|
Governance | CJIS Board Members | CJIS Advisory Committee | CJIS Board and Advisory Committee Activites Funding | Background and History | Mission and Vision Statements | Special Projects
QUESTION: I recently came across your CJIS RFS#03110905. I noticed there were no Terms and Conditions referenced on this response, or perhaps I missed them. Could you please clarify the Terms and Conditions that the State will accept?
The reason for my asking is twofold: 1) We have been told the State will accept no less than the following:
"Any resulting contract(s) entered into between the state and the successful vendor shall not contain any provisions that: (1) limit the liability of the successful vendor (or any approved subcontractor) for breach of contract, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, bad faith, fraud, indemnity, tort, negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, or any other claim or cause of action; (2) limit the liability of the successful vendor (or any approved subcontractor) for any type of damages or loss, including, without limitation, consequential, indirect, incidental, special, and exemplary/punitive damages; (3) limit or cap the aggregate liability of the successful vendor (e.g., a liability cap or ceiling equal to the value of the contract or a multiple thereof); (4) specify sole and/or exclusive remedies applicable to the state; or (5) otherwise limit the rights and remedies of the state."
2) We would like to know the State's position prior to responding.
ANSWER: You have accurately captured the State’s position. Any contract executed pursuant to this RFS will be consistent with that position.
QUESTION: Is the State open to licensing a software package that will facilitate this project?
ANSWER: The State is open to any solution that will satisfy the requirements as identified in the request for service and is within budget.
QUESTION: How many individuals will use this application?
ANSWER: Until additional technological and business process related decisions are made by the State the number of individuals that will use this application cannot be determined. Initially, it may be limited but will grow as the CJIS initiative expands.
QUESTION: What is the maximum amount of concurrent users the State envisions executing a search on the requested information?
ANSWER: (Same as above) Until additional technological and business process related decisions are made by the State the number of individuals that will use this application cannot be determined.
QUESTION: Will the State share a budget range with us (e.g., <$500,000)?
ANSWER: Based on a review of best practices and industry standards involving similar projects the State feels that sufficient resources are available to fund this project.
QUESTION: Will the State entertain a phone call from us so that we may drill down a little deeper in the requirements?
ANSWER: No. In order to be fair to all potential vendors all questions, and the corresponding responses from the State, must be in writing and posted on the State’s web site.
QUESTION: Does the State desire the ability to search on unstructured data (e.g., WORD documents, PDF files, free-text fields…)?
ANSWER: The State is open to any additional capability as long as the solution satisfies the requirements as identified in the request for service.
QUESTION: Has the State met with any vendors pertaining to this application, and if so, will you share with whom?
ANSWER: No.
QUESTION: Has the State received any solution demonstrations from vendors, and if so, will the State share from whom?
ANSWER: No.
QUESTION: Has the State visited any CJIS or Law Enforcement organizations and observed their solutions, and if so, may we ask whom?
ANSWER: No.
QUESTION: Will the State provide a recommendation for the number of concurrent users and/or “seats” for any software licenses to help facilitate an “apples-to-apples” comparison?
ANSWER: Until additional technological and business process related decisions are made by the State the number of individuals that will use this application cannot be determined.
QUESTION: In reference to the prior question, will the State permit adjustments in costs during a contract negotiation phase to reflect an accurate understanding of the correct number of user licenses for any software?
ANSWER: The RFS requires potential vendors to include an all-inclusive, itemized, total cost to provide the requested services.
QUESTION: What is the anticipated date of vendor selection?
ANSWER: December 20, 2005.
QUESTION: What is the process for vendor selection?
ANSWER: The State’s CJIS Advisory Committee will select the compliant vendor who best meets the requirements of the RFS and is within budget.
QUESTION: Will a shortlist of vendors have the opportunity make verbal presentations and demonstrations?
ANSWER: At this time no verbal presentations or demonstrations are planned.
QUESTION: Are Maximus and URL Integration precluded from responding to this proposal since their team completed the State’s CJIS Integration Plan?
ANSWER: This bid is open to all eligible contractors.
QUESTION: Conversely, does the State have a preference for Maximus/URL Integration?
ANSWER: No. The State has no preference and is seeking the most qualified contractor who can perform the services identified in the RFS within the State’s budget.
QUESTION: How does this effort relate to the Statewide CJIS Integration initiative being tracked by the CJIS Group – their project #IASS3196?
ANSWER: More information is needed about what CJIS Group Project #IASS3196 is in order to answer this question.
QUESTION: What are the operating systems and database types of the systems for which IEPDs will be developed?
ANSWER: Since Iowa’s criminal justice integration initiative will involve multiple jurisdictions at all levels of government there will be multiple systems and database types which will utilize the IEPDs.
QUESTION: Does the State have a future requirement to interface and/or share data with any external agencies? If so, which agencies?
ANSWER: To the extent possible the State’s criminal justice integration initiative intends to share data among criminal justice agencies at all levels of government.
QUESTION: Regarding your requirement #3, is the purpose of the analysis to identify existing triggering events or to define new triggers that will have to be configured? If the latter, have the system owners agreed to have modifications made to their databases to support such triggers?
ANSWER: Predominantly to identify existing triggering events but defining new triggers will be eligible for discussion among system owners.
QUESTION: Also regarding your requirement #3, please verify that only the analysis process as defined above is required, not configuring any necessary database modifications.
ANSWER: Only the analysis process is required.
QUESTION: Section 1.D.3 states, “…conducting transaction processing analysis to identify triggering events that will initiate discrete web services to support the exchanges identified in #1 above”. Does this mean the IEPD needs to define a schema or a set of schemas that can support the complete representation of the products; such as a Traffic Citation and the subset of the schema set (messages) that support each of the trigger points (officer writes citation, officer submits citation, citation approved, citation augmented with court date, etc.)?
ANSWER: Yes.
QUESTION: Was the Justice Integration Exchange Model process used to determine your needs? If not, what process was utilized? What practitioners were included in the process?
ANSWER: A process that is substantially equivalent to the JIEM process was used. A number of criminal justice practitioners from the Executive and Judicial Branches of government were involved as were a number of City and County criminal justice practitioners.
QUESTION: Is the State interested in an approach that considers both GJXDM and NIEMS? Would you consider a process that would ensure conformance to both DOJ and DHS standards and would use reusable components across message of document?
ANSWER: The State is interested in any approach or process that bests meets the requirements of the RFS and is consistent with the State’s Criminal Justice Information Systems Integration Plan.
QUESTION: Does OWI stand for Outstanding Warrant Information?
ANSWER: Operating While under the Influence.
QUESTION: Does the State seek a company with experience in the development of IEPDs or in the development and implementation of such documents?
ANSWER: The State seeks a company with experience in the development of IEPDs, however, implementation experience would be a valuable asset.
QUESTION: Does the State expect the contactor to conduct IEPD development sessions
with practitioners and IT staff or do you expect to have the IEPDs developed using
documentation that provides a detail analysis of your information needs? If it is through
a set of detailed written specification, are those specs available to the contactor before the
contractor completes the response?
ANSWER: Vendors may submit proposals that utilize whatever methodology they have
successfully used in the past for similar projects and that meets the requirements
identified in the RFS.
QUESTION: Once developed, how does the State intend to implement the IEPDs? Is it
though an exchange?
ANSWER: Yes.
QUESTION: As the vendors responsible for delivering the Iowa CJIS Integration Plan, are Maximus and URL Integration prohibited from bidding or performing on this preliminary services project due to a perceived or real organizational conflict of interest? Are they likewise prohibited from participating in any follow-on procurement of message broker and business flow orchestration hardware and software and the associated implementation of information exchanges?
ANSWER: This bid and future bids will be open to all eligible contractors.
QUESTION: Are companies previously involved in the development of the system integration plan prohibited from participating in this procurement process?
ANSWER: This bid is open to all eligible contractors.
QUESTION: Is it the intent of CJIS to build any portion of the physical namespace as part of this particular segment of the integration and should the proposal include the solution platforms, etc. for creating that space?
ANSWER: The State seeks a contractor to build Iowa-specific GJXDM-conformant namespace and data standards.
QUESTION: Has implementation of uniform collecting and recording of information been phased in statewide?
ANSWER: No.
QUESTION: Does CJIS have a preference for the tool used to build the IEPDs?
ANSWER: No. However, future costs and ease of use are factors.
QUESTION: Are any of the workflow diagrams referenced in section 3.4 for existing (as-is) business processes available for review?
ANSWER: Section 3.4 (3.D) pertains to proposals submitted pursuant to this RFS as
well as deliverables from any resulting contract and states that the “Contractor
agrees that all information, programs, reports, studies, flowcharts, diagrams, and other
tangible and intangible material of any nature whatsoever produced and all intellectual
property rights and proprietary rights therein or related thereto (collectively the
Deliverables), shall become and remain the sole and exclusive property of CJJP and the
State.”
QUESTION: Is the information from previous exchange analyses and the resulting exchanges developed available for review?
ANSWER: Information regarding CJIS projects and activities is available for review on the State’s CJIS web site. http://www.state.ia.us/dhr/cjjp/cjis/index.html
QUESTION: What are the essential criteria upon which proposals will be evaluated?
ANSWER: Any contract(s) resulting from this RFS shall be awarded to the compliant Contractor who best meets, in the sole opinion of the State, the requirements identified in the RFS and is within budget.
QUESTION: Is the vendor selected to do this work precluded from doing any work on future phases of your CJIS integration project?
ANSWER: Future bids will be open to all eligible contractors.
QUESTION: The solicitation notes proposals should not exceed 20 pages. Do you have any other formatting requirements, such as font size or spacing?
ANSWER: All mandatory proposal requirements are included in the RFS, however, for ease of review it would be beneficial if no font less than 10 was used.
QUESTION: Is Maximus, the CJIS planning vendor, and any of its subcontractors precluded from bidding on this solicitation?
ANSWER: This bid is open to all eligible contractors.
QUESTION: Has funding been secured for this project? If so, what level of funding is available?
ANSWER: Based on a review of best practices and industry standards involving similar projects the State feels that sufficient resources are available to fund this project.
QUESTION: Will Maximus or any of its subcontractors be involved in the evaluation or selection of the vendor for this solicitation?
ANSWER: No.
QUESTION: What is “…a CJJP services contract” referenced in RFS Section 2.D? Please provide a copy of such a contract.
ANSWER: A “CJJP services contract” is a standard State services contract issued by the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning. Copies of standard State services contracts can be obtained at:
http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Rules/Current/iac/11/11107/11107.pdf
QUESTION: Is the State using or plan on using a specific software product to design the forms and/or (IEPDs)?
ANSWER: That decision has not been made.
QUESTION: Who developed and implemented the Protection Order exchange and Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) exchange?
ANSWER: The protection order exchange is between the Judicial Branch and the Department of Public Safety. The pre-sentence investigation exchange is between the Judicial Branch and the Department of Corrections.
QUESTION: Can we receive a copy of the following forms Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaints, Pre-Sentence Investigations, Protective Orders, Complaint and Affidavit, Trial Information, Incident Report, Warrants, OWI, and Sentencing Orders?
ANSWER: Copies of these forms are available and can be received from the specific agencies and end users that utilize and exchange that information.
QUESTION: Does Building Iowa-specific GJXDM-conformant namespace and data standards relate specifically to the (IEPDs) mentioned?
ANSWER: It includes the specific IEPDs mentioned.
QUESTION: In the all inclusive itemized cost, should the cost of identified XML tools and Enterprise Service Bus tools used in the development process be included? If so will the service provider be required to provide tools along with the data deliverables.
ANSWER: The all-inclusive, itemized, total cost to be contained in the proposal should include all expenses for which the successful contractor expects to charge the State for successfully meeting all of the requirements contained in the RFS. Any required tools, the source of the tools, and costs to maintain the tools should be included in the proposal.
QUESTION: The DOJ BJA Building Exchange Content Using the Global Justice XML Data Model: A User Guide for Practitioners and Developers defines information exchange data package documentation (IEPD) as consisting of a subset schema, constraint schema, extension schema and document schema. We will provide these for each of the 9 exchanges cited. Will we be provided with the database schema for the data mining database so that we can make the extension schema support efficient XSLT mapping in an out of the Database or are we to recommend a data mining db schema to support the 9 exchanges cited?
ANSWER: Vendors may submit proposals that utilize whatever methodology they have
successfully used in the past for similar projects and that meets the requirements
identified in the RFS.
QUESTION: With regard to Iowa-specific namespace and data standards -- Is the scope of these restricted to the 9 IEPDs cited or broader ranging. If it is broader ranging what is the range?
ANSWER: It includes the IEPDs mentioned.
QUESTION: With regard to identifying triggering events. We use automated open standard ESB tools to build GJXDM conforming web service and transforming web services to integrate legacy justice systems into the GJXDM domain. We use the business process execution language to automate GJXDM activity on an Enterprise Service Bus. This being said are the triggering events you refer to, events that happen internal to your legacy systems, or are they events that are detectable by data exchange activity such as the exchange of citation or the issuing of a warrant? Are events based upon the existence of an exchange, the passage of time after an exchange, the nature of a response to an exchange or all of the above. Do any of these triggering events require a human in the loop to ratify the triggered action?
ANSWER: The transaction processing analysis as required in the RFS should address these questions.
QUESTION: **** is a 45,000 person corporation. The manager of the operation responding to this RFS on down would be most happy to submit to finger printing and background investigations. We already have DoD clearances. We can not submit our corporations CEO and board to this requirement. Is this acceptable as being in the spirit of the RFS intent?
ANSWER: It is anticipated at this time that this requirement will only apply to those persons who will be on-site, who have access to State of Iowa information, files, and documents, and who are performing services under a contract executed pursuant to this RFS.
|
