JCIT | Electronic Filing - RFI Vendor questions

Electronic Filing RFI Vendor questions

Judicial Committee on Information Technology


The Judicial Committee on Information Technology issued a Request for Information on electronic filing (pdf). The questions (and their answers) from the vendor community are shown below. Responses have been received from the following vendors (listed in alphabetical order):

  • AmCAD
  • Austin Projects Group
  • Crowe Horwath
  • Intresys
  • New Dawn
  • Texas NICUSA
  • Sierra Systems
  • Sustain Technologies
  • Tybera Development Group
  • Tyler Technologies

The RFI evaluation committee is currently meeting in order to make a recommendation to JCIT.


Questions last updated: 5/11/2011

  1. What is the current volume and level of adoption broken out by Court, County, and Case Type?
Below is the volume of eFiling that we saw for the month of March 2011. This is the level of granularity of the data that JCIT receives.

Jurisdiction March
Harris District & County 20,889
Dallas District, County & Probate 5,927
Travis District, County & Probate 5,160
Bexar District 2,009
Collin District & County 1,500
Hidalgo District & County 1,284
Denton District, County & Probate 1,233
Fort Bend District & County 1,159
Cameron District & County 705
El Paso District, County & Probate 644
Brazoria District & County 625
Nueces District & County 606
Tarrant County & Probate 446
Bell District 363
Webb District & County 319
Hays District 278
Johnson District 203
McLennan District 180
Brazos District & County 166
Comal District & County 152
Smith District & County 122
Lubbock District & County 114
Guadalupe District & County 98
JP Courts 94
Grayson District 72
Midland District & County 70
Chambers District 67
Waller District & County 64
Victoria District & County 60
Burnet District & County 55
Potter District & County 49
San Patricio District 42
Kerr District & County 41
Wilson District Courts 35
Randall District & County 33
Austin District 25
Tom Green District 22
Supreme Court of Texas 20
Bandera County District Courts 14
DeWitt District 12
Hale District 11
14th Court of Appeals 11
Fayette District & County 10
Bee District 9
Cass District & County 9
1st Court of Appeals 9
Jackson District 4
Goliad District & County 4
Moore District & County 4
Henderson County District Courts 2
Schleicher District 0
Upton District 0
Total 45,030



  1. Are there any plans to mandate electronic filing in the Texas courts? Are there any exemptions? - (Updated 5/11/2011)
The eFiling Subcommittee of JCIT is exploring a timeline for implementing required e-Filing. JCIT is currently recommending phasing in mandates to the Texas Supreme Court. The implementation of mandates must be made by the Supreme Court or the legislature. The ability of the vendor's system to scale to the Texas volume could create more support for a mandate in the Supreme Court.

The JCIT calendar subcommittee is exploring an implementation process based on population - beginning with the ten most populous counties. A suggested initial implementation is December 31, 2012. Although most of the ten counties have systems in place that could accommodate the volume of mandated e-Filing, there may be some systems that require an upgrade to be able to accommodate mandated e-Filing. The specific timeline depends on the EFM operator's ability to scale to the volume needed. Likewise, such an implementation requires Supreme Court or legislative authority.



  1. Of the $10.00 current transaction fee charged in the Texas Online project, is any part of that fee rebated or revenue-shared with the state or local government?
The current transaction fee breaks down as follows:

$2.00 to the county (which is optional, the county can waive this fee if they have no need to update interfaces to their case management).
$3.20 to the vendor (will eventually lower to $2.40).
$0.80 to the state (will eventually rise to $1.60).
$6.00 (average) goes to the Electronic Service Provider (EFSP). The EFSPs have different value added features that attorneys are willing to pay additional money.
2.25% of the grand total of the court filing fee + the fees above go for credit card processing.



  1. What are the current integration standards used between Texas Online and the local case management systems? - (Updated 5/11/2011)
None at present, although JCIT is recommending a move toward OASIS 2.



  1. A requirement to support multiple E-Filing Service Providers was not emphasized in the RFI. In order to reduce the cost to filers, is the OCA willing to consider a business model utilizing a single attorney/filer portal?
We're certainly not opposed to a "no frills" EFSP that would allow filers to pay a significantly reduced fee. However, because many attorneys value the services provided by some of the EFSPs, we'd like there to be an interface that would allow multiple EFSPs to submit electronic filings.



  1. The RFI does not mention the use of Electronic Filing Service Providers (EFSPs) in the Request For Information (RFI) that exist in the current state eFiling model. What future role, if any, does the Judicial Committee on Information Technology (JCIT) foresee for EFSPs in the new State eFiling system?
JCIT envisions that the EFSPs will continue to operate in the same role as they do today. JCIT recognizes that many of the EFSPs provide a value-add service to the eFiling process and don't want to deny attorneys the use of those value added features. However, JCIT is also open to the idea of a "no-frills" EFSP that would allow a filer to file electronically without any of the value added features in order to minimize the cost to the filer.



  1. Who will provide customer support and training for users of the new eFiling system (all users attorneys, pro se, government, clerks, judges, etc.)?
We would expect that the existing customer support model would continue (the vendor running the EFM would provide customer support and training)



  1. Are there any unique business requirements for governmental entities, pro se filers, indigent files, among case types, jurisdictions, etc? - (Updated 5/11/2011)
Other than the same business requirements for filing paper, there are no unique business requirements. The difference with governmental entities, pro se filers, and indigent filers is the reduced ability to pay for e-Filing. JCIT anticipates that the solution will focus on standards in transferring a filing into a case management system, leaving the unique business requirements on existing case management systems.



  1. Since JCIT is asking for a self-funded model, will the following filers be exempt from eFiling fees, court fees, all fees? - (Updated 5/11/2011)
  • Government filers
  • Pro se filers
  • Judges
  • Indigent filers (legal aid organizations)
Ideally, Pro se filers would only be responsible for court fees (the same fee they'd pay for a paper filing). The others listed should be exempt from all fees.

Currently, statutes in place govern filing fees. JCIT anticipates that any e-Filing fees ultimately will be part of the initial filing fees filed by the plaintiff in a case.



  1. Will the new system require judge support - such as judges submitting and eServing orders electronically? - (Updated 5/11/2011)
JCIT encourages judicial support for e-Filing. The lack of acceptance by an individual judge should not affect the implementation of e-Filing by the County.



  1. 11. JCIT is requesting functionality for process servers to retrieve documents electronically - will JCIT work with the state legislature to change laws to allow process servers to file affidavits of service electronically?
While it's too late to tackle this issue for this session, JCIT will consider the issue for the 2013 legislative session.



  1. How does the JCIT foresee the system handling clerk rejection errors and filing deadlines? What about filer errors and filing deadlines?
The current vision is that the system would allow clerks to reject or accept documents. Maintaining filing deadlines is up to the clerk's office. Basic data checking and customer support should be implemented to resolve most filer errors.



  1. Where will the eFiling application reside - is there a requirement to operate from the State's Data Center?
While it's preferable for the eFiling application to reside in the OCA data center (here in Austin), JCIT is open to having the application reside outside the OCA data center. In the event a RFP is issued, we'd more than likely ask prospective vendors demonstrate that any data center used provides an industry standard level of security.



  1. When does the JCIT foresee implementing the new system? What is the anticipated timeline from contract award to production system implementation?
Depending on the availability of funding/funding model, JCIT would foresee implementing the system within 1 year of a contract award. Of course, that point is negotiable and can be dependent on a variety of factors.



  1. The RFI states that the proposal should also include a Case Management System (CMS) and Document Management System (DMS) functionality. Is the intent to require the eFiling solution to be integrated into a single CMS or DMS?
Not at all - JCIT would expect that the eFiling solution be CMS/DMS agnostic and use OASIS as a standard interface to a CMS and/or DMS. The intent of the RFI is to include a CMS/DMS that could be used in hosted fashion for counties that do not have the resources for an electronic CMS/DMS.



  1. Since there are no Electronic Filing Managers (EFMs) of significant size in production in the US today, does the JCIT anticipate this will be a custom development project?
JCIT isn't locked into custom development, but could see someone using this as an opportunity to develop and commercial grade EFM that could be expanded nationally.



  1. Is the state looking for a replacement for a system to replace case management, e-filing system and document system?
Not necessarily - the state is looking at its options for potentially replacing the current eFiling system. In some counties no case management or document management systems exist. To this extent we're interested in what vendors have available to assist them.



  1. What will happen to the existing systems? Do we need to integrate them in place or migrate the data over?
If a new vendor won an eFiling contract, then yes, wed' replace the existing system. Currently, the portal connects with the CMS/DMS of the courts, so there isn't any data to migrate.



  1. Will the state allows us to use existing payment gateways? It would provide us priority processing.
Yes - you'd be welcome to use the existing payment gateway. The existent payment gateway doesn't provide a mechanism to designate a priority process.



  1. RFI requires the software ownership by the state and implies changes to code by the state at its desire. Is this correct?
Yes - the State must own the software and have the ability to change code as desired. However, in general the state prefers the vendor make changes when funding to do so is available.



  1. The RFI talks about load balancing between the 14 court of appeals, what are the rules for load balancing?
The information was explanatory; there will be no requirements that involve appellate load balancing.



  1. Regarding filer account creation, do we need to distinguish and/or verify attorneys from other users? If so, how can we verify user is who he/she claims to be?
Yes - attorneys all have a state bar number that can be used to verify their identity using a file regularly updated by the Bar. Texas.gov offers an identification verification gateway that might be able to be leveraged to identify other individuals.



  1. Looks like the system needs to store personal information such as borrower social security numbers etc. Please confirm.
No - we recommend that the personal information needed to process payment be stored outside the EFM using a gateway to the Texas.gov payment gateway or similar gateway.



  1. Will OCA/JCIT work with participating counties to standardize business processes statewide?
JCIT will continue in its role to recommend standards statewide. JCIT has no authority to enforce any recommended standards.



  1. Is OCA/JCIT willing to mandate NIEM 4.0, OASIS 2, or other compliance standard statewide?
JCIT has previously passed OASIS 2 as a recommended data exchange standard. JCIT has adopted the NEIM standard through rulemaking in the Texas Administrative Code, 1 TAC 177.1-177.2.



  1. Is there existing research that projects or calculates future growth rate, especially with respect to criminal filings?
No, research does not exist that projects future growth rate of criminal filings. Historical data regarding criminal filings can be found in the "Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary" published each year by the Office of Court Administration. The most recent report is found at http://courts.state.tx.us/pubs/AR2010/AR10.pdf.



  1. Is there any research that shows the percent of Criminal Filings that are actually Indigent?
No, research does not exist that shows the percent of criminal filings made by indigents. However, data is available on the percentage of cases where an attorney was appointed for the defendant, a measure of indigence. In FY2010, the felony appointment rate was 69.28%, the misdemeanor appointment rate was 38.71% and the juvenile appointment rate was 137.74% (multiple appointments per case).



  1. Section 1.4 states "Comply with national electronic filing standards (ECF) and any extensions required to support the initiative." Can you please provide a specific list of all known standards that the system is required to comply with (ECF for example)?
OASIS2 (which was folded into NIEM 4) are required.



  1. Please define or provide examples of "free-form pleadings and form based filings".
From the JCIT 2010 Report to the Supreme Court of Texas: One of the most cost-effective uses of eFiling is based on an electronic forms-based system that will allow the filer to complete as much of the document or pleading as possible using standardized forms, or web-based questions that will populate standardized forms. This is particularly important in the area where pro-se litigants, criminal defendants, and other indigent litigants are unable to pay filing fees.

An electronic form-based model avoids some of the issues with an image-based system such as: (1) unnecessary bandwidth on networks that are already stressed; (2) too much storage capacity, which can become difficult to manage; and (3) too much CPU capacity to manage the imaged documents.

Standards/Smart Forms Recommendation
JCIT should partner with other stakeholders to promulgate a number of standard forms for use in judicial processes. Forms should be developed for filing various pleadings and motions with trial courts. The goal for the culmination of this project is that each form will be accepted by any court in the State having subject matter jurisdiction for the case type covered by the form.

In addition to having standard forms accepted statewide, the computer-file version of each form will contain the form's filled-in data as XML data, so that the filled-in form data can be extracted as data when it arrives in a court clerk's office. This will eventually enable (but not require) a new level of automation in court clerk's offices as they receive the forms as electronic filings and extract the data directly into their court case management software systems without human intervention. Examples of this concept can be found at:
http://www.texaslawhelp.org/documents/clusters/TX/457/English/texaswithout.shtml (see interactive forms).



  1. Local Custodian of Record seems to present an obstacle to centralized public access. What progress is being made in order to accommodate this either via rule or other process?
Discussions are occurring during JCIT meetings to see how we can overcome obstacles to centralized public access.



  1. Does OCA anticipate providing the infrastructure necessary to host the eFiling system?
Not at this time.

a. If no, what are the costs associated with hosting in the OCA data center?

If a turnkey system would be provided, the costs would include:
  • Server hardware
  • Server software
  • Additional bandwidth to accommodate increased volume



  1. In Section 2.5 Specifications - Process Overview, capturing payment is only mentioned for Civil filings? How does OCA plan to capture court costs for Family/probate/criminal matters?
For family and probate, costs would be recovered similarly to Civil. For Criminal matters, payments would occur the same way they do today in the non-electronic world.



  1. In Section 2.5 Specifications - Process Overview, Step 7: Notification to Filer of Acceptance - Did OCA intend for Vendor to execute electronic service of process as indicated by the filer?
Not by default, but giving the filer the option to execute electronic service could be an additional service.



  1. Can you please provide a list of counties/jurisdictions that would be interested in a case and/or document management system?
JCIT/OCA does not have this data.



  1. What is the transition strategy from the existing system?
We would look to the vendor to determine an appropriate transition strategy. We can see the need to transition from the legacy system to a new system in order to avoid a data conversion.

a. Will migration of existing data be required?

Ideally a transition strategy that would not require a data conversion would be ideal.
  1. If yes, what types of data (e.g., scanned documents with large file sizes)?
  2. What would the required date range be for previously filed documents?
  3. What type of legal controls will need to be in place to handle, store, archive, and for the user to access the migrated data?
b. Will the new system and legacy system operate concurrently?

Preferably not, but given the size of the legacy system, concurrently operating the systems may be unavoidable.

c. Is your preference to convert existing customers and their information to the new system before bringing on new users?

JCIT has no preference. We'd want you to consider each customer and make a determination on when to bring them onto the system.

d. Is backward compatibility required?

Backward compatibility with the legacy system is not required if the EFSPs have been properly engaged, if the vendor doesn't engage the EFSPs, then the new interface will need to be backwards compatible.



  1. What type of support will the Process Servers need?
Allowing the process servers to retrieve documents that they need to serve is preferable although not required.

a. If remote process documentation preparation is required, what would be required to prepare a document for service if the server is in a remote location?

This would need to be explored in a later phase.

b. Does Process Server support require information that is outside of the EFM (e.g., in a case management system)?

No



  1. Are there any court-specific requirements for safeguarding private/sensitive information (not relating to payment processing)? Are there any court-specific requirements for safeguarding sealed records?
Bills regarding safeguarding sensitive data in court documents are pending, as is a Supreme Court rule dealing with the issue. Under most bills and the draft Supreme Court rule, the parties would be prohibited from putting sensitive data into court documents. A "Sensitive Data Sheet" would be filed under seal with the court and would contain necessary sensitive data. Sealed documents should not be available to the public in any scenario.

In addition, documents filed "ex parte" should not be served upon opposing counsel, so the system should allow for such.



  1. Will indexing of court documents be required?
This is not required, but an approach to a centralized index is appreciated.

a. If yes, are there specific requirements for indexing?

The ability to easily search an index for applicable documents is the main objective. Obvious indexes could include the parties, the attorneys and the subject matter.

b. How many documents will be expected per index?

Unknown

c. What is the expected average document size (in MB)?

This is unknown and will vary wildly depending on the document being filed.

d. With the advances in technology (e.g., video) will file size grow over time?

As technology changes, we'd expect to review the file size limits to ensure their applicability.

e. Will searches be limited to the Electronic Filing Manager (EFM) or will searches need to include results from other sources too?

We're envisioning the index to be derived from all court documents that are publicly accessible.



  1. What are the retention requirements for court case documents? Please include any specialized requirements (e.g., Juvenile or sealed records).
Retention schedules are published by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission. Those schedules can be found at http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/slrm/recordspubs/localretention.html. We'd expect the EFM to only house court documents until they've been transferred to a CMS/DMS.



  1. What are electronic filing rules for criminal eFiling?
JCIT is currently considering eFiling standards for criminal, but no standards have been finalized.



  1. In reference to the 4th bullet on Page 4, can JCIT provide format requirements for "export format"?
JCIT isn't tied to a particular format. However, at least one format should be machine readable (Excel, flat text) and at least one should be human readable (PDF or the like).



  1. What is the average number of views per Civil Record? What are the peak views per hour for Civil Records? What are the peak filings submitted per hour for Civil Records?
JCIT/OCA does not have this data.



  1. What is the average number of views per Criminal Record? What are the peak views per hour for Criminal Records? What are the peak filings submitted per hour for Criminal Records?
JCIT/OCA does not have this data.



  1. What are the current costs per record view per county?
Due to the decentralized state of the courts, this information is unknown to OCA/JCIT.



  1. On Page 12, does OCA intend that the eFiling vendor execute service of process (TRCP 15) or is the requirement that "Vendor executes service of copies as indicated by the filer" (TRCP 21a)?
The requirement is that the vendor executes service of copies as indicated by the filer (TRCP21a). If a vendor has a product that will accomplish TRCP 15, then JCIT will entertain that proposal.



  1. On Page 14, does OCA prefer a separate envelope for the original and each of the two copies, for a total of three separate envelopes, or can all three be placed in one envelope?
All three can be placed in one envelope.



  1. Please define the vision of a public facing portal and its functional components specified in 1.4 as well as the clerk and court systems in the context of ECF.
The details on the vision would be included in the subsequent RFP. The general process is outlined in section 2.5. We don't expect to see a comprehensive ECF with this one portal, but we do expect it to use a standard interface (OASIS 2) in order to allow it to exchange data with other court systems.



  1. Please define Electronic Filing Manager (EFM) functionality in the context of ECF and its capacity requirements.
See #47. The capacity of the EFM should be at a minimum of the amount of filings that we see today (See #1) and be easily scalable all the way up to all filings in the state (100% adoption and utilization)



  1. Is the "easy to use internet based portal that supports both free form pleadings and form based filings" envisioned to function as Electronic Filing Service Provider (EFSP)?
Yes - we would hope that the vendor create a "no frills" EFSP as a choice for attorneys.



  1. What would be the role and tenancy in that portal of the existing EFSPs?
See #6



  1. What integration options with the DIR provided payment gateway are available?
DIR (through NIC) currently provides a PCI DSS compliant payment gateway to process payments. This gateway takes a XML post, processes payments through a series of web screens, then makes an XML post back to your web application with a status (Success, Fail, Error).



  1. Is the existing integration between current e-filing system and courts based on NIEM, ECF4 or?
The existing portal was built on a strict OASIS XML DTD



  1. What "application development for specialized filer needs" is envisioned?
Special interfaces for government filers, pro se (self-represented) filers, judges and indigent filers will be needed. These are not routine electronic filers. See #9.



  1. Please clarify: if the compliance of the system with ECF is required what "transactional interface formats utilized beyond ECF standard" are being referred to?
This refers to interfaces that may be written to legacy CMS or DMS systems that are not ECF compliant.



  1. Are all of the filings in civil cases require a court fee, what are the exceptions, if any?
For details on the various court fees collected, see http://www.txcourts.gov/ForTrialCourts.asp (towards the bottom of the page). Additional county fees can also be charged and can be found on the county's website. For civil cases, fees are paid at the time of filing. Some petitioners can be found "indigent" and have the fees waived. For criminal cases, all fees are charged upon conviction. Again, some criminals can be found "indigent" and the fees waived. See #27 for information on criminal indigence.



  1. How many filings per case are in other case types, besides civil and criminal already mentioned?
    (Family, Juvenile, etc)
JCIT/OCA does not have this data.



  1. Are traffic and non-traffic misdemeanors cases included in the scope of the requested system?
Currently, traffic is outside the scope of this system. Non-Traffic misdemeanors would be considered criminal eFilings.



  1. Does the compliance of the system with ECF standard envisions XML schema, architecture (MDE) and the methods as defined in ECF?
Yes - JCIT desires the system to be standards based so that it can be easily integrated into the myriad of case management systems currently in production.



  1. Is the strict adherence with system functionality in 2.5 a mandatory requirement?
Currently the system is mandatory according to local court rules. However, other suggestions, or visions for system functionality are welcome.



  1. What is "service type" and where "parties" data comes from in 2.5 Step 3, 2nd bullet?
The filer selects if they would like regular service (where a process server takes the document and hands it to the person being sued) or electronic service, if both parties agree (where the document gets sent electronically to the respondent's lawyer.) The "parties" data comes from the filer.



  1. Step 4 in 2.5 states that payment is only for civil filings, what about other filing types (divorces and others)?
See #55 regarding fees. Note - divorces, probate, and juvenile cases are civil cases.



  1. What notification option(s) are used now and envisioned in the future system to alert the court that the filing is available for review?
Currently, no notification is given to the court clerk of e-filing. It is the responsibility of the clerk to search for new e- filings. JCIT desires a more efficient system whereby the clerk of the court would be notified immediately of any new e-filing.



  1. Where the acceptance and rejection of the filings occurs: in the court CMS, Clerk module, future system or?
In the current system, the clerk has the ability to reject a filing if it doesn't adhere to local rules. JCIT expects no change to this requirement.



  1. Are the filing fees consistent across the state?
No - Fees charged can be seen towards the bottom of http://www.txcourts.gov/ForTrialCourts.asp. Fees are set by the legislature and local governments.



  1. Is the payment gateway services in 3.4 are a single or multiple gateways?
The State of Texas operates a single payment gateway. See #51 for details.



  1. Please provide a copy of the Exhibit A Execution of Submission form.
This was a mistake on our part in using standard RFP language in the RFI - there is no need for an Exhibit A to be submitted.



  1. In the response to question 1- are those the number of civil filings?
Yes - the current system only accepts civil filings.



  1. What portion, if any of the revenue shared with the state/local agencies must transition into new system?
Currently, the answer is unknown.



  1. What is the anticipated timeline for releasing an RFP and making an award for this project?
Depending on the funding model, an RFP could go out as early October 2011. The award timeline would be established with that RFP.



  1. Your response to Question #1 indicates that there were approximately 45,000 filings during March 2011. Does the JCIT data analysis indicate a growth trend year over year for the number of filings?
The March 2011 numbers are higher than filings in March 2010. The reason for higher e-Filings in 2011 is unknown and could be related to increased adoption by courts and attorneys rather than an increased volume of filings.



  1. How many case management systems do you have presently?
According to an informal survey conducted in 2010, there are eight (8) predominant CMSes in use. However, each court has the power to adopt whatever CMS they like (and can pay for).



  1. Presently, which forms are filed electronically? What % of all forms can be filed electronically?
Currently there are no smart forms that have been implemented. There are a variety of task forces looking to develop smart forms.



  1. How many EFSP systems do you currently have? Which systems?
There are currently seven EFSPs. Please see http://www.texas.gov/en/tx-filing/pages/getting-started.aspx for more details.



  1. We understand it needs to be a self-funding model. But, is there a budget/funding for the upfront cost, e.g., implementation, development, integration, etc?
There is no current budget or funding models in place at this time.



  1. What percent of the filers are exempt from fees?
Civil filers that are indigent are exempt from fees. See #27 for more information.



  1. If vendor is expected to market this service, how will the marketing cost be funded?
The cost of any marketing efforts will be the responsibility of the vendor.



  1. Will all the courts be involved in this initiative?
See #2



  1. What is your rollout plan? By county? courts? Case types?
JCIT and OCA will work with any selected vendor to develop a plan.



  1. Ultimately, what is the maximum expected volume without the mandatory compliance? With the mandate?
Without a mandate, the maximum expected volume is unknown. With the mandate, the volume could include all the filings related to the cases enumerated in the RFI background data.



  1. Do you have a forecast for the growth in volume and in adoption rate for the next 5 years?
JCIT/OCA does not have this data.



  1. You showed the number of electronic filings per county. Do you also have the corresponding adoption rates?
No.



  1. Are all court documents, once filed, available and searchable for everyone / public? If not, what are the protocols and procedures for an electronic system to be notified that a particular set of court filings are to be private or accessed by only certain persons?
Currently, all electronic court documents are not available to the public. JCIT desires a system that would ultimately permit public access to electronic court records. No system has been developed at this time. The Supreme Court is working on protocols to protect sensitive data that will be implemented by court rules.



  1. What is meant by "Specialized Filer Needs" and what is meant by application development, in the past, for these persons or entities?
See #53



  1. What is meant by "process servers?"
See #106



  1. Currently, is it that only civil cases collect filing fees? Are no fees collected by criminal cases? And for civil cases, do both the petitioner and defendant average 10 filings per case?
See #55. The 10 filings per case is an average across both the petitioner and the defendant/respondent.



  1. Is there an existing workflow diagram or Visio chart outlining the current process for how a court will review and make a decision on the accept/reject process of a court document that has been filed?
No.



  1. How and when does the current vendor get paid? Is it that they collect a $4 dollar fee per electronic filing per case or from both the petitioner and defendant?
The current vendor collects the fees and forwards the court costs (fee minus the $4 per filing) to the court. The vendor receives the money per filing.



  1. What are the yearly financial receipts for the current vendor for this process?
Unknown.



  1. Is the current vendor participating (been notified or is expected to participate) in this RFI?
Yes.



  1. Of all civil cases, what percentage of cases filed electronically over the past several years?
JCIT/OCA does not have this data.



  1. What was the initial / original financial model (cash procurement, gain share, $4.00 per filing) with which the OCA and the current vendor began the electronic filing program? Has it changed? If so, how so?
The original model is the same "pay as you go" model that we use today.



  1. Is the State of Texas and/or the OCA expected to or willing to make electronic filing for civil cases mandatory?
See #2



  1. Other than the stated lack of statewide adoption rates for electronic filing and the lack of marketing efforts, what are other problems or concerns with the system and current vendor?
Our current challenges are expressed in section 1.3



  1. Would you be willing to share your Base Case? If so please provide.
JCIT/OCA doesn't have this data.



  1. Would EFSP provide integration to the new vendor?
JCIT expects that the vendor would work with new and existing EFSPs to ensure that they integrate.



  1. Would the current EFSP remain or be replaced?
See #6



  1. What are the 'frills' that the EFSP are providing today? Are there expected changes for the future?
The EFSP's are better situated to address this question. Please see http://www.texas.gov/en/tx-filing/pages/getting-started.aspx for more details.



  1. Will the EFSP continue to provide the payment portal?
The response varies depending on the EFSP.



  1. Can you provide a diagram/flow chart illustrating the workflow for the case file and for the payment flow?
No.



  1. How many counties currently have integration with the current vendor and the local case management software?
JCIT/OCA does not have this data. The Council of Urban Counties and the Texas Association of Counties may have this information.



  1. Is it a valid to assume that the existing provider of first level of support for Help Desk will remain? And that they will be required to support the routing of issues to the new vendor? What are the expectations of the new vendor to support this transition?
No - if a new vendor was awarded a contract, they would be responsible for first level of support. The new vendor would be expected to have a plan to support a transition.



  1. Please describe the current process for customer support? And how does this vary for the different counties?
Generally, the current vendor is responsible for customer support for the EFSPs and counties and the EFSP may provide support for the attorney or end user.



  1. Please describe the current customer support model and the current training model? What would you expect from the new vendor as it relates to these areas?
The new vendor would be responsible for training and support of the counties and EFSPs. JCIT desires a plan for training and support.



  1. The RFI calls for the new vendor to support marketing efforts to increase county participation. Can you share your vision around the marketing plan? And what would JCIT's role be in this marketing effort?
JCIT is not currently involved in current marketing. JCIT's role in the marketing effort would be to review the vendor's marketing plan.



  1. Please clarify the statement "ownership of the Electronic Filing Manager." Does this mean that the State wants to own the source code?
See #20



  1. Please clarify the statement "process servers." Does this mean the state would like a vendor to provide individuals who can effect service of process of complaints, summons and warrants?
No - this means that the portal should provide a facility to get documents to a process server so that they can then serve the documents to the appropriate party. In the event a party has signed on to accept electronic service, the system should serve them directly and electronically. The vendor may also present any plan or system for providing service of process.



  1. The RFI states that "to date, there are 374 courts in 47 counties using the statewide eFiling system." Please clarify if the intent of this RFI is to replace the existing statewide efiling system provided by Texas.gov. If yes, then is the intent to replace the existing statewide eFiling system solely because of the additional costs ($100) that the filers have to pay when they file a case electronically?
The intent of the RFI is to obtain information as enumerated in the RFI.



  1. Payment Gateway: The RFI states that "...Respondents should propose integration with the existing payment gateway." Please provide a list of approved payment gateway services used by the State of Texas.
See #51 for more information regarding the single approved payment gateway.



  1. How many different types of CMS' does the State of Texas have? Please provide their names and vendor information. This will help in determining the integration effort with the existing CMS systems.
See #71



  1. How many different types of Document Management Systems are in use in the State of Texas? Please provide product names and vendor information. This will help in determining the integration effort with the existing DMS systems.
JCIT/OCA doesn't have this data.



  1. Does the OCA infrastructure have an existing enterprise level document management system?
No



  1. Are "criminal case filings" in scope for the Statewide eFiling solution?
Yes



  1. For responses to section "3.1.2 Provide approximate costs of products and services suggested for use", does OCA have a preferred template to be filled out for cost estimates?
No - there is no template.



  1. Does OCA have a list of functional requirements that may be shared?
No - at this time there are no functional requirements for an e-Filing system.



  1. Page 13 of the RFI states "Failure to sign and return the Exhibit A Execution of Submission with the submitted Response will result in rejection of the submittal." We are unable to locate Exhibit A. Please let us know how we may obtain a copy of Exhibit A for submission purposes.
See #66. There is no Exhibit A, it was an error in the RFI.

To view or print PDF files you must have the Adobe Acrobat® reader. This software may be obtained without charge from Adobe. Download the reader from the Adobe Web site.

Updated: 25-Jul-2011

TCO Encyclopedia

A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | All


Loading

Texas Appellate Courts

The Supreme Court of Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals
Courts of Appeals [by District-City]
1-Houston | 2-Fort Worth | 3-Austin
4-San Antonio | 5-Dallas | 6-Texarkana
7-Amarillo | 8-El Paso | 9-Beaumont
10-Waco | 11-Eastland | 12-Tyler
13-Corpus Christi/Edinburg
14-Houston
Appellate Statistics