Addendum #1

January 4, 2019

Question:  Approximately how many functional users of the system are expected?  A breakdown by County department/office is appreciated.

Response:  At the time of the project, approximately 14 users were expected. The breakdown is as follows:

• 10 users from the Office of the Circuit Court Clerk;
• 2 users from the County’s Information Technology Department in the event of a server or mainframe issue; and
• 2 users from Lake County’s Finance and Administrative Services Department for the purpose of payment on change orders, etc.

January 3, 2019

Question:  Since questions are not due until Thursday, December 27th, there does not seem to be sufficient time to include the responses to the questions in the proposal.  Will the County please extend the due date to allow 7 business days from the date that the question & answer response is posted by the County?

Response:  The due date for the RFP has been extended. The new due date is Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 2:00pm.

Question:  Is there a particular format for the report being requested by the County?

Response:  There are no formatting requirements beyond what has been described in the RFP.

Question:  What, if any, access will the selected consultant have with URL, or a designee?  Will the County gather appropriate data and provide to the consultant, or will the consultant work directly with URL?

Response:  The County will gather appropriate data and provide it to the consultant. In addition, the consultant will be provided with a point of contact information at URL.

Question:  How many invoices are associated with the Project and included in the population of the review?

Response:  There are 30 invoices associated with the project.

Question:  What revenue sources are being used to fund the project?  What is the approximate revenue by type of revenue?

Response:  The Document Storage Fee Fund is the source of funding for this project. For more information on the revenue in this fund, please see pages 275-276 in the FY2019 recommended annual budget. This document can be found on the Lake County website here: http://www.lakecountyil.gov/DocumentCenter/View/25588/2019-Recommended-Budget.

Question:  Has the County established a project management office or similar function?

Response:  The County has not established a project management office or similar function.

Question:  Are each of the County’s justice stakeholders involved in this project? Can the County identify which are part of this project, including any other agencies?

Response:  The primary stakeholders are the Circuit Court Clerk, the 19th Judicial Circuit Court, as well as Lake County’s departments of Information Technology and Finance & Administrative Services.

Question:  What is the organizational structure of the project that can be provided to the proposers?

Response:  The key stakeholder for this project is the Circuit Court Clerk.

Question:  How many deliverables are expected to be provided by URL within the scope of this review?

Response:  The County contracted for seven case types between the two contracts.

Question:  Since the County is requesting a fixed fee quote, there is additional information necessary in order to provide a fixed fee.  Will the County consider alternative pricing approaches until the scope of work can be more specifically defined?

Response:  Yes, the County will consider alternative pricing approaches.

Question:  Are the two contracts with URL available for review before the proposal is submitted? Can contract copies be provided for review to the proposers?

Question:  Are the two agreements with URL Integration based on an approved fixed-fee (e.g., with set monthly payments or payment provided upon completion of specific milestones) or is work billed on a time and material basis?

Response:  Agreement #10126 and Agreement #13076

January 2, 2019

The RFP due date has been changed to January 10, 2019.

December 17, 2018

Question:  Page 10 (Intent and Background): Please elaborate on the catalyst(s) for issuing this RFP.

Response:  This RFP has been issued at the request of the Circuit Court Clerk.

Question:  Page 10 (Background): In order for proposers to better gauge the size of the project, would the County please provide information on the cost of the two agreements with URL Integration, Inc.?

Response:  There are two agreements:

Agreement #10126 - Amount $2,342,532

Agreement #13076 - Amount $1,041,200

Question:  (4. Project Timeline): Does the County have a preferred or required timeline for completing this project? Are there any schedule constraints of which we should be aware?

Response:  No, the County does not currently have a preferred or required timeline for completing this project. In addition, there are not currently any schedule constraints of which the proposers should be aware.

Question:  Page 11 (5. Project Status Meetings): Is it acceptable for some status meetings to take place via web/video conference when they do not align with our planned onsite work?

Response:  Yes, this approach is acceptable.

Question:  Page 11 (5. Project Status Meetings): Does the County have a preference for weekly vs. bi-weekly status meetings, or is it up to proposers to suggest how frequently these will take place?

Response:  Proposers may suggest how frequently these meetings will take place.

Question Page 12 (Scope of Work): Does the County have a preferred or expected level of on-site versus off-site work for the selected consultant, or is it up to us to propose a level that we see appropriate to accomplish the scope of work?

Response:  Proposers may suggest a level that they see as appropriate to accomplish the scope of work.

Question:  Page 12 (Scope of Work): For the expenditure review, is the County looking for a high-level analysis or a more in-depth sample testing methodology?

Response:  Proposers should provide the analysis that they feel will meet the needs.

Question:  Page 12 (Scope of Work: Responsibilities of the Proposer): Please clarify whether the awarded vendor will be responsible for executing testing procedures, or for solely defining the procedures for testing the system.

Response:  The awarded vendor will be responsible for executing testing procedures.

Question:  Page 12 (Scope of Work: Responsibilities of the County): Bullet #2 references providing the selected consultant with access to the software’s source code, but it is unclear if this is for the purpose of conducting a code review. Please clarify whether the County requires a code review within the scope of this project, or simply a functional review. If you are seeking a code review, please provide details regarding the application code language used (e.g., COBOL).

Response:  The awarded vendor will be responsible for determining what level of review will be needed to ascertain if the software met the functional requirements identified in the contract documents.

Question:  Page 12 (Deliverables): Please clarify the reference to “final reports for Phase 1, Phase 2 and any subsequent phases contracted.” With respect to the Scope of Work presented at the top of page 12, please clarify what is encompassed within Phase 1 and Phase 2 and what the focus of the two separate reports should be.

Response:  The Scope of Work presented at the top of page 12 is encompassed within Phase 1. A final report will be required for Phase 1 and any subsequent phases that may be requested.

Question:  Page 13 (Detailed Submittal Requirements): Is it acceptable to provide the Key Personnel information requested on page 9 (#35) in the Implementation Plan section of our proposal?

Response:  Key Personnel information requested on page 9 (#35) may be included in the Implementation Plan section of our proposal, but it must be provided as indicated in the RFP.

Question:  Page 14 (Client References): This section requests three references; however, the reference form on page 19 contains space for four references. Please confirm the number of references you would like proposers to provide.

Response:  Proposers must provide no less than three references, and no more than four.

Question:  Page 19 (References): Would it be acceptable to adjust the reference form to include a brief description of the scope of services?

Response:  The reference form may be adjusted, or the brief description of the scope of services may be provided as an attachment to the reference form.

Question:  Page 19 (References): For # of Employees line, when we perform work for a city, county, or state government, sometimes the work entails multiple departments. Are you looking for the employee count for the department(s) or the full city/county/state government? Is an estimate acceptable?

Response:  The County is looking for the full employee count for each city/county/state government organization.

Question:  Page 20 (Sustainability): Are evaluation points allocated to proposers’ sustainability statements?

Response:  Evaluation points are not allocated to proposer’s sustainability statements.

Question:  Page 20/21 (Sustainability): Are we required to use the form provided on page 21, or is it acceptable to use our firm’s existing sustainability narrative?

Response:  Proposers are required to use the form provided on page 21. Additional information may be included by the proposer.