CMS RFP Questions and Answers

  • Q: Is there a single State system that creates the electronic citations or are there different vendors that the sheriff's offices use in each county? If there are separate vendors, are we to interface with each vendor?
    A: For Law Enforcement agencies they can use different vendors as long as they adhere to the MCIJIS schema. Law Enforcement vendor will connect to one system (IJIS Broker). Our IJIS Broker is maintained and supported by one vendor.

  • Q: Is there a single State system that creates the electronic warrants or are there different vendors that the sheriff's offices use in each county? If there are separate vendors, are we to interface with each vendor?
    A: Currently we have one single system that connects to our IJIS Broker to send warrants to the warrant repository that is managed by Nevada Department of Public Safety. The IJIS Broker is maintained and supported by one vendor.

  • Q: Is the new CMS replacing the NCS judicial court system as well as the state-sponsored case management system?
    A: The new CMS will be replacing the NCS state-sponsored case management system. Other courts in the state may elect to migrate to the new system.

  • Q: What is the driver or drivers behind the request for a new CMS? What are the problems you are trying to solve?
    A: We are looking to move to a system that offers the advantages of more modern technology

  • Q: Can you explain the current MCIJIS diagram and where the new CMS would fit? Would we be interfacing with one of the current brokers and if so, which one? We are referencing the attached diagram included at this link:
    A: The new system will connect to the AOCx IJIS Broker to send and receive data. Please refer to page 5 of the MCIJIS Overview Document for an updated diagram

  • Q: Will the AOC accept an electronic submission of the RFP response?
    A: Per section 3 of the RFP document all submissions need to be mailed or hand delivered to the designated contact.

  • Q: The RFP indicates that one paper copy and one electronic copy are required for submission. Will email only be acceptable?
    A: Per section 3 of the RFP document all submissions need to be mailed or hand delivered to the designated contact.

  • Q: Does the AOC have a preference of a SaaS or client-server solution?
    A: We leave that to the vendor to propose.

  • Q: Regarding Functional Requirement #1015, will the AOC be willing to share the data elements currently used in the State Reports?

    Please refer to the following for a representation of data that will be required for statewide reports.

  • Q: Just to confirm, the pricing workbook is for 5 year costing, correct?
    A: Yes.

  • Q: Does the AOC have a list of courts that have expressed interest in implementing the new system?
    A: Currently on the state sponsored case management system we have 32 courts that will be migrating to a new system. It is open to any court in the state to migrate to a new CMS.

  • Q: Do you have a breakdown of these 32 courts by small, medium, large? And by population size?
    A: It varies. Most of our courts are in rural areas. We do have a few with larger populations. We have 15 rural counties that vary in size. Some courts have 1 judge and others have multiple judges.  Refer to Table 1 in the Annual Report Appendix for a Summary of Population, Judicial Positions, and Cases Processed by Court for Nevada Judiciary, Fiscal Year 20. Reminder do not contact these courts regarding this procurement. 

  • Q: Can you provide number of users by court?
    A: We currently have 200+ users for the state sponsored CMS. At each court, the number of users varies from 3 users to 50 users.

  • Q: Will the 32 courts go live in staggered deployments or in parallel?
    A: The first go-live will be after the contract is awarded and will be part of negotiations. Additional roll-outs will be subject to court interest and availability of resources (vendor and AOC). The quality of the roll-out is critical to the success of the product and project. AOC is also committed to rolling out the new CMS(s) as expeditiously as possible.

  • Q: For further deployments beyond the first court, is the intent of the AOC to go all at once or spread over 5 years?
    A: The intent of the AOC is to spread it out. We will have early adopters. The remaining implementations will be part of negotiations.

  • Q: The RFP says up to 3 vendors will be selected. Will the 32 courts see demonstrations from each vendor?
    A: We do have various stakeholders participating in the RFP process. We will plan post-award demo(s) for all courts that wish to implement the new CMS.

  • Q: Will you be taking all questions asked in the Bidder’s Conference chat and posting them along with the AOC's responses on the website?
    A: Yes.

  • Q: Will the AOC be open to any potential extension of the submission deadline?
    A: At this time we are not entertaining requests for extensions.

  • Q: Are there appropriate budgets established for this program?
    A: We typically do not disclose budget information. Please note that what you may have found online is not a current reflection of all monies available.

  • Q: Will the AOC please provide a list of the courts that comprise the 32 Nevada trial courts participating on the Nevada Court System (“NCS”) program?  In other words, which courts make up the 2 district courts, 1 juvenile court, 21 justice courts, and 8 municipal courts referenced in this RFP?
    A: Sample

  • Q: Recognizing that Nevada’s Clerk’s Offices implementing a new CMS may be on different legacy systems, will the AOC please provide additional information regarding which Offices/Courts currently use which legacy systems?
    A: The 32 NCS courts are on the same system. Other courts are on a combination of different legacy systems. The AOC does not have a current list of which court uses which system, but those systems include: COTS (e.g., equivant, Journal Technologies, Thomson Reuters, Tybera, Tyler Technologies); In-House solutions; other solutions.

  • Q: We are trying to understand the scope of the data migration effort, as one-party conversion involves less effort than completing 32 data migrations for 32 different systems. As such, will the AOC please provide additional information regarding the source system(s) in scope for data migration and whether all Offices are on a single tenant/install or if the 32 Courts each utilize an independent tenant/install/copy of the system?  If the respective Clerk Offices’ are using a single-install that’s shared by all, is the data also shared across multiple courts?  As an example, if John Doe has active cases across multiple jurisdictions, does each Office need to input the associated party record data or do the Offices/Courts share the party record information?
    A: The 32 NCS courts are in two databases with the same database structure and same software version. Some party data is shared across courts for that installation and some party data is specific to a single court. Because the courts are on the same release and data base, it is likely that one conversion script will work for all NCS courts.

  • Q: What level of standardization is expected during this project?  For example, will uniform configuration be expected for all participating rural courts, or will each court expect to have their own unique configuration?
    A: While we are looking for a system that is configurable like any CMS, so it can be tailored to court process, we do intend to create a basic set of uniform common codes that will be consistent across all participating rural courts and encourage common practices.

  • Q: Does the AOC prefer a web-based solution or client-server solution?
    A: We leave that to the vendor to propose.

  • Q: Do all the courts have the necessary architecture to access and utilize a vendor-hosted solution?  
    A: That depends a lot upon the vendor requirements. All the courts have internet access. This will be fully addressed during contract negotiations.

  • Q: Can a vendor offer more than one solution? If so, what is the best method (i.e., 2 proposals)?
    A: Yes, a vendor can offer more than one solution as long as it is part of the same proposal.

  • Q: Will each court have its own database separate from other courts?
    A: We expect the vendor to provide the best solution for our environment. The data for each court must be separated, but whether that is logical or physical depends upon the vendor solution.

  • Q: Does the AOC have an expectation on how long implementation should take for the early adopter and the subsequent courts?
    A: This will be part of the contract negotiations.

  • Q: Is the AOC interested in jury management solutions as part of this RFP?
    A: The ability to integrate with a Jury management system is desirable, however a Jury Management System is not required for this RFP.

  • Q: Does the AOC have a need for a reporting platform across all courts? Or will reporting and statistics be limited to one court at a time?
    A: For the purposes of this proposal, the AOC requires the ability to report on one court at time. While the AOC is keenly interested in a consolidated reporting platform, it is a future requirement at this time.

  • Q: Is the AOC interested in Online Dispute Resolution as part of the awarded solution(s)?
    A: The ability to integrate with an Online Dispute Resolution system is desirable, however an Online Dispute Resolution System is not required for this RFP.

  • Q: Is the AOC funding implementations from the awarded vendors? Or are the individual courts funding their own?
    A: The AOC is funding the implementations for the 32 NCS courts and potentially other courts throughout the state.

  • Q: Does the AOC have a grant available to fund this project?
    A: The AOC does not typically share this type of information.

  • Q: Will data need to be shared between the courts? Or will each installation be separate from the others?
    A: While each court will have their own instance, it is helpful to have the option (with appropriate security, privacy and permissions) to view and potentially handle other cases. This especially applies to reporting and other shared functions.

  • Q: Is it the intent of the courts to have electronic data sharing when cases are referred to limited- authority jurisdictions or are the requirements simply describing within the CMS a specific place to record the information and subsequently view the status and print the record if needed?
    A: The system must be able to integrate with MCIJIS to accept electronic citations and with an eFiling system to accept electronic filings. Users must also be able to manually enter the information when it is received in paper form. It is also helpful to be able to produce a “packet” of information to submit to the appellate court in case of appeal.

  • Q: Is there currently the intent to electronically send cases to the Court of Appeals?  If so, what solution is being used?
    A: While the ability to electronically send cases to a different court, including the Court of Appeals, is not within the scope of this RFP, if that functionality exists it is welcome.

  • Q: Will the RFP response be included as part of the MSA?
    A: Yes. If you feel there are exceptions, those need to be stated as part of the response.

  • Q: Do all the courts included in this process use the same Collection Agency?
    A: No, use of a collection agency is at the discretion of each court.

  • Q: Please clarify how the solution software licensing/subscription charges should be provided within the Cost Workbook?  Licensing, module costs, individual fees by user and/or by Court.
    A: That is really up to the vendor and dependent upon the solution proposed. We recognize there are broad approaches to licensing, from on-prem enterprise licensing to cloud subscription models. While we seek a cloud based solution, we recognize there are many ways to approach such a request.