Contract Lifecycle Management Software Solution

Q (User Licensing): How many total users? a. How many internal users will require administrative level access? b. How many internal users will require the ability to add, edit and delete? c. How many internal users will require request only access? d. How many internal users will require read-only access? e. How many internal users do you project will require access to the system at any given time?

A: We do not have the exact number of users at this point, but roughly, it would about 10 admin level access, 100 contributor level access, 200 read only access, and possibly up 50 users at a time. There should be an unlimited number of external reviewer/editors allowed to accommodate draft document review with our vendors prior to finalization. Not required, but it would be beneficial if all finalized and historical contracts in the system were viewable by the public through a web portal but excluding draft copies, working notes, and other internal communication.

Q (Test Environment): Does your organization require a test environment? a. If so, how many users do you anticipate require access?

A: No, we do not require test environment, however, we would consider having a test environment during the implementation phase. We would need 20 users to have access.

Q (Integration Tyler Munis, Ebix, Granicus Legistar): Can you please expand upon your preferences to integrate with Tyler Munis, Ebix, and Granicus Legistar? Please provide system details (system name and version, database used, scope of use, home-grown or commercial) if applicable.

A: We cannot provide the system details; however, the integration we are seeking for at the moment is being able to pull data from other sources (Tyler, Ebix, and Legistar) and auto populate into the CLM solution so that we are able to reference between multiple systems. Your proposal should discuss integration capabilities, recommended best practices, and architecture such as APIs that would support future integrations. Tyler Munis is the county ERP and considered the master record. Ebix is used for electronic repository, tracking, and reminders for insurance certificates and related endorsements such as waivers of subrogation. Insurance verification will be a required workflow step in approving contracts in the CLM software. Granicus Legistar is used for agenda management with our elected Board of Supervisors and commissions. Many county contracts will need to be approved through the Board of Supervisors agenda process before being signed and finalized.

Q (Professional Services): Do you require professional services to configure workflow processes? If so, how many would be required for the awarded vendor to configure?

A: The initial configuration could be done by the professional services, but we do not have the exact number of workflow processes right now. We expect that there would be 2-3 "standard" workflows for a common baseline approval approach, but we require the flexibility that each department may want to add additional approval steps. A few larger departments will expect to have a standard workflow template of their design which would follow the base requirements plus additional steps. All together there might be 20 variations. Vendor proposals should speak to how workflows are setup, implemented, and managed in the future with expectation that the county can handle future workflow updates without needing professional services.

Q (Artificial Intelligence): Is your organization in need of enhanced generative AI features and data & risk analysis? a. If so, how many contracts per month do you believe will need to be run through the AI software? b. What is the typical page count for your contracts? c. Is this something you want available to all users?

A: Enhanced AI features and risk analysis would be nice to have, but not required. If the platform we decide has a robust AI features and risk analysis, then we will determine how we will utilize the functionality. The county is in development on policies as it relates to AI use and data governance. If use of AI tools are approved then we would want them available to all users in the system involved with drafting, creating, reviewing, amending the contracts. The AI tools might not be necessary for approvers if the request is a simple yes/no to move ahead. We do not have details on typical page counts but they can be significant. Many common contracts would be in the 30 page range. Contracts for complex services such as medical provider agreements and intergovernmental revenue agreements can be larger and up to 100 pages.

Q (No subject): Should vendors treat the implementation approach as a high-level, assumption-based plan subject to refinement during post-award discovery?

A: Yes, that is acceptable, however, any additional information that can be provided would be appreciated.

Q (No subject): Based on our review, it appears the County has a strong vision for the functional capabilities of a CLM solution, while certain operational elements such as user population, department prioritization, workflow complexity, data migration needs, and success metrics, may still be evolving. Can you confirm whether this is an accurate understanding? Additionally, what is the County’s plan and timeline to further define these areas, and to what extent do you expect vendors to support versus lead this discovery process?

A: Yes, your understanding is correct. The County would like the selected vendor to lead the discovery process and assist with implementing standardized best practices for all departments.

Q (Data Import): Does your organization require data import services? If so, please expand upon the data migration / importing requirements for the Contract Management Software and/or eProcurement System? (Such as record info, employee lists, vendor lists, etc.) a. How many total electronic files (PDF, MS Word, etc) in current/legacy system into the system that needs to be imported into the system? b. How much metadata (rows in the exported spreadsheet) is in the current/legacy system? c. Where are the legacy (historic) electronic contract files currently stored? (shared folders, Sharepoint, document management system, paper, etc)

A: The County uses manual processes so there is no data migration required. This will be a day-forward implementation. Vendor should describe in proposal how existing agreements are handled though, such as whether PDF files can be imported and what processing is done with them (OCR, metadata extraction, etc.). County has many hundreds of active expense contracts at any time and unknown number of revenue agreements. Expense contracts are housed in Tyler Munis when loaded for initial encumbrance and payment processing. Revenue agreements may not have been loaded to Tyler previously unless records were attached in the grants module or with individual transaction processing. All expense and revenue agreements which were presented to the Board of Supervisors would be stored in official records including the agenda and minutes from the meeting when action was taken, but the document repository Onbase. For daily working environment of active and historical agreements each department would have a mix of storing contracts and working files in Sharepoint, shared network folder space, personal drives, and hardcopy folders.

Q (Data Migration): What is the expected scope and approach for data migration, including volume, format, and whether full or partial migration is required?

A: The County uses manual processes so there is no data migration required. This will be a day-forward implementation to start. The vendor proposal should include details as to how existing agreements, typically in PDF format, are imported to the system so that they are tracked on dashboards and reports before starting the next amendment or renewal. Example: the first task on an agreement in the CLM system after going live might be to start work on amendment #7 of an existing agreement and including the documentation from the original agreement plus earlier amendments would be helpful if not overly burdensome.

Q (Workflows): Does the County intend to standardize workflows across departments or allow department-specific configurations, and how many unique workflows are anticipated?

A: The County intends to standardize workflows to the extent possible. It is likely that there will be unique requirements for some departments which require separate workflows. Possible examples are Health & Human Services and Public Works. Contracts involving information technology will likely require additional steps compared to non-IT contracts. The County is not able to provide the number of unique workflows required. Vendor should describe in their proposal how new or adjusted workflows will be handled after implementation without the need for additional professional services hours.

Q (Project Scope): How many contributing users do you need? (Contributing users are heavier users like Administrators, Contract Owners, Contract Administrators, Contract Specialists, Contract Requestors, Reviewers, and Approvers.)

A: We do not have the exact number of users at this point, but roughly, it would about 10 admin level access, 100 contributor level access, 200 read only access, and possibly up 50 users at a time. There should be an unlimited number of external reviewer/editors allowed to accommodate draft document review with our vendors prior to finalization. Not required, but it would be beneficial if all finalized and historical contracts in the system were viewable by the public through a web portal but excluding draft copies, working notes, and other internal communication.

Q (No subject): How does the County currently integrate systems across its application ecosystem today (e.g. Direct APIs, iPaaS, middleware, or batch processes)?

A: It varies depending on the system. Vendor should describe in their proposal the architecture to support integration with current and future systems, such as APIs.

Q (Contract Intake): What is the current workflow for the County when managing a contract? At which point are the individual departments directly involved? We wish to estimate if the contract intake and management are done solely by the procurement team, or if staff from client departments also require access to the system.

A: Contracts are originated in individual departments and managed by the department after execution. Procurement team has expert input on approach method such as whether purchase could be accomplished using a purchase order instead or whether an RFP is required. County Counsel approves all agreements as to form. Many contracts will culminate in final approval by the elected Board of Supervisors, then be managed by originating department following execution.

Q (Budget): Can the County provide an estimated budget range or anticipated funding allocation for this project

A: The County has not established an estimated budget for this project.

Q (No subject): 17. Does the County require a feature that allows stakeholders to ask questions about contracts in natural language (e.g., key dates, obligations, risks) and receive instant responses?

A: That is not a required feature. Would be considered desirable in reviewing and analyzing long agreements. Vendor proposal should describe the value proposition of such tools and how it would reduce administrative burden to the county, reduce risk, lower costs, or improve revenue.

Q (No subject): Related to migration efforts only, along with volume expectations, can you share if metadata is already structured and available, or would it need to be extracted?

A: The County uses manual processes so there is no data migration required. This will be a day-forward implementation.

Q (No subject): If possible, would the County be able to share your expected contract volumes, for migration and ongoing (monthly/yearly) purposes.

A: We do not have a centralized contract system, so each department is manually creating and managing their contracts. The rough estimate would be 1000 per year. One report shows 1100 contract numbers in Tyler for the current fiscal year and that would be reflective of expense contracts. Revenue contracts would add to that count.

Q (No subject): 16. For agreements/contracts, does the County require capabilities to extract descriptions from documents and visualize?

A: That is not a required feature but would be nice to have.

Q (No subject): 15. Does the County have any interest in leveraging AI-powered functionalities as part of the Contract Lifecycle Management? If yes, is there a requirement for the system to automatically extract key terms, and metadata from contract documents during intake or upload?

A: The County has an interest in leveraging AI-powered functionality, but it is not a requirement.

Q (No subject): 14. Does the County perform any land-related functions or activities that may require managing land-related contracts or agreements? If yes, does the County manage any land-related contracts or agreements (e.g., leases, easements, property acquisitions) that require tracking of the acquisition process within the Contract Lifecycle Management system?

A: Leases potentially would be tracked in the system. Vendor should describe in their proposal any features specific to land-related agreements. This area was not specifically listed in our goal criteria though.

Q (Project Management): Does your organization require a full-time dedicated Project Manager for this implementation? Typically, implementations do not require a full-time dedicated project management resource for the project duration, but rather project management/coordination services hours (remote) can be included with the proposal to support the implementation project management.

A: The County desires a dedicated Project Manager (point of contact) for the implementation, but it is not a requirement. The Project Manager does not have to be dedicated to our project full-time.

Q (Pricing): Is your organization eligible to purchase off the GSA Schedule 70? If yes, would you like GSA pricing in the bid response or retail pricing?

A: Although we are eligible, we have not considering purchasing off the GSA. Vendor should propose best pricing available to the county and any inclusion of GSA pricing or offerings must be provided in context to satisfy the requirements of the RFP.

Q (Professional Services): What documents/contract types would you like to author within the system (number of templates)? Do you require professional services to configure templates? If so, how many would be required for the awarded vendor to configure?

A: As mentioned in the RFP, the current process is all manual, and every department has their own processes and templates. Depending on the complexity of the CLM platform, we would want professional services to assist us with configuration, but hopefully, it would be intuitive enough for county staff to maintain the templates on their own.

Q (B. Workflow and Approvals): RFP Requirement: Must: Full audit trail of all activities. Question: Does the County anticipate expanding the platform in the future to support additional procurement or supplier management processes, or is the intent to maintain the solution strictly for Contract Lifecycle Management?

A: The County does not currently anticipate expanding the platform beyond Contract Lifecycle Management. We currently use OpenGov for procurement and RFP solicitation. Vendor/Supplier management is handled in the county ERP Tyler Munis

Q (Tyler Munis Integration Scope): The RFP lists integration with Tyler Munis as a Nice-to-Have. Could you clarify whether Tyler Munis integration is expected as part of the initial implementation or a future phase consideration, and if in scope initially, what level of integration is envisioned?

A: Integration with Tyler will not be part of the initial implementation but would be nice to have. Tyler Munis as the county RFP will be the master financial record. Vendor should describe value added in the CLM by integration with other systems. Level of integration to start would likely be read-only of information from Tyler if opportunity exists so that the CLM presents unified vendor numbers, vendor names, expenses to date, and similar. There may be value added to read-write with other systems such as Ebix for insurance compliance. The RFP requests that vendor describe handling and support for metadata and similar related data fields so that information from other systems could be tracked to help with workflow. Example: a single contract in the CLM might have a vendor number and name from Tyler, vendor number and name from Ebix for insurance tracking, agreement number for official record of action from the Board of Supervisors, and document number used by legal counsel during review.

Q (B. Workflow and Approvals): RFP Requirement: Must: Support parallel and sequential approvals. Question: Can the County provide additional detail on the number of unique contract approvals used across departments and whether approval routing is primarily driven by contract value thresholds, department, funding source, or contract type?

A: The County does not have additional information regarding the number of unique approvals as each department has their own manual process. There are contract value thresholds that require additional approvals. Departments may or may not have additional criteria for approvals such as funding source.

Q (Public Records Act and Proposal Confidentiality): The RFP notes that proposals become public record after the Intent to Award notification, and that vendors may designate information as confidential though the county reserves the right to release it at its discretion. As a technology vendor submitting proprietary pricing and competitive information, could you clarify what practical protections exist for designated confidential content and whether the county has a defined process for evaluating and honoring confidentiality designations prior to any public disclosure?

A: Please see Section 6.2, Provision of Information to Respondents

Q (PSA Flexibility): The RFP references the county's standard Professional Services Agreement and notes that exceptions may be submitted but are subject to rejection. Has any technology or SaaS vendor successfully negotiated modifications to the PSA in prior engagements, and is there a defined process for submitting and reviewing proposed changes to specific terms?

A: While not specific to SaaS or technology contracts, the County has accepted negotiated terms in the past, although there is no guarantees moving forward. Proposers should use Subsection 6 of Section 16 for communicating PSA exceptions.

Q (Annual Appropriation and Contract Continuity): Section 3.3 of the PSA references annual appropriation of funds, meaning continued performance is contingent on the Board of Supervisors approving funding each fiscal year. Could you clarify how this has worked in practice for multi-year technology contracts, and whether there is a standard process for ensuring budget continuity for software agreements of this nature?

A: Annual budget recommendations and requests are provided to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) each year by each department. Budget recommendations and requestions would include appropriations to cover the cost of existing contracts. Ultimately it is up to the BOS to approve the recommendations and requests.

Q (Project Scope): How many contract viewers do you need? (Contract viewers have read-only access to the agreement once it has been executed. They are not involved in requesting contracts, or involved the draft/review/approval process.)

A: We do not have the exact number of users at this point, but roughly, it would about 10 admin level access, 100 contributor level access, 200 read only access, and possibly up 50 users at a time. There should be an unlimited number of external reviewer/editors allowed to accommodate draft document review with our vendors prior to finalization. Not required, but it would be beneficial if all finalized and historical contracts in the system were viewable by the public through a web portal but excluding draft copies, working notes, and other internal communication.

Q (Project Scope): How many active contracts are you managing – # you would migrate into a new tool?

A: We do not have a centralized contract system, so each department is manually creating and managing their contracts. The rough estimate would be 1000 contracts per year. The County uses manual processes so there is no data migration required. This will be a day-forward implementation to start. The vendor proposal should include details as to how existing agreements, typically in PDF format, are imported to the system so that they are tracked on dashboards and reports before starting the next amendment or renewal. Example: the first task on an agreement in the CLM system after going live might be to start work on amendment #7 of an existing agreement and including the documentation from the original agreement plus earlier amendments would be helpful if not overly burdensome.

Q (Project Scope): Do you need contract submitters? (Submitters have access to submit a request for a contract to be created, but are not involved in the draft/review/approver phase.)

A: Contract submitters is a nice feature to have but not a requirement.

Q (Functionality): Do you need OCR functionality, or are your agreements mostly signed electronically?

A: OCR functionality would be nice to have. Most of our agreements are signed electronically, but not all.

Q (Access): Do all intended users of the software have access to SharePoint Online?

A: Yes, the county users have access to SharePoint Online.

Q (User Count and Licensing Scope): To ensure our pricing proposal is accurate and meaningful, could you provide an approximate count of anticipated system users, broken out by any access levels or user types already defined internally, as well as an estimated contract volume (current repository) and expected annual run rate (how many contracts approximately do you process each year)

A: We do not have the exact number of users at this point, but roughly, it would about 10 admin level access, 100 contributor level access, 200 read only access, and possibly up 50 users at a time. There should be an unlimited number of external reviewer/editors allowed to accommodate draft document review with our vendors prior to finalization. The rough estimate of contracts would be 1000 per year. One report shows 1100 contract numbers in Tyler for the current fiscal year and that would be reflective of expense contracts. Revenue contracts would add to that count. Not required, but it would be beneficial if all finalized and historical contracts in the system were viewable by the public through a web portal but excluding draft copies, working notes, and other internal communication.

Q (Implementation Scope): Please confirm the primary departments that will be included in the initial implementation, and whether additional departments are expected in future phases.

A: For initial implementation, it would be Public Works, Health & Human Services, CEO and IT department. In the near future, we are expecting all county departments to utilize the system to manage their contracts.

Q (Contract Volume): For planning purposes, please provide an estimate of total contract volume, including new agreements, renewals, and amendments processed annually.

A: We do not have a centralized contract system, so each department is manually creating and managing their contracts. The rough estimate would be 1000 per year. One report shows 1100 contract numbers in Tyler for the current fiscal year and that would be reflective of expense contracts. Revenue contracts would add to that count with renewals and amendments unknown.

Q (User Roles and Participation): Please describe the stakeholder groups currently involved in contract management across the County, and those expected to be included in the future, including departments such as legal, procurement, finance, and other business units. Please also provide approximate user counts by role (e.g., administrators, reviewers, approvers, contributors, read-only users).

A: The current stakeholder groups are Public Works, Health & Human Services, CEO and IT department. In the near future, we are expecting all county departments to utilize the system to manage their contracts. All contracts from source departments originating the agreement will go through some phase of review and approval process with procurement, legal counsel, finance, and often the elected Board of Supervisors. Signing authority is set by contract magnitude with limits on duration. We do not have the exact number of users at this point, but roughly, it would about 10 admin level access, 100 contributor level access, 200 read only access, and possibly up 50 users at a time. There should be an unlimited number of external reviewer/editors allowed to accommodate draft document review with our vendors prior to finalization. Not required, but it would be beneficial if all finalized and historical contracts in the system were viewable by the public through a web portal but excluding draft copies, working notes, and other internal communication.

Q (Workflow Standardization): The RFP references workflow standardization across departments. Can the County describe the current level of variability in approval workflows and whether standardization is a key objective?

A: The County does not have information regarding the level of variability between departments. Standardization is a key objective but many departments also have their own unique requirements.

Q (Contract Types): Please provide a high-level list of contract types that will be included in the initial implementation (e.g., professional services, goods, grants, intergovernmental agreements, amendments).

A: High-level summary there will be expense agreements covering professional services, goods and services, construction, and agreements passing through grants to subrecipients. Revenue agreements will have intergovernmental allocations and grants, charges for services where the county provides service to an outside party, donation agreements, and potentially private grants. There may also be no-cost agreements to track such as memorandum of understanding. This should not be considered an exhaustive list of agreement types.

Q (Current Pain Points): Are there specific pain points in the current contract lifecycle process that the County would like to address early in the implementation?

A: There are no specific pain points that should be addressed earlier than others.

Q (No subject): If able to share more, how many users is the County anticipating? Can you describe the different types of users and estimates for each category?(e.g. Requester, View only, Approver, Reviewer, Internal vs External user expectations)

A: We do not have the exact number of users at this point, but roughly, it would about 10 admin level access, 100 contributor level access, 200 read only access, and possibly up 50 users at a time. There should be an unlimited number of external reviewer/editors allowed to accommodate draft document review with our vendors prior to finalization. Not required, but it would be beneficial if all finalized and historical contracts in the system were viewable by the public through a web portal but excluding draft copies, working notes, and other internal communication.

Q (A. Contract Intake and Editable Templates): RFP Requirement: Must: Ability to generate contracts from templates automatically and be able to add or remove segments of language as needed. Question: Does the County intend to standardize contract templates and clause libraries across departments, or should the solution support department-specific templates and controlled clause variations within a centralized governance model?

A: The County intends to standardize to the extent possible. Many departments have their own unique requirements which must also be accommodated.

Q (No subject): As common for any CLM evaluation, does the County plan to provide scenarios and/or use cases for Vendors to follow during Demonstrations?

A: We cannot guarantee that the workflows and use cases will be provided before the demonstrations, however, if we are able to gather the info prior to the demonstration date, we will share with the vendors who will present.

Q (No subject): Is there approved budget allocated for this project? If so, is the County willing to share budget expectations?

A: The County has not established an estimated budget for this project.

Q (No subject): If able to answer at this point, what is the full range of contract types and approximate volumes (e.g., vendor agreements, grants, MOUs), and how standardized versus customized are they across departments today?

A: The County desires to manage all expenditure and revenue contracts along with agreements such as MOUs. The County has standardized professional services agreements, but these can be modified by departments. Contracts and agreements may also be provided by vendors and other entities. The rough volume estimate would be 1000 per year. One report shows 1100 contract numbers in Tyler for the current fiscal year and that would be reflective of expense contracts. Revenue contracts would add to that count with renewals and amendments unknown.

Q (H. Reporting and Dashboards): RFP Requirement: Must: Ability for users to build custom reports and dashboards. Question: Beyond standard contract reports, does the County anticipate requiring enterprise-level dashboards to analyze contract activity across departments, such as contract cycle times, upcoming expirations, contract value by vendor, or compliance tracking?

A: Yes, the County desires enterprise-level dashboards with appropriate access controls.

Q (ERP Integration): How does the County envision ERP integration with Tyler Munis, if it were to be done? What specific data elements and level of integration are required between the CLM solution and Tyler Munis (e.g., real-time vs batch, system of record responsibilities)?

A: We cannot provide the system details; however, the integration we are seeking for at the moment is being able to pull data from other sources (Tyler, Ebix, and Legistar) and auto populate into the CLM solution so that we are able to reference between multiple systems. Your proposal should discuss integration capabilities, recommended best practices, and architecture such as APIs that would support future integrations. Tyler Munis is the county ERP and considered the master record

Q (Tyler Munis Integration): Please describe the County’s expectations for integration with Tyler Munis, including specific use cases, system of record ownership, and required data flows (e.g., vendor data, contract records, financial data, approvals, or encumbrances).

A: We cannot provide the system details; however, the integration we are seeking for at the moment is being able to pull data from other sources (Tyler, Ebix, and Legistar) and auto populate into the CLM solution so that we are able to reference between multiple systems. Your proposal should discuss integration capabilities, recommended best practices, and architecture such as APIs that would support future integrations. Tyler Munis is the county ERP and considered the master record.

Q (Budget): What budget range have you scoped for this type of solution?

A: The County has not established an estimated budget for this project.

Q (General): When external vendors participate in contract negotiations or redlining, does the County require that collaboration occur within the CLM system, so that all document revisions, comments, and version history are preserved as part of the official contract record?

A: No, external collaboration is not required within the system. It is desired, however.

Q (No subject): 3. Is there an incumbent Contract Lifecycle Management vendor or prior solutions that have been used or evaluated?

A: The County currently uses a manual process. There is no incumbent vendor and other solutions have not been used in the past.

Q (No subject): 4. Has Napa County previously attempted a centralized Contract Lifecycle Management implementation or received a demonstration, and who were the vendors?

A: The County has not attempted a centralized CLM in the past. The following vendors provided demos in late 2025/early 2026: DocuSign, Cobblestone, OpenGov, Malbek, Agiloft, Contract Works.

Q (No subject): As no pricing template or cost matrix was provided, does the County have a preferred format for pricing submission, or do vendors have flexibility to submit pricing in their own format based on the information provided to date?

A: Yes, vendors can submit their own format.

Q (No subject): 5. Could you provide more detailed use cases or user stories for key functional areas such as: Contract intake and template usage, Approval workflows, Contract amendments and renewals?

A: The County does not have detailed use cases or user stories. Each department has their own manual processes.

Q (No subject): Which executive stakeholders and teams are ultimately accountable for the success of this program across departments, and how will they be involved in both the evaluation and implementation, through Go-Live?

A: This is a collaborative project between CEO, IT, Public Works and Health & Human Services. We will all be involved with evaluation and implementation.

Q (No subject): 10. Can you provide a detailed walkthrough of the current contract lifecycle process across departments (intake → drafting → approvals → execution → tracking → renewal/closure)?

A: The County does not have detailed workflows across departments. Each department has their own manual processes.

Q (No subject): How will the County define success for this initiative 6–12 months post go-live, and what measurable outcomes (e.g., cycle time reduction, compliance improvements) are most critical?

A: The county does not have detailed success measurement for this project at the moment. Success measurements will be determined prior to the implementation.

Q (No subject): 11. In what formats are current contracts stored (e.g., PDFs, Word, scanned images)?

A: Executed contracts are stored as PDFs. Word is used for work in progress.

Q (No subject): 8. What is the County’s expected implementation timeline?

A: Once a platform has been selected, we are planning on starting the implementation within 1-2 months. Respondents should provide recommended and proposed duration of the implementation.

Q (No subject): 6. What is the expected level of integration with Tyler Munis (e.g., one-way vs. bi-directional, real-time vs. batch)?

A: We cannot provide the system details; however, the integration we are seeking for at the moment is being able to pull data from other sources (Tyler, Ebix, and Legistar) and auto populate into the CLM solution so that we are able to reference between multiple systems. Your proposal should discuss integration capabilities, recommended best practices, and architecture such as APIs that would support future integrations. Tyler Munis is the county ERP and considered the master record.

Q (eSignature Capability): Does the County require integration of both DocuSign and Adobe Sign, or will the integration with DocuSign only suffice?

A: Integration with both is desired but not required.

Q (Current Volume): Can the County provide an estimate of annual contract volume, total number of contracts, and expected number of users (internal and external)?

A: We do not have the exact number of users at this point, but roughly, it would about 10 admin level access, 100 contributor level access, 200 read only access, and possibly up 50 users at a time. There should be an unlimited number of external reviewer/editors allowed to accommodate draft document review with our vendors prior to finalization. Not required, but it would be beneficial if all finalized and historical contracts in the system were viewable by the public through a web portal but excluding draft copies, working notes, and other internal communication.

Q (No subject): 13. What is the estimated volume of existing contracts (active and archived) across departments?

A: We do not have the exact number of users at this point, but roughly, it would about 10 admin level access, 100 contributor level access, 200 read only access, and possibly up 50 users at a time. There should be an unlimited number of external reviewer/editors allowed to accommodate draft document review with our vendors prior to finalization. Not required, but it would be beneficial if all finalized and historical contracts in the system were viewable by the public through a web portal but excluding draft copies, working notes, and other internal communication.

Q (Reporting and Dashboard): What are the top reporting and dashboard requirements the County expects at go-live, including any compliance or audit reporting needs?

A: We currently do not have reporting and dashboard requirements, however, we are seeking for out of the box delivered reports that are customizable by county staff. Being able to report on benchmarks, such as cycle time and bottlenecks would be nice to have, but not required.

Q (Implementation Approach): Does the County anticipate a phased rollout by department or a single go-live across all users?

A: The County is open to which ever approach is most conducive to a successful outcome.

Q (e-Signature): Does your organization require an electronic signature tool? a. If so, are you currently utilizing a specific product and which tool are you using?

A: The County does not require electronic signatures. We currently use DocuSign and Adobe Sign.

Q (No subject): 7. What is the estimated number of internal users and external users?

A: We do not have the exact number of users at this point, but roughly, it would about 10 admin level access, 100 contributor level access, 200 read only access, and possibly up 50 users at a time. There should be an unlimited number of external reviewer/editors allowed to accommodate draft document review with our vendors prior to finalization. Not required, but it would be beneficial if all finalized and historical contracts in the system were viewable by the public through a web portal but excluding draft copies, working notes, and other internal communication.

Q (D. Integrations): RFP Requirement: Must: Enterprise identity management (SSO) Question: Who do you use for your SSO provider? (SAML,OKTA, etc. )

A: We use MS Entra and the SSO provider we need is SAML.

Q (Questions for ITS032601): 1. Please describe the types of contracts the County is wanting to process under this scope of work along with any other types envisioned in the future.

A: The County desires to manage all expenditure and revenue contracts and agreements such as MOUs.

Q (D. Integrations): RFP Requirement: Must: Provide secure, documented APIs to enable integration with other systems. Question: Do all of your external systems that you have requested integrations allow for open APIs?

A: We are looking for a CLM system with secure API with detailed documentations.

Q (General): Can the County clarify the anticipated number of departments and users that will participate in the CLM system at go-live, as well as the approximate annual volume of contracts and amendments expected to be managed within the platform?

A: The current stakeholder groups are Public Works, Health & Human Services, CEO and IT department. In the near future, we are expecting all county departments to utilize the system to manage their contracts. We do not have a centralized contract system and we do not have the exact number of users at this point, but roughly, it would about 10 admin level access, 100 contributor level access, 200 read only access, and possibly up 50 users at a time. There should be an unlimited number of external reviewer/editors allowed to accommodate draft document review with our vendors prior to finalization. Not required, but it would be beneficial if all finalized and historical contracts in the system were viewable by the public through a web portal but excluding draft copies, working notes, and other internal communication.

Q (No subject): 2. To allow Napa County to see how best we can meet their needs, we are including details with confidential information. Can respondents submit the details of confidential information along with a redacted copy of our response?

A: Please see Section 6.2, Provision of Information to Respondents

Q (D. Integrations): RFP Requirement: Must: Integration with county's Tyler Munis Financial ERP system. Question: Given that Tyler Munis will remain the County’s system of record, can the County clarify what contract-related data elements should integrate between the CLM platform and Tyler Munis (e.g., vendor identifiers, contract numbers, financial attributes, or document attachments)?

A: We cannot provide the system details; however, the integration we are seeking for at the moment is being able to pull data from other sources (Tyler, Ebix, and Legistar) and auto populate into the CLM solution so that we are able to reference between multiple systems. Your proposal should discuss integration capabilities, recommended best practices, and architecture such as APIs that would support future integrations. Tyler Munis is the county ERP and considered the master record.

Q (C. Assembly Bill 339 (AB 339)): RFP Requirement: Must: Support compliance with AB 339 by tracking notice timelines for applicable contract. Support contract where AB 339 review time has been waived or otherwise not required. Question: For contracts subject to Assembly Bill 339 review requirements, can the County clarify how the 45-day notice period is currently triggered and whether the CLM system should provide automated compliance monitoring and reporting related to these timelines?

A: We are seeking a CLM system that can support this process by tracking dates, triggering alerts based on required timelines (such as the 45‑day notice window), and tracking progress toward compliance. Automated monitoring and reporting would help ensure timely notifications and provide visibility throughout the review cycle.

Q (Estimated Number of users): Could you please share the estimated number of Power Users and Business Users? For reference, please find the user type definitions below: Power User: Power users are typically admins and legal users who manage and control the platform. They configure workflows, create templates, manage permissions, and oversee reporting—ensuring governance, compliance, and system optimization. Business User: Business users are functional team members (e.g., procurement, sales, finance) who use the platform for execution. They create, review, approve, and track contracts, with access limited to their role and restricted visibility across departments.

A: We do not have the exact number of users at this point, but roughly, it would about 10 admin level access, 100 contributor level access, 200 read only access, and possibly up 50 users at a time. There should be an unlimited number of external reviewer/editors allowed to accommodate draft document review with our vendors prior to finalization. Not required, but it would be beneficial if all finalized and historical contracts in the system were viewable by the public through a web portal but excluding draft copies, working notes, and other internal communication.

Q (AB 339 Compliance): The RFP references AB 339 compliance. Can the County provide additional detail on how the 45-day legal review period is tracked, enforced, and reported today?

A: Currently, County staff notify the Human Resources department manually when a contract may fall under AB 339. HR then reviews the contract details. We are seeking a CLM system that can support this process by tracking key dates, triggering alerts based on required timelines (such as the 45‑day notice window), and tracking progress toward compliance. Automated monitoring and reporting would help ensure timely notifications and provide visibility throughout the review cycle.

Q (Metadata and Extraction): Is usable metadata available for legacy contracts, or should vendors plan for metadata extraction as part of migration?

A: The County uses manual processes so there is no data migration required. This will be a day-forward implementation.

Q (Legacy Contract Migration): For planning purposes, please provide an estimate of the number of legacy contracts to be migrated, their current storage locations, and whether migration will include full documents, metadata only, or both.

A: The County uses manual processes so there is no data migration required. This will be a day-forward implementation.

Q (Timeline): What's driving the current "commencement of services" date?

A: The commencement of services date is driven by the RFP timeline, the start of the County's fiscal year, and the County's desire to move forward with a CLM solution.

Q (Success Criteria): How does the County define a successful initial implementation (e.g., departments onboarded, workflows configured, contracts migrated)?

A: The county does not have detailed success measurement for this project at the moment. Success measurements will be determined prior to the implementation.

Q (No subject): The evaluation criteria heavily weights “Approach to Scope of Work” (~47%). Can you clarify what distinguishes a strong versus weak response in this category?

A: Pursuant to Section 7, Questions Regarding the RFP, the County is not able to provide answers that would tend to constitute an evaluation of a response being prepared

Q (No subject): While the RFP requests detailed multi-year pricing and implementation cost breakdowns, and recognizing that certain elements of scope (user population, full range of contract types, workflow complexity, approval needs, integrations, and data migration needs) are not yet defined, how would the County prefer vendors to account for these areas within their proposal submissions?

A: Proposers should provide enough detail and clarity based on proposed solution and approach to scope of work to allow the County to make an informed scoring and selection determination

Q (Response Evaluation Criteria): What defines a high-scoring response in the “Approach to Scope of Work” section?

A: Pursuant to Section 7, Questions Regarding the RFP, the County is not able to provide answers that would tend to constitute an evaluation of a response being prepared

Q (No subject): 9. How will “Approach to Scope of Work” be evaluated, are there specific criteria or expectations vendors should emphasize?

A: Pursuant to Section 7, Questions Regarding the RFP, the County is not able to provide answers that would tend to constitute an evaluation of a response being prepared