The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08 - Justice & Homeland Security Integration & Citiation Processing ProjectCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 8 September 14, 2010 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Police Department Tom Gazsi, Captain, (949) 644 -3650, TGazsi @nbpd.org Jay R. Johnson, Chief of Police, (949) 644 -3701, JJohnson @nbpd.org SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF FINAL BID EVALUATION, AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS, AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS, AND AUTHORIZATION TO FULLY EXPEND COPS TECHNOLOGY GRANT FUNDS IN REGARDS TO THE JUSTICE AND HOMELAND SECURITY INTEGRATION & CITATION PROCESSING PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Approve the Final Bid Evaluation Report from Deloitte Consulting for the Justice and Homeland Security Integration & Citation Processing Project ("Project"). 2. Authorize the City Manager, in conjunction with the ILJAOC representative, to enter into contract negotiations with Sierra Systems for the integration portion of the Project, and Brazos Technology for the citation processing portion of the Project. 3. Authorize the City Manager to execute any contracts or other documents for the Project, to the extent that said contracts relate to the expenditure of the COPS Technology Grant Funds, subject to approval by the City Attorney. 4. Authorize the complete expenditure of the COPS Technology Grant Funds, administered by the City of Newport Beach on behalf of the ILJAOC, for the Project. DISCUSSION: Background: On behalf of the ILJAOC Members, the City of Newport Beach continues to administer existing multi -year COPS Technology Grants until they are expended. A second Bid Award on Behalf of ILJAOC September 14, 2010 Page 2 competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process for an Electronic Filing System, which is now referred to as the Justice and Homeland Security Integration & Citation Processing Project (JHSICP), was just completed, the results of which are now before you. During the first process, the City received only one proposal by the Unisys Corporation, and it was rejected as non - responsive in an action taken by the City Council in November 2008. The RFP was subsequently revised. An additional step of adding a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was added in an effort to reach out to various potential vendors and educate them on the specifics of the Project and how it may benefit them in terms of corporate exposure by their involvement in a model criminal justice project. As in the first process, the Deloitte Consulting firm administered the RFQ and RFP process, which resulted in formal bids by 13 separate vendors. Avery comprehensive review process followed, utilizing a Review Team comprised of a cross section of representatives from the ILJAOC Member Agencies. The resulting recommendation from the Review Team to the ILJAOC Governing Board was unanimous. The Governing Board also unanimously concurred with that recommendation at their meeting on June 21, 2010. A copy of the staff report and recommendations submitted to the ILJAOC Board is attached. In summary, the ILJAOC Board found that Sierra Systems had the best proposal for the integration portion of the Project and that Brazos Technology had the best proposal for the citation processing portion of the Project. Both of the vendors were the low bidders in a final "Best and Final Offer process involving the top two vendors in each category. The final step in the review looked at the "Five Year Cost" of their Proposals when compared to their competitors in the process. A report and analysis of the bid review process by Deloitte is attached. Currently, there is $1,153,446 in available funds remaining in the four grants the City administers. While the build out of the Project will exceed that amount several times over, the ILJAOC is currently pursuing other funding sources mentioned in their Governing Board Agenda Report. In addition, the ILJAOC has retained a grant writing firm to assist in developing supplementary grant applications for this model project. The available funds will assist in underwriting the costs of a pilot project to connect several agencies for the integration and electronic filing of their criminal cases, and several others for the electronic issuance and processing of their citations. The results of the pilot project will insure the design and implementation is working as intended, prior to moving forward with adding the remaining 20+ agencies to the implementation. The bottom line is that this Project carries with it the potential to improve the efficiency of the Criminal Justice System like no other undertaken in the County. As an illustration of just one of the potential savings involved, it currently costs the Superior Court approximately $750,000 per year to contract for the data entry of citations issued in the County. The iLJAOC believes upon full implementation of the Project, the majority of those costs would be eliminated. Bid Award on Behalf of ILJAOC September 14, 2010 Page 3 Nowhere in the United States has the ILJAOC or`Deloitte Consulting found a similar project that encompasses the work of so many diverse agencies with so many disparate systems. The ILJAOC Members believe it will be a significant accomplishment when completed, and one that others throughout this State and beyond will attempt to replicate. During the contract negotiations, which will be undertaken by the ILJAOC and their Legal Counsel, multiple contracts will result, with those involving the City limited to the expenditure of the available grant funds identified earlier in this report (and which ultimately will also be approved by the City Attorney). The remaining contracts will only involve the ILJAOC utilizing other potential funding sources. The resulting contract documents will identify achievable milestones and related payments to insure measurable results toward completion of the pilot project and the establishment of a path toward the future build out of the Project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential of resulting in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly). PUBLIC NOTICE: This agenda item has been noticed according to the Ralph M. Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the item). FUNDING AVAILABILITY: Currently, $1,153,446 is available in COPS Technology Grants from 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. ALTERNATIVES: No action would result in the loss of available grant funds, which as of this communication is the only confirmed funding source for the Project. Submitted by: Approved hv- Tom Gazsi, Captain ' Jay . Johnson Support Services Commander CHIEF OF POLICE Attachments: Deloitte Report on Bid Review ILJAOC Agenda Report on Bid Review Deloitte. Justice and Homeland Security Integration and Citations Project RFP Evaluation Report Prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP Release 2 July 20, 2010 Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP Table of Contents Introduction.............................................................................................................................. ............................... 3 EvaluationProcess ................................................................................................................... ..............................4 Scoring .................................................................. ............................... ................. ............................... ............... 4 ScoredDemonstrations ........................................................................................................ ..............................4 InitialPricing Review ............................................................................................................. ..............................4 Bestand Final Offer .............................................................................................................. ..............................4 ReferenceChecks ............................................................................................................... ............................... 5 IntegrationResults .................................................................................................................... ..............................5 CitationResults ........................................................................................................................ ............................... 9 Capital Estimate ....................................................................... ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Conclusion............................................................................................................................. ............................... 13 AppendixA — Financial Tables .............................................................................................. ............................... 14 JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 2 Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP Introduction The Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County (ILJAOC) issued an RFP on September 8, 2009 for the purchase of an integration solution to allow for the connection of various existing systems and the enablement of integration applications such as filing of criminal cases with prosecutors and electronic request of warrants, juvenile referrals and probable cause documentation. Thirteen proposals were received on November 30, 2009. Nine of the proposals addressed integration and six addressed citations. This document describes the evaluation process and presents the evaluation results. The following table summarizes the proposals received: Prime Vendor APS Analysts Intl ATSC Brazos Tech Cogent Datanet Solutions Govt Internet Systems Ipkeys ISS Plan B Sierra Sire Unisys integration citation Experience X x X x X x X x X x X x x x limited X limited X x X x sub only X x X x X x soutnern gainornia Subcontractors Experience X None None i2 COPLINK None X Berrendo X None limited A,galine limited Enterams None Mobizent, Tetrus limited Consulting Metatomix x None X Tci JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 3 Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP Evaluation Process The evaluation process consisted of several distinct steps. At each point Deloitte Consulting staff facilitated the process and representatives of ILJAOC assigned either consensus scores or individual scores that were simply averaged to get to a final score. s In the scoring process, each of the scorable requirements from the RFP was assigned a consensus score by the participants. In both cases (Integration and Citations) the scores were clustered with a very clear cluster of high scoring vendors separated from a cluster of low scoring proposals. The vendors in the high scoring cluster were in both cases invited to provide a demonstration of their solution. Scored Demonstrations Separate demonstration sessions were held with the short listed vendors. Integration vendors were provided with half day demonstration sessions the week of March 15, 2010 and Citations vendors were afforded a 2 hour demonstration timeslot on February 10, 2010. Evaluators were asked to score various demonstration and presentation criteria and scores were averaged to get to overall scores. Initial Pricing Review The initial pricing review was conducted on all vendors that received acceptable scores from the Scored Demonstrations and the results of the pricing evaluations were utilized to get to a short list for evaluation. The two proposals of each type (Citations and Integration) providing the best combination of scoring and price were advanced for a final evaluation. Best and Final Offer Following the pricing evaluation, minor issues remained regarding the functionality, features and long term pricing options of all of the finalist proposals and the evaluation team determined that a Best and Final Offer (BAFO) process was required to allow the vendors to clarify those issues, consider options and refine their pricing. Requests were issued to the finalists on April 21, 2010, along with a more sophisticated pricing form for completion. BAFO responses were received in early May from the four finalists. Responses to questions regarding issues were considered by the team and the revised pricing was compared for final evaluation JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 4 Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP Reference Checks In parallel with the BAFO process, the evaluation team conducted reference checks with the vendor's provided references. Integration Results The integration evaluation team reviewed the proposals from all vendors and met Thursday January 21 to compile consensus scores for all of the integration submissions. The table below provides the output of that process. Prime Vendor Comments Total Advance Score to Demo Analysts Intl Well thought out package based solution 66 Yes Proposal subjectively reads better than score suggests Similar solution to ATSC ATSC Well thought out package based solution 75 Yes Similar solution to Analysts International DataNet Solutions Not comfortable with a Document Management System approach 42 Does not support the full range of inter - agency applications contemplated Govt Internet Systems Small vendor with very limited justice qualifications 43 Highly customized approach Weak proposal response ISS Well thought out proposal with non - proprietary open source solution 71 Yes Solution very similar to what we want to do Commitment to local presence Plan B Very unclear and confusing proposal 56 Sierra Well thought out package based solution 80 Yes Sire Not comfortable with a Document Management System approach 59 Does not support the full range of inter - agency applications contemplated Unisys Strong proposal with strong package solutions 80 Yes Concerns about prior performance although completely different team proposed A clear differentiation in the scoring was present between Analysts International at 66 points and the Sire proposal at 59 points. As a result, the top 5 scoring vendors were selected to move to presentations and demonstrations. JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 5 Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP Scored Demonstrations Integration vendors were allotted 3 hour demonstration slots the week of March 15, 2010. They were evaluated by the team against the criteria outlined in the table below and the scores of the evaluation team averaged to yield a total score. Vendor 1SS Analysts ATSC Sierra Unisys Team Structure 4.0 3.2 4.4 4.1 4.3 Approach 4.3 3.1 4.4 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.0 4.2 3.7 3.8 Integration Infrastructure 4.0 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.5 4.4 3.1 3.7 3.9 3.4 Demo - Usability 4.3 3.1 4.1 3.9 3.7 Demo - Application to Business 4.1 2.5 4.3 4.0 3.6 Orange County Understanding Implementation 3.9 2.9 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.9 2.9 3.6 3.1 3.0 Maintenance Can I work with this team 3.9 2.9 3.6 3.1 3.0 Proposal Scoring 36.0 33.0 37.5 40.0 40.0 76.9 64.5 77.6 77.8 76.0 Total In the table, the scores of the demonstration session are combined with the initial proposal scoring to obtain a total aggregate score for each of the vendor submissions. The results are presented graphically in the following graphic. JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 6 Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.t Consolidated Results h () N C < ut Proposal Scoring . Can I workwith this team Maintenance cY Implemenatation Orange County Understanding ra Demo - Application to Business is Demo- Usability ■ Infrastructure ❑Integration ■Approach 0 Team Structure The consolidated results indicate clearly that the proposal from Analysts International scored well below the others both in the scored evaluation and the demonstration. The other visible trend is that the remaining four proposals are all very close in aggregate score. The four proposals from ATSC, ISS, Sierra and Unisys were moved to financial evaluation. Initial Pricing Review The initial financial evaluation produced the following results. Costs were totaled to provide a full view of an implementation of all of the applications over 3 years and then a full operating life of 5 years for the purposes of evaluation. ATSC '.ISS Sierra Systems Unisys Capital Grand Total $7,021,885 $5,797,653 $3,110,742 $10,066,531 5 Year Total Cost with Basic Support $9,814,698 $7,483,427 $4,267,071 $10,798,109 5 Year Total Cost with 24/7 $14,156,568 $7,483,427 $4,537,071 N/A It was not possible to determine accurately from the submission the cost of the 24/7 support option from Unisys and so those numbers were not included. It became very clear however that there were two lower cost options JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 7 Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP (albeit with significant price difference between them) and the ATSC and Unisys proposals exhibiting a much higher lifetime cost were suspended from further evaluation. Reference Checks Reference checks were conducted by telephone with references provided by both Sierra and ISS while the BAFO process was being conducted. Both vendors received generally positive reviews. ISS was unable to provide references for implementations with more than about 100 users and their justice related implementations were very limited. Their customers were quite positive about their results, but a consistent theme did emerge in the conversations that they have struggled to manage expectations through some of their projects. As a small company, they tend to utilize relatively informal processes for managing requirements and design efforts and therefore, customer expectations are not always met by the first delivery of a solution. In all cases however, clients indicated that ISS has stepped up to meet their commitments and have aggressively worked to address issues identified with their systems. Sierra Systems and their primary solution provider Metatomix, have not worked together extensively and so initially, the team conducted reference checks with their clients separately. Positive reviews were received for both organizations for large justice implementations across the country. Upon request, they provided a contact at their latest combined client, the Texas Association of Counties and a reference check was conducted there. The contact at Texas Association of Counties gave a glowing reference for their combined efforts and indicated that the organizations do indeed work very well together. Best and Final Offer As the evaluation team considered the final results, questions were surfaced regarding the long term viability and supportability of the Sierra Systems proposal. The proposals from Sierra and ISS offered quite different maintenance and support approaches and those approaches made up a large portion of the difference in the two cost totals. Best and Final Offer (BAFO) requests were sent to both vendors requesting clarification on aspects of supportability of the components of their solutions, additional clarification of maintenance offerings and an opportunity to refine pricing. Submissions were received in early May. Both vendors addressed their supportability questions to the satisfaction of the evaluation team. ISS submitted a letter clarifying their response regarding a duplication of their software licensing costs on June 28, 2010. This resulted in a reduction of their 5 year price of $360,000 from their original BAFO submission. The pricing results, incorporating the latest available information, are summarized in the following table: Integration Pricing Review — Initial Proposals 5 Year Life Cycle Capital Grand Total 5 Year Total Cost with Basic Support $5,267,119 $5,823,961 $3,137,968 $3,770,120 JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 8 Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP Citation Results The citations evaluation team reviewed the proposals from all vendors and met Thursday January 21 to compile consensus scores for all of the submissions. The table below provides the output of that process. A decision was made to invite the top 3 vendors for demonstrations. The remaining 3 vendors scored lower and the team had significant doubts about the viability of their solutions. Scored Demonstrations Citation vendors were allotted 2 hour demonstration slots on February 10, 2010. They were evaluated by the team against the criteria outlined in the table below and the scores of the evaluation team averaged to yield a total score. JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 9 Total Advance Prime Vendor Comments Score to Demo I Keys Transfer of a custom solution 27 Vendor has limited experience with solution Too much back end work for ILJAOC Plan B Mobizent solution offered installed in New York and San Jose looks 33 Yes interesting Strong proposal response Brazos Tech Strong offering with innovative solutions 30 Yes No California experience — may be a foothold client for them Cogent/ Berrendo Willing to look at Cogent device 29 Unsatisfactory performance on the Anaheim /Court project makes this offering challenging DataNet Solutions Not interested in pen based technology 12 Very weak proposal response APS Market leader 33 Yes Strong proposal response A decision was made to invite the top 3 vendors for demonstrations. The remaining 3 vendors scored lower and the team had significant doubts about the viability of their solutions. Scored Demonstrations Citation vendors were allotted 2 hour demonstration slots on February 10, 2010. They were evaluated by the team against the criteria outlined in the table below and the scores of the evaluation team averaged to yield a total score. JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 9 Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP Brazos Plan B APS Mobizent Team Structure 4.9 4.1 4.3 Approach 4.5 4.0 3.9 Field Applications 4.9 3.7 3.8 Back Office Applications 4.4 4.0 3.5 Orange County Understanding 4.3 3.9 3.4 Integration 4.0 3.9 3.7 Maintenance 4.0 4.6 3.6 Can I work with this team 4.4 4.0 3.7 Proposal Score 33 3.1 3.0 35.2 3.1 3.0 Team Structure 4.9 40.0 40.0 Total 77.6 77.8 76.0 In the table, the scores of the demonstration session are combined with the initial proposal scoring to obtain a total aggregate score for each of the vendor submissions. The results are presented graphically in the following graphic. JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 10 Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 O.0 Consolidated Results Mobizent APS Proposal Score Can I work with this team Maintenance ® Integration ® Orange County Understanding ■ Back Office Applications ❑ Field Applications ■ Approach o Team Structure The consolidated results indicate clearly that the proposal from Plan B / Mobizent scored well below the others both in the scored evaluation and the demonstration. The proposals from Brazos and APS were moved to financial evaluation. Initial Pricing Review The initial financial evaluation produced the following results. Costs were totaled to provide a full view of an implementation of the systems to all law enforcement agencies over 3 years and then a full operating life of 5 years for the purposes of evaluation. Brazos Phase 1 Capital 338,670 Phase 2 Capital 4,152,800 5 Year Total Cost 6,114, 970 APS 353,705 4,692,000 5,422,705 Initial pricing showed the capital costs being quite close but the ongoing costs yielded a significant difference between the two short listed providers. One of the challenges in the pricing evaluation is that both vendors made very different offers around portable equipment. As a result, it was difficult to get to a clean comparison. JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 17 Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP Both vendors indicated that they could refine pricing based on a better understanding of volumes and also offered to provide hosted solution alternatives for the server infrastructure. The evaluation team considered these factors and decided to issue a BAFO request to both vendors. Reference Checks Reference checks were conducted by telephone with references provided by both Brazos and APS while the BAFO process was being conducted. Both vendors received highly positive reviews. Brazos' typical implementations were smaller than APS, however they generally aggregate their small implementations onto a single server. This type of configuration mirrors the desired implementation in Orange County. Brazos customers universally indicated extremely positive outcomes with very high levels of customer satisfaction. Their approach is to offer an unlimited maintenance and support model and create new forms for different types of reports and citations for their customers at no additional charge. We asked Brazos for a larger city to reference and as a result contacted the City of Nashville. Nashville is using the Brazos application a little differently than standard but as with their other references, was very positive. They also indicated that had they been restarting their project they would seriously consider utilizing the standard Brazos citation offering and not doing the customization that they are doing in the current project. APS also received positive references. They are a long -time provider in this space and have hundreds of customer sites of various sizes. All of the references indicated positive relationships, sound project management and strong support structures. While the support model is more granular and new forms and reports are provided at additional cost, customers did not complain about that process. They felt it was fair and provided good value for money. There were a number of comments received about a one time period of marginal support during a corporate ownership transition some years ago. The issues had all been resolved and are not considered significant for this evaluation. Best and Final Offer The BAFO process for the citations portion of the project was focused on getting to consistent device pricing and exploring options for hosted as well as solutions installed in Orange County. Submissions were received in early May. Both vendors provided the information requested for all options. The pricing results are summarized in the following table: Integration Pricing Review — Initial Proposals 5 Year Life Cycle APS $3,237,270 $22,600 $90,750 $90,750 $3,781,420 JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 12 Brazos Capital Grand Total $2,549,260 Year One Annual $11,800 Year Two Annual, $63,250 Year Three Annual $63,250 5 Year Total Cost $2,912,710 APS $3,237,270 $22,600 $90,750 $90,750 $3,781,420 JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 12 Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP Conclusion ILJAOC received a very robust response to the RFP with 13 proposals received (9 integration and 6 citation). The evaluation process was able to systematically reduce the field at each stage of the evaluation to get to two finalists for both of integration and citations. All four of those finalist vendors would have been able to meet the needs of ILJAOC and its members. The evaluation team representing agencies from across the County unanimously supports the recommendations of moving forward with Sierra Systems for the Integration Solution and Brazos Technology for the Citations Solution. JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 13 Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP Appendix A —Financial Tables JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 14 II Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP Integration Cost Evaluation - Original Proposals Component ATSC ISS Sierra Systems Unisys Core Solution One Time Annual One Time Annual One Time Annual One Ti me Annual Software 226,546 45,933 54,421 120,OOC 72,222 13,000 763,692 Production Hardware 43,621 84,236 343,120 79,422 118,531 Test/ Dev Hardware 600000 163000 110000 1625375.5 10 additional LEAs Training Hardware 213794 150000 21600 22000 325075.1 Services 232,666 49,273 564,494 64,056 1,024,513 User Application Portal 206847 65000. 76000 5500 487612.65 Software 117,918 65000 131,444 22,667 650150.19 Services 424,182 564,494 98,548 487612.65 Existing Ecite interface 273,094 54,019 35,536 396,859 224,376 New Ecite Integration 249,366 102,957 279,278 544,913 New Ecites Agency 1 29429 133,640 58,790 128,215 New Ecites Agency 1 3,683,819 0 133,640 58,790 128,215 Efiling Application 426,305 84,661 249,457 176,386 160,269 Probable Cause Application 108,143 21,029 51,479 176,386 160,269 Efiling Agency l 111,730 21,746 131,810 44,097 160,269 Efiling Agency 95,412 18,482 108,580 44,097 160,269 Efiling Agency 3 95,412 18,482 108,580 44,097 160,269 DA Integration 351,832 69,766 1861 809 132,290 128,215 CA Integration 303,656 60,131 138,247 88,193 128,215 Court Citation Integration 122,681 23,936 86,768 88,193 96,161 3year Warranty 51,514 1,501,941 521,097 1,096,368 Training 103,988 91680 68097 17018fi.6 Phase 1Total 3,338,066 551,694 4,587,653 120,000 2,622,342 35,667 5,352,942 0 24/7 help desk 430110 54000 On site support 4382 Out year Warranty /Maintenace 17,171 542,887 169,997 365,789 1,437,239 662,887 259,664 365,789 Phase S Only 5 year Cost $6,130,879 $6,273,427 $3,140,671 $6,084,520 5 year cost with on site support &2417 $10,472,749 $6,273,427 $3,410,671 Component ATSC ISS Sierra Systems Unisys Capital License Capital License Capital License Capital License Phase l Only 5 year Cost 7,186,197 3,314,435 1,298,320 1,828,945 Out Year Co m po ne nts 2073630 600000 163000 110000 1625375.5 10 additional LEAs Probation 213794 150000 21600 22000 325075.1 Crime Lab 362129 200000 54200 5500 650150.19 Juvenile Referral 206847 65000. 76000 5500 487612.65 Probation Violation 201221 65000 54200 5500 650150.19 Warrant Request 210836 65000 59700 5500 487612.65 Discovery Request 280822 65000 59700 5500 487612.65 Redaction Services 105111 0 Redaction Software 29429 0 Subtotal 3,683,819 0 1,210,000 0 488,400 159,500 4,713,589 0 Capital Grand Total $7,021,885 $5,797,653 $3,110,742 $10,066,531 S Year Total Cost with Basic Support $9,814,698'. $7,483,427 $4,267,071 $10,798,109. 5 Year Total Cost with 24/7 1 $14,156,568 $7,483,427 $4,537,071 N/A JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 15 Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP Citations Cost Evaluation - Initial Proposals Category Brazos APS One Time Annual One Time Annual Core Solution 25,000 4,500 75,000 11,250 Implementation Services 69,550 15,000 Hardware 12,480 12,48 Interface to Integration 10,000 2,500 Agency 1 (20 devices) Implementation Services 7,500 625 Agency Software 12,500 625 Interface with RMS 3,000 650 7,000 1,050 Training 3,500 4,000 Device Hardware 74,820 74,820 Software for Devices 15,000 5,000 25,980 1,000 Services for Devices 1,000 Biometrics Software 7,000 4,000 Agency 2 20 devices Implementation Services 7,500 Agency Software 12,500 625 Interface with RMS 3,000 650 7,000 1,050 Training 3,500 4,000 Device Hardware 74,820 74,820 Software for Devices 15,000 5,0001 25,9821 1,000 Services for Devices 1,000 Biometrics Software 7,000 4,000 Year 1 Total 338,670 26,300 353,705 16,600 Twenty Additional Agencies (40 Devices Each) Implementation Services 150,000 150,000 Agency Software 250,000 12,500 Interface with RMS 60,000 13,000 140,000 21,000 Training 70,000 80,000 Device Hardware 2,992,800 2,992,800 Software for Devices 600,000 200,000 1,039,200 40,000 Services for Devices 40,000 Biometrics Software 280,000 160,000 Phase 2 Total 4,152,8001 373,000 4,692,0001 73,500 Grand Total 4,491,4701 399,300 5,045,7051 90,100 Estimated 5 Year Cost 6,114,970 5,422,705 JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 16 I jIntegrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP Integration BAFO Cost Evaluation Category Siema Year 1 155 Year 1 Unit Cost Annual Unit One Time Costs Quantity Costs Annual Costs Unit Cost Annual Unit One Time Costs Quantity Costs Annual Casts Core Solution Software 72,222 13,000 1 72,222 13,000 54,421 1 54,421 0 HaNware 79,422 1 79,422 0 224,000 1 224,000 0 Serdces 64,056 1 64,056 0 564,494 1 564,494 0 User Application Portal $g6wdm 131,444 22,667 1 131,444 22,667 1 0 0 SeMCes 98,548 1 98,548 0 564,494 1 564,494 0 Existing Ecite Interface 396,859 0 0 0 35,536 0 0 0 New Ecite Integration 279,278 1 279,278 0 102,957 1 102,957 0 New Eciles Agency 1 58,790 1 58,790 0 133,640 1 133,640 0 New Ecites Agency 1 58,790 1 58,790 0 133,640 1 133,640 0 Efiling Application 176,386 1 176,386 0 249,457 1 249,457 0 Probable Cause Application 176,386 1 176,386 0 51,479 1 51,479 0 Implementation of Efiling at Agency 1 44,097 1 44,097 0 131,810 1 131,810 0 Implementation of Efiling at Agency 2 44 ,097 1 44,097 0 108,580 1 108,580 0 Implementation of Efiling at Agency 3 44 ,097 1 44,097 0 108,580 1 108,580 6 DA Integration 132,290 1 132,290 0 186,809 1 186,809 0 CA Integration 88,193 1 88,193 0 138,247 1 138,247 0 Court Citation Integration 88,193 1 88,193 0 86,768 1 86,768 3 year Warranty 521,097 1 521,097 0 403,263 1 403,263 Training Materials Demelopment 0 1 0 0 60,000 1 60,000 �10 Training Deliwry (training days) 216 6 12,960 0 1,980 6 11,860 Phase 1 Total 2,170,346 35,667 3,314,519 0 Optional Items Implement Disaster Recowry Site 194,822 0 463,000 0 Implement Additional Agencies (All Awilable Applications) 27,300 .2,970 0 60,000 0 Add Probation Department 21,60 3,9 0 150,000 0 Crime lab Application 76200 1,9 0 200,000 0 Juvenile Referral Application 76,000 3,960 0 1 65,000 0 Probation Violation Application 54 ,200.. 1,9 0 65,000 0 Warrant Request Application 59,700 2,97 0 65,000 0 Discowry Request Application 59,700 2,97 0 65,000 0 Total I 2,170,346 35,667 3,314,519 0 r---2-7-8,-4-211 Note ISS Out Year Maintenance includes JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 17 Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP Category Sierra Year 2 ISS Year 2 Unit Cost One Annual Unit Time Costs Quantity Costs Annual Costs Unit Cost Annual One Unit Time Costs Quantity Costs Annual Costs Core Solution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Software 72,222 13,000 0 0 54,421 0 0 Hardware 79,422 0 0 0 224,000 0 0 0 SeMces 64,056 0 0 0 564,494 0 0 0 User Application Portal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Software 131,444 22,667 0 0 0 0 0 0 Services 98,548 0 0 0 564,494 0 0 0 Existing Ecite interface 396,859 0 0 0 35,536 0 0 0 New Ecite Integration 279,278 0 0 0 102,957 0 0 0 New Ecites Agency 1 58,790 0 0 0 133,640 0 0 0 New Ecites Agency 1 58,790 0 0 0 133,640 0 0 0 Efiling Application 176,386 0 0 0 249,457 0 0 0 Probable Cause Application 176,386 0 0 0 51,479 0 0 0 Implementation of Efiling at Agency 1 44,097 0 0 0 131,810 0 0 0 Implementation of Efiling at Agency 2 44,097 0 0 0 108,580 0 0 0 Implementation of Efiling at Agency 3 44,097 0 0 0 108,580 0 0 0 DA Integration 132,290 0 0 0 186,809 0 0 0 CAlntegration 88,193 0 138,247 0 Court Citation Integration 88,1931 0 0 0 86,768 0 0 0 3 year Warranty 521,097 0 0 0 403,263 0 0 0 Training Materials Development 01 0 0 0 60,000 0 0 0 Training Delivery (training days) 2,160 0 10 21,600 0 1,980 0 10 19,800 0 Phase 1 Total Optional Items Implement Disaster Recovery Si 194,822 0 1 194,822 0 463,000 0 1 463,000 0 Implement Additional Agencies (All Available Applications) 27,3001 2,9701 71 191,100 20,790 60,0001 0 7 420,000 0 Add Probation Department 21,600 3,960 11 21,600 3,960 150,000 0 1 150,000 0 Crime Lab Application 76,200 1,980 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 Juvenile Referral Application 76,000 3,960 0 0 65,000 0 01 0 Probation Violation Application 54,200 1,980 0 0 65,000 0 0 0 Warrant Request Application 59,700 2,970 1 59,700 2,970 65,000 0 1 65,000 0 Discovery Request Application 59,700 2,970 1 59,700 2,970 65,000 0 1 65,000 0 Total 548,522 30,690 1,182,800 0 JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 18 Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP Category Sierra Year 3 ISS Year 3 Unit Cost Annual One Unit Time Costs quantity Costs Annual Costs Unit Cost Annual One Unit Time Costs Quantity Costs Annual Costs Core Solution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Software 72,222 13,000 0 0 54,421 0 0 Hardware 79,422 0 0 0 224,000 0 0 0 Services 64,056 0 0 0 564,494 0 0 0 User Application Portal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Software 131,444 22,667 0 0 0 0 0 0 Services 98,548 0 0 0 564,494 0 0 0 Existing Ecite interface 396,859 0 0 0 35,536 0 0 0 New Ecite Integration 279,278 0 0 0 102,957 0 New Ecites Agency 1 58,790 0. 0 0 133,640 0 New Ecites Agency 1 58,790 0 0 0 133,640 0 0 0 Efiling Application 176,386 0 0 0 249,457 0 0 0 Probable Cause Application 176,386 0 0 0 51,479 0 0 0 Implementation of Efiling at Agency 1 44,097 0 0 0 131,810 0 0 0 Implementation of Efiling at Agency 2 44,097 0 0 0 108,580 0 0 0 Implementation of Efiling at Agency 3 44,097 0 0 0 108,580 0 0 0 DA Integration 132,290 0 0 0 186,809 0 0 0 CA Integration 88,193 0 138,247 0 Court Citation Integration 88,193 0 0 0 86,768 0 0 0 3 year Warranty 521,097 0 0 0 403,263 0 0 0 Training Materials Development 0 0 0 0 60,000 0 0 0 Training Delivery (training days) 2,160 0 10 21,600 0 1,980 0 10 19,800 0 Phase 1 Total Optional Items Implement Disaster Recovery Site 194,822 0 0 0 463,000 0 0 0 Implement Additional Agencies (All Available Applications) 27,300 2,9701 7 191,100 20,790 60,000 0 7 420,000 0 Add Probation Department 21,600 3,960 0 0 150,000 0 0 0 Crime Lab Application 76,200 1,980 1 76,200 1,980 200,000 0 1 200,000 0 Juvenile Referral Application 76,000 3,960 1 76,000 3,960 65,000 0 1 65,000 0 Probation Violation Application 54,200 1,980 1 54,200 1,980 65,000 0 1 65,000 0 Warrant Request Application 59,700 2,970 0 0 65,000 0 0 0 Discovery Request Application 59,700 2,970 0 0 65,000 0 0 0 Total 419,100 28,7101 1 769,8001 0 JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 19 Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP Citations BAFO Cost Evaluation Category Brazos Year 1 APS Year 1 One Time Annual Unit One Time Annual One Time Annual One Time Annual Unit Costs Costs OuanOty Costs Costs Unit Costs Unit Costs Quantity Costs Costs Care Solution Software & licensing 4,500 0 1 4,500 0 45,000 6,750 1 45,000 6,750 Implementation Services 17,100 0 1 17,100 0 6,750 1 6,750 Hardware 0 0 1 0 0 1 Hosting Costs 0 0 1 0 0 1 interrace to Integration 10,000 2,500 1 10,000 2,500 20,000 3,000 1 20,000 3,000 Agency Implementation Implementation Services 7,500 0 2 15,000 0 8,500 2 17,000 Agency Software 0 0 2 0 0 2,500 375 2 5,000 750 Interrace with RMS Included 650 2 0 1,300 7,000 1 1,050 1 2 143000 21100 2 Days User Training 3,500 0 1 3,500 0 3,000 1 3,000 2 days Admin Training 3,000 0 1 3,000 0 3,000 1 3,000 Deeice Hardware Momenta MC75A This is the latest MC75A. MC75A, GPS, WWAN HSDPA, WLAN 802.11, A/B/G, 2D Imager, Camera, 256MB /1 GP, QW ERTY, W M 6.53 1.5x Battery, Bluetooth 1,262 0 20 25,240 0 1,440 20 28,800 Mag SMpe Reader 109 0 20 2,180 0 108 1 20 2,160 Bicmetnc Finger Tint Reader 220 0 20 4,400 0 360 20 7,200 USB Cradle 125 OF 20 2,500 0 138 20 2,760 Wall Charger 95 0 0 0 0 40 20 800 Extended life Battery The extended battery is included with the Motorola deuce 44 0 0 0 0 70 20 1,400 3 year bronze support 265 0 20 5,300 0 325 20 Q5W Intermec CN3 CN3AQH80105E QWERTY,AREA IMG /SH(EA11),WORLD WIDE 802D,GPS,GPRS N.AMERICA 1,283 0 20 25,660 0 1,7631 20 35,260 Ma sM Reader 206 0 0 0 0 20 Biometdc Fingerprint Scanner This is a combination magstripe reader and biomeMc unit (You can remove the magstdpe reader from the quote with this option) 750 0 20 15,000 0 830 20 16,600 USB Cradle 132 0 20 2,640 0 160 20 3,200 Wall Charger 85 0 20 1,700 0 84 20 1,680 Extended Life Battery 99 0 20 1,980 0 132 20 2,640 3 Year support 233 OF 20 4,61301 0 260 1 1 20 5,200 Zebra RW420 Printers Bluetooth and no Magstripe Reader 650 0 40 26,000 0 689 40 27,560 Zeba RW420 Printers Bluetooth WITH Magstripe Reader 750 0 Wall Charger for Zeta Printer 65 0 Demce Software and Services Core Citation Seftware Includes. Traffic Citations, Traffic Wamings, Parking Citation, Parking Wamings, Field Investigations, and Actowly Reports 700 200 40 28,000 8,000 799 250 40 31,960 10,000 Biometrics Software tThis is forcapturing fingerpMts and associating them with a form). Creating AFIS compliant Formats for identification would IM additional costs. Included 40 0 0 40 Services for OeNCes Included 40 0 0 40 Total 198,380 11,800 28],4]0 22,600 JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 20 Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Delcitte Consulting LLP Category Brazos Yea r 2 APS Year 2 One Time Annual One Time Annual One Tme Annual One Time Unit Caere Unit Casts Quantity Costs Costs Unit Costs Unit Costs Quantity Costs Annual Costs Care Sourish Software & licensing 0 0 0 0 Implementation Sendces 0 0 0 0 Hardware 1 0 0 0 0 Hosting Costs 0 0 0 0 Interface to Integration 0 a 0 0 0 Agency Implementation Implementation Services 7,500 0 7 52,500 0 6,500 7 59,500 Agency Software 0 0 7 0 a 10,000 1,500 7 70,000 10,500 Interface wltb RMS Included 650 5 0 3,250 7,000 1,050 5 35,000 5,250 2 Days User Training 3,5W 0 7 24,500 0 3,000 7 21,000 2 days Admin Training 3,000 0 3 9,000 0 3,000 3 9,000 Dev;ne Hamware Motorola MC75A This is the latest MC75A. MC75A, SIPS, WWAN HSDPA, WLAN 802.11, A/8 1G, 2D Imager, Camera, 256MB /iGP, QWERTY, WM 6.5, 1.5x Battery, Bluetohrh 1,262 0 200 252,400 0 1440 200 288,000 Mag Singe Reader 109 0 200 21,8001 0 108 200 21.600 thometng Fingerprint Reader 220 0 200 44,000 0 360 200 72,000 USB Cradle 125 0 200 25,000 0 138 200 27,600 Wall Charge, 95 0 0 0 0 40 200 8,000 Exended life Battery The d Landed battery is included eWth the Motorola d.vice 44 a 0 O 0 70 200 14.000 3 year bmnze support 265 0 200 53,000 0 325 200 65,000 0 Intended CN3 CN3AQH801G5E QWERTY,AREA IMG/SH(EA11),WORLD WIDE 802D,GPS,GPRS N.AMERICA 1,283 0 100 128,300 0 1,763 100 176,300 east no Reatler 206 0 0 0 0 100 Biemetric Fingerprint Scanner This is a nhmbination magstnpe reader and biometric unit (You can hern.,a the magampe reader fund the quote with this option) 750 0 100 75,000 0 83) 100 83,000 USB Cradle 132 0 100 13,200 a 160 100 16,000 Wan Charger 85 0 10a 8,500 0 64 100 6,400 Extended Life Battery 99 0 100 9,900 0 132 100 13,200 3 Year support 233 0 100 23.3001 01 260 100 26,000 Zebra RW420 Printers Blustoclh and no Magstrpe Reader 650 0 300 185,000 0 689 300 206,700 Zebra RW420 Printers Bluetooth WITH Magstripe Reader 750 Wall Ch.-., for Zebra Printer 65 Dedce Software and Services Core Citation Software Include.: Tmfic Citations, Traffic Wamings, Parking Citation, Parking Warnings, Fleid Investigations, and ActiNt Re orts 700 200 300 210,000 60,000 749 250 300 224,700 75,000 BiomeMcs Software (this is for capturing fingerprints and ssociating them with a form), Creating AFIS compliant formats for identification would hate additional costs. Included 0 300 0 0 3W SeMCes for D.6d.s Tnclutletl 0 300 0 0 300 Total 1,145,400 63,250 1,445,000 90,750 JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 21 Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Oeloitte Consulting LLP category Brazos Year APS Year Annual One One Ties Annual One Time Unit Time Annual Unit Unit One Time Annual Unit Costs Costs Quantity costs Costs Costs Costs quantity Costs Costs Core Solution Software 8 licensing 0 0 0 O Implementation Services 0 O 0 0 Hardware 1 0 0 0 O Hosting Costs 0 0 0 0 Interface to Integration 0 0 0 0 0 Agency Implementation Implementation Services 7,500 0 7 52,500 0 81500 7 59.500 .Agency Software 0 0 7 0 0 10,000 1,500 7 70.000 10,500 Interlace with RMS Included 650 5 O 3,2601 7,000 1,050 5 35,000 5,250 2 Days User Training 31500 0 7 24,500 0 3,000 7 1 21.000 2 days Admim Trading 3,000 0 3 9,000 0 3,000 3 9,000 Device Hardware Motorola MC75A `^ This is the latest MC75A. MC75A, GPS, WWAN HSDPA, WLAN 802.11, A/B /G. 2D Imager, Camera, 256MB /1GP, QWERTY. W M 6.5, 1.5x Battery. Bluetooth 1,262 0 100 126,200 0 1,440 100 144,000 Ma; Stripe Reader 109 0 100 10,900 0 108 100 10,800 Bicmetiic Fingemdml Reader 220 O 100 22.000 0 360 100 36,000 USB Cradle 125 or 100 12,500 0 138 100 13,800 Wall Charger 95 0 0 0 O 40 100 4,000 Extended life Battery The extended battery is ncluded with the Motorola device 44 0 0 0 0 70 100 7,000 3 year bronze support 265 0 100 26,500 0 325 _ 100 32,500 _ 0 Intepmec CN3 CN3AQH801G5E QW ERTY,AREA IMG /SH(EA11), W ORLD WIDE 802D,GPS,GPRS N.AMERICA 1,283 ol 200 256,600 0 1,763 200 352,600 Magampe Reader 206 O O 0 O 200 BipmeUlc Fingerprint Scanner This is a combination magsthpe reader and biometric unit (You can rondo,a the magsedpe reader horn the quote with this option) 750 0 200 150,000 0 830 200 166,000 USE Cratlle 132 0 200 26,400 0 160 200 32,000 Wall Charger 85 0 200 17,000 0 84 200 16,800 Extended Life Battery 99 0 200 19,800 0 132 200 26,400 3 Year -onort 233 0 200 46,600 0 260 200 52,000 Zebra RW420 Printers Bluetooth and no Magstrips Reader 650 0 300 195,000 0 689 300 206.700 Zebra RW420 Printers Bluetooth WITH Magstripe Reader 750 W all Charger for Zebra Printer 65 Device Software and Smm... Core Citation Software Includes: Traffic Citations, Traffic Warnings, Parking Citation, Parking Warnings, Field InAastigations, and Activity Reports 700 200 300 210,000 60,000 699 250 300 209,700 75,000 BlemeMCs Software (This is for capturing fingerprints and associating them with a form). Creating AFIS compliant formats for identification would haae additional costs. Included 0 300 0 0 300 Senvices ter Devices Included 0 300 0 0 300 Total 1 11,205,5001 63,250 1,504,800 90,750 JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 22 Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County Prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP JHSICP Evaluation Report Page 23 v z_�O,C Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County - A Joint Powers Authority - Scott Jordan, Chair Tustin Police Dept 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 714 573 3301 714 544 6136 Fax Michael Sellers, Vice Chair Fullerton Police Dept 237 W. Commonwealth Ave. Fullerton, CA 92832 714 738 6825 714 738 0961 Fax Bob McDonell Executive Director 949 279 4888 Member Agencies Cities of: Anaheim Brea Buena Park Costa Mesa Cypress Fountain Valley Fullerton Garden Grove Huntington Beach Irvine La Habra La Palma Laguna Beach Los Alamitos Newport Beach Orange Placentia Santa Ana Seal Beach Tustin Westminster County of Orange, on behalf of: District Attorney's Office Probation Department Public Defender Sheriffs Department & their contract cities University of CA, Irvine Police Department Superior Court of California, County of Orange TO: Governing Board FROM: Bob McDonell, Executive Director SUBJECT: Final Bid Evaluation Report — Justice and Homeland Security Integration & Citation Processing Project DATE: June 21, 2010 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve the Final Bid Evaluation Report from Deloitte Consulting and concur with the recommendation to the Newport City Council to award the bid for the Integration portion of the Project to Sierra Systems, and the Citation Processing portion of the Project to Brazos Technology. 2. With the assistance of our Legal Counsel and technical guidance provided by Deloitte Consulting (as part of their current contract on the Project), engage the vendors in contract negotiations, the results of which shall be returned to the Governing Board for any supplemental follow -up approval required, along with a recommendation to the Newport City Council for final approval to expend remaining COPS Grant funds that are earmarked for this project, which they administer for the ILJAOC. 3. Direct staff to work with various supplemental funding sources (Granting authorities, the Random Access Network — RAN Board, Superior Court, etc.), which may be able financially contribute to the successful build -out of this project based upon the efficiency benefits or technological capability that results from its implementation. 4. Develop and release a Request for Proposal to engage a professional consulting firm to assist in the implementation /management of the Project, once the contract has been finalized and approved with the Vendors selected. BACKGROUND: As the Board is aware, the City of Newport Beach has been administering several COPS Grants over the past years, which have been earmarked for the Justice and Homeland Security Integration & Citation Processing Project (JHSICP). We have been engaged in two separate Requests for Proposals (RFP) Processes in an effort to find 21 Page JHSICP - Recommendation on Bid Award suitable Vendors to implement the Project. The first process was vacated after only one bidder responded and the proposal was judged non - responsive. The second process was modified, and we received thirteen separate proposals resulting in a final recommendation for Bid Awards to the successful Vendors on both components of the Project (overall Integration and Citation Processing). The attached document from Deloitte Consulting is their final report on the latest process with resulting recommendations. As a result of the fact that the City of Newport Beach continues to administer the remaining COPS Tech Grant funds on behalf of the ILJAOC, actual approval of the Bid Award must be granted by the Newport City Council. (It was just too difficult to transfer the grants a second time to the JPA, once it was formed in 2006.) The Bid Review process was a comprehensive one, as evidenced by the data gathered and reviewed that is part of the Deloitte report. The Member Agency Review Team was comprised of various staff from those Agencies from across the law enforcement, Information Technology (IT), District Attorney and Superior Court spectrum. Based upon the collective effort of everyone involved, 1 believe the final recommendations are the right ones and reflect a consensus of those involved in the process. Once the Bid Awards are approved, the next step will be to engage the Vendors in Contract negotiations that insure that we obtain specific measurable results for the work being performed, based upon the funding that is available at the time. The contracts will include milestones that can easily be quantified and incrementally continued as necessary funding sources are developed along the way. As was mentioned in the Recommendations, Agency staff and leadership will be engaging various funding sources (some discussion have already occurred), concurrent with Contract negotiations, in order to identify the supplemental sources that will be necessary to build -out the project. As one illustration, we know that the RAN Board is providing administrative oversight and approval for a project to bring remote fingerprint evaluation capability to Orange County law enforcement agencies. One of the basic requirements of implementing such a system is the procurement of capture devices with that capability. Those same devices also have the ability to issue Electronic Citations, complete Field Interview (FI) documents, and capture photographs. It would be a waste of taxpayer's money to buy two separate devices — one for each project, when one device can serve both. As many members of the Board are aware, there are considerable funds (reportedly in excess of $20M) on deposit, which came from additional Vehicle Registration fees paid by Orange County vehicle owners. Those funds are earmarked for replacing the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). According to the 31 Page JHSICP - Recommendation on Bid Award former Director of OCSD Forensics (which provides leadership for the effort); just over half of the funds were allocated for the Remote Fingerprint Project. The replacement AFIS System will have Remote Fingerprint Identification capability, which the current one does not. In addition to the latter, we have retained Randall Funding & Development to assist in identifying and developing grant applications focused on supplementing funding for this project. We also will be examining appropriate elements of the Project which may be eligible for UASI funding, and will be engaging in continued dialogue with Orange County agencies that will directly benefit from the Project, in order to determine if there is an ability to share in the cost recovery that results from the demonstrated savings and improved efficiency which will occur. Overall, we knew from the start that we did not have all of the funding required to complete the fully developed Project; however, we had to go through this process to now be in possession of all the necessary parameters to make informed judgments on the correct approaches to the problem. In summary, while this Project will be one which has the potential to make huge gains in how the Criminal Justice System operates in Orange County in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, it will not be without its challenges as it relates to securing the necessary funding to complete the build -out of the design. I will give the Board a verbal report at the meeting regarding the most current information on the remaining grant funds that are available to begin the project. I continue to believe the JHSICP is a model project that should capture the eyes of those who are responsible for awarding grant funds at the Federal level. We have yet to find a similar project that involves the size and number of disparate systems we are attempting to bring together on this Project, and which has the kind of strength in Governance demonstrated by the ILJAOC — and the track record that goes with it. I recently had just such a conversation and exchange with the new Director of the COPS Office in Washington, who was a former Police Chief colleague and served with me on the Cal Chiefs Board. I had a similar exchange with his Deputy Director of Grant Operations. I assured them we would be back in front of them when the right grant opportunity presents itself. Meanwhile, we have much work to do. Respectfully submitted, V"2�"" i i E A^ Bob McDonell EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Attachment: Deloitte Consulting Bid Evaluation Final Report ILJAOC E- Filing Project Scope Change Request To AMEND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP TO PROVIDE CONSULTING AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO DEVELOP AN ELECTRONIC FILING INITIATIVE FOR THE INTEGRATED LAW & JUSTICE AGENCY FOR ORANGE COUNTY 10/2712008 FORM INFORMATION CHANGE DESCRIPTION ng Procurement to Increase Vendor Participation Medium Low IMPACT OF CHANGE /SCOPE OF WORK Page lof 3 CONFIDENTIAL Scope Change Request Form October 27, 2008 PAYMENT SCHEDULE Criteria • Creation of acceptable revised procurement documents • Completion of initial vendor outreach process and reporting $40,000 of results • Formal RFI issued to Marketplace • Completion of the RFI process • Vendor responses received and reviewed $40,000 • Results presented to ILJAOC • RFP document revised as a result of the RFI process • RFP document approved for release by ILJAOC $37,000 • RFP document released to marketplace Vendor Outreach Deloitte Consulting will reach out through electronic services and directly to a broader range of integrators and solution vendors to discuss the project approach and solicit a higher level of interest from the vendor community than has existed in the former RFP process. Procurement Document Revision Deloitte Consulting will revise the current procurement documents into three separate documents. The first will be a high level Project Overview than can be used for vendor outreach. The second document will be the Request for Information Document. It will include much of the content of the RFP, but will be more narrowly focused on the solution. Depending on the process, tt may be structured to serve as any combination of a Request for Information, Request for Comment or Request for Qualifications. The third document will be the Revised Request for Proposal. It is expected that the existing RFP will be simplified, especially in the solution description area. Request for Information f Corn merit Deloitte Consulting will administer the Request for Information Process. Documents will be issued to interested vendors and posted on one or more electronic services to allow for access from as wide a vendor pool as practical. Vendor Meetings Following the Request for Information process Deloitte Consulting will facilitate meetings With vendors. It is likely that one multi- vendor session will be conducted and then up to 10 2 hour vendor specific meetings will be conducted. Refine RFP Following the Request for Information process and vendor meetings, Deloitte Consulting will (in consultation with ILJAOC members) refine the RFP to make it ready for rerelease. The nature of the revisions is unclear at this point, but it is possible that specific technologies will be mandated or that the implementation approach will change. Page 2 of 3 CONFIDENTIAL Scope Change Request Form October 27. 2008 RFP Process Deloitte Consulting will issue the RFP and manage the RFP process. We will respond to vendor questions, issue addendums as required, conduct a Bidders meeting, and deliver RFP support services as outlined in the original contract. Funding for this work will be provldsd as outlined in that contract, and which has not been invotced to date as part of the original Agreement. Evaluation Deloitte consulting will provide evaluation services as outlined in the terms of the original contract. Funding for this work will be provided from the original contract, since the project Submisslon and Evaluation milestones have not been invoiced due to the lack of submitted proposals. Sole Source Negotiations In the event that the ILJAOC determines at any point in the process that insufficient vendor interest is present to yield a successful procurement, Deloitte Consulting will amend its approach and scope and provide negotiation services to re- structure the Project to conclude a sole source Agreement with a vendor recommended by Deloitte and approved by iLJAOC's Governing Board - within the revised contracted milestone payments agreed upon in this Change Order or resulting Contract Amendment. 1 agree to the terms as listed above, in addition to those outlined in the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Deloitte Consulting LLP to provide consulting and management services to develop an electronic filing initiative for the Integrated Law & Justice Agency for Orange County, dated April 17, 2007. Nicholas Chiaminto, Principaf Deloitte Consulting, LLP. Homer Bludau, City Manager Date Date Page 3 of 3 CONFIDENTIAL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. s November 25, 2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Police Department Tom Gazsi, Captain, (949) 644 3650, tgazsi @nbpd.org John Klein, Chief of Police, (949) 644 3709, jklein @nbpd.org SUBJECT: REJECTION OF BID AND AMENDMENT OF CONSULTING CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE INTEGRATED LAW AND JUSTICE AGENCY FOR ORANGE COUNTY (ILJAOC) — A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY (JPA) RECOMMENDATION: I. On behalf of the Members of the ILJAOC, reject the Unisys bid for an Electronic Filing System as unresponsive to the Request For Proposal (RFP). 2. Approve the modified Scope of Work and other terms in the attached Change Order submitted by Deloitte Consulting in the amount of $117,000, funded by COPS Technology Grant Funds, which are administered by the City of Newport Beach on behalf of the JPA. 3. Authorize the City Manager to execute any necessary contract amendment documents approved by the City Attorney that are consistent with the revised terms and conditions as outlined. 4. Revise the REP and conduct another procurement process as detailed in the attached amended Scope of Work submitted by Deloitte Consulting. DISCUSSION: Background: On behalf of the ILJAOC, the City of Newport Beach continues to administer existing multi -year COPS Technology Grants on behalf of the Member Agencies of the ILJAOC. The City was the recipient/custodian of those funds prior to the time when the ILJAOC was formed into a separate governmental entity. Transferring those one -time funds again was deemed impractical based upon the experience of those involved in moving them once before from the County of Orange to Newport Beach. Bid Rejection and Consulting Contract Amendment November 25; 2008 Page 2of4 By way of additional background, the Cfty, on behalf of those Member Agencies of the JPA, has completed a competitive RFP /Bid process for an Electronic Filing System (EFS) for all criminal cases in the County of Orange. This process was guided by Deloitte Consulting after they prepared a comprehensive set of `Requirements Documents." The resulting procurement process ended with the receipt of only one proposal submitted by the Unisys Corporation, even though interest in the project, as evidenced by the turnout at the Bidder's Conference, seemed reasonable. In summary, after an in -depth review process, it is the opinion of Deloitte, as well as the ILJAOC Bid Evaluation Team, which met to consider the content of the Unisys proposal, that Unisys was unresponsive to the RFP in the following important areas: • The lack of a front -end application in the proposal required that all parties would have to build custom interfaces in order to use it. The proposed solution was quite generic and did not specifically address the business applications that ILJAOC is trying to address The Bid Evaluation Team and Consultant rated the.proposal as follows: In addition to the above issues, the RFP evaluation process included several "gating criteria" upon which the response was further assessed. The results of that evaluation were as follows: ecommend Component Unisys Evaluation Pass /Fail E -Filing Functionality Offered a middleware -based solution. Pass Not offered. Solution would require Application for Creation of customization of all RMS /Reporting Filing Packages Systems to package filing documents. Fail j Status Tracking Ca pability Not offered. Fail DA Requirements for Point -to- Point Offering Specifically declined to offer. Fail Centralized Citation System Advanced Public Safe APS offered. Pass Support for Integration of Existing and New Independent Unisys framework supports this Citation Systems functionality. Pass Solution for Phase I Specific applications not specifically Applications "addressed Fail In addition to the above issues, the RFP evaluation process included several "gating criteria" upon which the response was further assessed. The results of that evaluation were as follows: Bid Rejection and Consulting Contract Amendment November 25, 2008 Page 3 of 4 Included in the RFP /Bid documents was the following statement: D. Right to Reject Proposals The City of Newport Beach and / LJAOC reserve the right to waive, at its discretion, any irregularity or informality which the City and /or ILJAOC deems correctable or otherwise not warranting rejection of the RFP. The City andlor ILJAOC reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to accept any proposal or portion thereof. No obligation, either expressed or implied, exists on the part of the City of Newport Beach or ILJAOC to make an award or to pay any costs incurred in the preparation or submission of a proposal. All costs associated with the preparation or submission of proposals covered by this RFP are solely the responsibility of the Bidders. As a result of the comprehensive review of the proposal, the City should reject the Bid on behalf of the ILJAOC Members and notify the Unisys Corporation of the action. The recommendation for rejection was formally requested in a separate action at the monthfy, public meeting of the ILJAOC JPA Governing Board held on October 27, 2008, in the Auditorium at the Newport Beach Police Department. All of the Member Agencies of the JPA involved in this procurement process were very disappointed with the lack of qualified responses to the RFP. They continue to believe that the vision for the project is a correct one, given the right vendor to implement that vision. Unfortunately, to essentially refine and/or redo the process will require additional consulting assistance and therefore funding. As a result, Deloitte Consulting was requested to submit a proposed Change Order that could serve as an amended "Scope of Work" to modify their original contract to provide those services. After some negotiations with the Executive Director of the ILJAOC, Deloitte has agreed not to invoice the City for two final milestones on the current EFS procurement project contract, totaling $85,000 based upon the limited response, and to move those milestone payments forward to a.revised procurement process. The latter payments would be in addition to the funding necessary to re- engage them once again to restructure our effort to get this project underway. On behalf of the ILJAOC Members, Deloitte was asked to give the City further assurances on the project as part of the Change Order Scope of Work that was also approved at the October 27, ILJAOC Governing Board Meeting. In essence, the scope Recommend Gating Criteria Unisys Evaluation Pass /Fail Familiarity with Integration, Clear Demonstration of experience and Justice and Law Enforcement capability. Pass General discussion of capability of the Security and Data Ownership product. Orange County not specifically Provisions addressed. Marginal Platform offered is robust but does not Scalability directly address prima ry_requirements. Marginal Included in the RFP /Bid documents was the following statement: D. Right to Reject Proposals The City of Newport Beach and / LJAOC reserve the right to waive, at its discretion, any irregularity or informality which the City and /or ILJAOC deems correctable or otherwise not warranting rejection of the RFP. The City andlor ILJAOC reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to accept any proposal or portion thereof. No obligation, either expressed or implied, exists on the part of the City of Newport Beach or ILJAOC to make an award or to pay any costs incurred in the preparation or submission of a proposal. All costs associated with the preparation or submission of proposals covered by this RFP are solely the responsibility of the Bidders. As a result of the comprehensive review of the proposal, the City should reject the Bid on behalf of the ILJAOC Members and notify the Unisys Corporation of the action. The recommendation for rejection was formally requested in a separate action at the monthfy, public meeting of the ILJAOC JPA Governing Board held on October 27, 2008, in the Auditorium at the Newport Beach Police Department. All of the Member Agencies of the JPA involved in this procurement process were very disappointed with the lack of qualified responses to the RFP. They continue to believe that the vision for the project is a correct one, given the right vendor to implement that vision. Unfortunately, to essentially refine and/or redo the process will require additional consulting assistance and therefore funding. As a result, Deloitte Consulting was requested to submit a proposed Change Order that could serve as an amended "Scope of Work" to modify their original contract to provide those services. After some negotiations with the Executive Director of the ILJAOC, Deloitte has agreed not to invoice the City for two final milestones on the current EFS procurement project contract, totaling $85,000 based upon the limited response, and to move those milestone payments forward to a.revised procurement process. The latter payments would be in addition to the funding necessary to re- engage them once again to restructure our effort to get this project underway. On behalf of the ILJAOC Members, Deloitte was asked to give the City further assurances on the project as part of the Change Order Scope of Work that was also approved at the October 27, ILJAOC Governing Board Meeting. In essence, the scope Bid Rejection and Consulting Contract Amendment November 25, 2008 Page 4 of 4 of their work was modified to state that whether or not the City, with the assistance of Deloitte, can stimulate enough interest in a competitive RFP process, at some point during their engagement, we could terminate their work'toward that end and identify a qualified vendor, which was willing to enter into a sole- source agreement to build a modified EFS that was acceptable to the ILJAOC and therefore the City. As a result, one way or the other, we will end up with a viable project within the funding authority granted as a result of the action being recommended. Deloitte's attached proposal is to provide the supplemental services for $117,000 in addition to the work required in the final milestones outlined in their existing contract (attached) when that work is required as part of the restructured procurement process. Although there was ILJAOC Governing Board discussion on the topic, to solicit alternative consulting firms without the history and expertise already established as a result of the significant work on this particular project would not be recommended. The ILJAOC Board is very satisfied with the quality of work done thus far by Deloitte and is confident that with the recent downturn in the economy and the revisions contemplated, the City may be in a much better position to attract other competitive firms for a revised bidding process. If not, there are sufficient provisions to structure an alternative solution within the funding authority. Environmental Review: None Required. Public Notice: Normal Agenda notice is satisfactory. Funding Availability: There are currently sufficient available funds, $1.3 million, in the multi -year COPS Technology Grants to approve this action. Alternatives: None that are practical. Prepared by: Tom GTsi Captain, Support Services Division Submitted by: qHI Jn Klein EF OF POLICE Attachments: Amended Scope of Work for Deloitte Consulting Original Contract for EFS Management Services Page 1 of 29 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP TO DEVELOP AN ELECTRONIC FILING INITIATIVE FOR THE INTEGRATED LAW AND JUSTICE AGENCY OF ORANGE COUNTY THIS CONTRACT is made and entered into this / �tdR ay of e 2007 by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation (hereinafter cal ed the "CITY "), and DCLOITTT CONSULTING LLP, 2868 Prospect Park Drive, Sacramento, California 95670 (hereinafter called "DC ") and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. CITY is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the charter of the City; B. DC is a limited liability partnership organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware; C. In 1996, law enforcement executives throughout Orange County organized to establish the Orange County Integrated Law and Justice Project (ILJ), a Countywide effort to integrate the diverse information systems of all criminal justice agencies in Orange County. This multi -phase project was designed to establish common data systems and processes, facilitate communications among the various police and criminal justice system agencies, increase cfficicucy in utilization of scarce resources, and reduce duplication of effort. The ILJ was funded by monies allocated by the Federal Government via a COPS MORE grant. The County of Orange has been the grant administrator for the project; however, distribution of these funds and decisions on how they are expended have been made by the ILJ Steering Committee, chaired by Chief of Police Bob McDonell of Newport Beach. A Strategic Plan for implementation of the ILJ Project phases was in place and DC is to be the consultant on the ILJ Project. D. Lffeetive February 2004, the CTTY was designated as the lead agency and grant administrator for the monies allocated by the Federal Government via the COPS MORE grant for the ILJ Project. These grant monies are now held in trust by CITY on behalf of the ILJ Steering Committee. Distribution of these funds and decisions oil how they are expended continue to be made by the ILJ Steering Committee, chaired by Chief of Police Bob McDonell of Newport Beach. L. On March 23, 2004 The City of Newport Beach and Deloitte Consulting LLP entered into an agreement, which has been completed, to develop an implementation plan for phase 3 of the Integrated Law and Justice project. Phase 3 of the ILJ project involved the development of a pilot project to share information among selected Orange County Criminal Justice Agencies. F. In June of 2006, the core agencies of the Orange County Integrated Law and Justice Project approved the formation of a newjoint powers authority, known as the Integrated Law and Justice Agency of Orange County ( ILIAOC). The ILJAOC is chaired by Chief of Police Bob McDonell of Newport Beach. This new entity is now moving forward with the integrated justice program. G. The electronic filing initiative involves the development of a system that allows all law enforcement agencies operating in orange county to electronically file their complaint and case documents with the district attorney and superior court, and, shark all or parts of those documents with those agencies who have a legal right and need to receive the information. The City and the ILJAOC desire to have DC assist them in obtaining a vendor to design and implement the electronic filing project. City Page 2 of 29 desires to hire DC to prepare a request for proposal (RFP) and technical specifications for the design and implementation of the electronic filing project and to assist City and ILJAOC in evaluating the proposals received. The services to be provided by DC under this contract are described in the scope of work attached hereto as attachment A. The total cost payable to DC to complete this work is Three Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($310,000.00). All expenditures shall be funded by the COPS MORE grant monies. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises and covenants set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between CITY and DC as follows: General Terms and Conditions A. Governiul~ Law and Venue: This Agreement (hereinafter "CONTRACT ") has been negotiated and executed in the state of California and shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the state of California. In the event of any legal action to enforce or interpret this CONTRACT, the sole and exclusive venue shall be a court of competent jurisdiction located in Orange County, California, and the parties hereto agree to and do hereby submit to the jurisdiction of such court, notwithstanding Code of Civil Procedure Section 394, Furthermore, the parties specifically agree to waive any and all rights to request that an action be transferred for trial to another Comity. B. Entire Contract: This CONTRACT and its attachments, when accepted by CITY and DC in writing, contains the entire CONTRACT between the parties with respect to the matters herein, and there are no restrictions, promises, warranties or under't'akings other than those set forth herein or referred to herein with respect (hereto. No exceptions, alternatives, substitutes or revisions are valid or binding on DC or CITY unless authorized by CITY and DC in writing. Electronic acceptance of any additional terms, conditions or supplemental CONTRACTS by any CITY employee or agent, including but not limited to installers of software, shall not be valid or binding on CITY unless accepted in writing by the CITY's Project Manager (discussed below) or designee. C. Amendments: No alteration or variation of the terms of this CONTRACT shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties; no oral understanding or agreement retated to the subject matter of this CONTRACT not incorporated herein shall be binding on either of the parties; and no exceptions, alternatives, substitutes or revisions are valid or binding on CITY or DC unless authorized by CITY and DC in writing. D. Taxes: Unless otherwise provided herein or by law, price quoted does not include California State sales or use tax. R. Services and Delivery: CITY reserves the right to refuse any Deliverables (as defined in Section 14 of the Specific Terms and Conditions below) or Services (as defined in Section 2 of the Specific Terms and Conditions below) and to reject all or any part of the Deliverables not conforming in all material respects to applicable specifications set forth in the Scope of Work attached hereto as Attachment A (hereinafter referred to as the "Scope of. Page 3 of 29 Work "). Acceptance of any part of the order for Deliverables shall not bind CITY to accept future shipments. Over - shipments and under - shipments of Deliverables shall be only as agreed to in writing by CITY. Delivery shall not be deemed to be complete until all Deliverables or Services have actually been received and accepted by CITY in accordance with Section F below. r, Acceptance /Payment: All Deliverables shall be subject to the review and approval of the CITY's Project Manager or designee. Approval shall be granted if the Deliverable conforms in all material respects to the requirements of the Scope of Work. CITY approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Approval of a Deliverable shall be deemed given upon the earlier of (i) CITY's failure to provide DC with approval or a notice of deficiencies in writing for such Deliverable within thirty (30) business days of delivery unless otherwise agreed to by Project Managers thereof, and (ii) CITY's commencement of use of the Deliverable. To the extent that any Deliverables are or have been approved by the CITY pursuant to the terms hereof at any stage of DC's performance hereunder, DC shall be entitled to rely on such approval, for purposes of all subsequent stages of DC's performance. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by CITY, 1) acceptance of a Deliverable shall not be deemed complete unless in accordance with this Section F, and 2) payment of professional fees with respect to a Deliverable shall be made after acceptance thereof in accordance with this Section P, pursuant to the payment terms set forth herein. G. Warranty: (1) This is a services engagement. DC warrants that it will perform the services hereunder in good faith and in a professional mariner. Execution of this CONTRACT shall constitute an agreement upon DC's part to indemnify, defend with counsel agreed to in writing by CITY (which agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld by CITY) and hold CITY and its indemnities as identified in paragraph "P" below, and as more fully described in paragraph "P," harness from liability, loss, damage and expense, including reasonable counsel fees, incurred or sustained by CITY by reason of third party claims arising as a result of DC's non- compliance with any applicable state or federal codes, ordinances, orders, or statutes in the course of perfortrringthe Services hereunder, including the Occupational Safety and health Act (OSHA) and the California Industrial Safety Act. Such remedies shall be in addition to any other remedies provided by law. (2) EXCEPT FOR THOSE WARRANTIES EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION G OF THIS CONTRACT, DC DISCLAIMS ALL OT14F R WARRANTIES, Ell -HER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMI'T'ATION, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. H. Patent /Copyright Materials /Proprietary Infringement: Unless otherwise expressly provided in this CONTRACT, DC shall be solely responsible for clearing the right to use any patented or copyrighted materials in the performance of this CONTRACT. DC agrees that, in accordance with the more specific requirement contained in paragraph "I "' below, it shall indemnify, defend with counsel agreed to in writing, which agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld by CITY, and hold CITY and CITY INDEMNITIES harmless from any and all third party claims of infringement or violation of any patent, intellectual property right, or trade secret right by the Deliverables and be responsible for payment of all costs, damages, penalties and expenses related to or arising from such claim(s), including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses, except to the extent that such infringement or violation arises from, or could have been avoided except for (i) the indemnified party's modification of DC's Deliverables or use thereof in a manner not contemplated by this Agreement, (ii) the failure of the indemnified party to use any corrections or modifications made available by DC, (iii) information, materials, instructions or specifications provided by Or on behalf of the indemnified party, or (iv) the use of DC's Page 4 of 29 Deliverables in combination with any product or data not provided by DC without DC's consent. If CITY's use of any such Deliverable, or any portion thereof, is or is likely to be enjoined by order of a court of competent jurisdiction as such an infringement or violation, DC, at its option and expense, shall have the right to (x) procure for CITY the continued use of such Deliverable, (y) replace such Deliverable with nou- infringing work product, or (z) modify such Deliverable so it becomes non - infringing; provided that, if (y) or (z) is the option chosen by DC, the replacement or modified Deliverable is capable of performing the same function. The foregoing provisions of this paragraph constitute the sole and exclusive remedy of the indemnified parties, and the sole and exclusive obligation of DC, relating to a claim that a Deliverable infringes or violates any patent, intellectual property right or trade secret right of a third party. I. Assiamnent or Sub- Contracting: The terms, covenants, and conditions contained herein shall apply to and bind the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the parties. Furthermore, neither the performance of this CONTRACT nor any portion thereof may be assigned or sub - contracted by DC without the express written consent of CITY. Any attempt by DC to assign or sub - CONTRACT the performance or any portion thereof of this CONTRACT without the express written consent of CITY shall be invalid and shall constitute a breach of this CONTRACT. Notwithstanding the foregoing (i) DC may, upon notice, assign personnel of its affiliates to provide the Services in lieu of or in addition to its own personnel; provided, however, that DC shall not be relieved of its obligations hereunder, and (ii) either party may assign this CONTRACT, with the written consent of the other party, to an entity that has acquired all or substantially all of the assigning party's assets as a successor to the business. J. Nou- Diserimination: In the performance of this CONTRACT, DC agrees that it will comply with the applicable requirements of Section 1735 of the California Labor Code and not engage nor permit any subcontractor to engage in discrimination in employment of persons because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, or sex of such persons. DC ackiiowledges that a violation of this provision shall subject DC to all the penalties imposed for a violation of anti - discrimination law or regulation including but not limited to Section 1720 et seq. of the California Labor Code. K. Termination: In addition to any other remedies or rights it may have by law and those set forth in this CONTRACT, either party has the rigid to terminate this CONTRACT without penalty for cause upon thirty (30) days prior written notice, provided that in the event of such termination for cause, the breaching party shall have the right to cure the breach within the notice period. CITY has the right to terminate this CONTRACT without cause and without penalty after 30 days' written notice to DC. Cause shall be defined as any material breach of CONTRACT, or any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of a party. Exercise by a party of its right to terminate the CONTRACT shall relieve such party of all further obligations except for those obligations incurred prior to the effective date of tei-niivation. L. Consent To breach Not Waiver: No term or provision of this CONTRACT shall be deemed waived and no breach excused, unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party claimed to have waived or consented. Any consent by any party to, or waiver of, a breach by the other, whether express or implied, shall not constitute consent to, waiver of, or excuse for any other different or subsequent breach. Page 5 of 29 M. Remedies Not Exclusive: Except as expressly provided herein, the remedies for breach set forth in this CONTRACT are cumulative as to one another and as to any other provided by law, rather than exclusive; and the expression of certain remedies in this CONTRACT does not preclude resort by either party to any other remedies provided by law. N. Independent Contractor: It is understood that CITY retains DC on an independent contractor basis and DC is not an agent or employee of CITY. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of DC, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this CONTRACT, Nothing in this CONTRACT shall be deemed to constit'ut'e approval for DC or any of DC's employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of CITY, DC shall have the responsibility for and control over the means of performing the work, provided that DC is in compliance with the terms of this CONTRACT. Anything in this CONTRACT that may appear to give CITY the right to direct DC as to the details of the performance or to exercise a measure of control over DC shall mean only that DC shall follow the desires of CITY with respect to the results of the services. Neither DC, 'any subcontractor, its employees nor anyone working under DC or any subcontractor shall qualify for workers' compensation or other fringe benefits of any kind through CITY. O. Performance: DC shall perform all Services under this CONTRACT as set forth in the Scope of Work, taking all necessary steps and precautions to perform the Services in accordance with this CONTRACT. DC shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical assurance, timely completion and coordination of all documentation and other Deliverables /Services furnished by DC under this CONTRACT. DC shall pert'orm all Services diligently, carefully, and in a good and workman -like manner; shall furnish all labor, supervision, machinery, equipment, materials, and supplies necessary therefore, except as otherwise specified in the Scope of Work attached hereto as Attachment A or agreed to by the parties; shall at its sole expense obtain and maintain all permits and licenses required for performance of the Services by public authorities, including those of CITY required in its governmental capacity, in connection with performance of the Services; and shall be fully responsible for all Services performed by subcontractors. P. Indemnification /I usurance: (i) Indemnification DC agrees to indemnify, defend with counsel approved in writing by CITY, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, and hold CITY, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents (CITY INDEMNITIES ") harmless from any claims, demands or liability of any kind or nature arising as a result of third party claims of bodily injury or real or tangible personal property damage, to the extent directly and proximately caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of DC's personnel in the course of performance of the Services pursuant to this CONTRACT; provided, however, that if there also is fault on the part of CITY or any entity or individual indemnified hereunder or any entity or individual acting on CITY's behalf, the foregoing indemnification shall be on a comparative fault basis. If judgment is entered against DC and CITY by a court of competent jurisdiction because of the concurrent active negligence of CITY or CITY INDEMNITIES, DC and CITY agree that liability will be apportioned as determined by the court. Neither party shall request a jury apportionment. As a condition to all indemnity obligations arising under this CONTRACT, the indemnified party shall provide the indemnifying patty with prompt notice of any claim for which indemnification shall be sought Page 6 of 29 hereunder and shall cooperate in all reasonable respects with the indemnifying party in connection with any such claim. The indemnifying party shall be entitled to control the handling of any such claim and to defend any such claim, in its sole discretion. The indemnifying party shall require the written permission of the indemnified party as to any settlement of such claim unless such settlement absolves the indemnified party of all liability and responsibility for such claim, which written permission shall not be unreasonably refused. (ii) Insurance Requirements Prior to the provision of services under this CONTRACT, DC agrees to purchase all required insurance at DC's expense and to deposit with the CITY industry standard Certificates of Insurance, evidencing that the insurance provisions of this CONTRACT have been complied with and to keep such insurance coverage cutTent and the certificates therefore on deposit with the CITY during the entire term of this CONTRACT. In addition, all subcontractors performing Services ou behalf of DC pursuant to this CONTRACT shall obtain insurance subject to the same terms and conditions as set forth herein for DC. DC shall be responsible of any deductible, If DC fails to maintain insurance required under this CONTRACT for the full term of this CONTRACT, the CITY may terminate this CONTRACT. (a) Qualified Insurer The policy or policies of insurance must be issued by an insurer approved to do business in the state of California (California Admitted Carrier). Minimum insurance company ratings as determined by the most current edition of the Best's Key Rating Guide/Property-Casualty/United States or autbest.com shall be A- (Secure Best's Rating) and VIII (Financial Size Category). A person authorized by the insurer shall sign certification of all required policies. (b) Coverage Requirements The policy or policies of insurance maintained by DC shall provide the minimum limits and coverage as set forth below: Covel2ge Commercial Oeneral Liability with property damage and contractual liability Automobile Liability including coverage for owned, non -owned and hired vehicles Workers' Compensation Employers' Liability Insurance Minimum Limits $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence $2,000,000 aggregate $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence Statutory $1,000,000 per occurrence All liability insurance required by this CONTRACT shall be at least $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence. The minimum aggregate limit for the Commercial General Liability policy shall be $2,000,000. (c) Endorsements Page 7 of 29 Each general liability and automobile liability insurance policy shall provide the following coverages: The City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant. ii. This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects to City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers as respects to all claims, losses, or liability arising directly or indirectly from the Consultant's operations or services provided to City. Any insurance maintained by City, including any self - insured retention City may have, shall be considered excess insurance only and not contributory with the insurance provided hereunder. iii. This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as though a separate policy had been written for each, except with respect to the limits of liability of the insuring company. iv. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. V. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. vi, The insurance provider will endeavor to provide thirty (30) calendar days written notice if the insurance provided by this policy shall be suspended, voided, canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or in limits, by either party. DC shall promptly notify CITY in the event that it becomes aware of cancellation of the insurance required hereunder. The Commercial General Liability policy shall contain a severability of interests clause. DC is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code, which requires every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or be self - insured in accordance with provisions of that code. DC will comply with such provisions and shall, upon written request, furnish the CITY industry standard certificates of insurance as evidence that the DC has secured, for the period of this CONTRACT, statutory Workers' Compensation insurance and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence. Insurance certificates should be forwarded to the agency /department address listed on the request If DC does not deposit copies of certificates of insurance as provided herein with Cfl'Y incorporating such changes within thirty (30) days of receipt of such request, this CONTRACT may be in breach without further notice to DC, and CITY shall be entitled to seek all legal remedies. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance shall not be construed to limit DC's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions and requirements of this CONTRACT. Q. Bills Page 8 of 29 DC shall pay promptly all of its indebtedness for Iabor, materials and equipment used in performance of the Services and for which DC is responsible hereunder.DC shall not permit any lien or charge to attach to such labor, materials and equipment while they are being used to perform the Services, but if any does so attach, in accordance with the requirements of paragraph "P" above, DC will indemnify, defend, and hold CITY harmless and be responsible for payment of all costs, damages, penalties and reasonable expenses arising from third party claims for payment of such indebtedness. "Third party" shall mean any entity or person other than DC or CITY, including, without limitation, any governmental entity other than the CITY. R. Chances: DC shall make no changes in the Services to be perforated under this CONTRACT or perform any additional Services without the CITY's specific written approval. S. Change of Ownership: DC agrees that if there is a change or transfer in ownership of DC's business prior to completion of this CONTRACT, the new owners shall be required under terms of sale or other transfer to assume DC's duties and obligations contained in this CONTRACT and complete them in accordance with this CONTRACT. T. Force Maieure: DC shall not be liable for any delays or other non - performance and shall not be assessed with liquidated damages or unsatisfactory performance penalties during any delay beyond the time named for performance of this CONTRACT caused by any act of God, war, civil disorder, employment strike or other cause beyond its reasonable control, provided DC gives written notice of the cause of the delay promptly upon the start of the delay and DC avails itself of any commercially reasonable available remedies. U. Confidentiality: DC agrees to maintain the confidentiality of all CITY and CITY- related records and information and all records and information it obtains from other cities and governmental entities with which is will have contact during the course of performance of this CONTRACT pursuant to all applicable statutory laws relating to privacy and confidentiality that currently exist or exist at any time during the tent of this CONTRACT. All such records and information shall be considered confidential and kept confidential by DC and DC's staff, agents and employees in accordance with Section 14 of this CONTRACT. V. Compfiance with Laws: DC represents and warrants that Services to be provided under this CONTRACT shall fully comply, at DC's expense, with all standards, laws, statutes, restrictions, ordinances, requirements, and regulations (collectively "laws "), including, but not limited to those issued by CITY in its governmental capacity and all other laws, applicable to the Services at the time Services are provided to and accepted by CITY. DC acknowledges that CITY is relying on DC to ensure such compliance, and pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 'P" above DC agrees that it shall defend, indemnify and hold CITY and CITY INDEMNITIES harmless (with counsel approved in writing by CITY, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld) from all liability, damages, costs and expenses arising from or related to third party claims of violation of such laws by DC in the course of performing the Services hereunder. W. Pricing: Page 9 of 29 The CONTRACT price shall include full compensation for providing all required Deliverables and Services as specified in the Scope of Work attached to this CONTRACT, and no additional compensation will be allowed. X. Waiver of Jury Trial: Each party acknowledges that it is aware of and has had the opportunity to seek advice of counsel of its choice with respect to its rights to trial by jury, and each party, for itself and its successors, creditors, and assigns, does hereby expressly and knowingly waive and release all such rights to trial by jury in any action, proceeding or counterclaim brought by any party hereto against the other (and /or against its officers, directors, employees, agents, or subsidiary or affiliated entities) on or with regard to any matters whatsoever arising out of or in any way connected with this CONTRACT and /or any other claim of injury or damage under this CONTRACT. Y. Terms and Conditions. DC acknowledges that it has read and agrees to all terms and conditions included in this CONTRACT. Z. Headings: The various headings and numbers herein, the grouping of provisions of this CONTRACT into separate clauses and paragraphs, and the mganir_ation hereof are for the purpose of convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the meaning hereof. AA. Severability: If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this CONTRACT is invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby. BB. Calendar Days: Any reference to the word "day" or "days" herein shall mean calendar day or calendar days, respectively, unless otherwise expressly provided. CC. Attorney Fees: In any action or proceeding to enforce or interpret any provision of this CONTRACT, or where any provision hereof is validly asserted as a defense, each party shall bear its own attorney's fees, costs and expenses. DD. Interpretation: This CONTRACT has been negotiated at arm's length and between persons sophisticated and knowledgeable in the matters dealt with in this CONTRACT. In addition, each party had been represented by experienced and knowledgeable independent legal counsel of their ownv choosing or has knowingly declined to seek such counsel despite being encouraged and given the opportunity to do so. Each party further acknowledges that they have not been influenced to any extent whatsoever in executing this CONTRACT by any other patty hereto or by any person representing them, or both. Accordingly, any rule or law (including California Civil Code Section 1654) or legal decision that would require interpretation of any ambiguities in this CONTRACT against the party that has drafted it is not applicable and is waived. The provisions of this Page 10 of 29 CONTRACT shall be interpreted in a reasonable manner to effect the purpose of the parties and this CONTRACT. EE. Authority: The parties to this CONTRACT represent and warrant that this CONTRACT has been duly authorized and executed and constitutes the legally binding obligation of their respective organization or entity, enforceable in accordance with its terms. F'F. Limitation on Damages and Actions: (a) Each party agrees that the other party, its affiliates, agents and subcontractors, and each of their partners, principals or other personnel shall not be liable for any actions, damages, claims, liabilities, costs, expenses, or losses in any way arising out of or relating to the contractual services to be performed hereunder for an aggregate amount in excess of (i) in the case of DC, the fees paid by CITY to DC under this CONTRACT, or (ii) in the case of CITY,, the fees paid and payable to DC by CITY under this CONTRACT. In no event shall either patty, its affiliates, agents or subcontractors or any of their partners, principals or other personnel be liable for consequential, special, indirect, incidental, punitive or exemplary damages, costs, expenses, or losses (including, without limitation, lost profits and opportunity costs) arising out of this CONTRACT. The provisions of this Paragraph shall apply regardless of the form of action, damage, claim, liability, cost, expense, or loss, whether in contract, statute, tort (including, without limitation, negligence), or otherwise. GG. . Cooperation: CITY shall cooperate with DC in the performance of the services hereunder, including, without limitation, providing DC with reasonable facilities and timely access to data, information and personnel of CITY. CITY shall be responsible for the performance of its employees and agents and for the accuracy and completeness of all data and information provided to DC hereunder, CITY acknowledges and agrees that DC's performance is dependent upon the timely and effective satisfaction of CITY's responsibilities hereunder and timely decisions and approvals of CI'T'Y in connection with the services. DC shalt be entitled to rely on all decisions and approvals of CriY. HH. Non - Exclusivity: This CONTRACT shall not preclude or limit in any way (i) the right of DC to provide consulting or other services of any kind or nature whatsoever to any individual or entity as DC in its sole discretion deems appropriate, or (ii) developing for itself or for others, materials that are competitive with those produced as a result of the services provided hereunder, irrespective of their similarity to the Deliverables. II. Definitions: For the purposes of this CONTRACT, "DC" shall mean Deloitte Consulting UP and its subsidiaries, successors and assigns. JJ. Sui- vival: All sections herein relating to payment, license and ownership, confidentiality, limitations of warranties, limitations on damages and actions, non- exclusivity, waiver and waiver of jury trial shall survive the termination of this CONTRACT. Specific Terms and Conditions 1. Term of Contract Page I 1 of 29 This CONTRACT is for a period of 12 months. The term of this CONTRACT will commence on 2007, or upon execution of the necessary signatures, whichever occurs later, and continue for a period of 12 months from that date, unless terminated earlier by CITY in accordance with the provisions herein. 2. Scope of Contract This CONTRACT specifies the contractual terms and conditions by which the CITY will procure and receive services from DC. The services to be provided are set forth in the Scope of Work attached hereto as Attachment A. The Services may include advice and recommendations, but all decisions in connection with the implementation of such advice and recommendations shall be the responsibility of and made by, CITY. 3. fiscal App ropriatious, Sub!ect to This CONTRACT is subject to and contingent upon applicable budgetary appropriations being approved by the CI'T'Y for each fiscal year during the term of this CONTRACT. If such appropriations are not approved, the CONTRACT will be terminated without cause pursuant to Section K of this CONTRACT above upon written notice as specified therein without penalty to the CITY. DC acknowledges that funding or portions of funding for this CONTRACT may also be contingent upon the receipt of funds from, and /or appropriation of funds by, the Federal government or State of California to CITY. If such funding and/or appropriations are not forthcoming, or are otherwise limited, CITY may terminate without cause this CONTRACT pursuant to Section K of this CONTRACT above upon written notice as specified therein without penalty. 4. Conflict with Existing Laws DC and the CITY agree that if any provision of this CONTRACT is found to be illegal or unenforceable, such term or provision shall be deemed stricken and the remainder of the CONTRACT shall remain in full force and effect. Hither patty having knowledge of such tern or provisions shall promptly inform the other of the presumcd non- applicability of such provision, Should the offending provision go to the heart of the CONTRACT, the CONTRACT shall be terminated in a manner commensurate with interests of both parties to the maximum extent reasonable. S. Mercer Attachment A is incorporated herein by this reference as part of this CONTRACT. This CONTRACT, including Attachment A ("Scope of Work "), shall constitute the complete and exclusive statement of understanding between CITY and DC and shall supersede all previous written or oral agreements, and all prior communications between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. 6. Reportina/Meetinas CITY's Project Manager and DC's Project Manager will meet on reasonable notice to discuss DC's peri'onnance and progress under this CONTRACT. If requested by CITY, DC's Project Manager and other Page 12 of 29 project personnel shall attend all meetings. DC shall provide such information that is reasonably requested by the CITY for the purpose of monitoring DC's progress under this CONTRACT. 7. Protect Manager CITY The CITY shall appoint a Project Manager to act as liaison between the CITY and DC during the term of this CONTRACT. The CITY's Project Manager shall coordinate the activities of the CITY staff assigned to work with DC. The CITY's Project Manager shall have the right to require the removal and replacement of the DC's project manager and key personnel. The CITY's Project Manager shall notify DC in writing of such action, specifying in reasonable detail the reason for the action. DC shall accomplish the removal within 14 calendar days after written notice by the CITY's Project Manager. The CITY's Project Manager shall review and approve the appointment of the replacement for the DC's project manager and key personnel. Said approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. R. Project Manager, DC DC shall designate a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to meet with (via telephone or in person) CITY at all reasonable times dining the CONTRACT term upon reasonable advance notice. DC has designated Stephen Lee to be its Project Manager. 9. Audits/Inspections DC agrees to give the CITY's Revenue Manager or the Revenue Manager's authorized representative , (including auditors from a private auditing firm hired by the CITY) access during normal working hours to (i) all billing and payment books and financial records, and supporting documentation, including payroll and accounts payable /receivable records of DC for the purpose of auditing or inspecting billing.and payment under this CONTRACT, and (ii) to any other records of performance of the Services hereunder as may be required by law, solely to the extent necessary to determine DC's compliance with this Agreement. The CITY will provide reasonable notice of such an audit or inspection. Auditors auditing or inspecting hereunder shall have first agreed in writing to protect the confidentiality of all information disclosed or revealed to such auditors during such audit or inspection; provided, however that certain information may become public record pursuant to applicable law. The CITY reserves the right to audit and verify DC's records as provided for in this Section 9 before final payment is made. DC agrees to maintain such records for possible audit for a minimum of three years alter final payment hereunder, unless a longer period of records retention is stipulated under this CONTRACT or by law, Further, DC agrees to include a similar right to the CITY to audit such records of any subcontractor related to performance of this CONTRACT. Should DC cease to exist as a legal entity, DC's records pertaining to this agreement shall be forwarded to the surviving entity in a merger or acquisition or, in the event of liquidation, to the arrs Project Manager. 10. Conflict of Interest — DC or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act "), which (1) requires such persons to disclose any financial interest that may foreseeably be materially Page 13 of 29 affected by the work performed under this CONTRACT, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest. If subject to the Act, DC shall conform to all requirements of the Act in performing the Services hereunder. Failure to do so may constitute a material breach and grounds for termination of this CONTRACT by CITY under Section K hereof. DC shall indemnify and hold harmless CITY for any and all third party claims for damages brought against CffY resulting from DC's violation of the Act in performing the Services hereunder. 11. Precedence The documents herein consist of this CONTRACT and its attachments. In the event of a conflict between or among the CONTRACT documents, the order of precedence shall be the provisions of the main body of this CONTRACT, i.e., those provisions set forth in the recitals and articles of this CONTRACT, and then the Attachments. 12. Compensation This is a firm fixed price CONTRACT. DC agrees to accept the specified compensation as set forth in Attachment B as full remuneration for performing all services and furnishing all staffing, labor, materials, direct and indirect costs, and for any difficulties which may arise or be encountered in the execution of the services until acceptance; and for risks connected with the services; and for performance by the DC of all of its duties and obligations hereunder. In no event shall DC's compensation exceed $310,000.00 without additional written authorization from the CITY. 13. DATA - Tr rLE To All materials, documents, data or information obtained from CITY data files or any CITY medium furnished to DC in the performance of this CONTRACT will at all tittles remain the properly of the CITY. Such data or information may not be used or copied for direct or indirect use by the DC after completion or termination of this CONTRACT without the express written consent of the CITY. All confidential materials, documents, data or information, including copies, must be destroyed, returned to the CITY at the end of this CONTRACT, or maintained by DC for archival purposes only subject at all times to its confidentiality obligations hereunder. 14. OWNERSHIP OF DocuMl NTS (a) DC has created, acquired or otherwise has rights in, and may, in connection with the performance of services hereunder, employ, provide, modify, create, acquire or otherwise obtain rights in, various concepts, ideas, methods, methodologies, procedures, processes, know -how, techniques, models, templates, the generalized features of the structure, sequence and organization of software, user interfaces and screen designs, general purpose consulting and software tools, utilities and routines, and logic, coherence and methods of operation of systems (collectively, "DC Technology "). 'ro the extent that DC uses any of its intellectual or other property in connection with the performance of its services, DC shall retain all right, title and interest in and to such property, and, except for the license expressly granted in this section, CITY shall acquire no right, title or interest in or to such property. (b) CITY has permanent ownership of all directly connected and derivative materials first produced under this CONTRACT in connection with the Services by DC for delivery to the CITY, excluding any DC Technology contained therein (the "Deliverables "). All documents, reports and other incidental or derivative work or materials furnished hereunder comprising the Deliverables (except for any DC'fechnology Page 14 of 29 contained therein) shall become and remain the sole property of the CITY and may be used by the CITY as it may require without additional cost to the CITY. DC without the express written consent of the CITY shall use none of the documents, reports and other incidental or derivative work or furnished materials comprising the Deliverables except in providing the Services hereunder. DC hereby grants to CITY, a non - exclusive, royalty -free, worldwide, perpetual, nontransferable license to use, for the internal business purposes of CITY and participants in the ILJ as designated by CITY in connection with use of the Deliverables, any DC Technology contained in the Deliverables. The rights granted_ to CITY in this Section are contingent upon CITY's full and final payment to DC hereunder. 15. DC'S Expense Except as approved by the CITY's Project Manager or designee DC will be responsible for all costs related to photo copying, telephone communications, fax communications, and parking during the performance of work and services under this CONTRACT. CITY will not provide reimbursement for any parking fees or charges incurred while DC is providing services under this CONTRACT. 16. DC Work Hours and Safety Standards DC shall ensure compliance with all safety and hourly requirements for its employees in performing the Services in accordance with federal, state and CITY safety regulations and laws. 17. Confidentiality of DC's Records: Confidentiality DC agrees to maintain the confidentiality of its records pursuant to all statutory laws relating to privacy and confidentiality as now in existence or as hereafter amended or changed. All records and information concerning any and all matters referred to DC by the CITY shall be considered and kept confidential by DC and DC'S staff, agents, subcontractors, and employees. Information obtained by a party in the performance or receipt of the Services under this CONTRACT ( "Confidential Information ") shall be treated as confidential and shall not be used by the other party for any purpose other than the performance or receipt of the Services under this CONTRACT. The terms of this CONTRACT shall also be considered Confidential Information. Each party shall maintain the Confidential Information of the other party in confidence using at least the same degree of care as it employs in maintaining in confidence its own proprietary and confidential information, but in no event less than a reasonable degree of care. Confidential Information shall not include information which (i) shall have otherwise become publicly available other than as a result of disclosure by the receiving patty in breach hereof, (ii) was disclosed to the receiving party on a non - confidential basis from a source other than the disclosing party, which the receiving party believes is not prohibited from disclosing such information as a result of an obligation in favor of the disclosing party, (iii) is developed by the receiving party independently of, or was known by the receiving party prior to, airy disclosure of such information made by the disclosing party, or (iv) is disclosed with the written consent of the disclosing party. A receiving party also may disclose Confidential Information to the extent required by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, administrative agency or governmental body, or by any law, rule or regulation, or by subpoena, summons or other administrative or legal process. 18. Covenant- Against Coutinrrent Fees DC warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained by DC to solicit or secure this CONTRACT upon a contract or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage; or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by DC for the purpose of securing business. Page 15 of 29 For breach or violation of this warranty, CITY shall have the right to terminate this CONTRACT in accordance with the termination article and, at its sole discretion, to deduct from DC's fees, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee from the DC. 19. Termination - Convenience of the CITY CITY may terminate performance Of Services under this CONTRACT for its convenience in whole, or, from time to time, in part if CITY determines that a termination is in the CITY's interest upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice. CITY shall terminate the CONTRACT by delivering to DC a written notice of termination specifying the extent of the termination and the effective date thereof. The parties agree that, as to the terminated portion of the CONTRACT, the CONTRACT shall be deemed to remain in effect until such time as the termination settlement, if any, is concluded and the CONTRACT shall not be void. As of the effective date of termination and, except as directed by CITY, DC shall immediately proceed with the following obligations, as applicable, regardless of any delay in determining or adjusting any amounts due under this clause. DC shall A. Stop work as specified in the notice of termination; B. Place no further sub - contract's or orders for materials, services, or facilities, except as necessary to complete the continued portion of the CONTRACT; C. Terminate all orders and sub - contracts to the extent they relate to the Services terminated; D. Settle all outstanding liabilities and termination settlement proposals arising from the termination of any sub - contract's, the approval or ratification of which will be final for purposes of this clause; L. As directed by the assigned buyer transfer title and deliver to the CITY Deliverables, upon full and final payment to DC hereunder, F. Complete performance of the Services not terminated; and G. Take any action that may be necessary or as the CITY may direct for the protection and preservation of the CITY property related to this CONTRACT that is in the possession of DC and in which the CITY has or may acquire all interest and to mitigate any potential damages or requests for CONTRACT adjustment or termination settlement to the maximum practical extent. At the completion of DC'S termination efforts, DC may submit to CITY a list indicating quantity and quality of termination inventory of Deliverables not previously disposed of and request instructions for disposition of the residual termination inventory. After termination DC shall submit a final termination settlement proposal to the user agency /departtment ill a format acceptable to the CITY. DC shall submit the proposal promptly, but no layer than 60 days from the effective date of the termination, unless extended ill writing by the CITY upon written request of DC within the 60 -day period. Ilowever, if the CITY determines that the facts justify it, a termination settlement proposal may be received and acted on after the expiration of the filing period or, any extension. DC and CITY may agree upon the whole or any pail of the amount to be paid because of the termination. The amount may include a reasonable allowance for profit on Services performed, including a reasonable amount for accounting, legal, clerical and other expenses reasonably necessary for the preparation of termination settlement proposals and supporting data, and storage, transportation and other costs incurred, reasonably necessary for the preservation, protection, or disposition of the termination inventory. However, the agreed amount may not exceed the total CONTRACT price as reduced by (a) the amount of payment previously made and (b) the CONTRACT price of Services not terminated. The CONTRACT shall be amended and DC paid the agreed amount. Page 16 of 29 If DC and CITY fail to agree on the whole amount to be paid because of the termination of Services, CITY shall pay DC the amounts determined as follows, but without duplication of any amounts agreed on as set forth above: A. The CONTRACT price for completed Deliverables accepted in accordance with this CONTRACT not previously paid for by CITY. DC shall use industry - standard accounting principles and sound business practices in determining all costs claimed, agreed to, or determined under this clause. Such costs shall be allocable to the terminated CONTRACT or portion thereof, allowable under applicable laws, regulations, generally accepted accounting principles and good business judgment and objectively reasonable. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein or elsewhere, in the event of any termination of this CONTRACT, DC shall be paid professional fees in accordance with Attachment B and reimbursed expenses on an equitable basis for all Services performed through the effective date of termination. In arriving at the amount due DC under this clause, there shall be deducted: A. All payment to DC previously made under the terminated portion of this CONTRACT; and B. Any amount due to the CITY by DC under this CONTRACT. If the termination is partial, DC may file a proposal with CITY for an equitable adjustment of the price(s) of the continued portion of the CONTRACT. CITY shall make any equitable adjustment agreed upon by the parties. Any proposal by DC for an equitable adjustment under this clause shall be requested within 30 days from the effective date of termination unless extended in writing by the agency /department. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything to the contrary herein, and regardless of whether a proposal is filed by DC, CITY shall, upon any termination of this CONTRACT: A. Under the terms and conditions it prescribes, make payments of professional fees due to DC for Services provided through the effective date of termination and costs incurred by DC and not yet reimbursed, i'or the terminated portion of the CONTRACT; provided however that such payments will not exceed the authorized Contract amount; and B. if the total payments exceed the amount finally due, DC shall repay the excess to CITY upon demand. Unless otherwise provided in this CONTRACT or by statute, DC shall maintain all billing and payment records and documents of the same and any other records of performance of the Services hereunder as may be required by law, solely to the extent necessary to determine DC'S compliance with this Agreement, in each case relating to the terminated portion of this CONTRACT for three years after final payment under this CONTRACT. This includes all books and other evidence bearing on DC'S costs and expenses under this CONTRACT. DC shall make these records and documents available to CITY, at DC'S office, at all reasonable times upon reasonable notice, without any direct charge. If approved by CITY, photographs, microphotographs, electronic storage, or other authentic reproductions may he maintained instead of original records and documents. 20. Notices Any and all notices, requests, demands and other communications contemplated, called for, permitted, or required to be given hereunder shall be in writing, except through the course of the parties' project managers' routine exchange of information and cooperation during the term of the Services. Any written communications shall be deemed to have been duly given upon actual in- person delivery, if delivery is by direct hand, or upon delivery on the actual day of receipt or no greater than four calendar days after being Page 17 of 29 mailed by US certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, whichever occurs first. The date of mailing shall count as the first day. All communications shall be addressed to the appropriate party at the address stated herein or such other address as the parties hereto may designate by written notice from time to time in the manner aforesaid. CITY City of Newport Beach Police Department 870 Santa Barbara Newport Beach, CA 92660 ATTN: Captain Mike I-Iyams DC Deloitte Consulting LLP 2868 Prospect Park Drive Sacramento, California 95670 Attw Stephen Lee 21. News/Information Release DC agrees that it will not issue any news releases in connection with either the award of this CONTRACT or any subsequent amendment of or effort under this CONTRACT without first obtaining review and written approval of said news releases from CITY through the CITY's project manager. . 22, Security- Police Facility Background checks: All DC personnel to be employed in performance of Services under this CONTRACT may be subject to background checks and clearance prior to working in a Police facility. DC shall prepare and submit an information form to the CITY's Project Manager for all persons who will be working or who will need access to the facility. These information forms shall be submitted at least five CITY working days prior to the start of work on the CONTRACT or prior to the use of any person subsequent to DC'S start of work. These information forms will be provided by CITY's Project Manager upon request and will be screened by CITY's Police Department. These information forms shall be thorough, accurate, and complete. Omissions or false statements, regardless of the nature or magnitude, may be grounds for denying clearance. No person shall work in a police facility under this CONTRACT who has not received prior clearance from the CITY's Police Department. Neither CITY, nor the Police Department need give a reason clearance is denied. CITY shall be solely liable for the performance of such checks and the use of information garnered from such checks as set forth herein. CITY shall (i) use information from such checks solely for the purposes of approving DC personnel and subcontractors to provide Services hereunder, (ii) shall not disclose information from such checks to any third party, and (iii) shall indemnify DC and its partners, principals, directors, officers, employees, agents and subcontractors against all liability and claims arising out of the improper use and reporting of information obtained from such checks. Performance Requirements: DC'S employees shall not smoke or use profanity or other inappropriate language while on site. DC'S employees shall not enter the facility while under the influence of alcohol; drugs or other intoxicants and Page IS of 29 shall not have such materials in their possession. DC employees shall cooperate with the reasonable requests of CITY regarding facility security. 23. Payment Terms Invoices for professional fees in the amounts set forth in Attachment B attached hereto are to be submitted upon acceptance of the Deliverable applicable to the amount of professional fees set forth in Attachment B hereto to the CITY's Project Manager, unless otherwise directed in: this CONTRACT. DC shall reference CONTRACT number on invoice, and each invoice shall be in a format requested by CITY and containing the information specified herein. Payment will be net 30 days after receipt of a properly submitted invoice. Billing shall covet services and /or Deliverables not previously invoiced. Payments made by CITY shall not.preclude the right of CITY from thereafter disputing any items or services involved or billed under this CONTRACT and shall not be construed as acceptance of any part of the Deliverables or services. Without limiting its rights or remedies, DC shall have the tight to:suspend or terminate entirely its services if payment is not received within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice:, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this CONTRACT to be executed on the day and year first written above-. AN ru �-- Cc 'J'` Robin Clauson, City Attorney for the City of Newport Beach ATTEST: ex Ty AY L 3zo-avonne Harities City Clerk Attachments: Attachment A -Scope of Work Attachment B —Payment Schedule Attachment C — Participating Agencies and Sites F:\ users\ cat 4sheredlAG \DeloitteConsulting LLP CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A Munici al Corporation omer BIudau, Ci; Manager CONSULTANT: Deloitte Consulting LLP By:" 6J . Name: Nit_hoLos Ck;0rh,n„—o Principal Page 19 of 29 ATTACHMENT "A" SCOPE OF WORK Electronic Piling Initiative SOW — Scope of Work - Electronic Filing Initiative This section outlines the services, equipment, software, and tools to be provided by the Consultant in the execution of the contract. SOW 0 — General The general requirements are applicable to al] phases of the project. SOW 0 -1 Location of Work The primary work location shall be in facilities provided by the Integrated Law & Justice Agency of Orange County, in the State of California. All meetings and workshops shall be completed in those facilities. The vendor can complete much of the offline analysis and document preparation work in their own facilities. However, all meetings, workshops, and project management meetings shall occur at the primary work location. SOW 0 -2 1LJAOC Project Manager The JLJAOC will designate a project manager. This individual will be the primary point of contact for the consultant and will be responsible for coordinating the participation of agency personnel and review and approval of consultant deliverables. SOW 0 -3 Vendor Project Manager The vendor shall assign a Consultant Project Manager to this project. The Consultant Project Manager will be the single point of contact responsible for all work undertaken by the vendor. The Consultant Project Manager shall be on site in Orange County as needed through the duration of the project. During implementation and up to provisional acceptance, the Consultant Project Manager must be on site in Orange County at least four days out of every two weeks unless agreed to by the IJAOC Project Manager. At no time during the project shall the Consultant Project Manager be oil site less than two days in a calendar month. 'these requirements are applicable to both Phase I and Phase 2. SOW 0 -4 Project Management The Consultant Project Manager shall maintain a detailed schedule ofactivities for his/her team and update the schedule on at feast a bt- weekly basis for the duration of the project. The updated schedule shall be reported, along with progress reports, to the ILJAOC Project Manager on a regular basis. Progress reports shaft be issued on at least a bi- weekly It and shall include a table listing all delivery in ilestones, along with the originally scheduled date, the current target date, and the number of changes to the date. SOW 0 -5 Executive Meetings The Consultant Project Manager shall be prepared to present an update of the project, including key interim results, issues, and general status at JPA Board meetings once per month. 'rhe Consultant Project Manager should plan to attend these meetings and present in person, unless extenuating circumstances prohibit his/her attendance. Participation by the DA's Staff will be essential during the project review process. SOW 0-6 Inception For each phase of the project, the Consultant Project Manager shall meet with the IIJAOC Project Manager as often as necessary during the initial three weeks of the project in order to finalize the project plan, schedule initial meetings and workshops, and agree and document project processes, procedures, and reporting systems. For costing purposes, the Consultant Project Manager should expect to meet oa site at least three days per week during this period. SOW 0.7 Deliverables Deliverables will primarily be exchanged electronically between participants, The vendor shall be responsible for the labor and cost associated with producing up to three bound hard copies and 10 copies on compact disc of each formal deliverable upon request of U_JAOC. Page 20 of 29 The content and text of all deliverables (excepting pre - existing intellectual property of the vendor) shall become the property of ILJAOC in accordance with Section 14, "Ownership of Documents" in the Specific Terns and Canditions above, upon acceptance of the deliverable. The Consultant Project Manager must provide ILJAOC with editable electronic source documents for all accepted deliverables. SOW 0 -8 Standards The participating agencies mandate that the consultant conform the design to industry standards wherever practical and appropriate, In particular, there is specific interest in having the solution adhere to the Global Justice XML standard. SOW 1— Phase 1 Assessment and Requirements 'rhe focus of Phase 1 of the project is the assessment ofthe operating environments of the participating agencies and the development of The requirements for the eventual solution. SOW 1 -1 Site Surveys Mail -out or electronic Ina veys; are an unacceptable primary method for compiling agency information due to the difficulty of coordinating responses. The Consultant Project Manager may choose to supplement other information- gathering methods with a survey. In conjunction with the inception meetings, the Consultant Project Manager shall visit all sites included in the Phase and work with operational and technical personnel at that agency to gain an understanding of the business processes and technical systems likely to be impacted by the solution, SOW 1 -2 Working Group The Consultant Project Manager shall work will] ILJAOC to form a working group of representatives from a cross - section of participating agencies, including those affected by the project who may not be formal members of the ILJAOC. The Consultant Project Manager shall meet with this group regnlarly to review findings and explore options and alternatives. SOW 1 -3 initiating AgencyRequiremcuts The Consultant Project Manager shall compile a set of business and technical requirements for each of the originating agencies participating in the project who will electronically file the case documents. SOW 1.4 Recipient Agency Requirements The Consultant Project Manager shall compile a set of business and technical requirements for each of the agencies participating in the project who will receive the filing documents. SOW 1- 5SolutlonsAnalysis Once the initial requirements are compiled, the Consultant Project Manager shall conduct a preliminary analysis of the kinds of solutions that could be utilized to address the requirements. 'rhe results of []its analysis, along with recommendations for moving forward, shall be validated with the Working Group and then presented to the 1L.IAOC JPA Board. SOW 1 -6 Deliverables Two deliverables will be required from this Phase, The Requirements Document will consist of. A structured compilation of all of the identified requirements from the participating agencies • An analysis of requirements which categorizes them as to [[felt level of criticality • Identification of problematic requirements and a discussion ofthe implications The Solutions Analysis will consist of: + A discussion of the kinds of technologies that could be used to address the requirements • Preliminary budgetary costing for potential solutions • An analysis of the procurement direction that should be used to procure the solution SOW 2 — Phase 2 - Procurement SOW 2 -1 Compile Procurement Documents Page 21 of 29 Once the 1LJAOC IPA Board has approved a direction, the Consultant Project Manager will compile a set of procurement specifications suitable for attachment to an RFP document that will be prepared by the ILJAOC or its designated agency (procurement entity), The Consultant Project Manager shall work with the procurement entity to form and finalize the RFP document. SOW 2 -2 Support Procurement _ The Consultant Project Manager shall manage the overall procurement process in conjunction with the procurement entity. This work shall include electronic issuance of the RFP, response to vendor questions, creation and issuing of amendments to the RFP, and planning and conducting bidder meetings. SOW 2 -3 Evaluation The Consultant Project Manager shall conduct a formal paper review of all submissions and score the proposals for compliance to requirements, ability to address supplementary and alternative goals, and costs. Based on this initial evaluation, the Consultant Project Manager shall propose a short list of vendors to be further evaluated and called for demonstrations and /or confidential discussions with the Working Group and /or the IPA Board, The Consultant Project Manager shall facilitate any of these proccedings undertaken as part of the procurement, and implement and manage applicable scoring systems to be used during the sessions. SOW 2 -4 Contracting Support ILJAOC and its contract management entity will lead the contract negotiations process. The Consultant Project Manager is expected to participate and advise ILJAOC during that process. SOW 2 -5 Deliverables This Phase will result in the following deiiverabfes. The procurement Documents will consist of • Functional specifications for Ilse solution • High level technical specifications • Project overview documents • Scope of work • Submission requirements RFP submission forms • Evaluation and selection strategy The Evaluation Report will consist of: • A discussion of the selection and scoring methodology • Tabulated evaluation results • Solution/ vendorselectioirrecommendations SOW 3 -- Future Phases The scope of future phases will clearly vary depending on the nature ofthe solution selected and the capabilities of the vendur(s) selected to implement that solution. Future phases will be contracted eithcr by separate contractor via change order to this contract. SOW 3 -1 Project Managemcrrt It is expected that the Consultant Project Manager will provide project management services during the implementation phase(s) of the project. SOW 3 -2 Vendor Management It is expected that the Consultant Project Manager will provide overall vendor and vendor contract management services, including review and approval of work and approval of invoices. Page 22 of 29 SOW 4 -- Approach This section outlines the approach that the Consultant will take to accomplish the scope of work included in this contract. Assesstnent and Requirements Task 1.1: Inception To accomplish this task, the Deloitie Consulting Team will conduct the following activities; • Review available documentation regarding the integrated 'justice program to date • Meet with program leadership to gain initial insights, review the project approach and schedule and validate operating assumptions • Reach out to as many potential participating agencies as practical to solicit participation in the Working Group and co act as specific contacts for their agency. Activity Description 1.2.1 Prepare, Discussion The team will prepare and distribute a discussion document that outlines 1.1.1 Refine and finalize project plan and As the start of any project it is Important to meet to align expectations and review the approach and plan. Inevitably information comes out of this approach process and adds value to the early stages of the project and results in a more relevant and timely result. 1.1.2 Document processes and As the high level plan is refined processes such as communications and procedures repotting can be nailed down to support the overall plan. One of the key Paper components of this process will be to schedule key executive checkpoints and review sessions. 1.1.3 Form working group We have had good success in the past in working with a Vorking Group` that represents the participating agencies from the justice community. This group serves as the first level reviewer of the work undertaken and more importantly provides input to and shapes requirements and designs as they are created. 1.1.4 Refresh contacts list While the Working Group wilt be the primary set of resources working on the project, all agencies will need a setoff resources assigned to provide specific input and approvals from time to time. An existing set of contacts exists from the COPLINK RMS Sharing project; however it does need to be refreshed for this new initiative. Task 1,1 - Inception Activities and Descriptions Task 1.2: Requirements Gathering To accomplish this task, the Delofue Consulting Team will conduct the following activities: • prepare and distribute information gathering discussion document • Conduct initial Working Group Session • Conduct a requirements gathering Working Group session Throughout the course of this task, the Team will require access to the ILJAOC project manager and fiWher key staff to help shape the materials used and the results obtained. Activity Description 1.2.1 Prepare, Discussion The team will prepare and distribute a discussion document that outlines Document the types of information that each agency will need to provide on their existing systems and processes as well as pointers that will help project participants do some advance thinking about the things that a solution will have to provide to support their business requirements. 1.2.2 Distribute Discussion The discussion paper will be sent to all of the participating agencies along Paper with a follow up conversation to confirm receipt and explain the significance and intent of the document. 1.2.3 Working Group Session t The first meeting of the working group will be used to review and validate the discussion document and the formal for the site visits and Interviews. It Page 23 of 29 is expected mat working group participants will have early suggestions on the types of solutions to be deployed and those suggestions will be synthesized into high level solution models that can be validated and explored during the site visits. Task 1.2— Requirements Gathering Activities and Descriptions Task 1.3: Site Visits "ro accomplish this task, the Deloitte Consulting Team will conduct the following activities: • Oh Lain relevant technical information from multiple sources • Work with various departmental persoanel from various sites • Analyze and document Data from this task will be obtained from various sources currently available to the do arAUenrs and the County. Activity Description 1.3.1 Round 1 Visits Early in the project, the team will conduct site visits to 3 to 5 key agencies Document that are expected to be key to the initiative. It is expected that some of these agencies will be recipients such as the Court and the District Attorney while others will be key initiators of Information such as the larger police departments. These initial visits will help shape the initial working group session and subsequent site visits and interviews. 1,3.2 hound 2 Visits The primary set of site visits and interviews falls into round 2. At this point the working group has had an opportunity to discuss some of the initial findings with the project team and shape some of the interviewing that will follow. During these visits information will be collected on the systems in use at the various agencies as well as the business practices in use to compile reports and file cases with the DA the Court and other agencies - These interviews will be kepi open forparticipants to suggest additional requirements and applications for the e- filing solution. 1. 3.3 Round 3 Visits The third . and final round of site visits will serve 2 functions. It will likely be used to collect information from "straggler agencies" that cannot be captured in the first two rounds and will also be used to go back to key agencies and follow up on questions that are coming out of the requirements compilation process or work with the working group. This round of visits should serve to refine the requirements for use in later stages of the protect. 1.3A Working Group Session 2 This working group session is the key checkpoint for the information being gathered. It occurs after all the round 2 interviews are conducted and will be used to validate information and process some of the preliminary theories being developed by the team. It is expected that significant refinement of the requirements will flow from this workshop but that some additional questions will also be raised. Those questions shall be explored in the third round of site visits and follow up telephone interviews. Task 1.3 — Site Visit Activities and Descriptions Task 1.4: Requiremants Documentation & Validation To accomplish this task, the Deloitte Consulting Team will conduct the following activities; • Compile a set of business and technical requirements for the initiating and recipient agencies • Identify passible solution to address e- filing system requirements • Analyze and document Throughout the course of this task, the team will work with the IUAOC departments as needed to obtain more; complete information. Activity Description Compile Requirements Based on the rounds of site visits with the initialing and recipient agencies, the Document project team will compile the set of business process and technical requirements for the case filing system. This will include a structure compilation of appropriate requirements from the participating agencies, a categorization of them as to their - level of criticality, and an identification of re utrements which me result in Page 24 o €29 Task 1.4— Requirements Document and Validation and Descriptions Procurement Task 2.1: Procurement Document Pivparation To accomplish this task, the Deloitte Consulting Team will conduct the following activities: • Compile a set of ptocurement specificadons for the pending RN, • W /O& with the procurcmcnt emity to form and finalize the RFP document Throughout the course of.this task, the Team will require significant participation by the leaders of the ILJAOC organization as well as significant access to the staff of the procurement entity that is serving I1,JAOC (Assumed to be the City of Newport Beach). Activity issues and challenges. Standards such as Global Justice XML will be built into 2.1.1 Review Procurement the requirements where appropriate, but no preconceived technical solution will Approach be defined at this point in the project. 1 A.2 Review with Working Meet with the Working Group to review the accuracy of the requirements Group document and collect Input for how to shape the requirements prior to 2.1.2 Compile Specifications finalization. 1.4.3 Finalize and Publish The project team will finalize the requirements document and publish the final version. 1.4.4 Solutions Analysis Once the business and technical requirements are developed and finalized, the - Specifications project team will explore potential technical solutions to meet -the requirements. _ Solutions are just theoretical atthis point but must be developed in order to compile realistic cost estimates. High -level descrlpttons of the alternative 2.1.4 Assemble RFP solutions which may address the system requirements (along with preliminary cost estimates) will be prepared for discussion by the working group and steering committee. 1.4.5 Compile Solutions Once the analysis of the options is completed, the project learn will compile the Options! Approach solutions options document for review. 1.4.6 Review with Working Meet with the Working Group to review the feasibility and /or approprialeness of Group the solutions alternatives and discuss the kinds of technologies that could be utilized. 1.4.7 Finalize and Publish The project learn will finalize the requirements and solutions options documentation and utilize for the procurement phase. Task 1.4— Requirements Document and Validation and Descriptions Procurement Task 2.1: Procurement Document Pivparation To accomplish this task, the Deloitte Consulting Team will conduct the following activities: • Compile a set of ptocurement specificadons for the pending RN, • W /O& with the procurcmcnt emity to form and finalize the RFP document Throughout the course of.this task, the Team will require significant participation by the leaders of the ILJAOC organization as well as significant access to the staff of the procurement entity that is serving I1,JAOC (Assumed to be the City of Newport Beach). Activity Description 2.1.1 Review Procurement The project team will review with the Working Group the various procurement Approach approaches available to provide the highest value, and most effective services. This will include assessing the complexity of the project. the capacity of the ILJAOC for project management, change management, and IT changes. 2.1.2 Compile Specifications The project team will compile the set of procurement specifications suitable for attachment to an RFP document that will be prepared by the ILJAOC or its designated procurement entity. 2.1.3 Review and Finalize The project team will review and work with the procurement entity to finalize the - Specifications specifications and balance of the RFP documentation in accordance with the business process and system needs and requirements of the proposed electronic case filing solution. 2.1.4 Assemble RFP Provide assistance to the designated procurement entity as appropriate. This may Include editing its context, management, and cost sections and further developing its slatement of work, as well as providing the functional specifications for the solution and the high level technical specifications, 2.1.5 Issue RFP Provide assistance to the designated procurement entity as appropriate. rasrc 47 — compile rrocurement Documents Activities and Descriptions Takk 2.2: Procurement Support Page 25 of 29 To accomplish this task, the Deloitte Consulting Team will conduct the following activities: • Oversee the procurement process in conjunction with the procurement entity • Respond to questions from vendors as they are submitted • planning and execution of a bidders meeting on behalf of ILJAOC Throughout the course of this task, the Team will require access to the procurement entity as well as leadership of ILJAOC. Activity Description 2.2.1 Submission Period The project team will be available to provide answers to questions (which by the project team. Compliant proposals will be further scored for their vendors will submit by a defined dale), creating and issuing amendments and technical solutions and costs and a short list The qualified proposals should be addendums, and planning for the pre - proposal conference. 2.2.2 Bidders Meeting We will plan and facilitate a pre- proposal conference or bidders meeting where If required, the project team will facilitate vendor demonstrations or confidential a summary of the project will be presented and staff will be available to respond discussions to provide direct observation of the proposed solutions. to vendor questions. Task 2.2— Procurement Support Activities and Descriptions Task 2.3: Evaluation To accomplish this task, the Deloitte Consulting Team will conduct the following activities: • Conduct a formal hard -copy review of all submissions and check for minimum proposal requircoxents (adminisrrative) • Complete a quantitative scoring of the technical and functional requirements to serve as an initial evaluation • Develop a shots fist of vendors to be further evaluated for possible demonstrations and confidential discussions with the Working Group and the JPA Board • hacilitate vendor demonstrations or confidential discussions and administer a scoring and evaluation process ;associated with the sessions. • Facilitate the meetings, interviews, and other proceedings associated with tie procurement Throughout the course of this task, the Team will require significant participation of members of the working group and ILJAOC board to serve as part of the evaluation and to participate in vendor demonstrations. performing the current workload. Activity Description 2.3.1 Preliminary Evaluation Following submission, the proposals will be screened for mandatory elements by the project team. Compliant proposals will be further scored for their technical solutions and costs and a short list The qualified proposals should be distributed to the evaluation learn for individual review and further selection. 2.3.2 Demonstrations If required, the project team will facilitate vendor demonstrations or confidential discussions to provide direct observation of the proposed solutions. Depending on the types of solutions offered, demonstrations may not be practical. However, confidential discussions with the vendors may provide significant additional insight into their capabilities and the feasibility of the solutions. 2.3.3 Compile Evaluation The weighting of the proposals will be reviewed to ensure that the scoring will Report result in selection of a vendor based upon the ILJAOC preferred decision criteria. We will help develop evaluation aids /tools to assist evaluators in recording their scores and comments. Reference questionnaires will be prepared and reviewed to aid in the reference- checking process. Overall, the Evaluation Report will include a discussion of the selection and scoring methodology, tabulated evaluation results, and solution/vendor- selection recommendations. 2.3.4 Negotiation support Once a vendor is selected, the consultant project manager will participate in and advise the ILJAOC and Its contract management entity during the contract negotlatlons. Task 23 — Evaluation Activities and Descriptions Page 26 of 29 SOW 5 — Staffing This section outlines the approach that the Consultant will take to accomplish the scope of work included in this contract. SOW 5 -1 Staff Assignments Stephen Lee (Deloifte Consulting's Project Manager) will lead the key workshops outlined in the statement of work. SOW 6 -- Schedule and Performance 'Phis section outlines the approach that the Consultant will take to accomplish the scope of work included in this contract. SOW 6-1 Schedule The ptoject Will be managed to the following schedule. IUAOC, Deloitte Consulting and the City of Santa Ana will work to make decisions and take actions to keep the project tracking to schedule. Page 28 of 29 ATTACHMENT "B" PAYMENTSCHEDULE Electronic Filing Initiative 77te following table provides the cost per the Phase I and Phase If deliverables, which Is all- inclusive of travel, living, and incidental expenses: I. Assessment and Requirements Requirements Document $75,000 Solutions Analysis $75,000 II. Procurement Procurement Specifications $75,000 Proposal Submission $50,000 Evaluation Report $35,000 Phase I and It Total Project Cost $310,000 Page 29 of 29 ATTACI4MENT "C" PARTICIPATING AGE, NCIES AND SITES Electronic Filing Initiative The Following agencies and their primary location of operations make up the current Understanding of the participating agencies and sites. Agency Name Expected to be Originating Destination or Both Orange County Superior Court Both Orange County District Attorney Both Orange County Probation Department Both Orange County Public Defender Destination Anaheim Police Department Originating Brea Police Department Originating Buena Park Police Department Originating Costa Mesa Police Department Originating Cypress Police Department Originating Fountain Valley Police Department Originatin Fullerton Police Department Originating Garden Grove Police Department Originating 14untington Beach Police Department Ori inatin Irvine Police Department Originating Laguna Beach Police <Department Originating La Habra Police Department Originating La 'Palma Police Department Originating Los Alamitos Police Department Ori inatin Newport Police Department _ Originating Orange Police Department Ori inatin Placentia Police Department Originating Santa Ana Police Department Originating Seal Beach Police Department Originating 'Tustin Police De artment Originating UC Irvine Police De artmeur Originating _Westminster Police Department Originating Orange County Sheriff's Department Originating _