Request for Proposal

Assessment of Juror Utilization in the Superior Courts of California

  • Status
    Archived
  • Archived
    2009

Description


RFP Number: EOP-200905-CT

The Administrative Office of the Courts seeks the services of a consultant with knowledge of superior court systems, particularly jury systems, expertise in business operations and management, and experience evaluating data collected by electronic data management systems, to conduct an assessment of jury utilization for the Superior Courts of California.

Questions regarding the RFP should be submitted in writing, as specified in the RFP, to the AOC by 1:00 pm (Pacific Time) on May 19, 2009. The AOC estimates that answers to questions submitted by the deadline should be posted by May 21st, 2009.

Written proposals must be received by 3:00 pm (Pacific Time) June 3, 2009.

Hard copy proposals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Attn: Nadine McFadden - RFP# EOP-200905-CT
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

Further details regarding solicitation and program requirements are set forth in the RFP No. EOP-200905-CT, Assessment of Juror Utilization in the Superior Courts of California, below:

Request for Proposal

Attachment 1 - Administrative Rules

Attachment 2 - Minimum Contract Terms

Attachment 3 - Vendor's Acceptance

Attachment 4 - Payee Data Record

Attachment 5 - DVBE Participation Form

Questions and Answers

Addendum No. 1

Notice of Intent to Award a Contract

Notice of Contract Award

Attachments

Disclaimer

The Judicial Council, as a public entity, prohibits direct contact with any Council personnel during the solicitation process in order to maintain fairness and equality to all proposers. Proposers are specifically directed NOT to contact any judicial branch entity personnel or consultants for meetings, conferences, or discussions that are related to the solicitation at any time between release of the solicitation and any award and execution of a contract. Unauthorized contact with any judicial branch entity personnel or consultants may be cause for rejection of the Proposer’s proposal.