SEALED BID
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
for the
VERMONT JUDICIARY COURT INTERPRETER PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSAL (as of 3/26/09)
Important Date Summary (Note RFP Section 1.3 for Full Schedule):
DATE POSTED / March 20, 2009QUESTIONS DUE / April 3, 2009
PROPOSALS DUE / April 17, 2009
PROPOSAL REVIEW TIMEFRAME / April 22-27,2009
ANTICIPATED INTERVIEW TIMEFRAME / May 7-8, 2009
SELECTION NOTIFICATION / May 15, 2009
LOCATION OF BID OPENING: 111 State St., Montpelier, Vermont 05602
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT ALL NOTIFICATIONS, RELEASES AND AMENDMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS RFP WILL BE POSTED AT THE VERMONT BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS WEBSITE: http://www.vermontbidsystem.com/Default.aspx
IT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EACH VENDOR TO PERIODICALLY CHECK THE BID WEB SITE FOR THE LATEST DETAILS.
RFP CONTACT: Sandra Seidel
Vermont Court Administrator's Office
E-MAIL:
Table of Contents
1. / Overview / 31.1 / Purpose of this RFP / 3
1.2 / Background / 4
1.3 / RFP and Contracting Schedule / 5
1.4 / Single Point of Contact for this RFP / 5
1.5 / Question and Answer Period / 6
2. / Project Information and General Guidelines / 7
2.1 / Limitations / 7
2.2 / Additional Submissions / 7
2.3 / Independence Certification / 7
2.4 / Laws and Regulations / 7
2.5 / Customary Contract Provisions / 7
2.6 / Method of Award / 8
2.6.1 / Contract Award / 8
2.6.2 / Rejection of Proposals / 8
2.6.3 / Proposal Evaluation Criteria / 8
2.7 / Contract Negotiation / 9
2.7.1 / Contract Terms / 9
2.7.2 / Terms and Conditions / 9
2.8 / Noting Exceptions to Requirements Listed in this RFP / 10
3. / Scope of Work / 10
3.1 / Required Project Activities and Deliverables / 10
3.1.1 / Contractor Functions / 10
3.1.2 / Exclusive Ownership / 11
4. / Vendor Response Content and Format / 12
4.1 / Proposal Content / 12
4.2 / Required Format of the Proposal / 12
5. / Proposal Submission Instructions / 13
5.1 / Closing Date / 14
5.2 / Sealed Bid Instructions / 14
5.3 / Delivery Methods / 14
6. / Description of Attachments / 15
Attachment 1 / State Contracting Addendum / 16
Attachment 2 / Vermont Tax Certificate and Insurance Certificate / 20
Attachment 3 / Required Budget Form and Narrative / 21
Attachment 4 / Exceptions / 22
1. Overview
1.1 Purpose of this RFP
The Vermont Judiciary issues this request for proposals to solicit proposals from individuals and entities that wish to be considered to develop a systematic action plan to develop and manage a court interpreter program that would meet due process requirements in Vermont court proceedings and improve access to court-ordered programs and the services provided by the courts. The Vermont Judiciary seeks proposals from qualified individuals or entities to:
(1) Develop a strategic plan for the court interpreter program, develop additional protocols on the use of interpreters and explore options for more effectively and efficiently providing court interpreter services, including the exploration of video and web-based or other technological resources;
(2) Review the development of the court interpreter program, including the work of the Subcommittee on Interpreters, the needs assessment, protocols and the content of all previous education and training sessions. The contractor will also work with the CAO to gather information on success of various efforts, challenges and obstacles as well as priorities for moving program forward;
(3) Consult with the Consortium at the National Center for State Courts in Williamsburg, Virginia, to identify, explore and utilize relevant program plans from other states and compile a summary report on this research to the CAO, local courts and selected court interpreters, and work collaboratively with this group to develop an outline;
(4) Develop a draft action plan for the program that will include sections on
(a) the current status of the program, need for and use of interpreters and recommendations on collaborations with other agencies;
(b) the availability, cost, and efficacy (especially related to due process); (c) current status of training and education priorities;
(d) adoption of a code of professional conduct;
(e) successful and promising practices in the recruitment and use of interpreters and how they might be implemented;
(f) recommendations on the information and data that should be routinely collected on the program that will enhance management and effective use of interpreters;
(g) initial steps to establish an interpreter testing and qualification program; (The staff of the Consortium is available to assist with the development of the action plan.);
(h) After consultation and review of additional comments and research, consultant will finalize plan; and,
(5) If determined by the AOC to be beneficial, the consultant may be required to travel to travel to:
(a) Williamsburg offices of the Consortium to work with the staff on development of the action plan described in (4) above, and
(b) attend the Annual Consortium Conference, sponsored by the National Center for State Courts, and scheduled in the fall of each year.
The State anticipates the project period from June 15, 2009, through December 31, 2009. The Vermont Judiciary has budgeted $21,000.00 for this project.
1.2. Background
Ensuring equal access to justice for non-English speaking individuals is a continuing challenge for state and local court systems. Both the number and diversity of persons with a need for interpreter services has increased as the demographic profile of the country has changed. In 2002, the United States Department of Justice issued guidelines to its recipients of federal funds, including state court systems, regarding the requirement to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to court proceedings and court-based programs to individuals with limited English proficiency.[1] Courts face the prospect of an increasing number of appeals based on the premise that a party in a criminal or civil procedure was not able to fully comprehend or participate in the judicial process because of a lack of adequate interpreter or translation services.
In 2004, the “Subcommittee on Interpreters” of the Vermont Supreme Court’s Committee on Fairness and Equal Access to Justice issued a report that recommended the development of policy and procedures as well as the amendment of court rules to ensure that individuals with limited English proficiency and the deaf or hard-of-hearing have access to interpreters and/or auxiliary aids for legal proceedings and court-ordered programs and services. The recommendations also addressed the development and implementation of a program to improve the qualifications of spoken language interpreters, including training on court procedures, legal terminology, ethics, and interpreting skills, as well as education for judges, court staff, and attorneys on best practices in managing interpreter services. An “Interpreter Implementation Committee” was formed to put the recommendations into practice.
To date, Vermont has made a number of efforts to improve the court interpreter program, including the development of legal education for interpreters; training on the use of interpreters for judicial officers; subscription to telephone (language-line) interpreter services, and creation of an interpreter registry. In 2007, Vermont joined the Consortium for State Court Interpreter Certification to take advantage of the resources available from this multi-state partnership.[2]
While the need for interpreter services in the state of Vermont may be less than in larger states with more ethnically diverse populations, it is still a challenge to provide timely and effective interpretation services for the estimated 40 different language groups in the state. It is difficult to develop a program with the right mix and level of language assistance and allocate the limited resources that are available for this effort. Without a systematic and well managed program, it is not possible to ensure that there is an adequate pool of interpreters with the level of language proficiency required for legal proceedings and to adhere to established standards of conduct. A strategic plan developed for this program will help ensure that interpreters are appointed in a timely manner and that appropriate standards of interpreter conduct in legal proceedings are maintained. The plan will also allow the program to move forward towards implementation of a court interpreter testing and certification program, and ensure that due process requirements are met.
1.3. RFP and Contracting Schedule
The table below presents the Judiciary’s expected schedule for this RFP and contracting process. Please note that the Judiciary may change this schedule at any point. Changes will be posted to the website listed on the cover of this RFP, and sent via email to those who register (i.e., request email notifications) with the RFP contact.
RFP Published / March 20, 2009Questions on RFP document due from vendors / April 3, 2009
Judiciary replies to Questions / April 9, 2009
Proposal Due / April 17, 2009, 2 pm ET
Proposal Review Period & Interview Timeframe / April 22-27, 2009
Award Notification / May 15, 2009
Contract Negotiation Period / May 18—June 12, 2009
Estimated Start work date / June 15, 2009
Following receipt and review of the proposals, the Vermont Judiciary may make a decision based solely upon the proposals. Alternatively, the Vermont Judiciary may seek supplemental information and/or conduct on-site interviews. These on-site interviews will be held in a central Vermont location arranged by the Judiciary. Interview sessions are expected to be about 1 hour to 1 ½ hours in length. There will be no cost to the Judiciary for these Interviews.
It is the responsibility of the respondents to check the website periodically for updates. The Vermont Judiciary anticipates concluding the proposal review according to schedule but may, in its discretion, extend the period of review.
1.4. Single Point of Contact for this RFP
All communications concerning this RFP are to be addressed in writing to the attention of the RFP Contact listed on page 1 of this RFP. The RFP Contact is the sole contact for this RFP. Attempts by bidders to contact any other party could result in the rejection of their proposal.
1.5. Question and Answer Period
Any vendor requiring clarification of any section of this proposal must submit specific questions in writing according to Schedule listed in Section 1.3. Questions must be e-mailed to the RFP Contact listed on the cover page of this proposal. Any objection not raised in writing on or before the last day of the initial question period is waived. Responses to the Question set will be posted to the bid website and sent via email to registered vendors.
2. Project Information and General Guidelines
2.1. Limitations
The Judiciary assumes no responsibility or liability for costs incurred by parties prior to issuance of a contract. In addition, this RFP does not commit the Judiciary to award a contract, procure any materials or supplies or pay any costs incurred in the preparation of a proposal.
All proposals become public record and are available for public review and inspection upon execution of the contract. Any contract(s) awarded as a result of this RFP will contain the general guidelines and conditions contained herein and will also incorporate the successful party’s proposal.
2.2. Additional Submissions
The Judiciary may award a contract or contracts based upon the offers received, without additional submissions from parties. However, the Judiciary reserves the right to request additional oral or written information or presentations from any parties in support of their written proposal.
2.3 Independence Certification
Each party must certify that it has no personal, financial, or professional relationship(s) with the Judiciary, its management or employees which would impair its independence with respect to a contract for development of a court interpreter program.
2.4 Laws and Regulations
Parties and all employees working on this contract will treat all information as confidential and will sign a contract with the Judiciary to that effect. The Judiciary reserves the right to inspect the systems and procedures of the party to guarantee that the party and its employees are adhering to the confidentiality provisions of the contract. Data may not be shared by any person or persons other than party employees directly responsible for evaluation activities.
2.5. Customary Contract Provisions
Parties must affirmatively state their understanding of the provisions contained in Attachment 1, State Contracting Addendum, and agree to abide by them should they receive a contract offer from the Judiciary. Furthermore, with regard to the Section 6 of Attachment 1, the company that issues insurance required by this section must be registered with the State’s Department of Banking and Insurance to do business in the State.
2.6. Method of Award
2.6.1 Contract Award
The Judiciary intends to award one contract as a result of this RFP. This project is estimated to start work as defined in the Schedule outlined in Chapter 1.
2.6.2 Rejection of Proposals
The Judiciary reserves the right to reject any or all proposals received as a result of this RFP and/or not proceed with any proposal. The Judiciary may accept part(s) of a proposal. The Judiciary is not obligated to proceed beyond issuing this RFP.
A proposal may be rejected for one or more of the following reasons or for any other reason deemed to be in the best interest of the Judiciary:
§ Failure of the Parties to adhere to one or more provisions of this RFP.
§ Failure of the Parties to submit information required by this RFP.
§ Failure of the Parties to follow generally accepted ethical and professional standards during the RFP process.
2.6.3 Proposal Evaluation Criteria
The Judiciary’s proposal review team will evaluate proposals based on the criteria listed below in approximate order of importance:
§ The entity’s proposed plan for providing services and the degree to which the proposal is responsive to the specifications contained in this Request for Proposals.
§ The entity’s familiarity with the mission, functions, and processes of the court interpreter program.
§ The entity’s ability to provide a detailed and comprehensive budget that does not exceed $21,000.00.
§ The entity’s experience providing similar services and the quality of the entity’s previous performance as described by references listed by the entity.
§ The entity’s ability to demonstrate that the project will be completed within the stated time period.