Legal Case & Document Management System

ATTACHMENT A
DCSC-26-RFP-60 LEGAL CASE & DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY PROSPECTIVE OFFERS APRIL 13, 2026
1. Question: Our software employs a named user licensing model tied to two main types of users: Full Users and
Participant Users. Full User can be granted the ability to do anything within the repository including administering the
system, importing documents, and editing metadata. Participant Users are read-only users who can also participate
(submit/approve) in forms processes. Do you know the number of users between these two licenses? Or would you like
us to submit general pricing tiers only?
Answer: OGC requires licenses for six (6) staff members and the ability to assign multiple levels of access and
permissions. See RFP C.3, C.5.11, C.5.31, C.5.50-.53.
2. Question: For accessing District Empire will need full rights (upload, edit cases) and how many will need read-only
rights (only view the Document or participate in workflow process)?
Answer: See Answer to Question No. 1.
3. Question: Is District Empire preference more towards Cloud or On-Premises Legal Case and Document Management
System?
Answer: See RFP C.6(b), (c).
4. Question: Do you have a budget already available for this project? If yes, what is the maximum budget you are planning
to spend on this project?
Answer: The Courts does not share this information.
5. Question: Has the District Empire seen demonstrations of any Legal Case and Document Management System
Implementation with Electronic Forms for Legal Case and Document Management System. If yes, what is the name of
the solution and vendor which provided the demonstration?
Answer: The Courts does not share this information.
6. Question: Is there any expected timeframe within which you would like this system to go-live?
Answer: OGC would like to implement the system within 6 to 9 months of contract award.
1

7. Question: Is this a new requirement? If not, can you please provide the name of the incumbent, the current contract
value and eligibility criteria to re-compete?
Answer: This is a new requirement.
8. Question: Can we request extending the due date of the proposal?
Answer: The deadline for submission of proposals is extended to July 8, 2026.
9. Question: We would like to kindly request a two-week extension to the submission deadline for the Legal Case &
Document Management System DCSC-26-RFP-60.
Answer: The deadline for submission of proposals is extended to July 8, 2026.
10. Question: FedRAMP Requirement - The RFP references a "FedRAMP authorized Cloud Service Provider." Please
confirm whether FedRAMP authorization is mandatory for award, or if CJIS-compliant government cloud environments
(e.g., AWS GovCloud or Azure Government) will be considered acceptable alternatives.
Answer: FedRAMP authorization is required for contract award. See RFP C.5.45, C.6(b).
11. Question: AI Capability Requirement - RFP includes generative AI and intelligent document processing capabilities.
Please clarify whether these capabilities are required at time of proposal submission or may be delivered via phased
implementation, roadmap, or third-party integrations and delivered within an agreed time frame. Should AI capabilities
be priced as part of the base license, or may they be proposed as optional or add-on components?
Answer: RFP C.5.6 is required at the time of proposal submission and must be priced as part of the base license.
12. Question: Box / ShareFile Requirement - The RFP lists Box.com and Citrix ShareFile compatibility. Please confirm
whether real-time integration is required, or if migration and consolidation into the proposed system is acceptable.
Answer: Real-time integration is not required. The solution must support either APIs, builtin connectors, mapped
network drives, or sync folders.
13. Question: SSO / Entra ID - The RFP requires single sign-on using Microsoft Entra ID or Active Directory. Please confirm
whether SSO must be native at go-live or if SSO via third-party identity providers is acceptable.
2

Answer: SSO must be configured by the vendor and tested before go-live. The vendor must ensure their SSO
implementation approach works with Microsoft Entra ID or Active Directory.
14. Question: Migration Scope Clarification - Please provide additional details regarding document migration
expectations, including:
* Required metadata extraction vs. existing folder structure preservation. Answer: Both may be required to assign, for
example, data or document code profiles.
* Level of indexing required. Answer: See RFP C.5.9, C.7(d).
* Expectations for deduplication and validation. Answer: 90 to 95% percent accuracy.
* Role of Courts staff in data cleanup. Answer: Minimal to moderate.
15. Question: Legacy Data Strategy - Does the Courts require full migration of all historical data, or would a hybrid
approach (e.g., partial migration with read-only legacy access) be acceptable?
Answer: OGC requires full migration of all historical documents and files. See RFP C.3, C.4.(i), C.7(d).
Offerors may propose any technical approach, including a hybrid approach as indicated in the question, that will meet
OGC's needs to migrate existing files into the proposed system.
16. Question: File Types & Edge Cases - Beyond the listed file types, are there any additional formats, encrypted files, or
legacy file structures that vendors should account for during migration?
Answer: The vast majority of files types are PDF and MS Word saved on an NTFS network drive. Additional formats may
include but are not limited to MSG, Excel, PPT, VTT, MP4, TIF, JPG, and HTML files. See RFP C.3, C.7(d), C.5.9-.10,
.37. The typical file structure is OGC network drive [folders] [one or more subfolders] documents. Folders and
subfolders are currently titled or arranged by one or more of the following: subject matter, staff member, committee,
calendar year, fiscal year, etc.
17. Question: Workflow Requirements (Refined) - Are there specific workflow rules, approval processes, or routing
requirements (e.g., contract review, litigation workflows) that must be enforced within the system?
Answer: Yes. See RFP C.4(c), C.5.6. These require development and will be addressed during project initiation and
installation/ implementation.
3

18. Question: Matter Intake & Case Tracking - Are there standardized intake processes or matter classification structures
the Courts expects vendors to support or replicate?
Answer: No. See RFP C.5.2, C.7(d)(iii).
19. Question: Document Automation - Please estimate the number of standard and complex document templates
required and whether automated document assembly tied to case data is expected at go-live.
Answer: OGC does not have complex document templates; the integration of standard document templates will be
addressed during project initiation/kick-off and installation/implementation. Automated document assembly is
expected at go-live.
20. Question: eDiscovery Expectations - Please clarify the expected scope of eDiscovery capabilities, including:
Required data sources, Expected review workflows; redaction and legal hold requirements; integration with external
tolls (if any).
Answer: OGC expects eDiscovery functionality to support its litigation, investigation, administrative, and records-
related obligations. At a minimum, the solution must: (1) support data ingestion from Microsoft Outlook/Exchange,
shared network drives, document repositories, and records maintained within the proposed system; (2) provide
document organization, search, filtering, tagging, and basic review workflows; (3) include legal hold management
capabilities consistent with Answers to Questions No. 32(b) and 86; and (4) support litigation-ready export or
interface/compatibility with third-party eDiscovery platforms for advanced review, analytics, and production. Advanced
capabilities such as predictive coding, technology-assisted review, automated preservation enforcement, and large-
scale hosted review are not required but may be proposed as additional features.
21. Question: Evidence / File Sharing - Does the Courts require external sharing portals for secure document or evidence
distribution (e.g., to outside counsel), or will sharing remain internal?
Answer: OGC anticipates a limited need for secure external sharing of documents with outside counsel, experts,
vendors, and other authorized parties. Internal collaboration will remain the primary method of sharing. The solution
must support secure, permission-based external sharing (including access controls, encryption, expiration settings,
and auditability) or interface with existing court-approved secure file-sharing platforms. See also Answers to Questions
No. 20 and 32 regarding eDiscovery exports and collaboration with external review platforms.
4

22. Question: Reporting Needs - What key reports or analytics do the Office of General Counsel require (e.g., workload
tracking, contract lifecycle, litigation metrics)?
Answer: This will be addressed during project initiation/kick-off and installation/implementation. See also Answer to
Question No. 23.
23. Question: Dashboard Expectations - Are real-time dashboards required for leadership reporting, and if so, what
metrics are most critical?
Answer: Yes. Matter Volume, Matter Type and Categories, Matter Client, Matter Lifecycles (including, e.g., response,
completion, and resolution) for Individual, Rules, Contracts, Employment, Litigation, Policy, Data Request, Claim, and
other types of matters.
24. Question: Go-Live Expectations - Do the Courts have a target go-live timeline/date or preferred implementation
window?
Answer: See Answer to Question No. 6.
25. Question: Phased vs Full Rollout - Does the Courts prefer a phased implementation approach or a full system
deployment at go-live?
Answer: Full system deployment is strongly preferred.
26. Question: Training Expectations - Beyond the required on-site training, are there expectations for ongoing training,
refresher sessions, or role-based training tracks?
Answer: See RFP C.7(e).
27. Question: NIST / Security Alignment - The RFP references NIST 800-53 controls. Please confirm whether formal
certification is required or if alignment with these controls is sufficient.
Answer: Written evidence of compliance with NIST controls is required.
28. Question: Contractor Access Restrictions - Please clarify expectations regarding contractor access to sensitive data
during implementation and support, including any required controls or restrictions.
Answer: See RFP C.5.43, H.3; Answer to Question No. 120.
5

29. Question: Evaluation Committee - Can the Courts provide insight into the roles or functional areas represented on the
evaluation committee?
Answer: The Courts does not share this information.
30. Question: Budget - Is there an estimated budget range established for this procurement?
Answer: The Courts does not share this information.
31. Question: Success Criteria - What does a successful implementation look like for the Courts in the first 6-12 months
postgo-live?
Answer: See RFP C.4, E, J.8.
32. eDiscovery
a. Question: Please clarify the expected scope of eDiscovery functionality. Is full eDiscovery (including legal hold,
review workflows, and production) required within the system, or is it acceptable to support eDiscovery through
export or integration with external tools?
Answer: See Answer to Question No. 20. OGC does not require a fully integrated end-to-end eDiscovery
platform. The system must provide core eDiscovery functionality, including legal hold management, document
organization, search, tagging, filtering, and basic review workflows, while supporting export and/or
interface/compatibility with external eDiscovery platforms for advanced review, analytics, and production.
b. Question: Are there specific requirements for legal hold management, chain of custody tracking, or litigation-
ready export formats?
Answer: The system must provide legal hold management, auditable tracking of document activity sufficient to
support evidentiary integrity, and litigation-ready export capabilities (including PDF, TIFF, metadata, and
comparable industry-standard formats). Advanced forensic collection, predictive coding, and automated
preservation enforcement are not required. See also Answer to Question No. 86.
Advanced capabilities (e.g., automated preservation enforcement, forensic collection, predictive coding) are
not required but may be proposed as additional features.
6

c. Question: Should the proposed solution include full eDiscovery review capabilities, or is support for
downstream eDiscovery processes sufficient?
Answer: See Answer to Question No. 20. Full in-system eDiscovery review capabilities are not required. The
solution must support downstream eDiscovery processes through document organization, retrieval, search,
tagging, legal hold management, and structured export to external review platforms.
33. Case and matter management
a. Question: Does the system need to provide full case or matter management functionality, or is document-
centric organization with metadata sufficient?
Answer: Full case and matter management functionality is required. See RFP C.5.2, .5, .25, .26; C.4(f).
b. Question: Are features such as case status tracking, task management, and deadline tracking required?
Answer: See RFP C.5.2, .5, .25, .26; C.4(f).
34. Cloud and security
a. Question: Are there any required compliance frameworks (e.g., FedRAMP, NIST, CJIS), or is a secure
commercial cloud environment acceptable?
Answer: See RFP C.5.45, C.6(b).
b. Question: Is there a preferred hosting environment (Azure, AWS, or vendor-hosted)?
Answer: See RFP C.5.45, C.6(b)-(c).
35. Migration
a. Question: Should the existing folder structure be preserved, or should it be transformed into a metadata-driven
structure?
Answer: Both may be required. OGC expects this will be addressed during project initiation/kick-off and
installation/implementation. See RFP C.7(b)-(e).
b. Question: Is automated classification during migration acceptable or preferred?
7

Answer: Automated classification is strongly preferred.
c. Question: What level of validation and reconciliation is expected after migration?
Answer: See Answer to Question No. 14.
36. Data types and volume
a. Question: Can you provide a breakdown of file types (e.g., PDF, Word, email, multimedia)?
Answer: A breakdown of number of files by file type is not available. See also Answer to Question No. 16.
b. Question: Are there any large files such as video or audio that require special handling?
Answer: See Answer to Question No. 16.
37. Search and metadata
a. Question: What are the primary search use cases (keyword, metadata filtering, full-text)?
Answer: See RFP C.5.9, C.7(b)-(c). This will be further addressed during project initiation/kick-off and
installation/ implementation.
b. Question: Are metadata standards already defined, or will they need to be established?
Answer: Metadata standards will need to be defined. See RFP C.7(d); Answer to Question No. 14.
c. Question: Are there any requirements for indexing handprint or cursive?
Answer: Yes. This will be addressed during project initiation/kick-off and installation/ implementation.
38. Security model
a. Question: Are matter-level access restrictions (ethical walls) required?
Answer: Yes. See RFP C.5.31, .50 - .54.
b. Question: Should security be applied at the folder level, document level, or both?
8

Answer: See RFP C.5.11, .31, .50 - .54.
39. Email management
a. Question: Is email considered part of the official record and required to be managed within the system?
Answer: See RFP C.5.10, .37; Answer to Question No. 20.
b. Question: Is integration with Microsoft Outlook required?
Answer: See RFP C.5.4, .10, .37, .38; Answers to Questions No. 40 and 88.
40. Question: Integration - Are there any systems the solution must integrate with?
Answer: Only software compatibility is necessary. See Answer to Questions No. 12 and 88.
41. Question: Evaluation Criteria - Can you clarify the relative weighting of technical capability, past performance, and
price?
Answer: See RFP M.3, M.7, L.8.
42. Question: Success criteria - What are the key success factors for this implementation within the first 6 to 12 months?
Answer: See Answer to Question No. 31.
43. Data classification and regulatory requirements
a. Question: Can you confirm whether any data falls under specific regulatory or classification requirements (e.g.,
CJIS, PII, or other restricted data types)?
Answer: OGC data may include multiple restricted data types including but not limited to PII, sensitive legal
information, information originating from other Courts systems, privileged, deliberative process, high risk,
procurement sensitive, and trade secrets/proprietary. To the extent that OGC handles Juvenile or JUSTIS-derived
data, such information would be subject to heightened confidentiality and security requirements. See RFP
C.5.31 and C.5.53 - .56.
b. Question: Are there any data residency or jurisdictional requirements?
Answer: Yes. The Contractor must maintain the Cloud in a U.S.-based, East Coast data center. See RFP
C.6(b).
9

44. Migration data quality
a. Question: What is the expected level of data quality in the existing repository (e.g., duplicate files, inconsistent
naming, missing metadata)?
Answer: The existing data includes duplicate files and inconsistent naming. The extent of missing metadata is
unknown at this time. See RFP C.4(i), C.7(d).
b. Question: Are there expectations for data cleanup or normalization as part of the migration effort?
Answer: See RFP C.4(i), C.7(d).
45. Performance and service expectations
a. Question: Are there defined performance expectations such as search response time or document retrieval
time?
Answer: See RFP C.5.19 - .21.
b. Question: Are there required service level agreements for system availability?
Answer: See RFP C.5.19 - .21; C.7(f).
46. Question: Support model - What are the expectations for post-implementation support, including response times and
on-site versus remote support?
Answer: See RFP C.5.19 - .21; C.7(f).
47. Question: Acceptance criteria - What are the formal acceptance criteria for system delivery and migration
completion?
Answer: See RFP C.4, E, F.4. This will be further addressed during project initiation/kick-off and
installation/implementation.
48. Question: Implementation timeline - What is the expected implementation timeline following award?
Answer: See Answer to Question No. 6.
10