State of Minnesota State Court Administration
State of Minnesota – State Court Administration
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Content Consultant: Review and Revision of Informational Content on the Minnesota Judicial Branch Public Portal – www.mncourts.gov
I. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS.
A. Defined. The State of Minnesota, State Court Administrator’s Office (“State”) wishes to replace its public portal, including moving to a new Content Management System (“CMS”), with the goal of maximizing the public portal’s effectiveness as the central portal for all Minnesota Judicial Branch public Internet interactions. As part of the creation of a new public portal, the State is using a competitive selection process to select a vendor to assist with the task of reviewing and revising the informational content on the current Minnesota Judicial Branch public portal. The engagement for the Content Consultant is anticipated to start at the beginning of February 2013, and end by June 30, 2013. This is not a bid, but 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.
B. 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 IN THE EVENT THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS IS CANCELLED OR WITHDRAWN FOR ANY REASON, THE STATE SHALL NOT HAVE ANY LIABILITY TO ANY PROPOSER FOR ANY COSTS OR EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS OR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.
II. PROJECT BACKGROUND.
A. Minnesota Judicial Branch. The Minnesota Judicial Branch has 10 judicial districts with 289 district court judgeships, 19 Court of Appeals judges, and seven Supreme Court justices. The Minnesota Judicial Branch is governed by the Judicial Council, which is chaired by Lorie S. Gildea, Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Minnesota Judicial Branch is mandated by the Minnesota Constitution to resolve disputes promptly and without delay, and handled approximately 1.6 million cases in 2011. For more information please visit www.mncourts.gov.
B. Project Background. The Judicial Branch has undertaken the replacement of its public portal (www.mncourts.gov) as part of its efforts to facilitate public interactions with the Branch by parties/litigants, attorneys, policymakers, media, general public, justice system partners, judges, court staff and others. The current public portal contains approximately 1,500 web pages plus documents, images, and videos that in 2012 had approximately 7 million visits and 22 million page views. In recent years a number of court business transactions, such as the ability to pay a fine, look up a district or appellate court case record, respond to a jury summons, complete lawyer registration, and file a district court case electronically have been made available through the portal. The Judicial Branch wishes to increase public use of these and other services as part of its Strategic Plan.
The State is using a two-step process to execute the redesign and replacement of the public portal, which will include a new Content Management System (“CMS”) implementation. For the first step, the State has contracted with Computer Integration Technologies, Inc. (CIT) of Woodbury, Minnesota, to create a public portal redesign plan and to recommend a replacement for the current legacy CMS. The Deliverables for Step One are listed in the attached APPENDIX I. Step One is currently in progress with a completion date of February 28, 2013. Step Two, which has not begun, will entail the selection of a vendor to construct the new public portal, including placement of informational content, and the creation and launch of a new public portal during the summer of 2013.
The project for this RFP will run concurrently and will focus on preparation of the informational content for the new portal so as to improve the user experience.
C. Project Benefits. Persons using the internet will be able to access the Judicial Branch public portal for the purposes of conducting court-related business transactions or finding information that will assist them in their interactions with Minnesota’s judicial system, including but not limited to: location of Judicial Branch facilities; information about District Court case records; information about appellate court cases (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals); payment of fines; responding to a juror summons; electronic filing of cases where allowed; etc.
D. Technologies to be Implemented. A Content Management System; ancillary databases and Internet based vendor services; video and audio recordings; eCommerce; etc.
E. Project Approach. The Content Consultant will be tasked with working with the Judicial Branch Communications Director (“Director”) and other designated Judicial Branch representatives to develop and execute a strategy to review and revise the informational content on the current Judicial Branch public portal in preparation for placement onto the new public portal. The vendor will assist the State with reviewing the existing content on the current public portal; determining the content that should be used on the new public portal; and revising and/or creating new content for the new public portal.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES.
The content of the Minnesota Judicial Branch website www.mncourts.gov is high volume and complex. Existing content must be quantified and assessed, so it can be optimized for web users and administrators. Existing content may also need to be revised, and new content may need to be created, to enhance the user experience and meet Judicial Branch objectives. Content inventory and analysis will be conducted, according to these strategic goals and objectives established by web administrators:
A. Create a “virtual” courthouse that better enables web visitors to independently find court-related information and complete transactions 24/7 from any geographic location.
· Expand accessibility to the courts and improve user-friendliness of tasks;
· Reduce/eliminate barriers to task completion;
· Enable mobile access;
· Improve content clarity so that users complete tasks correctly and in a timely manner;
· Reduce/eliminate ineffective/unnecessary content;
· Improve content find-ability;
· Improve user experience of vendor-hosted sites;
· Increase accessibility for users with audio, visual, and dexterity impairments;
· Replace legalese with plain language;
· Enable easy reading of appellate court opinions;
· Enable easy downloading of court forms; and
· Enable easy access to instructional material.
B. Improve website governance.
· Develop system-wide editorial and usability quality assurance;
· Create uniform site standards;
· Assess/adjust roles of content owners and managers; and
· Identify opportunities for staff training on web writing and standards.
C. Measurements for goals and objectives.
· Increased use of web portal (site visits; page views);
· Content is legally accurate, up to date, and is written in plain language;
· Reduced 1:1 staff time spent on customer interactions involving routine court procedures, fines/fees, forms, record retrieval, and other services;
· Reduced “bounce” rates;
· Increased use of jury summons questionnaire;
· Increased use of on-line citation payment service; and
· Other performance measures as determined in consultation with the Director.
D. Technology accessibility. Minnesota Statute section 363A.42 (Public Records; Accessibility) applies to technology procured, developed and substantially modified or enhanced after January 1, 2013. The content recommended, revised and added by the Content Consultant should also comply with the State of Minnesota Accessibility Standard, effective April 29, 2011. The Accessibility Standard incorporates the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
IV. PROJECT DELIVERABLES.
The following artifacts will be produced during the project’s progression:
1. A project plan, including milestones, outlining the content to be reviewed, revised or created to support the project objectives, as determined in consultation with project leadership.
2. Inventory of content on www.mncourts.gov, including documentation (i.e. spreadsheet or other format as determined in consultation with project leadership) detailing: link ID, link name, URL, document type, keywords, owner, and other pertinent information.
3. Written recommendations for content to remove, retain, modify and add.
4. Design documentation for revised and additional content created for the public portal, as identified by the project plan and as determined in consultation with project leadership.
5. Written recommendations for improvement in site content governance.
6. Monthly status reports.
V. PROJECT MILESTONES AND SCHEDULE.
A. Project Start Date: Early February 2013.
B. Key Deliverables Dates: to be determined through negotiation with the Director. All Project Deliverables and Work specified in this RFP must be completed by June 30, 2013.
VI. SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE.
A. Required Skills.
1. Expert content analysis, writing skills and project planning experience focused on web-based portals.
2. Excellent interpersonal skills and the ability to build and maintain effective working relationship with the Director and Judicial Branch staff as designated by the Director.
3. Experience in managing large projects for public sector entities that provide services and information to people from diverse demographic and economic backgrounds.
4. Expert experience in creating and managing a complex project plan and project plan status reporting.
5. Ability to adapt to changes in course while maintaining productivity.
6. Strong customer relations skills.
7. Excellent oral and written communication skills and problem solving ability.
B. Desired Skills.
1. Knowledge of the Minnesota Judicial Branch. Previous experience working with courts or other governmental entities on similar efforts in scope and complexity is desired.
VII. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.
A. 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. See Section XV of the sample State contract in Appendix IV 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 II.
3. Non-Collusion Affirmation. Vendor must complete the Affidavit of Non-Collusion (Appendix III) and include it with its RFP response.
4. Contract Terms. The State’s proposed contract templates are set forth in Appendix IV (contract) and Appendix V (subcontractor participation agreement). No work can be started until a contract (and where necessary a subcontractor participation agreement), in the form 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.
a. By submitting a response to this RFP, Vendor accepts the standard terms and conditions and contract set out in Appendices IV and V, respectively. Much of the language included in the standard terms and conditions and contract reflects requirements of Minnesota law.
b. Vendors requesting additions or exceptions to the standard terms and conditions or contract terms shall submit them with their response to the RFP. A request must be accompanied by an explanation why the exception is being sought and what specific effect it will have on the Vendor’s ability to respond to the RFP or perform the contract. The State reserves the right to address nonmaterial requests for exceptions to the standard terms and conditions and contract language with the highest scoring Vendor during contract negotiation.
c. The State shall identify any revisions to the standard terms and conditions and contract language in a written addendum issued for this RFP. The addendum will apply to all Vendors submitting a response to this RFP. The State will determine any changes to the standard terms and conditions and/or contract.
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.
B. Project-Related Submission Requirements.
Vendor’s response must include:
1. An overview that reflects the vendors’ understanding of the efforts described in this Request for Proposals;
2. A detailed explanation of how the Vendor proposes to meet the Project objectives and requirements set forth above, including descriptions of the methodology that will be used and the deliverables that will be produced;
3. A description of completed projects that demonstrate the Vendor’s experience and area of expertise, including Vendor’s ability to provide the stated Deliverables;