« Courts - 7th Circuit's Judge Diane S. Sykes speaks on judicial activism in the Wisconsin Supreme Court | Main | Environment - Ten-year moratorium on new hog farms in North Carolina will end soon, with no viable solution in sight »

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Ind. Courts - Q&A issued for Court's CMS Public Notice of Contracting Opportunity (PNCO)

The Indiana Supreme Court's Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC) has posted a set of Questions & Answers to the Request for Proposals it issued Feb. 13th (see earlier ILB entry here). It has also extended the due date for responses to March 31, 2006.

It has also announced: "As a result of questions we have received, JTAC will be publishing a second amendment to the PNCO released on February 13, 2006 by 6:00 pm EDT on Thursday, March 9, 2006." Nothing has been posted yet. [Update: Now changed to 6:00 pm EDT on Friday, March 10, 2006.]

Particularly interesting to the ILB were these two Q & A:

63. Question: Is the State asking for specific estimates for the work outlined in Section H? Are there any further detailed requirements for section H?

Answer: As stated in Section H. Interfaces, “At this time, specifications adequate to provide accurate cost estimates for these interfaces are not available. Specific cost estimates for these interfaces will be discussed in later stages of the proposal.” Please see Section L. Pricing. (2.b.iii.) for pricing requirements regarding interface design and development.

64. Question: What is the role of the State with this system? Some requirements look like they envision a "big database in the sky", while others look like there are local installations. For example, they want to modify personal identifiers at the state level....Although wouldn't this be captured and maintained at the local level?

Answer: The Division expects that all courts adopting the Statewide CMS will utilize a single database hosted in the State's Data Center in Indianapolis . The Division anticipates that certain demographic information entered into the system at the local level is not subject to local modification and can only be modified at the state level (e.g., gender). The Division also seeks flexibility for entering, maintaining and modifying additional demographic information at the local level (e.g. addresses and identifiers for local interfaces).

Section H of the RFP deals with "Interfaces" and the ILB took particular note of this section in its Feb. 13th entry.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 9, 2006 01:11 PM
Posted to Indiana Courts