State of Minnesota – State Court Administration

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

eCourtMN APPELLATE INITIATIVEfor eReader

ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS SPECIALIST

  1. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS.
  1. Defined. The State of Minnesota, State Court Administrator’s Office (“State”), is using a competitive selection process to select a vendor to provide an Electronic Document Management Systems specialist (EDMS specialist)for the eReader portion of eCourtMN Appellate Initiative to move the Minnesota state appellate courts from a framework of paper files to an electronic information environment. The eCourtMN Appellate Initiative is part of the larger eCourtMN Initiative, which will result in increased productivity for judges and court staff, and ensure convenient, timely and appropriate access to court information for court users. The engagement for each of the Electronic Document Management Systems specialistis anticipated to begin on or around February 9, 2013, and end June 30, 2013, with the option to be extended past this date as determined by project leadership. This is a Request for Proposals that could become the basis for negotiations leading to a contract with a vendor to provide services described in this document.
  1. RIGHT TO CANCEL. THE STATE IS NOT OBLIGATED TO RESPOND TO ANY PROPOSAL SUBMITTED, NOR IS IT LEGALLY BOUND IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER BY THE SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSAL. THE STATE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CANCEL OR WITHDRAW THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AT ANY TIME IF IT IS CONSIDERED TO BE IN ITS BEST INTEREST. IN THE EVENT THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS IS CANCELLED OR WITHDRAWN FOR ANY REASON, THE STATE SHALL NOT HAVE ANY LIABILITY TO ANY PROPOSER FOR ANY COSTS OR EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS OR OTHERWISE. THE STATE ALSO RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY OR ALL PROPOSALS, OR PARTS OF PROPOSALS, TO WAIVE ANY INFORMALITIES THEREIN, AND TO EXTEND PROPOSAL DUE DATES.
  1. PROJECT BACKGROUND.
  1. Minnesota Appellate Courts. The Minnesota Supreme Court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals together serve as the Minnesota appellate courts (“Appellate Courts”). The Supreme Court is the court of last resort in Minnesota. With seven justices, the Supreme Courtexercises discretionary jurisdiction over cases from the Minnesota Court of Appeals, and has mandatory or original jurisdiction over cases from the Workers Compensation Court of Appeals, the Tax Court, the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, the Board of Judicial Standards, and first-degree murder convictions from district courts. Over 700 cases were filed before the Supreme Court in 2011, with the court accepting discretionary jurisdiction over approximately 70 cases, and exercising mandatory or original jurisdiction over approximately 120 cases. Created as Minnesota’s error-correcting court, the Court of Appeals has nineteen judges that review final decisions of the trial courts and some decisions of state agencies and local governments. 2,221 cases were filed with the Court of Appeals in 2011. The Office of the Clerk of Appellate Courts receives all filings for both courts, and transmits all notices, orders, and opinions of both courts.
  1. Project Purpose. The Minnesota Courts have undertaken a strategic initiative to transition to electronic court records. That project is known as the eCourtMN Initiative and the overall project goals are to increase productivity and reduce operation costs by using and providing electronic court information, provide easy to use electronic court services to constituents, build secure and reliable business and technical infrastructure to support electronic court services, promote and facilitate culture change from paper processes to electronic court processes, and to create a fiscally sensible, cost neutral electronic court records process for ongoing operations. This Request for Proposals is specific to the effort to be undertaken by the Appellate Court, known as the eReader Appellate Initiative, and the overall project goal is to assist the Appellate Courts in learning as much as possible about handling, storing, converting and using electronic documents before the formal rollout of eFiling. This will be accomplished by establishing clear and helpful guidelines for electronic filings, to configure the docket entry screens for eFiling, and to determine whether paper copies of some documents (like briefs and appendices) are going to continue to be required.
  1. Project Benefits. Appellate Courts justice and judges, staff, and parties will be able to view and work with the most up-to-date case documents, even when someone else is viewing the case file. Parties, represented by counsel or proceeding pro se, will be able to electronically file and electronically serve case documents. Appellate Courts records not considered confidential or otherwise inaccessible under the Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch will be viewable through the Judicial Branch website.
  1. Technologies to be Implemented. eFiling; electronic document management, including document imaging; desktop tools enabling justices and judges to view case records; and eTools that allow for electronic processing of orders and decisions.
  1. Project Approach. The goal of the Appellate eReader Initiative is to help determine the process in which the Appellate Courts will be handling, storing, converting and using electronic documents. This will be accomplished by establishing clear and helpful guidelines for electronic filings, to configure the docket entry screens for eFiling, and to determine whether paper copies of some documents are going to continue to be required. The outcome will be to transition the Appellate Courts from paper-based files and processes to electronic case records supplied by the litigants and district courts. Key activities include:
  1. Refining, verifying, and documenting project eReader scope;
  1. Conduct business modeling of “as is” process diagrams;
  1. Conduct business modeling of “to be” process diagrams;
  1. Testing the electronic document management changes;
  1. Refine and create recommendations for an electronic document management process; and
  1. Document final results including a training of the process.

The State Court Administrator’s Office – Information Technology Division is looking for two individuals with experience in electronic document management implementation preferably in a law firm or in the legal field. TheEDMS specialistwill be expected to serve as the process subject matter expert and will work closely with a core team tasked to collaborate on the implementation of eFiling to the Appellate Courts. The EDMS specialist will assist the Business Analyst in the creation of current workflows and assist in the development of new and enhanced workflows as a result of the replacement of paper files with electronic files. Additional process tasks will be to test the “to be” process, fine tune the process and create a recommendation document. The final deliverables for the EDMS specialist will be the implementation of the approved recommendations and final documentation and training regarding an electronic document management system.

  1. Project Team. The Appellate Initiative Team is already in place. The Team includes representatives from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Clerk of Appellate Courts, the State Law Library, the eCourtMN Initiative, and the State Court Administrator’s Office. The Team has responsibilities for implementing the various aspects of the project. The Team reports to the Appellate Process Committee with regard to their responsibilities to the overall eCourtMN Appellate Initiative. The Appellate Process Committee reports to the eCourtMN Steering Committee and the State Court Administrator’s Office. TheEDMSspecialistwill report to the eFiling Appellate Team Project Manager and the eCourtMN Portfolio Manager (or designee) in the Information Technology Division.
  2. Project Leadership. The Appellate Process Committee serves as the main governing body for the eCourtMN Appellate Initiative. The Appellate Process Committee is comprised of Supreme Court justices, Court of Appeals judges, Appellate Courts staff, and State Court Administrator’s Office representatives. The role of the Appellate Process Committee is to provide advice and guidance for implementation of the eCourtMN Appellate Initiative, including:
  • Provide guidance regarding the project plan (project tasks, timeline, rollout plan and budget);
  • Decide issues on which project team cannot reach consensus or have significant operation impact, especially controversial business process decisions regarding consistency of approach;
  • Make recommendations on significant technology investments where issues regarding choice exist and are brought to the committee by the project team;
  • Provide guidance regarding best approaches to, and assist with, constituent engagement; and
  • Champion the eCourtMN Appellate Initiative.
  1. REQUIRED TASKS.

The eCourtMN Appellate InitiativeTeam will be acquiring the services of a consultant to fill two positions for the position title of Electronic Document Management Systems specialist.The activities listed below are the key activities within each role.

Electronic Document Management Systems Specialist

  • Coordinate, create and manage completion of both an “as is” and “to be” business process model.
  • Create and manage testing and performance of the “to be” model.
  • Create recommendation documentation of the findings for the “to be” model.
  • Track, manage, and control issues, changes, risks and opportunities.
  • Collaborate in the final documentation and training material of the new electronic document management process.
  • Create and manage data flow diagrams (DFD); entity relationship diagrams (ERD).
  1. PROJECT DELIVERABLES.
  1. Status reports, the frequency of such to be determined by the eFiling Appellate Team Project Manager.
  1. Analysis documentation, as determined in consultation with project leadership.
  1. Design documentation, as determined in consultation with project leadership.
  1. Test plan, as determined in consultation with project leadership.
  1. Pilot document management system as defined by “to be” process model in consultation with project leadership.
  1. PROJECT MILESTONES AND SCHEDULE.
  1. Project Start Date: On or about February 04, 2013.
  1. Key Deliverables Dates:
  1. Further define and clarify eReader scope– to be determined.
  1. Conduct “as is” model – to be determined.
  1. Conduct “to be” model – to be determined.
  1. Test plan of the “to be” model – to be determined.
  1. Analysis Documentation of test – to be determined.
  1. RecommendationDocumentation – to be determined.
  1. Final Documentation including training for staff – to be determined
  1. SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE.
  1. Required Skills.
  1. Exceptional electronic document management experience; preferably in a law firm or in the legal field.
  1. Ability to utilize SQL Server databases to perform analysis.
  1. Lead analysis QA testing through creation of test plans and mock flows for work streams.
  1. Must possess both Project Management and Business analysis skills.
  1. Excellent interpersonal skills and the ability to build and maintain effective working relationship with other members of the eFiling Appellate team.
  1. Ability to adapt to changes in course while maintaining productivity.
  1. Strong customer relations skills.
  1. Excellent oral and written communication skills and problem solving ability.
  1. Desired Skills.
  1. Knowledge of the Minnesota court system. Previous experience working with the courts on similar efforts in scope and complexity is desired.
  1. Ability to achieve objectives using an iterative approach where the end-state is defined as a result of the project execution – in other words, the end-state will not be completely defined in every detail before the initiation of the project.
  1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.
  1. General Requirements.

1.Certificate of Insurance. Each proposal shall contain acceptable evidence of compliance with the workers' compensation coverage requirements of Minnesota Statute § 176.181, subd. 2. Vendor’s RFP response must include one of the following: (1) a certificate of insurance, or (2) a written order from the Commissioner of Insurance exempting you from insuring your liability for compensation and permitting him to selfinsure the liability, or (3) an affidavit certifying that you do not have employees and therefore are exempt pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §§ 176.011, subd. 10; 176.031; and 176.041. SeeSection XV of the sample State contract in Appendix III for details on additional insurance requirements that must be provided upon request of the State.

2.Affirmative Action Certification.If the vendor’s proposal exceeds $100,000.00, the RFP response must include a completed Affirmative Action Statement and Certificate of Compliance, which are attached as Appendix I.

3.Non-Collusion Affirmation. Vendor must complete the Affidavit of Non-Collusion (Appendix II) and include it with its RFP response.

4.Contract Terms. The State’s proposed contract templates are set forth in Appendix III (contract) and Appendix IV (subcontractor participation agreement). No work can be started until a contract (and where necessary a subcontractor participation agreement), in the form set forth in the applicable appendices and approved by the State Court Administrator’s Legal Counsel Division, has been signed by all necessary parties in accordance with state court procurement and contract policies. The templates included in the appendices are sample forms and are not to be interpreted as offers.

5.Financial Stability. Vendor’s RFP must provide evidence of Vendor’s financial stability as an indicator of Vendor’s ability to provide services irrespective of uneven cash flow.

6.Financial Stability-Related Trade Secret. Judicial Branch rules of public access permit vendors to submitevidence of financial stability as trade secret information according to the following:

a.The evidence-of-vendor's-financial-stability must qualify as a trade secret under Minn. Statute § 325C.01 or as defined in the common law;

b.The vendor submits the evidence-of-vendor's-financial-stability on a separate document (but as part of their complete submission) and marks the document(s) containing only the evidence-of-vendor's-financial-stability as "confidential;"

c.The evidence-of-vendor's-financial-stability is not publicly available, already in the possession of the Judicial Branch, or known to or ascertainable by the Judicial Branch from third parties.

Except for financial stability information submitted in accordance with this section, do not place any information in your proposal that you do not want revealed to the public. Proposals, once opened, become accessible to the public except for financial stability information submitted in accordance with this section. Please also note that if a vendor’s proposal leads to a contract, the following information will also be accessible to the public: the existence of any resulting contract, the parties to the contract, and the material terms of the contract, including price, projected term and scope of work.

  1. Project-Related Submission Requirements.

Responses must include:

  1. Overview that reflects the vendors’ understanding of the efforts described in this Request for Proposals; and
  1. Detailed response to staff augmentation:
  1. Resume;
  1. Total, not-to-exceed cost, including all travel and related expenses, for Vendor’s proposal;
  1. Area of expertise;
  1. References: provide three (3) references for each analyst proposed; and
  1. Conflict of Interest statement as it relates to this project.
  1. PROPOSAL EVALUATION.

A.The State will evaluate all complete proposals received by the deadline. Incomplete proposals, late proposals, or proposals sent to any other address will not be considered. In some instances, an interview or presentation may be part of the evaluation process.

B.The evaluation of all proposals shall be based upon deriving the “Best Value” for the State. Best Value means achieving an appropriate balance between price and other factors that are key to a particular procurement. A procurement that obtains a low price but does not include other necessary qualities and features of the desired product or service does not meet the Best Value criterion. Factors upon which the proposals will be judged include, but are not limited to, the following:

1.Previous experience in performing similar work;

2.Thoroughness, quality, specificity, robustness, flexibility of Vendor’s approach/ methodology;

3.Knowledge of existing applications;

4.Cost estimate;

5.Financial stability of the organization.

C.Resumes will be reviewed for fit with the skills needed, and those looking like a good match will be contacted for interviews. No initial limits are placed on the number of candidates who will be selected for interviewing. Candidates will be interviewed and selection decisions made by a team consisting of one or more Managers from State Court Administration. Candidates may be asked to submit work products for review by this team and/or by courts’ business analysts.

D.Responses to this solicitation will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

  1. Interview (40%);
  1. Relevant Experience (10%);
  1. Three References (10%);
  1. Desired Skills (20%); and
  1. Cost (20%).
  1. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS.
  1. Proposal Timeline.
  1. Posting Date on Minnesota Judicial Public Website: January 25, 2013.
  1. Questions Due: January 28, 2013, by 12:00 p.m.
  1. Answers Posted: January 28, 2013
  1. Proposal Submission Deadline: January 29, 2013, by 3:00 p.m.
  1. Interviews and subsequent selection as soon thereafter as possible.
  1. Questions. Questions about this RFP or the selection process must be submitted in writing and directed to the State’s sole point of contact:

Jen VanDemmeltraadt

State Court Administrator’s Office

Information Technology Division

25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.

St. Paul, Minnesota 55155

Email:

All questions about this RFP must be submitted to the State’s sole point of contact identified in this paragraph no later than 12:00 p.m. on January 28, 2013. Other court personnel are not allowed to discuss the Request for Proposals with anyone, including responders, before the proposal submission deadline. Timely submitted questions and answers will be posted by the end of the day on Monday, January 28, 2013, and will be accessible to the public and other proposers.

  1. Sealed Proposal; Number of Copies; Submittal Address. Your proposal must be submitted in writing by 3:00 p.m. on January 29, 2013,in a sealed envelope to:

Jen VanDemmeltraadt

State Court Administration

Information Technology Division

25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.

St. Paul, Minnesota 55155

The submission must include both one (1) paper copy and one (1) electronic PDF copy. No facsimile submissions will be accepted.

Proposals delivered in person to State Court Administration should be presented to the First Floor receptionist.

  1. Signatures. Your proposal must be signed by, in the case of an individual, by that individual, and in the case of an individual employed by a firm, by the individual and an individual authorized to bind the firm.
  1. Ink. Prices and notations must be typed or printed in ink. No erasures are permitted. Mistakes may be crossed out and corrections must be initialed in ink by the person signing the proposal.
  1. Deadline; Opening; Public Access. Proposals must be received no later than 3:00 p.m. local (i.e., St. Paul, Minnesota) time on Tuesday, January 29, 2013. Proposals will be opened the following business day and once opened become accessible to the public (except financial stability information submitted as a trade secret in accordance with the instructions in Section VII(A)(6) of this RFP). With the exception of evidence-of-vendor’s-financial-stability trade secret information submitted in accordance with the instructions in Section VII(A)(6) of this RFP, do not place any information in your proposal that you do not want revealed to the public. All documentation shipped with the proposal, including the proposal, will become the property of the State.
  1. Late Proposals. Late proposals will not be accepted.
  1. Selection Timeline. Vendor selection will be as soon as possible after the proposal submission deadline.

Page 1of 4