Request for Proposal

Offsite Record Storage RFP COA2D-1-2012

  • Status
    Archived
  • Archived
    2012

Description

The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District and AOC are seeking proposals from Record Storage Service Providers for the provision of secure offsite storage and related services for Court records for its Los Angeles and Ventura locations

In order to gain economies of scale, to standardize terms and conditions for similar services throughout the judicial branch, this RFP shall include the 58 Superior Courts of California, the Supreme Court of California, the Habeas Corpus Resource Center and the Administrative Office of the Courts.

The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District will email out conference address from docstor.rfp@jud.ca.gov to all registered proposers.

Questions regarding this RFP should be directed to the docstor.rfp@jud.ca.gov no later October 21, 2012 by close of business PST.

Hard copy proposals must be received no later than November 14, 2012, by close of business PST.

Proposals must be sent to:

Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District
Attn: Administration (DocStorage)
300 South Spring Street, Suite 2217
Los Angeles, CA 90013

RFP

Attachment-1-Terms and Conditions

Attachment 2- Contract Exceptions:

Attachment-3-Darfur Contracting Act Certification

Attachment-5-Cost Matrix

Attachment-6-Conflict of Interest

Attachment-7-Payee Data Record

Attachment-8-Administrative Rules

Addendum 1

Vendor Questions and Answers

CMAS Agreement

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.