Judicial Court Management System

The vendor is required to provide judicial/court management solutions for the quasi-judicial proceedings conducted by the county’s administrative law judge, boundary review board, and board.
- Project will encompass the selection, acquisition, implementation, training, support, and maintenance of software or a cloud-based solution.
1. Improve efficiency, transparency, and consistency in case handling.
2. Provide intuitive user experiences for staff, hearing officers, attorneys, and the public.
3. Meet accessibility and security standards and ensure privacy compliance.
4. Enable robust reporting, audit trails, and performance metrics.
- Vendors will provide:
1. Software (SaaS): Licensing/subscription for CMS and all required modules.
2. Implementation Services: Discovery, configuration, data migration, integrations, testing, training.
3. Change Management & Training: Role-based training materials, workshops, and adoption support.
4. Hosting & Security: Secure hosting with specified service level agreements (SLAs) and compliance. 
5. Support & Maintenance: Ongoing updates, help desk, bug fixes, and vendor-managed enhancements.
6. Documentation: System, admin, user, API, and security documentation.
7. Project Management: A dedicated project manager, schedule, deliverables, risks/issues logs, and status reporting.
- Future functionalities requested are:
1. Management of processes and case lifecycle workflows relating to intake and processing of documents, including processing exhibits, creation of exhibit lists, and maintenance of the case record.
2. Scheduling and calendaring of hearings, case events, and deadlines and notification of deadlines.
3. E-filing by appellants and petitioners.
4. Ability of public to submit comments on active land use applications.
5. Ability of public to search for and view information such as active case records and decisions.
6. Communication and retention of communication records with participants (desired but not required).
7. Distribution of orders and decisions.
8. Ability of OHA staff to conduct full-text searches of all case records.
9. The proposed solution should be deployed off premises, either hosted by the proposer or in the cloud (Azure, AWS, etc.) The proposed solution does not need to accept payments. 
10. The proposed solution does not need to comply with CJIS standards. 
11. The proposed solution should identify hardware and software required of OHA to implement the solution.
12. The proposed solution and related case records should be stored off the county’s premises, either in an environment hosted by the proposer, another hosted environment, or in the cloud (e.g., Azure or AWS). For example, OHA does not intend to stand up a county SharePoint site to contain case records. Case records include documents, exhibits and audio/video recordings. If the proposed solution includes communication with participants, communications should be stored as case records.
13. The proposed solution must provide an enterprise grade full text search capability to efficiently locate cases, documents, docket entries, and related records across all records in the system. The search functionality must support both structured data (e.g., case metadata) and unstructured data (e.g., filings, scanned documents, and notes). The proposal shall describe how the proposed solution meets or exceeds the requirements in this section.
14. Search functionality shall include:
     I. Keyword search across all indexed content.
     II. Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT).
     III. Phrase search (e.g., “summary judgment”).
     IV. Field specific search (e.g., party name or case type).
     V. Highlighted text snippets showing matched terms in context.
     VI. Faceted filtering (e.g., case type, filing date, location, or party role).
15. The proposed solution must allow the public to search for and view case records, including exhibits, decisions, and orders. The search function should be robust and similar to the requirements in paragraph 13 above. The search function should identify at least 95% of responsive records.
16. The proposed solution must allow the public to file comments on pending land use applications and BRB cases. By way of example only, the public could comment by filling out a form that has a drop-down menu of pending active land use applications or BRB cases and text boxes. Public comments are not allowed after the case record or testimony closes, however. Therefore, the proposed solution must disable the public’s ability to comment on a particular land use application or BRB case, either automatically on a calculated or specified date or manually.

- Contract Period/Term: 5years
- Questions/Inquires Deadline: March 10, 2026