Public Notice Detail
Request for Proposals: Psychological Service Management Application
Posted: Friday, May 2, 2025
Read the
Request for Proposals.
Proposal submission deadline: May 23, 2025 at 5 p.m. CST
Psychological Services Management Solution
RFP Questions and Answers
Will the solution be hosted in the State’s infrastructure, or should we include pricing for cloud-based hosting?
Please provide cloud hosting service as a unique line item in your cost proposal.
Please provide the estimated monthly and annual referral volumes by referral type and district.
Averages (per month): Family Court – 2, Felony – 112, Gross Misdemeanor – 19, Juvenile – 18, Misdemeanor – 20, Probate/Mental Health – 23.
Will integration access to MNCIS, ERA, and eFile & Serve be available via direct API connections?
Yes
Please specify the anticipated number of end users and roles (e.g., Examiner, Case Manager, Supervisor).
Admin Supervisor/Department Head, 31 Psychologists, 7 Support roles
Will the Branch require onsite deployment, or will remote implementation be sufficient?
Remote implementation will be sufficient.
Should uploads expire or be retained even if unreviewed?
Documents should never expire and should be retained until physically removed.
Are there workflows that vary by referral type (e.g., Civil Commitments vs, Juvenile)?
There are no differences by referral type. Civil Commitments is a very different process where an examiner is stationed on the floor and it’s more of a walk in type solution. None of these cases are entered in the existing solution.
Should flags auto-expire or be manually cleared?
Flags should be manually removed and should not auto expire.
Are there preferred transcription engines or prohibitions on cloud transcription services due to data residency?
The District does not have a preferred transcription engine. Vendors are encouraged to offer solutions and Courts Cyber Security team will assist in vetting offered solutions to ensure fit and security.
Will the Court require migration or recreation of existing referral, report, or document templates within the new solution?
The existing solution does not have any templates. Templates will be newly created in the new solution.
Will the court manage and authorize app registrations within their Microsoft tenant?
Yes, we do authorize and manage app registrations in our M365 tenant.
Will the court provide a data extract from the SharePoint system or direct access?
Courts would entertain both options as viable.
Should the same user be able to perform both assignment and scheduling by default, or are these always separated?
These are typically separate functions. The assignments are performed by the department head, while appointment scheduling is performed by either the Case Manager or the Examiner.
Are there anticipated needs for bulk assignment or scheduling (e.g., mass calendar uploads, round-robin logic)?
No. Each referral is individually assigned. Similarly, each referral is independently scheduled.
Does the court intend to include support for non-criminal referrals (e.g., Family or Probate/Mental Health) from the outset?
Yes.
Will document retention rules differ based on document type or source?
No. All documents follow common retention rules.
Are there restrictions on max file size per upload or storage allocated per referral?
No, unless the service provider specifies upload limitations.
Are there authoritative sources (e.g., MNCIS Person Index) to cross-check before party merge?
No, there is no cross checking with other systems.
Should the system suggest merges base don logic or require manual initiation?
Yes, based on logic/rules, however, these should be presented to the Case Manager to evaluate and then accept or reject. Rules would look at things such as DOB, First/Last Names, etc.
Will merge records require review/approval post-action?
No. The system should note the merge in the notes for each party.
Are flag types standardized across districts, or configurable locally?
Since this is a 4th District (Hennepin) only solution, all flags should be locally configurable.
Are assignment constraints enforced automatically, or left to user discretion?
Presumably, left to the discretion of the person assigning. This is where we would expect AI to play a role: The ‘machine’ examines the body of unassigned referrals, and then, using the stored table criteria, makes a set of recommended assignments to the scheduler. The scheduler accepts some of the recommendations, and runs the process again to determine, based on new assignments, how to best assign the remaining referrals, and so on, until all referrals are assigned, or the process is abandoned for any number of reasons.
Will examiner availability be manual or require calendar integration (e.g., O365)?
We would like to have calendar integration if possible. The goal is to deal with calendaring in as few places as possible. As appointments are ‘booked’ in the solution, the examiners business ‘Outlook’ calendar is automatically updated.
Should tasks include reminders or escalation triggers for overdue cases?
The existing system does not have any triggering mechanism for overdue cases, but it would be nice to have.
Can multiple Case Managers be assigned per Examiner?
No. There is one case manager supporting multiple/several examiners.
Should Case Managers access calendars beyond assigned Examiners?
Case Managers should see the calendars of those examiners they work directly with, the physical room calendars where examinations may be performed, and calendars set within a referral itself. It should be an administrative function to assign other examiners calendars to a case manager as a means of covering ‘outages’ such as sick leave, vacation, etc.
Will dashboard panels be needed for supervisors managing multiple examiners?
No. One dashboard is sufficient.
Will enterprise-wide app registration in Azure AD be authorized, or is per-user consent required?
Enterprise-wide.
Will costs differ by funding source or referral type?
No. Costs for tests, mileage etc., will be common across the system.
Should cost table changes require review before activation?
No, but access to the table should be defined to a given role(s) to be set by the system administrator and department head.
Is there a workflow for editing cost records (e.g., notify Examiner)?
No. Updates to mileage charges occur annually and require no workflow or approval. Similarly, testing costs change over time and a simple update to the table is sufficient. An audit trail of changes is helpful.
Are there restrictions on test-related document uploads?
Uploads would be restricted to department staff only and would need to conform to common media and document types (.pdf, docx, xlsx, jpeg, mp4, etc.).
Are billing codes standardized or locally configurable?
Billing Codes are locally configurable.
Should time entries be exportable or integrated into ERA?
Integrated. This process currently is manual entry and we would like to eliminate that effort.
Are there workflows specific to Civil Commitment extensions/continuances?
Civil Commitment extensions/continuances are handled similarly to any other extension or continuance. The request is made, and the Court determines validity of the request and grants or denies the request. The system is updated once the case management system is updated.
Is a metadata purge mechanism required post-retention?
No. Some of the metadata is helpful over time and the url’s, or file location references are essential. It is the raw documents which consume file space and are likely duplicative already housed elsewhere, that should be removed.
Are there external systems for document tagging (e.g., MNCIS, DOC Vault)?
Yes, the District uses a product called OpenText AppEnhnacer as a document repository. This serves as a prime search point for historical records.
Should indirect/admin costs be auto applied or manually logged?
Indirect/Admin costs should be automatically applied on each referral.
Should rejected ERA submissions be returned to the user or handled centrally?
Rejected ERA submissions should be returned to the Case Manager assigned to the referral.
Are differing submission formats required per referral type?
No. Submission formats are consistent for all referral types. Report outputs do differ based on report type.
Should users preview section outputs before final report merge?
Yes. The output should be presented as editable text permitting the Examiner the ability to retain some or all of the suggested text and the ability to add new and edit existing.
Are test types or report sections mandatory based on classification?
Depending on the case types, some tests are mandated. Tests performed beyond the mandatory examinations are at the discretion of the examiner. Report sections are deemed essential.
Should communications be e-signed or filed via system integration?
Yes, communications, such as Memo to the Court for date extensions should be e-signed by the examiner and e-filed via system integration.
Are there third-party systems requiring scheduled data exports?
No. There are no third-party systems that are dependent on this data.
Are KPIs prioritized for dashboards vs. reports?
In most instances KPIs are report oriented since they are measured across longer time spans (weekly, monthly, annually). Dashboard KPIs would be limited to only those things coming due for the dashboard owner impacting daily/weekly work organization.
Should admin artifacts beyond memos trigger notes?
Those actions/events that impact a referral or a party in a meaningful manner should be auditable in the referral notes. Those things that impact the operation of the business do not require notes.
Will appointment scheduling integrate with facility booking tools (e.g., O365)?
The desire is to have the solution assign an examiner to a referral, create the examination appointment, and reserve the evaluation room all in one place. The system would create the room reservation and create the calendar appointment for the examiner in Courts O365 environment.
Can the Court provide IRMA API specs or integration guidance?
Yes, at the time of engagement, the IRMA integration specifications will be provided.