MinnesotaJudicialBranch
RequestforInformationoneSignatureServices
Introduction
TheMinnesota Judicial Branch (MJB)is interested inelectronic signature(eSignature)services. As a first step in identifyinganeSignature tool, alongwith an integrated service foreSignature, the MJBis issuingthis Request forInformation(RFI) on available commercial software, dynamichostingservice,licensing, authenticationand support forsuchatool.ThisRFIwillnot resultin a contract butthe information obtained from respondersmayprovideabasisforfurther contractualconsiderationsand/orprocurement. All interested parties mustprovide information and ademonstration to theRFIasaqualification tomakeabid on a future Request for Proposal (RFP) concerninganeSignature tool. Thereis noguaranteethat anysuchfurther contract or procurement processwillbeissued.
TheMJBis notobligatedto respond to anysubmission, nor is it legallybound in anymanner whatsoever bythesubmission of a response. TheMJBshall not have anyliabilitytoany responderfor anycostsor expenses incurred in connections with this RFIor otherwise. Any amendments to this RFIwillbeposted on the MJBwebsite(
Purpose
TheMJBis in the process of implementinganelectronicinformation environment in which active and new cases willbe eFiled,and judges and court staff will primarilyutilize electronic recordsfor court services. TheMJB currentlyuses Tyler Technology’sOdysseyCase Management (Odyssey) systemin all trial courts throughout thestate.TheMJBseeks to augment its statewide electronicbusiness processes with an eSignaturesolutionthat willutilize the activedirectoryforinternal SingleFactor orTwo-Factor authentication. Futureplans may
also requireexternal partner Multi-Factor Authentication.(PleaseseeAppendixA – MJBPolicy
702(a), Standard forElectronicSignatures in Court Proceedings.)
This RFIasks vendors todescribetheireSignatureproduct, and demonstratetheirabilitytomeet the MJBeSignatureneeds.
Background
Odysseyhas been in placein alltrial court locations throughout Minnesotasince early2008.At this time theMJBis focusingon process improvement and efficiencystrategiesthat willenable the MJBto conduct its businessthrough electronic rather than paper basedprocesses.
TheMJBis lookingforan economical eSignaturesolution that willinitiallyenable users;
judicial officersand court administration,to electronicallysign alltypes ofdocuments in various locations, includingon-site and on-the-go. Thesigningprocess should be simple and requireno, orveryfew additional steps compared to theprocess forsigningpaper documents. Thepreferred eSignaturesolutionshould also provide the abilityto pass documents between users to accommodate multiplesignatures on single documents, allow formultiple user personas, and utilizeon premises storage.
TheMJBhas approximately3,000 users, whowillneed the abilityto access andusethe eSignature capabilities.Oncesuccessfullyimplemented, theproduct willbetested inasmall numberof court locations, with eventual deployment statewide.
Goal
It is thegoal of this RFIto identifyvendors capableof providingthe requiredeSignature services usingthe required approach, and to understand thelicensingoptions and costsassociated with acquiringthe services.
ScopeofInformationRequested
Vendors areasked to provide the following:
1. A demonstration oftheireSignature productand allavailable add-ons.
2. Product specificationsAlternatives fortechnicalenvironments that will be available to the state, includingoptions forhostingtheapplication ateither a court siteor avendor site.
3. Information concerningthe available licensingoptions, and relatedcosts.
4. Information concerninghow theproduct is supported:
a. Does the vendorstaffaHelp Desk?
b. What is the ratio of Help Desk staffto customers?
c. Arerequestsforassistancegenerallycleared byoneinteraction with theHelp
Desk?
d. Doyou offer implementation assistance and/or trainingassistance?
5. Information documentingwhetherthe vendorhasthe resources andcapacityto implement the project under potentiallyshort deadlines.
6. References from customers who havehad the required solution in placein Production for at least 90 days.
Vendors maybe invited toprovide aproductoverview and demonstrationbasedupon the information providedintheresponsetotheRFI. Arepresentative of the State CourtAdminisator’sOffice(SCAO) willcontactvendors toschedule demonstrations. TheMJBreserves theright tocancel appointments if thevendor’s product is deemed to beunacceptable, or if conflicts in schedulingoccur.
DispositionofResponses
All materials submitted in response to this RFIbecome thepropertyof theMJB.Costsassociated with preparation ofmaterial for the response arethe responsibilityof thesubmitter.
The Rules ofPublicAccessto Records of theJudicial Branchprotectvendorsubmissions that includetradesecret informationas follows:
(b)Submission of TradeSecret. Except as provided in subparagraph (c) ofthis subdivision, a common law tradesecret or atradesecretas defined in MINN. STAT. § 325C.01 that isrequired to be submittedin accordancewith a judicial branch bid or procurement request provided that:
(1)the submittingpartymarks thedocument(s) containingthe tradesecret
“CONFIDENTIAL;”
(2)the submittingpartysubmits as part ofthe bid orresponse awritten request to maintain confidentiality; and
(3)the tradesecret information is not publiclyavailable, alreadyin the possession of thejudicial branch, orknown to orascertainablebythe judicial branch from third parties.
Except forinformation submitted in accordancewith this section on TradeSecrets, do not
include anyinformation inyourresponse thatyoudo not want revealed to the public. Please also note that if aresponder atanytimeeventuallyendsup with a contract with thejudicial branch,
the followinginformation willalso be accessible to the public: the existenceof anyresulting contract, theparties to the contract, and thematerial terms ofthe contract, includingprice, projected term, and scopeof work.
Questions
Responders maysubmitquestionsto Kim Larsonat . Responses will bepostedin thePublicNotices sectionofthe Minnesota StateCourt web site ( as soon as possible after thequestion is received.
MinnesotaJudicialBranchPoliciesandProcedures
Policy Source:StateCourt Administrator
Policy Number:702(a)
Category:Technology
Title:Standard for ElectronicSignatures inCourt Proceedings
OriginationDate:12/12/2008
RevisionDate:5/20/2011
EffectiveDate:7/1/2011
Contact:Director ofInformation Technology
StandardforElectronicSignaturesin CourtProceedings
I. PURPOSE
Thepurpose of this Standard is to ensurethe integrityofelectronicinstruments in
connection with court proceedings. This Standardsets forth the currentminimum standardforapplyingelectronicsignaturesbyMinnesota Judicial Branch judgesand court personnelto electronic instrumentsusedin connection with court proceedings, when electronic signatures areauthorized bysupreme court rules ororders. The Standard alsoestablishesreportingrequirements forJudicial Districtswithregard to proposingproducts foruseunder this Standard. This Standard is notasourceof authorityto useelectronicsignatures; it merelysets a minimum standard for electronicsignatures whentheyareotherwise authorizedbysupreme courtruleor order.
II. DEFINITIONS
a. “Audit Data”meansdatathat is required to be collected as part ofthe Current
MinimumStandard set forth herein. Thepurposeforincluding Audit Datain the Current Minimum Standard is to provideameaningful audittrailof Electronic Signaturesapplied byMinnesota Judicial Branchjudgesand court personnel.
b. “Authentication”means to systematicallyverifyaperson’s identityas authenticor
valid.
c. “Biometrics”means thediscipline of computer sciencethat involves uniquely recognizinghumans based upon oneor more intrinsicphysical or behavioral traits.
d. “Digital Signature”meansan ElectronicSignaturethat uses asymmetric cryptographyand athirdpartyforvalidation.
e. “Electronicsignature” means an electronicor digital methodofsigningan electronicinstrumentandidentifyingaparticular individual as thesourceof the signature. This includesabroad rangeof methods, from ameretyped signatureto an attached signatureimagetoauserID/passwordas a signatureto aDigital Signature. This term is defined broadlyso that itmaybeusednowand in the future as technologieschangeforapplyingsignatures to electronicinstruments.1
1ThisdefinitionisfromtheMinnesotaJudicialBranchEnterpriseTechnologyArchitectureGovernance.
f.“Single-Factor Authentication”meansAuthenticationusingasingle factor,such as a password,togetherwithauserID that identifies the person being authenticated. For example, ifapassword is usedas the singlefactor, it must be usedwith a userIDto identifythe person providingthe password. It should be noted that theuserIDreferenced in this definition is a requiredcomponentbut is
not considered a“factor.”2
g. “Two-FactorAuthentication” meansAuthentication usingtwo independent factors, suchas a password and abiometric identifier,together with auserID that identifies the person beingauthenticated. Thesecond factor does not haveto be biometric data; itcan beasmart card, RSA token, orotherindustry-recognized typeoffactor. For example, if apassword is usedas the first factor together with
anetworkIDto identifytheperson being authenticated, afingerprintmaybeused as a secondfactor (together with anetworkID), toaccomplish Two-Factor Authentication. It shouldbenoted that theuserIDreferenced in this definition is
a required component ofAuthentication but is notconsidereda “factor.”3
h. “Multi-FactorAuthentication”meansAuthentication usingthreeormorefactors.
Seedefinitions of Single-FactorAuthentication andTwo-Factor Authentication, above.
III. APPLICABILITY
This Standard is applicable toElectronicSignaturesapplied byMinnesota Judicial
Branch judges andcourtpersonnel in connection with court proceedings. It does not applytoElectronic Signatures used in anyother context, such as administrative or personnel matters. ThisStandard mayalso applyto other ElectronicSignatures as authorized bySupremeCourt Ruleor order.
IV. AUTHORITY
Under theimplementation authorityof Judicial Council Policy7.00, Technology Use
Strategy, the StateCourt Administratorherebysets forth itsStandard forElectronic Signatures in Court Proceedings. This Standard is herebymade part ofthe Security Domain of the EnterpriseInformation and TechnologyArchitecture, as described by Judicial CouncilPolicy7.00.
This policymaybewaivedas provided herein(seesection VI, below).
2Ibid.
3Ibid.
V. CURRENT MINIMUM STANDARD
Thefollowing minimumStandard must bemet for all electronicsignaturesgoverned bythis policy:
This Standard includes allthreeparts listed below:
Authentication: An ElectronicSignature of a particular individualmay beappliedbythatindividualto an electronicinstrument using various methods but Single-Factor Authentication is the minimum form of Authenticationat thetimean Electronic Signatureis applied. Two-Factor Authentication orMulti-Factor Authentication mayalso beusedand is encouraged.
AuditData:Thefollowing Audit Data must be captured at thepointin timewhen anElectronicSignature is applied to an electronicinstrument: date, time, and the user ID that was used for Authentication. This set of AuditData is required foreach Electronic Signature applied to an electronicinstrumentand must beretained for the lifeof thesigned instrument. AdditionalAuditData mayalso be captured and is encouraged.
Preservationand Retentionof Contentof SignedInstrument: When an Electronic Signature is applied to an electronicinstrument, theoriginal content of such instrument atthe timeofElectronicSignature must be preserved and retained for the lifeof thesigned instrument.
VI. WAIVER
This Standard maybewaived bywritten directiveoftheStateCourt Administratoror bySupremeCourt ruleororder.
VII. REPORTINGREQUIREMENTSFOR JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Judicial Districts are required to report to theDirector oftheInformationTechnology
Division anyproduct proposed foruse under this Standard, accompanied bya
detailed technical explanation as to whysuch product meets this Standard. Within 30 days of receivingadistrictreport, the Director oftheInformation Technology Division will either affirm compliancewith theStandard orchallengethe useof the product and request collaboration with theJudicialDistrict to perform additional testingand provide appropriatedocumentation. This paragraphhas no effect on the Minnesota Judicial Branch procurement process.
VIII. RELATED DOCUMENTS
Judicial CouncilPolicy7.00,Technology UseStrategy
JudicialBranch EnterpriseInformationTechnologyArchitecture, includingthe
SecurityDomain
Rule 1.06 ofthe Rules of Criminal Procedure
Report and Proposed Amendments to the MinnesotaRules ofCriminal Procedure
(Aug. 29, 2008).
Order Amending E-FilingPilot Project, ADM10-8011 (Minn. S. Ct. filedMarch
10, 2011)
IX. REVISION HISTORY
Date / Description12/12/2008 / Original Standard issued.
5/20/2011 / Revised definitionsin SectionII;revised SectionIIItoclarifythat this
Standard applies to theapplication ofElectronicSignatures byMinnesota Judicial Branch Personnel;modified the Current Minimum Standard in Section V;added anewSection VI;and renumbered the remaining Sections to accommodatethe insertion of thenewSection VI.
Approval:
StateCourt Administrator Signature
May20, 2011
Date