registration (5.b.) for clarification.

19.  Question:   What is the estimated number of Electronic Signature Licenses needed?

Answer:  Electronic Signatures are outside of the scope of this PNCO and are not desired by the Division.  Digital Signatures, which are also outside the scope of the PNCO, are addressed in Section D. Qualifications and Registration. (5.f.).

20.  Question:   Is it the intent and a st at e requirement th at all counties throughout the st at e of Indiana reside on a single shared database th at resides in the central D at a Center ?

Answer:  The Division expects that all courts adopting the Statewide CMS will utilize a single database hosted in the State's Data Center in Indianapolis . See the introductory paragraph of Section E. Technology.

21.  Question:   If the answer to the previous question is “Yes”, what will be the connection type between each office and the IOC and will there be bandwidth allocated for each county and/or office?

Answer:  Assuming the reference is made to IOT, the specific connection type is not yet known and may vary from county to county.  Depending on the connection type used, dedicated bandwidth may or may not be allocated.

22.  Question:   Is the State expecting the Respondent to have an already existing Case Management System (CMS)?

Answer:   Page 5 of the PNCO states that the Division anticipates that the statewide CMS will use the successful vendor's existing case management products with the capacity for necessary customizations.  In addition, Section F. Proposed Deployment Schedule. states that it is the goal of the Division to complete delivery of a functioning CMS to at least three (3) counties within six (6) to eight (8) months after a contract or letter of intent is signed.

23.  Question:   Does the CMS need to be used currently within the State of Indiana

Answer:  There is no requirement listed in the PNCO which stipulates that the CMS needs to be used currently within the State of Indiana .

24.  Question:  Does the Respondent need prior Court Systems experience?

Answer: Page 5 of the PNCO states that the Division anticipates that the statewide CMS will use the successful vendor's existing case management products with the capacity for necessary customizations.  In addition, Section F. Proposed Deployment Schedule. states that it is the goal of the Division to complete delivery of a functioning CMS to at least three (3) counties within six (6) to eight (8) months after a contract or letter of intent is signed.

25.  Question:  Why doesn't the State just purchase an already existing CMS / COTS system (Commercial Off the Shelf System)?

Answer:   Please see the Overview of the PNCO.  In addition, page 5 of the PNCO states that the Division anticipates that the statewide CMS will use the successful vendor's existing case management products with the capacity for necessary customizations.

26.  Question:   Will the State accept proposals of other viable solutions or will they only accept a full-blown CMS?

Answer:   Page 5 of the PNCO states that “Vendors should feel free to identify why they believe their proposal, while not meeting such requirements, nevertheless more efficiently and effectively meets the overall goals and objectives of the Supreme Court with respect to trial court CMS.”

27.  Question:  How is the data going to be stored / shared, centralized or by each county?

Answer:   The Division anticipates that data will be stored on a server to be maintained at the State's Data Center in Indianapolis for all courts who utilize the statewide CMS.  However, section H. Interfaces. requires that courts electing to utilize their existing CMS will be linked to the statewide CMS for data-sharing purposes.

28.  Question:  What is the length of the data that needs to be incorporated (past and future).

Answer:   The Division anticipates converting data from existing Case Management Systems on a county by county basis.  Please note that pricing for data conversion, other than providing hourly rates, is not requested as a part of your PNCO response.  Please see Section L. Pricing (2.b.ii.).

29.  Question:   Elaborate on how and why vouchers are being used in your current system including: What is a voucher?

Answer: See Appendix “B. Definitions”.  For clarification purposes, a voucher may be described as the electronic record of statutory and/or court assessments against a receipt.  For example, the filing fee in a paternity case is statutorily required to be disbursed to a number of state and local fund centers.  The statute for this fee is as follows (see IC33-37-4-3):

IC 33-37-4-3 Version b

Juvenile costs fee; additional fees

     Note: This version of section effective 7-1-2005. See also preceding version of this section, effective until 7-1-2005.

    Sec. 3. (a) The clerk shall collect a juvenile costs fee of one hundred twenty dollars ($120) for each action filed under any of the following:

        (1) IC 31-34 (children in need of services).

        (2) IC 31-37 (delinquent children).

        (3) IC 31-14 (paternity).

    (b) In addition to the juvenile costs fee collected under this section, the clerk shall collect the following fees, if they are required under IC 33-37-5:

        (1) A document fee (IC 33-37-5-1, IC 33-37-5-3, or IC 33-37-5-4).

        (2) A marijuana eradication program fee (IC 33-37-5-7).

        (3) An alcohol and drug services program user fee (IC 33-37-5-8(b)).

        (4) A law enforcement continuing education program fee (IC 33-37-5-8(c)).

        (5) An alcohol and drug countermeasures fee (IC 33-37-5-10).

        (6) A document storage fee (IC 33-37-5-20).

        (7) An automated record keeping fee (IC 33-37-5-21).

        (8) A late payment fee (IC 33-37-5-22).

        (9) A public defense administration fee (IC 33-37-5-21.2).

        (10) A judicial insurance adjustment fee (IC 33-37-5-25).

        (11) A judicial salaries fee (IC 33-37-5-26).

        (12) A court administration fee (IC 33-37-5-27).

        (13) A DNA sample processing fee (IC 33-37-5-26.2).

    (c) The clerk shall transfer to the county auditor or city or town fiscal officer the following fees not later than thirty (30) days after they are collected:

        (1) The marijuana eradication program fee (IC 33-37-5-7).

        (2) The alcohol and drug services program user fee (IC 33-37-5-8(b)).

        (3) The law enforcement continuing education program fee (IC 33-37-5-8(c)).

In this example, a filing fee of $120 (a statutory assessment) is collected at the time a paternity action is filed, and contemporaneously a voucher is created for each of the 13 items in subsection B to indicate how the $120 is apportioned to be disbursed to each of the fund centers associated with this fee.  In addition, the rules for the timing of disbursing funds represented by vouchers for items 2, 3, and 4 must adhere to the schedule noted in subsection C.

As an additional example, the court may enter a judgment against John Doe in favor of Jane Smith in the amount of $10,000.  The judgment is a court assessment of $10,000 payable by John Doe to Jane Smith.  If John Doe were to pay to the clerk $4,000 against this assessment – and since the payee is already known (e.g. the funds are not being held in escrow) – the system should electronically create a voucher for $4,000 to indicate said sum is to be disbursed to Jane Smith. 

Note that in all situations, the voucher is only an electronic record of the encumbrance – no paper document is produced or delivered to any party as part of this process.

30.  Question:   Under what circumstances are vouchers required for disbursements?

Answer: As every sum of money received by a clerk must be disbursed, a voucher represents the persons, entities and/or fund centers to which that receipt will be prospectively disbursed. Any given receipt may be disbursed to one or multiple persons, entities, and/or fund centers. A “voucher” as used in the PNCO would constitute an electronic listing of the persons, entities and/or fund centers to which a portion of a given receipt is to be disbursed. This concept should not be confused with a paper document held by a person entitled to payment.

31.  Question:   Who generates vouchers?

Answer: Vouchers are one or more electronic records of encumbrances upon a receipt and dictate the distribution or disbursement of that receipt. For example, when a clerk receives a paternity filing fee, the immediate encumbrances on that receipt are listed in IC 33-37-4-3.  The electronic records of these encumbrances are called vouchers.  It is expected that the system will maintain these records as part of the normal receipt and disbursement process.  Vendors may use a term other than “vouchers” to describe the records referred to in the PNCO for recording these encumbrances.

32.  Question:  How are they received and processed in the CM system?

Answer:  See the answer to “31” above.

33.  Question:   How is a voucher cancelled and what is the resulting action in CM?

Answer:  The electronic encumbrances, created by the system, should be canceled, reversed or modified within the system.

34.  Question:   What is a “hold” on a voucher and how is that indicated in the CM system to prevent disbursement?

Answer:  Multiple circumstances may arise requiring a hold to be placed upon a voucher.  A hold will occur in any instance where a voucher was created at the time funds were received but a reason exists for not making an immediate disbursement of those funds.  A hold on a voucher means that a disbursement of the represented fund(s) should not occur so long as the hold on the voucher exists.  A common example: a voucher(s) upon receipt of a personal check is electronically created in favor of the person to whom the sum is owed.  However, that voucher(s) may be placed on hold for a specified time sufficient to permit that personal check to clear the banking process. 

35.  Question:   What is a refund voucher?

Answer:  A refund voucher is electronically created to disburse funds in the event that an overpayment is taken in order to disburse the amount of the overpayment back to the person who made the overpayment.

36.  Question:   Elaborate on what is meant by the ability to order commonly used search fields at the local level in question 1.1.9

Answer:   This requirement seeks the ability for a user to define the display order of commonly used search fields and to save those individual preferences for each user, e.g. Clerk A in Grant County wishes to enter criteria in the order of last name, first name, d at e of birth, social security number for every search performed.  Clerk B in Grant County wishes to enter criteria in the order of case number and social security number for every search performed.

37.  Question:   In question 3.1.2, please explain what is meant (or expected by) handling financial properly in case type changes.

Answer:   This requirement seeks the ability to reverse any fee distributions which may have occurred and to redistribute the fees to the correct funds when a case type is changed.  In addition, a proper audit trail should be maintained designating the initial distribution, the reversal, and the re-distribution.  This is primarily an issue when the amount of the filing fee and/or the funds centers to which the filing fee will be disbursed is affected by a case type change.  For example, this may occur when a claim is erroneously shown filed as a civil case with a filing fee of $120 and should have been filed as a small claims proceeding with a filing fee of $35.  In this example, not only is there a difference in the amount of the fee, but there is also a difference in the fund centers to which the fee is disbursed.

38.  Question:   In question 3.1.21, does “apply to” refer to a recipient?

Answer:   Yes, in this requirement, the “apply to” field indicates that the recipient of the funds from the assessment is not predefined by statute, nor is the assessment for funds to be held in escrow, and therefore the system should prompt the user to enter the recipient of the funds to be disbursed.

Posted March 10, 2006

Second Amendment to CMS PNCO
Microsoft Word | 2 pages | 68 kb

NOTE: Among other changes, Sections L & M of the original PNCO have been replaced by the above amendment. View the amendment to access the new Sections L & M.

Posted March 9, 2006

Note: As a result of questions we have received, JTAC will be publishing a second amendment to the PNCO released on February 13, 2006 by 6:00pm EDT on Friday, March 10, 2006.

Posted March 7, 2006

1. Question: Page Five (5) states: “ The Division seeks to have a CMS operating in a limited number of trial courts and clerks' offices within a period of six (6) months following the date a contract with the successful vendor is signed ” How many courts does this include? How many counties does this include?

Answer: This is clarified in Section F. Proposed Deployment Schedule.

2. Question:Page Six (6) states: “ … CMS must have the ability to interact and exchange data with other case management systems…” How many of the interfaces identified in Section H will be implemented in the initial (limited number of court) for the first implementation?

Answer: For the first three (3) counties defined in Section F, none of these interfaces are required. However, the Division strongly desires implementation of the BMV interface during this time period.

3. Question:What is the anticipated size(s) of the database(s) for the pilot counties?

Answer: Although the initial counties have not yet been selected, Section F. Proposed Deployment Schedule. states that it is the Division's goal to include in the initial deployment one small, one medium, and one large county. Appendix C. Indiana County Sizes. illustrates the size of each county. Using this information, in conjunction with caseloads per court, found in the 2004 Indiana Judicial Service report (http://www.in.gov/judiciary/admin/courtmgmt/stats/2004.html), and information concerning storage requirements of its own product, a vendor can calculate an estimate of overall d at abase requirements. This estimate should be reflected in the answer for Section E. Technology. (4a, vii).

4. Question: Please define the term “Family Jacket” that is used throughout the requirements.

Answer: This term is defined in Appendix B. Definitions.

5. Question: Requirement 1.1.6 – Please clarify this requirement. Is this a request for user-configurable search results?

Answer: This requirement seeks the ability for a user to define a search by specifying columns to be displayed, the order of columns and sort order for each searchable type of data (e.g. cases, people, case events, assessments, etc.), and to save individual preferences for these settings.

6. Question: Requirement 1.1.11 – Please clarify this requirement.

Answer: This requirement is best illustrated by an example. Two security profiles may be requested - one for bookkeepers and one for cashiers. “Bookkeeper” security profile allows searching for case information, people, businesses, assessments, payments, general ledger accounts and checks. The “Cashier” security profile allows searching for case information, people, businesses, assessments and payments, but not checks and general ledger accounts.

7. Question: Requirement 1.2.5 – Describe a scenario where this would be used.

Answer: A possible scenario where this would be used is when entering a person in the database, the system checks for persons with similar demographic data and would list persons as possible duplicate entries based upon predefined parameters (set of criteria) defined at the state level.

8. Question: Requirement 2.1.3 – Please clarify this requirement. Do you anticipate maintaining separate demographic information for individuals that were entered at the local level? Please describe a scenario where this would be used.

Answer: This requirement anticipates that certain demographic information entered into the system at the local level is not subject to local modification and can only be modified at the state level (e.g., gender). The requirement also provides flexibility for entering, maintaining and modifying additional demographic information at the local level (e.g. addresses and identifiers for local interfaces).

9. Question: Requirement 2.1.12 – Please clarify this requirement. Provide examples of the legal criteria used to identify a violent offender.

Answer: This requirement seeks to permit tracking of individuals designated by statute(s) as violent. The system should be configurable at the State level in order to accommodate such statutory changes. As examples, please see IC 35-47-4-5 and IC 5-2-6.1-8 .

10. Question: Requirement 2.1.11 – Please clarify this requirement. When would you need to maintain multiple personal descriptors in the CMS? Is this related to police arrest records?

Answer: This requirement seeks the ability for a unique identifier of a person or other entity in the system separate from data such as Driver License Number or Social Security Number. This number would be tied to this individual regardless of any changes required to be made to demographic data associated with an individual. This requirement is not related to police arrest records.

11. Question: Requirement 3.1.1 – Does the St at e anticip at e maintaining local financial tables?

Answer: We are seeking the flexibility for modifications to be made to state level information at the state level only and local level information at the state and local level. This requirement seeks to store financial information for the state and local levels on the servers hosted at the State Data Center .

12. Question: Requirement 3.1.15 – “Ability to record payments made towards an assessment that happened outside the control of the clerk's office. Note that these are debit and credit memos, and should not create vouchers.” Please clarify. Describe a scenario in which the described functionality would be used.

Answer: Some payments assessed by a court may be paid outside of the court, e.g. if the respondent pays the plaintiff directly, the plaintiff is required to notify the court th at the respondent paid. At this time a note should be made on the account th at the amount due to the plaintiff is reduced and track the balance.

13. Question: Requirement 3.1.27 – Please define the anticipated types of electronic payments.

Answer: This requirement seeks to allow the flexibility to determine methods of electronic payment accepted through the CMS. This list may include but is not limited to credit and debit cards, eChecks and electronic funds transfer (EFT).

14. Question: Requirement 3.1.34 – Please clarify this requirement.

Answer: This requirement seeks to simplify the disbursement of money when sufficient funds are held in trust and can satisfy multiple claims.

15. Question: Requirement 3.2.9 – “ Ability to enter limits of a bonding authority of a bonding agent.” - Does this refer to jurisdictional authority, or to a financial bonding capacity? Is capacity to be tracked per agent? Or per bond company?

Answer: This requirement seeks to track financial bonding capacity by bonding agent.

16. Question: Requirement 3.2.10 – Please describe this process. How do you currently track this information in the absence of a case number?

Answer: Case numbers are not assigned until a case is filed by a prosecutor. However, bail may be posted prior to the filing. The current processes in place may vary by county.

17. Question: Requirement 3.4.6 – Please describe the current business process for receipting money prior to a case filing. How do you subsequently attach the receipt to the correct case or does this describe a miscellaneous receipt that does not involve a case number?

Answer: The current process for receipting money prior to a case filing varies by county and jurisdiction. A scenario when this could occur may be when an individual makes a payment for a traffic citation which has not yet been filed and entered into the court system. This requirement seeks the flexibility to accept payment and automatically match the receipt with the case when entered.

18. Question: Requirement 3.4.20 – “ Ability to generate line item records for assessments.” Please clarify this requirement.

Answer: This requirement seeks the ability to further define fees and or assessments based upon distribution requirements. Please see IC 33-37-4-4 for an example.

19. Question: Requirement 3.4.28 - Would this be automatic? Is notice of the party required prior to encumbering funds?

Answer: This requirement asks only for the ability to provide a link and this process would not be automatic.

20. Question: Requirement 3.10.9 – Please clarify/define a “reversal assessment”.

Answer: This requirement seeks the ability to assess fees for various reversals, e.g. assessing a fee to the check writer for checks returned unpaid by the bank for Non Sufficient Funds.

21. Question: Requirement 3.11.5 – Please clarify a “satellite” location.

Answer: A satellite location is the same as a clerk location and is defined in Appendix B. Definitions.

22. Question: Requirement 3.11.19 – Is there a standard format that has been defined for the export of information to the county and state accounting systems?

Answer: No. There is currently no standard format defined for the county or the state.

23. Question: Requirement 3.11.39 – Please define the current business process. How do you anticipate this across jurisdiction payment process being implemented as far as information sharing, security and tracking?

Answer: This business process does not currently exist.

24. Question: Requirement 3.13.2. – Please clarify this requirement.

Answer: This requirement seeks to accept a single payment for one or more cases and apply that payment to the assessments on those cases.

25. Question: Requirement 3.13.6 – Please define the current business process for registering a foreign order.

Answer: Pursuant to current requirements of the Indiana State Court Administration, clerks should open a civil miscellaneous case in order to register an out-of-state order, thus permitting them to charge a registration fee. However, this requirement seeks to allow a clerk to assess fees for registering foreign orders without initiating a case.

26. Question: Requirement 3.13.8 – Is there a standard format defined for the automatic transfer of funds to a collection company?

Answer: There is currently no standard format defined for the automatic transfer of funds to a collection company.

27. Question: Requirement(s) 3.13.9, 3.13.10, 3.13.11 – These requirements imply electronic information exchanges; are there standard formats defined? Can the collection companies receive and send information in a standard format?

Answer: There is currently no standard format.

28. Question: Requirements 4.1.3 – Please clarify this requirement; define the information to be transferred and provide a scenario when this would occur.

Answer: This requirement seeks to provide the ability to transfer case data from one court to another when a case is transferred or venued and will be assigned a new case number in the court to which it is transferred.

29. Question: Requirement 4.1.4 – Please clarify this requirement. What is meant by a “status of dormant”? How is this determined?

Answer: Please see “Case Status Types” in Appendix B. Definitions.

30. Question: Requirement 4.1.22 – Please clarify this requirement regarding ticket bar codes. Are these traffic tickets? What agency produces the tickets and corresponding bar codes?

Answer: This requirement seeks the ability to scan bar codes from traffic tickets. In addition, some counties print bar codes for case numbers on each case file. Any agency that produces a traffic citation could produce a citation with a bar code.

31. Question: Requirement 4.1.24 – What is the difference between this requirement and requirement 4.1.3? Are there different rules or sets of information?

Answer: This requirement seeks to provide the ability to transfer case data from one case to another case, e.g. an individual receives six traffic citations all arising from the same incident. Thus, to facilitate initiation of six different cases, data entered should be copied from the first case to all remaining cases. Another example would be when a case is established for multiple defendants. The case data, including witnesses, crime location, offense date, etc. could be entered for one defendant and copied to another defendant's case.

32. Question: Requirement 4.1.29 – Please clarify this requirement. What type of workflow navigation is being requested?

Answer: This requirement seeks the ability to utilize a “Wizard”-like function to guide the user through each step. The workflow navigation in each of these functions can be a complicated process involving collecting data, processing documents, and storing information on the CCS.

33. Question: Requirement 4.2.2 - What is the difference between case style and case caption (4.1.17)?

Answer: These terms are synonymous.

34. Question: Requirement 4.3.19 – Please clarify this requirement. What pro se functionality is being requested?

Answer: This requirement seeks to ensure that notices generally reserved for attorneys default to be sent to the pro se individual.

35. Question: Requirements 4.3.21 – Please define the difference between a role and a participant.

Answer: Please see “Participant” and “Role” in Appendix B. Definitions.

36. Question: Requirement 4.4.13 – Please clarify this requirement. Do you anticipate storing all statutes, rules, ordinances, etc. within the CMS?

Answer: Yes.

37. Question: Requirement(s) 4.5.18, 4.5.19 – These requirements imply a batch process. Is there a standard format already defined?

Answer: Currently, there is no process established by the Court. This functionality would be desirable for Indiana.

38. Question: Requirement 4.6.6 – How would the LE Officer Information be maintained? An interface with local law enforcement? Is there a standard format already defined?

Answer: Currently, there is no standard format defined. Local interfaces and/or local users may maintain and update the data.

39. Question: Requirement 4.8.10 – Please clarify this requirement. Do you anticipate doing a statewide records search from within the CMS?

Answer: Yes. Please also see Section H. Interfaces. (ISP Interface).

40. Question: Requirement 4.9.6 – Please clarify this requirement. Define the methods that a protective order would be “provided to” the local law enforcement.

Answer: Please see IC 5-2-9-6 .

41. Question: Requirement(s) 4.11.1, 4.11.2, 4.11.3, 4.11.5 – Please clarify this requirement. Define what is meant by the term “handle”. What are the current business processes for “interstate processing”?

Answer: This requirement seeks to facilitate interstate coordination and communication in cases where it is required, e.g. extradition, protective orders, and subpoenaing out-of-state witnesses.

42. Question: Requirement 5.3.1 – Please clarify this requirement. What type of archiving facility is required? Please define the current business process for archiving of case data.

Answer: Please see Administrative Rules 6 & 7 for the Indiana Supreme Court.

43. Question: Requirement 7.4.19 – Are the court reporters Court employees? Will outside court reporters have access to the CMS?

Answer: This requirement seeks to bring a request for transcription to the immediate attention of a designated user of the CMS.

44. Question: Would the Supreme Court be willing to prioritize the interfaces listed in Section H of the RFP from most important to least important?

Answer: As stated in Section H and in Section L. Pricing. (2b. iii.), pricing is not to be included, other than the hourly rates, with the response to this PNCO. For the first three (3) counties defined in Section F, none of the interfaces are required. However, the Division strongly desires implementation of the BMV interface during this time period. Further prioritization of additional interfaces has not been agreed upon by the Executive Branch and the Division.

45. Question: Would the Supreme Court give an expanded description of the vision and intent regarding juvenile cases? Is a separate juvenile module of CMS desired?

Answer: The Division anticipates that the statewide CMS will include the capability to fully process juvenile cases (see Section M. Functional Requirements. 4.10). Also see Section H. Interfaces. Existing case management systems. (b.).

46. Question: Would the Supreme Court describe their vision for a Probation system to track and monitor offenders. Should this be a separate module of the CMS?

Answer: The Division anticipates that the statewide CMS will include the capability to fully process probation functions integrated within the statewide CMS or as a separate module.

47. Question: Is the probation system desired in all 92 counties?

Answer: While the Division cannot determine the number of courts/jurisdictions who will use the statewide CMS, it is the goal of the Division to procure a full-featured, state-of-the-art CMS which would be available to any and all counties.

48. Question: Are there any plans in the early or later stages of the CJIS to have the system interactive to address family cases as well as civil matters?

Answer: The CJIS program is in the very early stages of development and is outside of the scope of this PNCO. No details have been published for the CJIS program to date. It is anticipated that at some point in the future, the CMS would require the capacity to exchange data regarding all cases in the CJIS context.

49. Question: Should the vendor consider integration to the electronic bench book project underway with LexisNexis e-Filing project?

Answer: The vendor does not need to consider the integration of an electronic bench book project with an e-filing project. Please see Section D. Qualifications and Registrations. (5.) for our interest in possible e-filing solutions.

50. Question: Are any vendors currently working on other phases of the CJIS project (such as e-filing or DMV) precluded from bidding on this opportunity?

Answer: The CJIS program is in the very early stages of development and is outside the scope of this PNCO. The only vendors precluded from bidding on the statewide CMS project are the vendors currently assisting the Division with this PNCO development and evaluation process.

51. Question: Are there any plans in the DMV project to incorporate a data mart or data repository for CJIS data?

Answer: The CJIS program is in the very early stages of development and is outside the scope of this PNCO. No details have been published for the CJIS program to date.

52. Question: What is the strategy for linking traffic/non criminal citations to other state traffic systems? Are any standards in place? What are the immediate states under consideration?

Answer: Currently, the BMV interface will link the CMS to other state traffic information systems.

53. Question: Who will fund the interfaces to maintain and update CHINS/ DSS data? (Is this part of the CMS project or separately funded by DSS or Protective Orders Grants?)

Answer: At this time, the Division has not determined all funding sources.

54. Question: What plans does the project envision for integrating local police and law enforcement agencies for protective order contacts and alerts?

Answer: The project's immediate goal is to implement the provisions of IC 5-2-9-1.

55. Question: Is document generation and transfer between the Court and other agencies a required or optional functionality?

Answer: Required.

56. Question: What is the Court's role in the state CJIS Planning effort? Will later phases of the CJIS be funded by agency contributions or is there a funding mechanism in place statewide?

Answer: The CJIS program is in the very early stages of development and is outside the scope of this PNCO.

57. Question: How will the optional functionality proposed by vendors be weighted/scored in the evaluation process?

Answer: The optional functionality as listed in section D. Qualifications and Registrations. (5a.-j.) will not be weighted/scored in the process of selecting finalists. After finalists have been selected based on required responses, the optional functionality vendor responses may be considered.

58. Question: Who are the evaluators?

Answer: The Division's evaluation process and the individual evaluators will remain confidential throughout the evaluation process.

59. Question: Are the evaluators all court personnel, or will CJIS agency personnel be involved?

Answer: The Division's evaluation process and the individual evaluators will remain confidential throughout the evaluation process.

60. Question: Will the Court consider a team approach to this project?

Answer: Section D. Qualifications and Registrations. (1). states that a vendor may submit a proposal covering less than the entire project described in this PNCO. Vendors submitting proposals covering less than the entire project must describe in detail how they envision the balance of the project being completed. Point 2 of the same section outlines requirements for Subcontractors.

61. Question: Due to the autonomous nature of the trial courts, does the Division of State Court Administration of the Indiana Supreme Court foresee a procurement of a Statewide Court Data Warehouse in effort to satisfy the business requirements stated in the PNCO?

Answer: See Section D. Qualifications and Registrations. (5). Other Services. Also see Overview, page 5, paragraph 2.

62. Question: Does the State envision the integration with other agencies to occur at a local level or state level?

Answer: The Division envisions that the integration will occur at both the state and local level.

63. Question: Is the State asking for specific estimates for the work outlined in Section H? Are there any further detailed requirements for section H?

Answer: As stated in Section H. Interfaces, “At this time, specifications adequate to provide accurate cost estimates for these interfaces are not available. Specific cost estimates for these interfaces will be discussed in later stages of the proposal.” Please see Section L. Pricing. (2.b.iii.) for pricing requirements regarding interface design and development.

64. Question: What is the role of the State with this system? Some requirements look like they envision a "big database in the sky", while others look like there are local installations. For example, they want to modify personal identifiers at the state level....Although wouldn't this be captured and maintained at the local level?

Answer: The Division expects that all courts adopting the Statewide CMS will utilize a single database hosted in the State's Data Center in Indianapolis . The Division anticipates that certain demographic information entered into the system at the local level is not subject to local modification and can only be modified at the state level (e.g., gender). The Division also seeks flexibility for entering, maintaining and modifying additional demographic information at the local level (e.g. addresses and identifiers for local interfaces).

65. Question: Is the State the repository or are they performing maintenance and setting standards for the local counties?

Answer: The Division will be the repository for the system and will perform maintenance on the functions performed by the system which are uniform on a statewide basis. Although approved local variations will be supported, the Division expects that all courts adopting the Statewide CMS will conform to the standards established within the system.

66. Question: What standard scheduling practices and sentence tracking analytics are required by the State?  Will local courts at the county level have access to analytical reports?

Answer: The Division anticipates that the system will be able to track components of a sentence.  The Division is interested in tracking scheduling practices and anticipates that the system will establish, maintain and track the scheduling deadlines set by statutes and rules of procedure.

Posted March 2, 2006

1. Question: Under Section F, Proposed Deployment Schedule, the PNCO stated that the short-term goal is for the vendor to deliver a complete functioning CMS to at least three counties within six to eight months of contract or letter of intent.  Is this a firm timeframe or is it a preferred target?  

Answer: This is a strongly preferred timeframe, but proposals that do not meet this timeframe will not be rejected.  Vendors who cannot meet this timeframe should describe their rationale for not doing so and propose a timeframe.   

2. Question: Related to Section M. Functional Requirements, does the Division require all of the identified functions to be operational at the time of delivery or may a vendor propose delivering a functioning CMS product that may not yet have all the functions as required in the PNCO? 

Answer: The more than 800 Functional Requirements identified in Section M. include the functionality that the Division would like to be included in a 21st century CMS by the completion of the project.  The Division anticipates that the statewide CMS will use the successful vendor's existing case management products with the capacity for necessary customization .  By following the instructions in Section M. [p. 41], a vendor is given the ability to not only identify which functions its CMS product currently performs, but which functions have been developed but are not released, which functions its CMS product partially performs, and which functions the vendor does not intend to provide.   The answers to these questions from all interested vendors will enable the Division to select the product that most closely matches its vision for a 21 st Century CMS.  At the time of the initial rollout, the Division expects the CMS to contain at least the basic functionality necessary to support all case types in an integrated manner that allows both clerk and court staff to perform essential case management and financial functions.  

3. Question: Did the Division retain the ownership rights to the source code for the Computer Associates' Case Management Software that was developed during its association with CA?

Answer: The Division has the right to modify and use the source code developed in 2002 through 2005 .

4. Question: Will any of the consulting firms currently employed by Division be allowed to bid on the PNCO? 

Answer:  No.  All individuals participating in any aspect of the evaluation process will certify that he/she has no financial interest in any of the proposals. 

5. Question: To enable the pursuit of subcontracting opportunities, could the Division provide the names and contact information of the primes and/or vendors who might be responding to this opportunity?

Answer: The Division has no expectations that any specific vendor will respond, but a list of vendors who either responded to the PNCO in 2002 or who have expressed interest in working with the Division since September 2005 is provided below: