RFP Questions and Responses

(1)

Question Number

Respondent Question/Response

1 1. The RFP mentions integrations with several systems such as Infor (Lawson), Bail Bond Tracking, 3PIN, ArcGIS, GPS Monuments, Master Road Log, Permit Tracking, Receipt Management System, VEMACS, Candidate Campaign Finance Reporting, Meeting Room Manager, Enable Fort Bend, Vitasys Outbreak Management System, Vitasys Surveillance System. Additionally the RFP mentions

integration with external third party repositories, Enterprise Content Management Systems and Records Management Systems. If this RFP is for an Enterprise Content Management Solution, why is there the need to integrate with several other third party products, what are the names of those systems and what is the level of integration expected? Please also provide the use case.

RESPONSE: See Enclosure 1, number 31.

2 2. In regards to providing phonetic and soundex search across all repositories is there a third party product we can use to integrate and provide this functionality? Please provide us with the specific use case?

RESPONSE: Vendor is to provide recommended solution.

3 3. The RFP mentions the requirement to provide Robust Data Mining via Web Browser and against downloaded files. What is the data that needs to be mined, from which applications?

RESPONSE: Regardless of application, please provide data mining capabilities as mentioned in Enclosure 1, number 127.

4 4. In regards to providing a means for crawling and classifying unstructured/unclassified content. What is the use Case for this? RESPONSE: See Enclosure 1, number 128.

5 5. In regards to Integration with ArcGIS what is the specific Use Case for the integration? RESPONSE: See Enclosure 1, number 170.

6 6. In regards to using industry standard (or non-proprietary) file format to store records and content to enhance interoperability. Are you referring to file formats, records, can you provide details on specific formats used and use case?

RESPONSE: See Enclosure 1, number 128.

7 7. (A)What is the number of users that will be required for the pilot and the total number of users for the entire system once fully implemented? (B)What is the segregation of the number of users (Light users a few hours a day Vs. Regular users) so that we can coordinate the best pricing option? (C)On the same lines what is the expectation in terms of public access and what are those users expected to be able to do?

(2)

RESPONSE: (A)Pilot, approximately 38, see RFP section 12.1.2 for entire solution (B) see RFP section 12.1.2 (C) see RFP section 12.1.4. 8 1) Item 12 in Core requirement states, “Must be compliant with relevant laws, regulations and standards such as DoD 5015.2 v3,

Electronic Records Management Software Applications Design Criteria Standard; Local Government Code, Chapter 205, Electronic

Storage of Records; Texas Administrative Code Title 13, Chapter 7, Electronic Records Standards and Procedures; Government Code Title 5, Chapter 552, Public Information; HIPAA, Criminal Justice Information Services Security Policy; Texas Health and Safety Code 773, Emergency Medical Services confidentiality requirements, Chapter 181, Medical Records Privacy; and ISO/IEC 27001, Information Security Management as examples of those relevant laws, regulations and standards.”. The DoD 5015.2 is an older standard that

significantly complicates records management and places an undue burden on end users. Would the County consider an integrated Records capability that is part of the ECM system and will meet all the records requirements but is not necessarily 5015.2v3 certified?

RESPONSE: Certification is not mentioned.

9 2) With respect to item 13.2, “Implement the ECMS in a phased approach starting with a pilot project with two (2) departments from Phase I of the deployment approach.” The introduction to this section states that implementation will be addressed in a future solicitation. We want to confirm that the response to this RFP is simply for software/hosting environment and does not include the early pilots or software installation or any other professional services.

RESPONSE: see RFP section 12.0 Scope

10 3) Regarding Backfile Conversion specification in RFP: we are unclear if the County would like a service provider response to this section (capabilities and pricing) since earlier in the RFP it appears to state the County would only desire pricing for ECM software. RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information.

11 4) Will the county procure the software prior to retention of implementation services or only after the award of implementation services? RESPONSE: To be determined.

12 5) The county has asked for the respondent to provide hardware and software requirements for the solution along with pricing for these components. Does they county also want a cost for the installation of this hardware?

RESPONSE: FBC is open to all options, respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available.

(3)

RESPONSE: See addendum that extends opening to 8/20.

14 7) The hardware pricing sections mentions servers, scanner and workstations. For the initial RFP response, is the County looking for hardware pricing on ALL hardware? Or, only the server since scanners and other hardware will not implemented in the first phase. RESPONSE: FBC is open to all options, respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available.

15 The RFP document states that Ft. Bend’s IT environment includes Central Network storage and Central data base servers. Can we assume that the storage and database components already in place at the county can be used for the proposed solution? Or does the County want us to include a separate Database server and separate document storage?

16 If separate document storage is required, does the County want vendors to propose a starter systems for early pilots (can upgrade in later phases) or to scale the storage to what may ultimately be required (more expensive up front and will sit idle until later phases of the project?)

17 Does the County want vendors to size the hardware to the initial pilot system (which can be expanded later as you move into phased application deployment) or to propose a large hardware implementation based on the size of what the system will ultimately grow to once all phases are implemented?

18 Backfile conversion - Can the Backfile Conversion bid be awarded separately from the system portion?

RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information. 19 Backfile conversion - Can we bid only on the Backfile Conversion portion?

RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information. 20 Backfile conversion - Will vendor be penalized for only bidding on the Backfile Conversion part of this RFP? RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information.

(4)

21 Backfile conversion - Request that Ford Bend County split the RFP into two separate RFP's.

One for backlog, one for system, to avoid confusion in regards to insurance requirements, and other requirements the system portion has that don’t apply or apply differently to the backlog conversion.

The other reason is the backlog will take significantly longer to complete then the system implementation. It would be recommended to start the Backfile scanning first, and by the time the system is ready for implementation, there will be data in the system to look up. Instead of implementing and using a system that has no data in it.

RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information. 22 Backfile conversion - Can a standard of 300 dpi be used for all scanning? That is the industry norm now.

RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information. 23 Backfile conversion - Are all documents to be scanned in B/W? (Recommended to keep file size down)

RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information.

24 Backfile conversion - Can this work be performed by a vendor out of state as long as the vendor's vehicles/staff are used for transportation? (per HIPAA compliance)

RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information. 25 Backfile conversion - Does all work (Doc prep, scan, index, qc, etc…) required to be done within the United States? RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information.

26 Backfile conversion - 1 These are some large estimates. What time frame does Ford Bend County want this all completed by? RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information.

27 Backfile conversion - 1 Are all these documents and film/fiche available for pickup at start of project? If not, what volumes will be ready for pickup and approx. how frequently?

28 Backfile conversion - 1 Batch sizes are required to price this project out (Ideally added to Table 1). For example, for 54 million pages if the batch size average is only 10 pages, that's a lot more time/money in separator pages and labor hours, than if the batches are 100 pages. (files in a folder or document type)

(5)

RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information. 29 Backfile conversion - 1 Is the microfilm to be indexed by the roll label?

RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information. 30 Backfile conversion - 1 Is the microfiche to be indexed by fiche sheet label?

RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information. 31 Backfile conversion - 2.1.3 States to supply boxes to state. Does this mean all the files are in cabinets currently? RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information.

32 Backfile conversion - 2.1.7 States vendor shall provide on-site equipment and services. To clarify, does Fort Bend County want all the conversion work done on-site, or at the vendor site? (as per 2.1.5)

33 Backfile conversion - 2.1.7 Just to confirm, the final product shall be OCR PDF files? Does this include large format, microfilm, and microfiche?

34 Backfile conversion - 2.1.9 Paragraph stating return of boxes in same order. Do the documents need to be re-staple/paper clipped in the same order as well?

35 Backfile conversion - 2.1.9 Can the documents be returned in the box in the same order, but with the folders in the back of the box? RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information.

36 Backfile conversion - 2.1.9 Are the documents going to be shredded after 6 months? If so, recommend vendor store them for the 6 months, and provide pricing and shredding certification. This would minimize cost in re-prep and storage at County location.

37 Backfile conversion - 3.11 Indexing is the second most expensive part of most conversion projects. (after doc prep). Without knowing the index fields (keystrokes), how does Fort Bend County want us to price this? From experience, most document types have 3-4 index fields, and usually one dropdown for document type.

(6)

38 Backfile conversion - 3.11 Will there be an electronic database available so vendor can cross-check the index values with the database (as another measure of QC)

39 Backfile conversion - 3.1 In regards to "Service Provider shall bulk load … into selected ECMS". Some ECMS include free batch import tools, some do not and it cost extra or require special programming. This depends on the system. Can this be rephrased that Vendor shall work with the System provider to insure documents can be uploaded, and if special software is required by system provider it is at the cost of the system provider?

40 Backfile conversion - 3.4 For this large of a project, 2-3 days return time will be insufficient to get any major volume of data. Recommend to change weekly delivery of data. Vendor shall make documents available to County while in their possession.

RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information. 41 Backfile conversion - 4 Regarding documents inside envelopes, do you want the envelopes scanned as well? RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information.

42 Backfile conversion - 5.2 States 1 original, and 14 electronic responses. Does this mean you want 14 flash drives/cd's? RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information.

43 backfile conversion 1. 2.1.5, 2.1.6 and 2.1.7 seem to be in conflict. Does some portion of the scanning have to be converted on-site at the County’s facility? If so, what portion must be converted on-site?

44 backfile conversion 2. 3.4 Turnaround Criteria If the back-file conversion vendor can ensure timely fulfillment of all requested documents, can batches of documents be off-site for more than 2-3 days? If so, this would reduce the cost of the back-file conversion.

45 backfile conversion 3. 2.1.7 Digital image formatting Are all images to be returned in both TIFF Group 6 and text-searchable PDF? In other words does the county want two complete sets of images/data delivered in both of those formats?

RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information. 46 backfile conversion 4. Does the County want Optical Character Recognition performed on all scanned images?

(7)

47 backfile conversion 5. 4. Back-File Conversion Requirements (Filmed Document Specifications) “Each image on a film reel has a horizontal, numerical, recording reference on the top left side” These are frame numbers that were assigned to each image at the time the film was produced. Does the County want reel level indexing performed on microfilm which lists only the beginning and ending range of documents on each roll? Alternatively, does the County want each individual file on a film reel to be indexed separately? If file level indexing is desired, does the County have an electronic data table that can be used to go directly to a specific roll and frame number in order to locate a specific file?

RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information. 48 #43 All transactions provide a progress feedback on the user’s screen. Could you expand on this question?

RESPONSE: FBC does not have any further specific information.

49 #45 Provide for phonetic and soundex search across all metadata elements and/or content, across all repositories. Could you expand on this? What is your meaning/definition of all repositories?

50 #50 Be able to manage multiple repositories and data stores. Could you expand on what you are meaning/wanting with this requirement? RESPONSE: See Enclosure 1, number 31.

51 #52 Be able to identify hold content sources (data mapping for records on hold). Can you expand more on this requirement? RESPONSE: FBC does not have any further specific information.

52 #88 Provide system-wide customizable error messages. Could you provide a use case for this requirement? RESPONSE: FBC does not have any further specific information.

53 #90 Be capable of supporting symmetrical multi-processing. Could you please provide a use case for this requirement? RESPONSE: FBC does not have any further specific information.

54 #148 Have versioning and provide, maintain and manage version history and version control for all content (including thesaurus, taxonomy and pick lists) in all environments (development, test, QAS, stage, production, etc.). Could you expand on this? Are you needing to version control the taxonomy and pick lists?

(8)

55 #168 Be able to publish content to a separate web server. Could you please provide a use case for this requirement? RESPONSE: FBC does not have any further specific information.

56 #176 Provide the ability to design container labels including the ability to insert and size barcodes. These labels be able to hold complex data for a number of boxes (e.g. department, start and ending range, shelf location and related consignment data). Could you expand further on this? Use case?

57 Questions #183-189: Could you clarify is this for paper based records and not electronic records? RESPONSE: FBC does not have any further specific information.

58 Do you have a formal declaration for records or a file plan? RESPONSE: No.

59 1) The Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Department is a current Enterprise Content Management Customer of ours. Would you all want to operate off of the existing servers/hardware we have in place for them, or is the plan to purchase everything new and have no relation to the existing system?

60 2) For the Signature piece… is a true Signature needed, or would a digital signature be accepted as well? If yes on needing the e-Signature piece, how many signatures per month are used?

RESPONSE: see RFP section 12.1.6 Respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available.

61 3) Knowing that some of your departments already have scanners/scan licenses in place, for those departments that will need scanners, do you know how many out of those departments will specifically need high, medium and low level scanners?

RESPONSE: see RFP section 12.2.2 Respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available.

62 4) Figure 5.2.1 Option A summary and Option B summary…. The scenarios listed are that we would either implement all 3 phases of the project, or we would implement the 1st phase and then you all would implement Phase 2 and Phase 3 on your own. Would there be any consideration in us implementing Phase 1 and then Fort Bend and Lexmark work together to implement Phase 2 and 3 (this would be a shared effort)?

(9)

63 Regarding Core Requirement 36 - Provide for date comparisons, start and end range, calculate and count searching to all users, according to their security access profile. This point is not clear as to what is required or what the County is expecting. Please explain.

64 Regarding Core Requirement 52 - Be able to identify hold content sources (data mapping for records on hold). Require more information on requirement. Please explain.

65 Regarding Core Requirement 61 - Provide ability for a record to be kept of all record destructions (excludes expungements) providing certifiable proof of destruction including the ability to attach a scanned image of a paper destruction record. Please provide an explanation of this requirement.

66 Regarding Core Requirement 79 - Allow the assigned user the ability to record completed activities against the work assignment. Please provide an explanation of this requirement.

67 Regarding Core Requirement 100 - Have built-in application security as well as data security. What does “data security” mean? Is this referencing the system’s ability to secure data from unauthorized users being able to access it from w/I the application, or preventing users from accessing the data directly from the database?

68 Regarding Core Requirement 109 - Allow sensitive content to be wiped with specified characters one or multiple times to prevent 'unauthorized viewing' after deletion Please provide an explanation of this requirement.

69 Regarding Core Requirement 134 - Provide ability to drag and drop folders with appropriate security credentials. Please provide an explanation of this requirement

70 Regarding Core Requirement 159 - Provide a means for mapping content and metadata to and from external systems. Is this referring to a federated search, or the ability to either pull data into, or push data from the solution?

(10)

71 Regarding Core Requirement 165 - Be able to use exports from Digitech System's PaperVision product to link metadata indexing to images Please provide an explanation of this requirement

72 Regarding Core Requirement 167 - Provide for the option of a separate data store Please provide an explanation of this requirement RESPONSE: FBC is open to all options, respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available.

73 Regarding Core Requirement 181 - Provide the ability to maintain a specified number (number is to be configurable by Fort Bend County administrators without assistance from the contractor\respondent) of movement histories against each tracked object. Please provide an explanation of this requirement

74 Regarding Core Requirement 185 - Have the ability to link a file to a container to facilitate scanning and attachment of a ‘contents’ sheet for that container. This file be viewable by staff as well as the user/owner. Please provide an explanation of this requirement

75 Regarding Core Requirement 186 - Provide the ability for users to reserve hardcopy records in advance and notify staff. Please provide an explanation of this requirement.

76 Regarding 12.1.9 Application Program Interfaces (API) Software. The proposed ECMS should provide Application Program Interfaces to support interfaces to existing enterprise/legacy systems. Please provide a more detailed explanation of “support interfaces”.

RESPONSE: FBC is open to all options, Respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available.

77 Regarding the request for low, medium and high volume scanners for the proposed ECMS Is the County looking for a per scanner price or for a price for a specific number of each type of scanner?

78 Regarding support and maintenance Does the County expect the selected software licensing vendor or the selected implementation vendor to support the ECMS if not the same vendor?

(11)

79 Regarding the implementation services solicitation How soon after award of this RFP does the County expect to release the implementation services solicitation?

RESPONSE: To be determined

80 1. 12.1.6 and 12.1.7 mention that certificates will be used for Digital Signatures. Should licensing for Electronic Signatures (i.e. image based or scratched onto a Topaz device) also be included?

RESPONSE: see RFP section 12.1.6 Respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available. 81 2. 12.1.9 - Will integrations into each of these applications be part of Phase 1?

82 3. 12.2.1 - If the Respondent does not sell Client or Server hardware, is providing hardware pricing still a requirement? RESPONSE: FBC is open to all options, respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available.

83 4. Requirements Checklist - Would the County be willing to provide this checklist in a Word or Excel Format to allow for easier response?

RESPONSE: No.

84 5. Requirements Checklist - Many of these requirements allude to product functionality that may not be included as part of the Phase 1 effort. Would the County prefer to identify what functionality is required to be included in the cost for Phase 1?

85 6. 14.6 & 14.7 - The phases shown in these diagrams (and discussed elsewhere in the RFP) show different departments involved in each phase than the Implementation Plan in Enclosure 5. Will the County please confirm the departments/processes that will be included in Phase 1 or provide an updated Enclosure 5?

RESPONSE: 14.6 and 14.7 are correct.

86 7. 5.2.2 – Would Ft. Bend like all 169 pages of the issued RFP returned in addition to our response document or only our response document containing the requirements warranting a response?

RESPONSE: Yes

87 8. 5.2.2 – If the entire RFP should be returned and responses should be contained within the issued RFP, could you please release a Word version of the RFP?

(12)

88 9. 17.1 and 17.4 – The tab order and numbers outlined in 17.1 do not align with the order and numbers in 17.4. For example, in 17.1 Tab 1 is Project Management and Approach. In 17.4, Tab 1 is Technical Response. Which order do you prefer the Respondent follow?

RESPONSE: See addendum 1.

89 1. Since the indexing taxonomy will not be developed until later, how many index fields does the county desire for each document? RESPONSE: Final Taxonomy format will be determined by County and Respondent.

90 2. “Hardcopy documents” number of 54,601,728. Is this actually for estimated pages (images) , not documents? RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only.

91 3. Microfilm – 16mm or 35mm? How many reels of each?

RESPONSE: 16mm, subject matter was provided for informational purposes only. 92 4. Microfiche – 16mm or 35mm? How many individual fiche of each? RESPONSE: 16mm, subject matter was provided for informational purposes only.

93 5. What is contained on the 1258 CDs? How many total images? RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only.

94 6. Section 1.2 mentions that Fort Bend County does not want the vendor to quote implementation services and that this will be addressed in a future proposal. Later in the RFP, it does ask for an implementation plan, training services, etc. which would be in line with normal implementation services. We are asking for clarification on the County’s plans for implementation of the selected software as there seems to be conflicting information in the RFP.

RESPONSE: See RFP section 1.2.

95 7. Section 12.2.1 – the RFP is asking for the vendor to proposal hardware to host the solution. We normally provide hardware

requirements and the government agency will acquire any needed hardware through their normal channels. Will hardware requirements / recommendations suffice?

96 8. The RFP Questions were due by August 5th, and the final RFP is due on August 13th. This may not provide enough time between questions being answered and due date to complete the response. Would the County consider an extension?

(13)

97 9. Would the county desire purchasing all licensing initially needed or in phases?

98 10. The RFP mentions 400 concurrent licenses and 600 view licenses. Will Fort Bend County accept a Named User Option for the main users? If so, how many named full users would the County need? Could you break this down by phase if you do want them phased in? RESPONSE: see RFP section 12.1.2.

99 11. Of the 2,800 employees, would it be accurate to say that 20% will need full access in some capability (scanning, importing, participating in workflows, forms, etc.) and the other 80% just the ability to view, search and print?

RESPONSE: see RFP section 12.1.2.

100 12. Are there any current document management systems in use? Will a conversion be required? RESPONSE: Yes, to be determined.

101 13. Section 5.1 – Records Management – These requirements focus on Physical Records Management rather than Electronic. We have a 3rd party partner that provides Physical Records Management software integrated with the ECM solution we will be proposing. Would this type of scenario be acceptable to the County?

RESPONSE: FBC is open to all options, Respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available. 102 14. Can the Requirements checklist be provided electronically?

RESPONSE: No.

103 15. Can you provide any additional requirements regarding e-signatures and certificates?

RESPONSE: see RFP section 12.1.6 and 12.1.7 Respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available.

104 1. 5.0 Proposal Submission, subparagraph 5.2.2 – “Insure that this RFP is included in your proposal and that all the information requested on the cover of this RFP is completed.” Does this subparagraph mean that the Respondent is to include the entire RFP 15-068 package with enclosures 1-5 as part of the Vendor response, or just a particular subset of the entire RFP 15-068 package? As an alternative, should the Respondent instead prepare the proposal response following the instructions contained in the RFP Section 17.0 Evaluation Criteria, plus all of the Section 17 sub-sections? Please explain to clarify this requirement.

(14)

105 2. Licensing – for system access and workflow licenses, please provide the numbers required, as follows. • Phase 1

- # of Named User Licenses needed (named licenses are for System Admins and other users that need to be in the system at all times) - # of Concurrent User Licenses (concurrent licenses are for those users that will be in the system a portion of the day – a number of these users share a license, e.g., 3 to 1 or 5 to 1. Once in the system, the minimum connection time is five minutes)

- # of Named User Workflow licenses ( those users that need to be in the systems at all times)

- # of Concurrent User Workflow licenses (concurrent licenses are for those users that will be in the system a portion of the day – a number of these users share a license, e.g., 3 to 1 or 5 to 1.

• Phase 2

• Phase 3

RESPONSE: see RFP section 12.1.2 FBC is open to all options, respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available.

106 3. Section 12.2.2, please provide the number of the requested scanners (high/med/low) per each listed department. Or, should we use the numbers provided in section 5.3.1 of the ThirdWave ECMS Strategy and Implementation Plan (RFP Enclosure 5)?

107 4. Section 13.1, Does the County expect the selected Vendor to install the hardware and operating systems for in Fort Bend County’s data center; for a premised based hosting solution? If so, please explain.

(15)

108 5. Section 14.8, Estimated volume of invoices and accounts payable documents to be captured on a monthly or annual basis? Are invoices received primarily on paper or via e-mail or other electronic means?

109 6. Enclosure 3, Concerning the Backfile conversion volumes, you provide an inventory of hard copy documents produced in 2014. Enclosure 5, The ThirdWave ECMS Strategy and Implementation Plan notes that there is some scanning capability at your hard copy document storage site in Rosenberg and that they have been actively scanning documents into the system. We have the following questions on backfile conversion:

• Are the document numbers included in Enclosure 3 to be used, without reference to the backfile information provided in the ThirdWave document in Enclosure 5?

• Can the Backfile processing work be done by the Vendor “on-site” at Fort Bend’s storage facility?

RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information. 110 7. Enclosure 5 – Is Third Wave allowed to bid on this RFP (ECMS 15-068)?

RESPONSE: A response to this RFP from Third Wave will not be considered per consultant agreement between FBC and Third Wave.

111 8. Enclosure 1, 5.0 Enterprise Content Management table Question 171 - does this requirement include the need for a run time client or just the ability to store documents externally to the system that can be distributed to others? Please advise.

RESPONSE: FBC is seeking the Respondent’s solution.

112 9. General Question, Will there be any processes where there are volume emails from external sources that need to be processed? (i.e. a customer inquiry email) Please advise.

113 1. What do you consider to be the top three critical success factors for this project? i.e., at the end of project delivery, how will we know that we’ve jointly delivered success to your constituents?

RESPONSE: To be determined during negotiations.

114 2. What qualifications are you looking for in an implementation partner? For example, we have multiple Microsoft Gold and Silver Competencies, Certified Masters and MVPs, etc.; will the proposal scoring take our credentials into account?

(16)

RESPONSE: See RFP section 17.0.

115 3. Implementation decisions related to the implementations of software solutions can vary widely depending on project budget. Our firm has successfully delivered projects across various budget ranges. To help us best meet the goals of your solicitation, can you please approximate a budget range for this project? For example is the anticipated budget range:

a. Less than $150,000 b. $150,000 – $250,000 c. $250,000 – $350,000 d. $350,000 – $500,000 e. $500,000 – $750,000 f. $750,000 - $1M g. $1M+ RESPONSE: g.

116 4. Do you have any Microsoft Software Assurance vouchers that might be applied to the planning phase of the project? RESPONSE: NA (Not Applicable or Not Available).

117 5. Will Certified Small Businesses receive any special consideration in this procurement? RESPONSE: No, see RFP section 17.0.

118 6. Will preference be given to Texas-based vendors? RESPONSE: No, see RFP section 17.0.

119 7. ThirdWave Corporation provided the County with the initial ECM assessment and has provided a Strategy and Implementation Plan. Is ThirdWave Corporation eligible to bid on this project?

RESPONSE: A response to this RFP from Third Wave will not be considered per consultant agreement between FBC and Third Wave.

120 8. Are you anticipating a mix of on-site and remote project delivery? In our experience, we generally find it useful to be onsite during discovery meetings, installations, etc. however we can keep project expenses down by utilizing remote delivery for parts of the project. RESPONSE: FBC is open to all options, Respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available.

(17)

121 9. On a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 represents a COTS solution (e.g. less than 40 hours of customization) and 5 represents a custom-built solution using SharePoint (100% services and development), what is acceptable with respect to the solution you are looking for on this continuum?

122 10. We are a SharePoint-focused consultancy and have successfully combined SharePoint with various third party software products to create comprehensive document, content and records management solutions. Do you see this as a viable option for your needs?

RESPONSE: FBC is open to all options, Respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available. 123 11. Regarding SharePoint as a possible solution; if you are currently using SharePoint:

a. How are you currently using SharePoint (e.g. collaboration portals, document management, intranet/extranet, ECM or ERM workloads, workflow/process automation, BI, etc.)?

b. What version of SharePoint are you currently using?

c. What is your current usage of SharePoint in terms of number of: i. Departments

ii. Users

iii. Site Collections

d. If SharePoint is a viable option for the solution, do you already own all appropriate SharePoint licensing for the anticipated number of users of the solution?

e. What, if any, problems or dissatisfaction have you experienced with SharePoint?

f. Given your experience with SharePoint, are there any requirements for the solution that you do not believe that SharePoint can address and if so, what are they?

RESPONSE: see Enclosure 1, section 1.2 FBC is open to all options, respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available.

124 12. On a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 represent “None” and 5 represents “Expert”, can you please indicate what SharePoint skills you currently have in house in terms of:

a. SharePoint Infrastructure, Administration and Maintenance b. Information Architecture Design and Implementation c. Content Owner/Authorship

d. PowerShell and C# Development RESPONSE: NA (Not Applicable or Not Available).

125 13. The RFP states “we are interested in all user pricing models” however, for the purposes of estimation, how many users should we account for as a representative baseline (e.g. 2,800)?

(18)

RESPONSE: see RFP section 12.1.2

126 14. How many users will there be in the Phase 1, Pilot deployment? RESPONSE: 38

127 15. Is Active Directory properly configured with the fields, users, groups, permissions and roles anticipated to be used in the solution? RESPONSE: FBC is open to all options, respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available.

128 16. In several places the RFP describes capabilities of the solution (e.g. E-Forms Software) without detailing the explicit scope or

requirement; can we interpret that to mean that the solution must have the capabilities listed, and that they must be demonstrable however, that there is no particular scope that needs to be estimated for these capabilities unless detailed in the RFP explicitly?

RESPONSE: see RFP section 12.0.

129 17. How developed is your Information Architecture (IA) and can you please quantify the number of content or document types, term-sets, etc.?

130 18. Do you expect/desire to leverage existing IA, Taxonomy, etc. from existing ECM systems in the design of the IA for this solution (i.e. do these structures need to be recreated in SharePoint)? If yes:

a. Can you please provide listings/details for each?

b. Can these assets from existing solution be exported such that they can be used in the new solution?

131 19. Regarding the requirement to “provide hardware proposal to host the ECMS”; assuming the County has its own hardware procurement process, vendors, etc., is it sufficient to provide specifications only and not pricing for the hardware?

132 20. Regarding the requirement to “provide low, medium and high volume scanners for the proposed ECMS”; are you asking for proposed manufacturer and models only or pricing as well?

133 21. To confirm, where the RFP states “product and services identified in this RFP only apply to Phase I departments”; does this mean that our proposal, estimates, etc. should be limited to 2 departments only?

(19)

134 22. Is document migration in scope and if so:

a. What are the repositories and size of each respective repository where documents currently reside? (e.g. Documentum: 1TB, File Share: 2M Documents, etc.)

b. What file format do you want the resulting documents to be in once they are in the new system (e.g. same format as the in the source system, PDF/A or TIFF)?

c. For TIFF documents, what is the average number of pages per document?

d. Do you want related files (e.g. pages of a document that reside is separate images) to be combined into a single file or just copied as-is? e. Can you provide a listing of the document classes/types you currently have in the current system including associated columns/fields? f. Regarding Security in the current solution:

i. i. How is security handled?

ii. ii. Is it anticipated that essentially the same security be employed in the new solution or will it designed/up-levelled to utilize newer, sate of the art capabilities in this area?

iii. iii. Do any documents have document level security? g. Are annotations utilized? If so:

i. i. Do annotations need to be migrated?

ii. ii. How are annotations applied, i.e. overlay or burned-in? h. Regarding Versions:

i. i. Are versions utilized? ii. ii. How many versions exist?

iii. iii. Are they accessible or archived? iv. iv. Will versions be used going forward?

v. v. Do versions need to be migrated to the new solution? If so, how many?

i. Are there any compound documents (documents that have a link embedded in the document that points to another document within the same repository)?

j. How large are the multimedia documents and what format?

k. Are the multimedia and EXIF files required for the first phase of this project or are they lower on the priority list?

RESPONSE: No

135 23. Are back-file conversion services part of the Phase 1 scope?

a. If so, is back file conversion of optical media, microfiche or other non-electronic media in scope?

RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information. 136 24. Does the County currently license any barcode printing/scanning software? If yes, which ones?

(20)

RESPONSE: FBC is open to all options, respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available. 137 25. Does the County currently license any universal viewing/markup tools? If yes, which ones? RESPONSE: FBC is open to all options, respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available.

138 26. Regarding Audio and Video Storage; what is the level of storage required (i.e. simple store and retrieve or are their other requirements)?

RESPONSE: FBC is open to all options, respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available. 139 27. Is actual DoD 5015.2 v3 Certification Required (as distinguished from “Compliant”) RESPONSE: Certification is not mentioned.

140 28. Regarding the ingestion of paper documents into the system:

a. What capture software does the County currently use? Is there a desire to leverage it?

b. How many of each of the following types of devices should we account for with respect to our price proposal, and what are the typical brands/models of the existing devices:

i. Single Workstation Scanner

ii. Multifunction Scan/Copy/Fax/Print iii. Workgroup Scanner

iv. High capacity Scanner v. Copiers

vi. Other?

c. How many index-only users do you desire to procure software for? d. Are paper documents:

i. Always the same, well-defined, standard forms with standard data (“structured”)

ii. Mostly similar documents with standard data that may be in different places on the document (“semi-structured”) iii. A broad array of different documents with different data on them (“unstructured”)

e. What is the current scanning volume per day/week/month?

f. Are you currently using server-based scanning products to achieve the required throughput? g. Do you require Bates Stamping/Numbering capability?

h. Do date stamps need to be added to the physical paper of the document or just the digital version?

i. Can you please provide details relate to the requirement stated as the “Ability to capture a document to more than one file (e.g. is this requirement asking if we can associate a single page to multiple documents, or more like associating multiple invoices to a single PO)?

(21)

RESPONSE: FBC is open to all options, respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available. 141 29. How many Capture Processes do you anticipate needing for the initial implementation? RESPONSE: FBC is open to all options, respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available.

142 30. Will the content be need to be accessible by external parties and is external access in general a requirement? If so:

a. What audiences will require external access (e.g. vendors, employees accessing the system remotely, the public at large) and how many users comprise each audience?

b. Will all audiences needing external access have AD accounts?

c. Will all audiences need to login/authenticate in order to access the system or does anonymous access need to be supported as well? d. What features of the system will external access users be permitted to use (e.g. access to certain document only, all features, etc.)? RESPONSE: see RFP section 12.1.4.

143 31. Are you interested in pricing for auto-classification product(s), which significantly enhance content findability, workflow, retention and disposition, etc.?

RESPONSE: FBC is open to all options, respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available. 144 32. Do you have a well-defined File Plan and if so, can you please share it with us?

a. How many record Categories does it have?

For clarity sake, what we mean by File Plan is a document that lists the official records and includes:  Records series title and description;

 Location and medium (i.e., paper or electronic); and

 Disposition authority (legal actions taken when records are no longer needed to conduct agency business. RESPONSE: No

145 33. Is engineering document management within the scope and if so, what CAD Systems are in current use? RESPONSE: Yes, however, CAD system is not part of current scope.

146 34. What is the County’s existing records Management solution for: a. Physical Records

b. Electronic Records RESPONSE: Addressed in RFP

(22)

147 35. Can you please provide details about the Engineering and Agenda-Link Application referenced in section 14.8, Bullet 5? RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information.

148 36. Can you please provide details about the Public Defender “Defender Database” application?

RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information. 149 37. Can you please provide details/requirements and/or use cases for data mining and extraction?

RESPONSE: Regardless of application, please provide data mining capabilities as mentioned in Enclosure 1, number 127.

150 38. With regard to the requirement to “Implement the ECMS to automate key business processes with a focus on business process improvement” and workflow(s) listed under Section 14.8; is the requirement and corresponding estimate simply to demonstrate the capability of the solution or is it to actually implement the Phase 1 workflows as defined in the Process Models?

RESPONSE: Subject matter was provided for informational purposes only, FBC does not have any further specific information. 151 39. For Digital Signatures:

a. How many are internal signers (e.g. approvers)? b. How many are external signers (e.g. vendors)?

c. What is the anticipated usage frequency for a given/single external signer (e.g. a few times per year or daily)? d. Is it anticipated that the external signers will go to a portal to be able to sign documents?

RESPONSE: see RFP section 12.1.6.

152 40. With respect to integration to external systems (e.g. Lawson):

a. Can we assume that the intent is limited to explaining how the system handles integration or is integration with external systems within the scope of this project?

b. If integration is in scope:

i. Which systems and what level of integration is anticipated for the initial implementation (e.g. hyperlinks only, document-level integration, unidirectional/read only, bidirectional data updates, functional integration)?

ii. Can you please provide the API (web services, object interface, etc.) information as provided by the software vendor, as applicable? RESPONSE: see RFP section 12.1.9.

153 41. Do you have licensing for any workflow products that work with SharePoint (e.g. K2 or Nintex)?

a. If not, are you open to purchasing an enterprise workflow solution as part of this project understanding that it will increase the cost but provide enhanced workflow capabilities for other solutions as well?

(23)

RESPONSE: FBC is open to all options, respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available. 154 42. Regarding the current public facing website:

a. What infrastructure and technologies are used?

b. How much and what content (e.g. documents only or documents and web content) will be published there from EDRMS? RESPONSE: see RFP section 12.1.4

155 43. Is Mobile Support a requirement and if so can you please provide details, use cases, etc.? RESPONSE: FBC is open to all options, respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available.

156 44. What is your vision for post implementation support in terms of a Service Level Agreement, i.e. turn-around time, number of hours per month, hours of coverage, etc.?

157 45. Should we price post-project support into our proposal and what quantity (e.g. 30 hours per month for 6 months)? RESPONSE: FBC is open to all options, respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available.

158 46. Do you have internal resources to handle post-project Level-1 support (e.g. training questions, hardware or network problems, etc.)? RESPONSE: FBC is open to all options, respondents should provide any and all solutions/options available.

159 47. What is the target completion date for the entire project? RESPONSE: To be determined.

160 48. Given the short time period between the QA and due date for the proposal, can you please extend the due date for proposal submission until Friday August, 21st so that we have adequate time to use the answers to develop a proposal that best meets your requirements? RESPONSE: See addendum that extends opening to 8/20.

161 49. As an environmentally-friendly / Green company, we strive to reduce our consumption of paper; to that end, can respondents submit proposals electronically via email in lieu of hardcopy proposals?