This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
COLORADO OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
For Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) Review of the Integrated Colorado Courts E-Filing System (ICCES) and Judicial Paper on Demand (jPOD) System at the Colorado Judicial Department
November 9, 2011
Exhibit B-Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Information to Be Included in Proposal
Proposal Evaluation Process
SECTION I ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
ISSUING OFFICE This request for proposal (RFP) is issued by the Office of the Colorado State Auditor. The terms State Auditor, State, and State of Colorado are used interchangeably. All proposals should be delivered to: Office of the Colorado State Auditor Legislative Services Building 200 East 14th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Attn: Jonathan Trull email@example.com
BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) is soliciting proposals to conduct an Independent Verification & Validation review (IV&V review) of the Colorado Judicial Department’s (the Department) Integrated Colorado Courts E-Filing System (ICCES) and Judicial Paper on Demand (jPOD) system development projects. The Colorado Judicial Department’s mission states, “The Colorado Judicial Department is a fair and impartial system of justice that: protects constitutional and statutory rights and liberties; assures equal access to justice; provides fair, timely and constructive resolution of cases; ensures public safety; supervises offenders; and facilitates victim and community reparations.” The Colorado state court system consists of appellate and trial courts. The appellate court consists of the Colorado Court of Appeals and the Colorado Supreme Court. The trial courts consist of district courts, county courts, and water courts. A detailed description of these courts is available under Section IV-Supplemental Information. Most of these courts currently use an online vendor system, LexisNexis, for all electronic filings (efilings) by attorneys or their paralegals for general and limited jurisdiction cases (i.e., county and district civil, probate, water, and domestic relations). The LexisNexis system allows the attorneys and courts to e-file case documents and court orders and serve notices and other legal documents to case parties. In 2008, the Department conducted a feasibility study to develop its own system that could replace LexisNexis. In 2009, the Department obtained the necessary authorization to build a new, in-house e-filing system called ICCES. The Department plans to replace the current LexisNexis system with ICCES by January 1, 2013. -1-
Integrated Colorado Courts E-Filing System (ICCES) ICCES will be the Department’s new e-filing system that is expected to replace all of the functions currently performed by LexisNexis. In addition, ICCES is expected to provide new functionalities, such as the ability for pro se filers (filers without attorneys) to e-file, that are currently missing in the LexisNexis system. Implementation of ICCES comprises two main phases: Phase I: The first phase of ICCES went live as of April 2011 and included e-filings for small claims courts. Phase II: This phase is expected to go live as of January 1, 2013, when the Department’s contract with LexisNexis expires. Phase II is expected to include e-filing of court documents for the following case types: county and district civil, general jurisdiction domestic relations, civil probate, water, civil and criminal court of appeals. Future Phases: The Department hopes to continue to expand ICCES in the future to add additional functionalities not provided by LexisNexis, such as online filing services for the criminal and juvenile court systems in Colorado and the ability for pro se filers to efile. The programming language for ICCES is JAVA 1.6. The operating system for the application server is Windows 2008 and for the client is Windows 2007/XP. The database is DB2 RDBMS running on an AS/400 operating system on IBM’s iSeries Power 5 and 7. The programming team for ICCES comprises eight full-time programmers and eight business analysts, along with one project manager. Based on current case load statistics, the Department anticipates that ICCES will have to handle approximately 50,000 filings a month. ICCES also needs to integrate with ICON/Eclipse, the Department’s current case management system, and jPOD, the new case management system that is currently under development. The mechanism to integrate ICCES with jPOD and ICON/Eclipse is currently in production. The Department estimates that by December 2011 it will have completed 30 percent of the work on Phase II of the ICCES project. The Department has budgeted $1.3 million for operating costs, consulting work, maintenance, and 17 full-time-equivalent personnel for Fiscal Year 2012 (July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012) and another $2.6 million for Fiscal Year 2013 (July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013), which includes post-go live maintenance by the Department’s IT staff. Judicial Paper on Demand (jPOD) Case Management System The Department is currently building its new case management system—Judicial Paper on Demand (jPOD). jPOD is expected to replace the current case management system,
ICON/Eclipse, at the Department. ICON/Eclipse currently provides a platform for court, probation, jury, and financial data functions, such as: Case flow document management. Sentencing, judgments, and commitment orders. Probate cases, trusts, and wills. Juror selection and juries. Financial functions, such as receipting and reconciliation reports. Restitution payments. Collections of intercepted payments through state departments, such as the Department of Revenue and the Department of Corrections. An Alternate Dispute Resolution program. Drug treatment data. Victims’ assistance logs. Electronic sex offender registrations. Probation offender assessments. Aggregate statistical reporting capabilities. Operational tools, such as calendars and mailing labels. Bond/bail records. Scheduled events. Dockets for all events. Electronic distribution of arrest warrants and protection orders. Interface with Colorado’s Integrated Criminal Justice Information System (CICJIS), the Department of Revenue, and the Department of Human Services, which includes transferring data and allowing staff from other agencies the capability to query court information. Integration with attorney registration database. Tracking of defendants on probation.
ICON/Eclipse also allows for court document queries by other state agencies, such as users from: Agencies that use CICJIS. Colorado Department of Revenue. Colorado Department of Human Services. Colorado Department of Corrections.
ICON/Eclipse is an aging system written in an antiquated programming language that is becoming more complex to support. The Department is gradually migrating from the existing programming language (RPGILE-IV) to a more contemporary programming language that provides Web and mobile capabilities, along with an ability to mold into an architecture that is more consistent with the Department’s technical infrastructure, providing high availability and disaster recovery. In April 2008, the Department went live -3-
with the first two modules of jPOD, which included the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. Since then, the Department has been rolling out new modules necessary to replace ICON/Eclipse. Currently, the Department is developing its 39 modules that are necessary to support the ICCES e-filing application, followed by the remaining court, probation, financial, and jury modules. A complete list of these 39 modules is available under Section IV-Supplemental information. The Department estimates that as of December 2011, six to nine modules of these 39 modules necessary to support ICCES would be live. jPOD was initially developed in 2006 as a thick client. Since then, business and technical requirements have forced the Department to rethink the user interface architecture. The advancements in Web 2.0 technology and the need to utilize the initial Service Oriented Architecture have forced the Department to move to a web application base for the remaining jPOD build-out. The Department, however, continues to use the thick clientbased old jPOD system for certain modules. Currently, the programming language for jPOD is JAVA 1.6. The operating system for the server is Windows 2008 and for the client is Windows 2007/XP. The database is DB2 RDBMS running on an AS/400 operating system on IBM’s iSeries Power 5 and 7. The programming team for jPOD comprises 7.5 full-time programmers and 6.75 analysts, along with one project manager. Based on current case load statistics, the Department anticipates that there will be 1,5002,000 users who would be using jPOD at the same time. The total user based of jPOD consist of around 3,500 users. Currently, jPOD is in Phase II, and the Department estimates that it has completed 13 percent of the work as of September 2011. The Department has budgeted about $1.1 million for operating costs, consulting work, maintenance, and personnel costs for Fiscal Year 2012 (July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012). The Department has invested approximately $ 1.1 million towards hardware for both ICCES and jPOD systems.
SERVICES REQUIRED The purpose of this RFP is to solicit proposals to perform an Independent Verification & Validation review (IV&V review) of the Colorado Judicial Department’s (the Department) Integrated Colorado Courts E-Filing System (ICCES) and Judicial Paper on Demand (jPOD) system development projects. The contractor shall conduct an IV&V review in accordance with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association (IEEE-SA) STD 1012-2004 and the Capability Maturity Model Integrated, the Project Management Institute’s Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), and the PMBOK—Government Extension as additional standards, when applicable. Deliverables The engaged firm will be required to:
Attend an entrance conference with the Department. Provide routine progress reports to the OSA’s assigned contract monitor and the audit manager throughout the duration of the engagement. Submit written findings to the OSA and discuss them with the contract monitor, audit manager, Deputy State Auditor, and State Auditor before presenting the findings with the Department. Hold a findings meeting with Department management to formally present and discuss the results of the IV&V review. This meeting is to occur before the written draft report is completed. The selected contractor should also anticipate holding an additional findings meeting to brief the Department’s ICCES Oversight Committee on the IV&V review. Submit a report outline to the OSA for review. Submit a draft IV&V review report that presents findings, conclusions, and recommendations to the OSA for review. Revise the IV&V review report to incorporate suggestions made by the OSA. After approval by the State Auditor, submit the draft IV&V review report to the Department for review. Hold an exit conference with the Department to discuss the draft IV&V review report. Submit a final IV&V review report to the OSA that includes revisions, as appropriate, and, when possible, addresses comments or concerns raised by the Department. Provide oral testimony to the Legislative Audit Committee and, if requested, to another legislative committee regarding the review’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Timeline for Completing Project Milestones Proposals should indicate target dates for meeting the following project milestones: Attend entrance conference and start fieldwork. Complete fieldwork.
Submit written findings and discuss findings with the OSA. Allow at least one week for the OSA to review. Hold findings meeting with the Department. Submit a report outline to the OSA. Allow at least 1 week for the OSA to review. Submit a draft report to the OSA for review. Allow at least 2 weeks for the OSA to review, plus time for revisions. Submit a draft IV&V review report to the Department for review. Allow at least 2 weeks for the Department’s review—1 week prior to the exit conference, plus an additional week after the exit conference for revisions and to obtain the Department’s final written responses to any IV&V review recommendations. Hold an exit conference with the Department. This meeting should occur approximately half-way through the Department’s review period. Obtain the Department’s final written responses to any IV&V review recommendations and incorporate into the report. Submit a final IV&V review report to the OSA. Allow at least 1 week prior to the report distribution deadline for final review, incorporation of the Department’s final written responses, and printing. The OSA will be responsible for distributing the IV&V review report to the Legislative Audit Committee. Provide oral presentation on the IV&V review report at the Legislative Audit Committee hearing. Hearing dates and report distribution dates for 2012 are included in Section IV – Supplemental Information of this RFP.
Project Scope The purpose of this evaluation is to perform an IV&V review of two systems, ICCES and jPOD, and the integration between the two systems at the Department. The scope for jPOD is limited to the 39 modules that are necessary to support ICCES. The contractor shall conduct an IV&V review in accordance with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association (IEEE-SA) STD 1012-2004 of jPOD and ICCES being developed by the Department. A link to the IEEE-SA STD 1012-2004 is provided in the attached supplemental information. In addition, the contractor shall employ the Capability Maturity Model Integrated, the Project Management Institute’s Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), and the PMBOK—Government Extension as additional standards, when applicable. The
contractor should demonstrate adequate experience related to technology associated with the two systems. The following tasks need to be included in the scope of work. 1. Validate the adequacy of the design of jPOD and ICCES to meet the Department’s requirements for online filing and the case management system. This validation should include tracing the software requirements to the system requirements (concept documentation) and system requirements to the software requirements. 2. Evaluate the requirements (e.g., functional, capability, interface qualification, security, human factors, data definitions, user documentation, installation and acceptance, user operation, and user maintenance) of the software requirement specifications and interface requirement specifications for correctness, consistency, completeness, accuracy, readability, and testability. 3. Verify and validate that the requirements for software interfaces with analysis hardware, users, operators, and other systems are correct and consistent and that interface requirement specifications are complete, accurate, and testable. 4. Verify the configuration management process is complete and adequate. 5. Determine whether the security requirements identified in the software requirement specifications and interface requirement specifications address the security risks introduced by the system concept. 6. Evaluate the design elements in the system design document and the interface design document for correctness, consistency, completeness, accuracy, readability, and testability. 7. Evaluate whether the software design interfaces with hardware, users, operators, software, and other systems are appropriate. 8. Verify the allocation of system requirements, validate the selected solution, and ensure that no false assumptions have been incorporated in the solution. 9. Ensure the correctness, completeness, accuracy, testability, and consistency of the system software requirements. 10. Verify that no unintended features are being introduced. 11. Verify the completeness of each milestone and its associated deliverables. 12. Verify the quality of the Department’s documentation and work plans throughout each milestone period. 13. Validate that the test plan conforms to project-defined test document purpose, format, and content. 14. Verify that the logic design and associated data elements correctly implement the critical requirements and introduce no new hazards. 15. Verify the quality of the plans to educate and train Department staff to use jPOD and ICCES. 16. Verify the quality of the plans for outreach, education, and training to the affected stakeholders, such as attorneys, paralegals, county and city staff who need to access filings, pro se litigants, and judges. 17. Report on other problems, concerns, issues, and risks identified during project performance. -7-
18. Verify project sponsor oversight. 19. Contractor shall maintain an awareness of any areas outside of the services in which the Department may not be carrying out its programs in an effective and efficient manner. Contractor shall discuss any such areas with the State to determine whether the State desires Contractor to undertake a performance audit of the Department’s program(s). The cost of a performance audit is not included within the scope of this Contract. Therefore, any performance audit shall be subject to negotiation and set forth in a separate agreement among Contractor, the State Auditor, and the Legislative Audit Committee. The State anticipates that, at a minimum, the following items and areas will be reviewed by the IV&V review vendor: Project Planning Documents Project Schedule Status Reports Project Management Execution Project Budget Execution Requirements Management Detail Application Design Technical Architecture Design Data Migration Planning Test Planning and Execution Configuration Management Hosting Environment Implementation Training Planning System Rollout Planning D. INQUIRIES SECTION Prospective bidders may make written or verbal inquiries concerning this RFP to obtain clarification of requirements. Please address all inquiries to Jonathan Trull, IT Deputy State Auditor, firstname.lastname@example.org (email), 303-869-2859 (phone), or 303-8693060 (fax). No inquiries will be accepted after 5:00 p.m. MDT on November 21, 2011. E. SUBMISSION All proposals become the property of the State Auditor upon receipt and will not be returned to the bidder. The State Auditor shall have the right to use all ideas, or adaptations of these ideas, contained in any proposal received in response to this RFP. Selection or rejection of the proposal will not affect this right.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL This RFP does not commit the State Auditor to award a contract, to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of a bid submitted in response to this request, or to procure or contract for services or supplies. The State Auditor reserves the right to accept or reject, in part or in its entirety, any or all bids received as a result of this RFP if, in the opinion of the State Auditor, it is in the best interest of the State to do so. The lowest cost proposal will not necessarily be selected. Final scope and price may be negotiated after selection of the contractor.
PROPOSALS - SCHEDULE The following schedule will be followed: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. RFP emailed to prospective bidders Prospective bidders’ inquiry deadline (5:00 p.m. MDT) OSA response to inquiry deadline Proposal submission deadline (5:00 p.m. MDT) Bid selection Contract date (November 9, 2011) (November 21, 2011) (November 28, 2011) (December 7, 2011) (December 12, 2011) (December 14, 2011)
Any proposal received after the submission deadline will not be considered. The proposal is to be submitted to the State Auditor via email addressed to the Office of the State Auditor representative listed in Section I, Part D of this RFP. The proposal must be sent by a person legally authorized to bind the bidder. Alternatively, five (5) copies of the proposal may be submitted, signed by a person legally authorized to bind the bidder. H. ADDENDUM OR SUPPLEMENT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL The State Auditor reserves the right to issue amendments to this RFP prior to the closing date for submission of proposals. In the event that it becomes necessary to revise any part of this RFP, an addendum to this RFP will be provided to each prospective bidder. I. AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSION The State Auditor reserves the right to make an award without further discussion of proposals received. Therefore, it is important that the proposal be submitted in the most complete terms possible from both the technical and cost standpoint. J. AWARD INFORMATION TO UNSUCCESSFUL FIRMS The State Auditor will notify all unsuccessful bidders after the award. No information will be released after the proposal submission deadline until an award has been made.
JOINT VENTURES No joint venture proposals will be accepted. However, this requirement does not preclude the use of outside special consultants if deemed necessary by the firm.
OTHER WORK PERFORMED FOR THE COLORADO JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT In its proposal, the firm should describe any non-audit work performed for the Colorado Judicial Department within the past two years, and why this work would not impair the firm’s independence in performing the review of the Department.
STATE AUDITOR LIAISON The State Auditor will designate an individual from her office to be a liaison to the firm throughout the review. This individual will attend entrance/exit conferences and assist the firm in understanding State Auditor requirements and reporting guidelines.
GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Report Requirements The engaged firm will submit a final evaluation report containing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations resulting from its evaluation work. The evaluation findings and final evaluation report should adhere to the OSA’s standards as described in “Exhibit G – Developing and Presenting Findings” and “Exhibit H – Reporting Requirements and Format for Separately Issued Reports” of the OSA’s standard contract, which is included in Section IV Supplemental Information of this RFP. The engaged firm will be required to testify for about 1½ - 2 hours before the Legislative Audit Committee and, if applicable, one other legislative committee regarding the Evaluation Report and its findings, conclusions, and recommendations. This testimony will be an oral summary of the Evaluation Report with questions by Committee members and verbal responses from the Contractor and the Department. The engaged firm will also be required to provide oral presentations on the evaluation’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations during various other meetings with OSA and Department personnel throughout the engagement. 2. Prior Audits and Workpapers The OSA maintains file copies of prior performance audits of the Department. These workpaper files are available to the engaged firm for review if necessary and applicable. -10-
Timing Considerations The engaged firm should be attentive to meeting the deadlines agreed upon in the contractor’s proposal and the contract when conducting its work. The engaged firm should allow sufficient time in its proposed schedule to complete its data collection, evaluation, and documentation, to prepare and submit written findings and report drafts, incorporating the OSA’s comments and suggested revisions, and to prepare and submit the final report to the OSA.
Review Contract Period The engaged firm will be awarded a contract for the scope detailed in this RFP or the scope negotiated through further discussion.
AWARD OF BID The contract will be awarded to that bidder whose proposal will be most advantageous to the State of Colorado, price and other factors considered. The successful bidder is expected to execute and adhere to the terms and conditions in the OSA’s standard contract and its related exhibits. A copy of the OSA’s standard contract and its related exhibits is included in Section IV - Supplemental Information of this RFP.
SUBMISSION OF INVOICES The contractor may submit monthly invoices for review work completed. The State Auditor reserves the right to withhold 10 percent of the total contract amount pending satisfactory completion of the review.
SECTION II INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN PROPOSAL
All proposals must include the information requested in this section and be organized in the same manner as this section. A. TITLE PAGE The proposal will identify the RFP subject, firm name, local address, telephone number, name of contact person, and the date. B. TABLE OF CONTENTS The proposal will include a clear identification of the material included in the bid proposal by section and by page number. C. TRANSMITTAL LETTER Please limit the transmittal letter to two or three pages. Provide the names of individuals authorized to make representations for the firm and their titles, addresses and telephone numbers. D. PROFILE OF THE FIRM The proposal must: 1. 2. State whether the firm is local, national, or international. Give the location of the office from which the work is to be done and number of partners, shareholders, and managers and other professional staff employed at that office. Describe the range of activities performed by the local office. Describe the local office's capability, including the numbers and classifications of personnel who will work on the review. Affirm that the firm does not have any past history of substandard work. Affirm that the firm is independent for this IV&V review.
QUALIFICATIONS OF ASSIGNED PERSONNEL The proposal must identify the principal staff (i.e., principals, managers, and supervisors/in-charges) who will work on the review, including personnel not from the local office and any specialists to be used. The proposal must include a resume of all principal staff highlighting their professional qualifications and similar audit or review work that they have performed (resumes should be included in an appendix).
FIRM'S APPROACH TO THE IV&V REVIEW The proposal must include a general description of the methodology, approach, tools, and resources to be used to conduct the IV&V review.
COMPENSATION 1. The proposal must state the number of professional staff hours estimated to complete the review work by staff level, the hourly rate, and the resulting total cost. The bidder is advised that travel costs incurred in the performance of reviews are reimbursable only as a part of the hourly rate and must be covered under said rate and will not be separately reimbursed. The proposal must state the total inclusive maximum fee for which the work requested will be done. The proposal should affirm that all prices, terms, and conditions will be held firm for at least 90 days after the bid opening.
DELIVERY SCHEDULE The proposal must include a proposed schedule of the evaluation work to be performed and deliverable due dates for project milestones as discussed in Section I of this RFP.
ADDITIONAL DATA Since the preceding sections are to contain information that is specifically requested, the firm may include any additional information considered essential to the proposal in this section. The firm should not include general information publications, such as directories or client lists.
SECTION III PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS
GENERAL An OSA evaluation team will judge the merits of proposals received in accordance with the general criteria defined below. The bidder is responsible for providing all information requested in this RFP. Failure to do so may result in disqualification of the proposal. The evaluation team will select the bidder whose proposal is most responsive to the State Auditor's needs while being within available resources. The specifications within this RFP represent the minimum performance necessary for response. During the evaluation process, the evaluation committee may, at its discretion, request any one or all firms to make oral presentations or answer questions about their proposals. Not all firms may be asked to make such oral presentations.
MANDATORY CRITERIA 1. The firm is independent for the IV&V review.
GENERAL CRITERIA 1. Adequacy and completeness of the proposal with regard to the information specified in the RFP. Breadth and depth of experience. Qualification of staff, including specialists and consultants to be assigned to the review. Organization, size, and stability of the firm. Proposed time frame for meeting project milestones and completing the evaluation. Proposed costs (number of hours and hourly rate). Technical criteria - (a) comprehensiveness and appropriateness of the evaluation work plan, and (b) realistic time estimates to complete each segment of the evaluation based on staff to be assigned.
TOTAL SCORE The evaluation team will assign scores to the proposals based on the established criteria. The State Auditor will make the final decision on the contract award. -14Exhibit B-Page
SECTION IV SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Enclosed with this RFP are the following: 1. Standard OSA contract and related exhibits. The successful bidder is expected to execute and adhere to the terms and conditions in the OSA’s standard contract and its related exhibits. The following website links and background information are included to provide additional information to aid in preparation of the proposals: Office of the State Auditor audit and evaluation reports: http://www.leg.state.co.us/OSA/coauditor1.nsf/ReportPublic?openform IEEE-SA STD 1012-2004: http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/1012-2004.html
Colorado Court system Appellate Courts The Colorado Court of Appeals is usually the first court of appeals for decisions from the district courts, Denver Probate Court, and Denver Juvenile Court. The Colorado Court of Appeals also reviews decisions of several state administrative agencies. Its determination of an appeal is final unless the Colorado Supreme Court agrees to review the matter. The Colorado Supreme Court is the court of last resort in Colorado’s state court system. The court generally hears appeals from the Colorado Court of Appeals, although in some instances individuals can petition the Colorado Supreme Court directly regarding a lower court’s decision. Trial Courts District courts hear civil cases involving damages sought in any amount, as well as domestic relations, criminal, juvenile, probate, and mental health cases. District court decisions may be appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals and, in some cases, directly to the Colorado Supreme Court. County courts handle civil cases less than $15,000, misdemeanors, traffic infractions, felony complaints (which may be sent to district court), protection orders, and small claims. County court decisions may be appealed to the district court. -15-
Water Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over cases relating to the determination of water rights, use and administration of water, and all other water matters. There are seven water courts, one in each of the major river basins in Colorado.
jPOD modules necessary to fully support ICCES: In order for jPOD to fully support ICCES, the Department estimates that the following 39 modules and processes will need to be active: 1. Login 2. Application Security 3. Case Header 4. Document Management System 5. Name Index 6. Clerk Review 7. Division Inbox 8. Judge Review 9. Judge Review Detail 10. Notifications 11. Calendaring Tool 12. ROA (S, C, CV, DR, PR, CW) 13. Payment Processing 14. CMST Updates for Probate and Water 15. Appellate 16. Change Case 17. Create Case (S, C, CV, PR, CW) 18. Create Case Domestic (DR) 19. Create Case Water 20. Create Case Probate 21. Create Case Protected Parties 22. Dockets 23. Create Protected Parties Modules 24. Events 25. Judgments 26. Bonds 27. Minute Orders 28. Civil Writ of Commitment 29. Notices 30. Parties 31. Probate Modules 32. Related Cases 33. Scheduled Events 34. Walter Claims 35. Water Structures 36. Ticket on Demand Updates 37. Support Orders/DISH Updates 38. CAC Updates 39. Vital Stats Data Transfer DOM
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.