Post on 03-Feb-2022
Addendum 1 – RFP#2259 Page 1 of 14
CITY OF CONCORD, CALIFORNIA
June 11, 2013
ADDENDUM #1 TO
Request for Proposal (RFP) #2259 –
“Police Department Law Enforcement Records Management System (RMS)”
NOTICE TO BIDDERS
THIS ADDENDUM FOR THE ABOVE BID HAS BEEN ELECTRONICALLY ISSUED TO POTENTIAL BIDDERS VIA E-
MAIL. IF YOU HAVE REGISTERED WITH US, PLEASE ENSURE THAT AN ACCURATE E-MAIL ADDRESS IS NOTED
AND KEPT UPDATED IN OUR VENDOR DATABASE. ALL BID STATUS AND UPDATES INCLUDING ADDENDUM
WILL BE POSTED ON THE CITY OF CONCORD WEBSITE LOCATED AT
HTTP://WWW.CITYOFCONCORD.ORG/BUSINESS/PURCHASING/BIDSANDQUOTES.ASP. IT IS THE BIDDER’S
RESPONSIBILITY TO BE INFORMED OF ANY CHANGES, REVISIONS, OR UPDATES BY CONTACTING THE PURCHASING
AGENT OR BY GOING TO THE CITY’S WEBSITE NOTED ABOVE.
CORRECTIONS TO RFP DOCUMENT:
When the RFP was first posted on May 13, 2013, in the RFP Timeline on page 6 of the RFP, there was an error
made on the Proposal Due date which showed that Proposals were due on July 7, 2013. On the very next day, this
error was corrected to reflect that Proposals were due on July 9, 2013. The proposal due date of July 9, 2013 at
2:00 PM is correct on the other pages addressing the due date.
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS:
Responses to questions for the aforementioned RFP submitted by the deadline for questions on June 6, 2013 are as
follows:
1. a. Has funding been secured for this project?
Response 1a:
Yes
b. If so, how is funding secured for this project?
Response 1b:
There is a budget set aside for this project.
c. If not, what methods are being considered?
Response 1c:
N/A
2. Are you able to provide an estimated project cost?
Response 2: No
Addendum 1 – RFP#2259 Page 2 of 14
3. The RFP indicates that a multi-jurisdictional solution is desired, what jurisdictions are anticipated to be
users of this System?
Response 3: The Concord Police Department and the Clayton Police Department will be the initial
jurisdictions using the system. There may be other agencies using the system in the future.
4. Only Concord PD current environment is listed, yet the City of Walnut Creek is mentioned in the
installation, Testing and Acceptance section. Will you explain how the City of Walnut Creek ties in to this
project?
Response 4: On page 15 in Exhibit A-1 (Page 2 of 4) – General and Work Conditions, No. 12-Installation,
Testing, and Acceptance, any mention of City of Walnut should be removed.
Pease revise this section as follows:
Revise From:
12. Installation, Testing and Acceptance: Upon completion of the award process and issuance of a City of
Concord and or Walnut Creek purchase order, and any required permits, the successful vendor(s) may begin
installation of the selected system(s). When installation has been completed, the City of Concord and / or the
City of Walnut Creek shall operate the system for a period of thirty (30) days without incident. If a City
determines that it shall not accept the system before the end of the testing period due performance problems,
the City shall notify the vendor of the specific problems or deficiencies observed in the performance of the
system so that the vendor may repair or make the necessary adjustments to the system. Should problems
occur requiring modifications to the system, upon completion of repairs or modifications; an additional thirty
(30) days of testing and successful performance of the system will be required prior to acceptance. Once the
system has successfully completed testing, the City shall accept the system. Acceptance of the system shall
not be unreasonably withheld by either City.
Revise To:
12. Installation, Testing and Acceptance: Upon completion of the award process and issuance of a City of
Concord purchase order, and any required permits, the successful vendor(s) may begin installation of the
selected system(s). When installation has been completed, the City of Concord shall operate the system for a
period of thirty (30) days without incident. If a City determines that it shall not accept the system before the
end of the testing period due performance problems, the City shall notify the vendor of the specific problems
or deficiencies observed in the performance of the system so that the vendor may repair or make the
necessary adjustments to the system. Should problems occur requiring modifications to the system, upon
completion of repairs or modifications; an additional thirty (30) days of testing and successful performance
of the system will be required prior to acceptance. Once the system has successfully completed testing, the
City shall accept the system. Acceptance of the system shall not be unreasonably withheld by either City.
5. Does the City prefer a ‘custom system’ or ‘off the shelf’ system?
Response 5:
The City is looking for an off the shelf system.
6. What type of interfaces does the City expect with the current systems (as described on p. 44 & 45 of the
RFP)?
Response 6:
We would like for the vendors to tell us which of the systems on pg. 44-46 they can interface to, describe
what functionality they would provide in the interface, and submit a cost for implementation of each of the
interfaces they are proposing.
7. For the Agency Command Structure, who makes the purchase decision?
Addendum 1 – RFP#2259 Page 3 of 14
Response 7:
The Concord Chief of Police will make the final purchase recommendation, and the City Manager will sign
the purchase agreement.
8. Why are you replacing the system?
Response 8: The current home grown system has come to a point in its software development lifecycle
that it needs to be replaced.
9. Can you tell us the available budget for this project?
Response 9: No
10. In Exhibit B-2 of the RFP:
(2) Legacy Data: Does CPD intend to maintain access to the old system for some period of time (if so,
how long) or is the intention that the new system replace it completely from Day 1?
Response 10: The City would like for prospective vendors to propose a solution and prospective cost for
how to handle legacy data based on their experience. That solution could involve but may not be limited to
a complete data conversion or partial data conversion while maintaining read only access to legacy data.
11. In Attachment I:
(a) Attachment I, Introduction: Will the volunteers in Concord PD and Clayton PD be using the RMS
(assuming the existence of special roles limiting their access to the system)?
Response 11a: Yes, volunteers will use the system with specific limited access.
(b) Attachment I, Section 2.1.2: "All applications must be multi-threaded." Our solution uses light-weight
processes rather than threads to serve requests; this approach scales extremely well and provides other
significant advantages. Is this architecture acceptable for CPD?
Response 11b: Any application running on City resources will support multi-threading. If a prospective
vendor proposes a hosted solution with processes that run in a single-threaded environment, it will be
considered.
(c) Attachment I, Section 4.11: "All applications must agree to have a new version upgrade 12 months
after a major version release and 6 months after a Service Pack." We follow the design/deployment
philosophy of continuous Improvement/continuous integration, which means we will be delivering 2-4
upgrades a month with no down time during the upgrade process. Would this type of process be considered
by CPD?
Response 11c: Yes, this update/upgrade model will be considered.
(d) Attachment I, Section 5.2 and Section 7: The Testing, Certification and Upgrade requirements reflect
the discrete production model typically associated with traditional client/server applications (e.g. with
Addendum 1 – RFP#2259 Page 4 of 14
larger, less frequent releases). Our architectural model is SaaS and our process is continuous
improvement/continuous integration. At the beginning of deployment we update weekly, moving to twice
monthly. This allows us to add functionality and performance enhancements incrementally, which avoids
the downtime and longer training associated with larger releases. This is the industry standard model for
most high-performance internet deployments (e.g. Google, Yahoo, Mint). We are happy to go through a
standard Testing and Certification Phase at initial deployment and will work with CPD to develop a Testing
and Certification process that both meets their requirements and is consistent with continuous
improvement. Would this architecture and continuous improvement/continuous integration process be
considered by CPD?
Response 11d: Hosted and SaaS solutions will be considered.
(e) Attachment I, p.45-46: Which of these interfaces are mandatory? Which are provided for
informational purposes but are not anticipated to interface directly to the solution?
Response 11e: We would like for the vendors to tell us which of the systems on pg. 44-46 they can
interface to, describe what functionality they would provide in the interface, and submit a cost for
implementation of each of the interfaces they are proposing.
12. For Requirements:
a. Area Global Requirements 1-23: what are some examples of the Synopsis function? Are these all the
associations of an object in the database?
Response 12a: Some examples of a synopsis function would be showing all related records to a
selected record including case numbers, addresses, phone numbers, vehicles, aliases, known associates,
gang information, etc. You should be able to get to this function with one mouse or button click, and
be able to view the linked information with one mouse or button click.
b. Area Global Requirements 1-29: To which 'Historical Data' is this entry referring?
Response 12b: This question refers to any and all historic RMS records that have not been imported in
a data conversion.
c. Area Global Requirements 16: The requirement calls for a separate database to house Intelligence
Cases. While this can be implemented as a separate database, there are other ways to partition data
within a single database. In addition, the use of a separate database can result in additional complexity
and redundant data content. Is this solely a functional requirement (the need to separate this data), or is
the method of implementation (the separate database) a requirement as well?
Response 12c: This can be considered a functional requirement if the vendor can show the logical
separation between intelligence cases and standard cases in an acceptable manner.
d. Area Global Requirements--General: There are a number of assumptions in the requirements that
ESRI will be used. Would CPD consider the use of Google Maps Enterprise
Addendum 1 – RFP#2259 Page 5 of 14
Response 12d: The City does not intend to replace its existing ESRI infrastructure. If a proposed
solution can utilize ESRI layers and provide for the functionality of ArcGIS applications it may be
considered.
13. Regarding Interfaces:
Will CPD provide links to the documentation for the following interfaces prior to the RFP proposal
deadline?
· TriTech VisiCAD
· ARIES
· Tiburon JMS
· Leeds Pawn Tickets
· CalPhoto
Response 13: The City expects prospective vendors gather the required information to draft proposal. All
technical information to be provided before the RFP proposal deadline has been made available in the RFP
and in this addendum.
14. RFP Exhibit B-2 Proposal Submittal Form lists the requirements and order in which the proposal content
should appear is a five-page document with a signature block on the fifth page. The required response
format for such forms typically requires vendors to insert their response immediately following each
requirement. In this case, such an organization will result in page 5 (the signature block) appearing at the
end of the proposal. Please clarify exactly how the City wants vendors to respond to RFP Exhibit B-2.
Should vendors place the completed five-page form at the beginning of the proposal and reference the
corresponding proposal sections that include the responses to the requirements? In this way the signature
page would appear in the front of the proposal.
Response 14:
Yes, you may use Page 5 of 5 of Exhibit B-2 to be the front and first page of your ‘Technical Proposal’.
This way, panel members can easily see your company information immediately upon opening the
Technical Proposals. After the 1st page (which is Page 5 of 5 of Exhibit B-2), you should complete all of
the other information in this Exhibit B-2 and reference each section appropriately.
15. Page 3 of the RFP lists the exhibits and attachments that are included in the RFP and indicates whether they
“MUST be submitted with Proposal.” According to this table, Exhibits A-1 (page 14) and A-2 (page 18)
and Attachment 1 (page 44) are not required to be submitted; however, Exhibits A-1 and A-2 include terms
and conditions that may require a response or clarification (including a request for information about our
Escrow arrangements) and Attachment 1 has a list of IT best practices, and software requirements that may
be applicable to the software proposed for this solution. Please clarify whether vendors may respond to
Exhibits A-1 and A-2 and if the City intends for the software to comply with the requirements listed in
Attachment 1.
Response 15:
Yes, the box next to Attachment I on page 3 of the RFP should be checked. All requirements and
information requested in this Attachment should be addressed as instructed.
Addendum 1 – RFP#2259 Page 6 of 14
16. Can the City provide actual counts of the following?
RMS Workstations
Response 16a: 180 (all police workstations have RMS installed)
Mobile Workstations
Response 16b: 73
Mobile Workstations with Field Based Reporting
Response 16c: 73 (all mobile workstations have Field Based Reporting)
In-Station Reporting Workstations
Response 16d: 180 (all police workstations can access RMS reporting)
17. Will the RMS system need to interface with any third party electronic citation (ticket writer)
systems? If so, please provide vendor and version.
Response 17: Concord PD currently uses DataTicket for our parking citation vendor including
electronic citations. An interface is desired to their hosted database in order to use that data for
crime analysis. An integrated e-citation solution for other citations would be evaluated and
considered. An integrated parking citation module would be considered.
18. Please clarify – “Organization” is used throughout the requirements. Is this the same as
“Business”?
Response 18: The term business implies a money making operation. The capitalized term
Organization refers the City of Concord as a whole.
19. Civil Paper notifications are referenced. Does the CPD intend on using the Sheriff/County for this
function? Or does the CPD wish to have a Civil Module within the RMS application?
Response 19: The City currently utilizes the Sheriff/County for Civil Paper notifications. The
City would like to know the cost of an integrated Civil Paper notification system.
20. Will CPD allow the use of “hard-coded” IP addresses? The City of Concord uses hard coded IP
addresses for all of its servers.
Response 20: Hard coded IP address are not acceptable for desktop, MDC or mobile devices,
however we do use DHCP reservations for those devices. All applications should use DNS name
resolution for all IP addressing needs and not utilize IP addresses directly. Please annotate in your
response whether you can or cannot comply with this requirement.
21. How many calls for service were received in 2012 by the agencies included in this RFP? Can you please
identify the number of calls for service per agency?
Addendum 1 – RFP#2259 Page 7 of 14
Response 21: There were 106,667 calls for service in the City of Concord in 2012. There were 5,506 calls
for service in the City of Clayton for 2012.
22. How many case reports were completed in 2012 by the agencies included in this RFP? Can you please
identify the number of case reports per agency?
Response 22: There were a combined total of 24,000 case reports in 2012. The City of Clayton accounts
for less than 1/10th of these case reports.
23. How many field interviews were completed in 2012 by the agencies included in this RFP? Can you please
identify the number of field interviews per agency?
Response 23: There were 941 Field Interviews for the City of Concord in 2012. The Clayton doesn’t use
our system yet.
24. How many bookings were completed in 2012 by the agencies included in this RFP? Can you please
identify the number of bookings per agency?
Response 24: There were 3,635 bookings in the Concord Jail in 2012. The City of Clayton booked
approximately 200.
25. How many warrants were completed in 2012 by the agencies included in this RFP? Can you please
identify the number of warrants per agency?
Response 25: There were approximately 3,000 warrants by the City of Concord in 2012. The City of
Clayton served approximately 23 warrants.
26. How many citations were completed in 2012 by the agencies included in this RFP? Can you please
identify the number of citations per agency?
Response 26: There were approximately 7,000 citations completed by the City of Concord. We do not
have the number of Citations for 2012 in the City of Clayton at this time.
27. How many pawn tickets were completed in 2012 by the agencies included in this RFP? Can you please
identify the number of pawn tickets per agency?
Response 27: There were approximately 60,000 pawn slips for the City of Concord in 2012.
28. Regarding the sample forms provided at the end of the RFP (and listed here):
a. Is this a complete list of the forms Concord desires to have replicated in the proposed system?
Response 28a: Yes
1) Concord PD Arrest/Detention Form
2) Concord PD 14601 Arrest/Detention Form/Concord PD 14601 Arrest Narrative
3) I-725 Monthly Return of Arsons
4) BCIA State Monthly Report ARRC Summary Worksheet
5) Attempt Warrant Service
6) Citation Void/Citation Void Explanation
Addendum 1 – RFP#2259 Page 8 of 14
7) Cite Change/Notice of Correction
8) Proof of Service
9) Concord PD Arrest/Detention Form (Appears to be a duplicate of #1)
10) Certificate of Release
11) DUI Cite and Release
12) Field Property Receipt
13) Chain of Possession
14) Medical Receiving Report
15) Booking/Housing Report
16) Contra Costa Property/Clothing Receipt
17) Concord PD Release and Promise to Appear
18) Examiners Admonition of Chemical Test
19) 11550H&S Investigation Worksheet
20) DET 087:FRM Bail Set Form
21) DET 020:FRM Bail Set Form
22) Mandatory Notification List (no data entry fields on this page)
23) Pre-Book Health Questionnaire
24) DET 010:FRM Release and Promise to Appear
25) BCIA 727 Crimes Against Senior Citizen
26) BCIA 713 Death in Custody
27) Concord PD Diagram Legend
28) DS 367 21 and Over Officer Statement/Test Refusal Form/Officers Statement Pg 2
29) DS 367 DMV Safety Office list (No data entry fields on this page)
30) DS 367 Suspension/Revocation Order/Page 2 (No data entry fields on this page)
31) DS 427 DMV ReExam Form/Instructions to the Officer (No data entry fields on this
page)
32) DS 367M Under 21 Officer Statement/ Test Refusal Form/Officers Statement Pg 2
33) DS 367M Suspension/Revocation Order/Page 2 (No data entry fields on this page)
34) Domestic Violence Report/Page 2 Diagram Sheet
35) DS 367 21 and Over Officer Statement/Test Refusal Form/Officers Statement Pg 2
(duplicate of #28 above?)
36) DS 367 DMV Safety Office list (No data entry fields on this page) (duplicate of #29
above?)
37) DS 367 Suspension/Revocation Order/Page 2 (No data entry fields on this page)
(duplicate of #30 above?)
38) CP 79 DUI Cite and Release (duplicate of 11 above?)
39) DS 367M Under 21 Officer Statement/ Test Refusal Form/Officers Statement Pg 2
(duplicate of #32?)
Addendum 1 – RFP#2259 Page 9 of 14
40) DS 367M Suspension/Revocation Order/Page 2 (No data entry fields on this page)
(duplicate of #33?)
41) BCIA 715 Monthly Report of DV Related Calls for Assistance/Penal Codes listings
(No data fields on this page)
42) Application for Emergency Protective Order
43) Emergency Response Expense form
44) Field Interview Card
45) Declaration in Support of Petition for Judicial Determination/Return of Firearm
46) BCIA 7 Monthly Hate Crime Report
47) In-Field Sobriety Tests Report
48) CP 47 DUI Arrest Narrative Form
49) Investigation Symbols
50) RMS Suggestions
51) LEOKA
52) LEOKA Instructions
53) MR252 Application for 72 Hour Detention
54) MR252 Definitions
55) CHP 555 and 556 Forms
56) DL310 Notice of License Suspension
57) DL310 Instructions
58) Concord Notice to Appear (Citation)/and additional Citation forms
59) CP-97-1 Concord Offense Report
60) CP-97-2 Concord Offense Report
61) Concord Parking Citation
62) Concord Pawn Ticket/Pawn Ticket Duplicate
63) 4-B-1 Sketch Symbol
64) CP-30-1 Traffic Supplement Report/ CP-30-1 Traffic Supplement Report page 2
65) CHP 180 Form Tow Report (several copies)
66) Notice of Stored Vehicle
67) CHP 555-3 Property Damage Only
68) CHP 555 Traffic Accident forms
69) Concord Vehicle Accident/Damage Report/Description/Diagram
70) Vehicle Log and Checklist
71) Vehicle Service Checklist/Vehicle Type Codes
b. Some of the forms appear to be duplicates. If these are not duplicates, please provide use cases for
the various scenarios that make these different.
Response 28b: These forms are duplicates
Addendum 1 – RFP#2259 Page 10 of 14
c. Some of the forms appear to be informational only (i.e.; list of Safety Offices, Vehicle Type Codes,
etc).
Response 28c: These are the reverse side of forms or informational portions of forms to assist in
the filling out of those forms.
d. Which of these forms are required to be replicated in the current format for printed output?
Response 28d: All of them, though some may completely change to electronic format only
depending on the vendors proposal.
e. Which, if any, of these forms are to submitted electronically to an external agency (State, Courts,
etc)
Response 28e: None of them are submitted electronically at this point. The City would like to
migrate to electronic submittal for every form possible.
f. Some forms appear to be multi-copy NCR type forms. Please describe how you would like to use
these once they are converted to electronic format? Or is a single version that can be printed
multiple times sufficient.
Response 28f: A single version that can be printed should work in most cases, though we may
need multiple copies printed for certain multiple copy forms.
g. Some forms require a signature. Please describe how the City intends to use these forms. Print
from office/car and have subject sign for Officer retention?
Response 28g: The City would consider using the process suggested here. The vendor should
include their suggestion for this process in their response.
29. Please see an additional question on page 7 of this document concerning Area 1 Global Requirements, Reports
- Section 7, Number 9.
What is network connectivity between the participating agencies and the primary location for the
system architecture? Can you provide the bandwidth of this architecture?
Response 29: All vehicles have 4G air cards, and the Clayton Police Department has direct
connections to the Concord Police Department network.
30. Concord PD (CPD) wants to retain access to its legacy data after transition to the new system is complete. The
proposed solution must accommodate the CPD’s need to manage active cases and civil processes, perform
long-term statistical trend analysis, compare criminal histories and patterns, and minimize the need to re-enter
existing historical data. (Page 24)
A. How many records does Concord PD plan to migrate to the new RMS system?
1. What is the:
a. Size of the database?
b. Number of sources?
c. Types of data?
d. Format of data?
Response 30a1: The combined size of our databases is approximately 20 Gb. We currently have a
total of 3 data sources for current and legacy RMS records, and they are all maintained in
Addendum 1 – RFP#2259 Page 11 of 14
Microsoft SQL database format. Concord PD generates approximately 24,000 case records per
year, and we have 20+ years of historical data.
2. Can the City provide a sample of data from each data source?
Response 30a2: The City will provide sample data once a vendor is selected and a contract is in
place.
31. The City of Concord Police Department plans on replacing their existing PD records managements system.
The following information lists the systems and environment currently utilized by the PD. These specifications
are to replace or interface with items a through h. Items i, j and k will require an interface. (Page 44-45) Can
you identify item K that requires an interface?
Response 31: Item K was listed in error on page 44 of the RFP. Please disregard that reference.
32. Parking tickets – CPD currently uses DataTicket hosted service for parking citations. (Page 46) Do you intend
to keep using this vendor for parking citations?
Response 32: CPD plans to continue using DataTicket and would like to see an interface to that data for crime
analysis uses. CPD would consider an integrated parking citation module if proposed.
33. Dongles (hardware keys) are not approved for usage within the environment. Vendors need to supply a soft
key that does not adversely impact the handling of the equipment. (Page 47) Do you intend to use the RMS
system for NCIC queries? If so, do you have a current 2 factor authentication solution that does not require
dongles?
Response 33: This reference refers to hardware licensing dongles. Any license key management must be done
in software, and hardware licensing dongles are not approved for usage within the environment.
34. Do you intend to use the RMS system for NCIC queries? If so, do you have a current 2 factor authentication
solution that does not require dongles?
Response 34: We require the system to provide NCIC and CLETS query returns. The City does utilize strong
2-factor authentication in police vehicles that do not use hardware licensing dongles.
35. Modems are not approved for usage within the environment. Vendors need to provide an alternative method
for connecting through the Internet. (Page 47) If modems are not approved for usage within the environment
what, method of communication do you plan to use between the vehicle and the station for field based
reporting?
Response 35: Land Line telephone modems are not approved for usage in our environment. Connectivity must
be through a network interface.
36. Are you planning for the use of a wireless network for field based reporting applications? If so, what is the
bandwidth of this wireless network?
Response 36: The City utilizes WiFi at some specific locations, and 4G cellular network connectivity in other
areas for mobile connectivity.
37. Area 1 Global Requirements
Reports - Section 7
9 The system shall include the following predefined reports: (Page 11 and 12)
• Arrest Report - (currently an internal web report – List of arrested persons w/ details)
• Custody Report – (currently an internal web report – List of persons in custody w/ details)
• Case Management Activity Summary Report – (currently a printable list of activity on a case)
Addendum 1 – RFP#2259 Page 12 of 14
• Civil Cover Letter – (new report, required if Civil Paper module is purchased)
• Civil Papers Report – (new report, required if Civil Paper module is purchased)
• Evidence Report – (currently a printable report – List of evidence associated to a case along with
details)
• Incident Media Report – (internal web report showing limited details of contact with media by
case)
• Incident Open Cases By Officer Report – (This report does not exist yet, though it is required in the
new system)
• Outstanding Parking Tickets – (Scofflaw parking ticket offender report. Currently received from
3rd
party hosted application. Required if interface is developed or Parking Citation module is purchased)
• Pawn Report – (currently received from 3rd
party hosted application. Required if interface is
developed or Pawns module is purchased)
• RMS Monthly Report – (currently an internal web queried report)
• RMS Person History Report - (currently an internal web queried report)
• Warrant Report – (Currently web report in ARIES)
• Case numbers issued each day (attached)
• SWITRZ state reporting (attached)
• Forms from attachment III (attached to original RFP)
• Case report for submission to District Attorney (electronic and printable formats) (Unable to send)
• Return A (attached)
• Supplement to Return A (attached)
• Property Stolen by Classification (attached)
• Crime Against Seniors (attached)
• Domestic Violence Cases (attached)
• Arson (attached)
• LEOKA (attached)
• Hate Crimes (attached)
• Anti-Reproductive Rights Crimes (attached)
• Death in Custody (attached)
• Supplemental Homicide (attached)
Please identify which of these reports are included as attachments to the RFP. If the requested report is not
an attachment to the RFP can you provide a sample?
Response 37: The reports have been annotated with comments above to answer the question. Reports that
we had available to provide as samples are in Attachment I to this addendum. The Case report for
submission to District Attorney report is a combined case report with all case documents and related
information attached for sending to the District Attorney for prosecution. We cannot provide an electronic
a copy of this report currently. NOTE: There are two additional reports added as requirements here. The
death in custody report and the supplemental homicide report. Both have been included in Attachment I.
38. Are the responding vendors responsible for replicating all the reports listed above as part of this RFP?
Response 38: Yes, as long as interface or module is licensed by the City.
39. Area 1 Global Requirements
Microfilm - Section 9
1 The system shall provide integration with legacy microfilm. (Page 13)
Can you explain how you use your legacy microfilm today?
Response 39: CPD currently references microfilm manually and prints records as needed.
40. How do you envision the microfilm interfacing to the new RMS system?
Response 40: The City would like to see options proposed by the vendors. This could include but
Addendum 1 – RFP#2259 Page 13 of 14
shouldn’t be limited to microfilm scanned into a content management system with an interface to a content
management system.
41. Will a SaaS or a Cloud Hosted product be considered?
Response 41: Yes, as long as it meets the business needs of the Concord Police Department, the
requirements set forth in this RFP, and meets all other local, state and federal security and administrative
regulations relating to this type of data including but not limited to FIPS 140-2, California DOJ, CLETS, CJIS
Security Policy.
Addendum 1 – RFP#2259 Page 14 of 14
Addendum No. 1 is hereby acknowledged and made part of the solicitation and any agreement documents.
By:
COMPANY NAME:
ADDRESS (Not a P.O. Box):
CITY: STATE, ZIP CODE:
PHONE NO.: EMAIL:
YOUR NAME & TITLE:
YOUR SIGNATURE: DATE: