addendum #1 to - city of concord, california

Addendum 1 – RFP#2259 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

http://www.cityofconcord.org/business/purchasing/bidsandquotes.asp


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?


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


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


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.


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?


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


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?)


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


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


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)


• 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


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 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:

Attachment 1 to RFP 2259 Addendum 1 1 of 15

mbowley

Typewritten Text

addendum #1 to - city of concord, california

Documents