Information Services*

As a result of impending Y2K problems associated with a previous case management computer system, which the Court was using in 1998, the Court decided to replace that existing system rather than to bring it into Y2K compliance.

The selection process used to identify and select a vendor for a new system appears to have been reasonable, and the selection of ISD was not illogical given the choices available. .:.

Of all the systems available for lease/purchase from ISD, the particular system sold to the Court was an undeveloped system for an NT platform that had not been proven fully functional anywhere.

The Court made no provision for the use of a backup system while the new system was being implemented, in spite of the fact that the new system was unproven and had not been implemented by any other court.

The proposed ISD Contract was not submitted by the Court to any County or other expert in the appropriate technical fields for review and recommendations, either during the negotiation of, or prior to the actual signing of, the contract. This situation proved to be advantageous for ISD.

The ISD Contract was signed in September 1998, with a projected rollout date of June 1999, indicating that the system would be installed and fully functional before the advent of Y2K, January 1, 2000.

The ISD Contract was prepared by ISD. Many of the commitments set forth by ISD in its response to the RFP are not reflected in the Contract. For example: There is no definition of the Integrated Case Management System (ICMS) modules referred to in the contract; There is no indication in the contract that the Graphical User Interface (GUI) version of the ICMS is not ready for release, nor is there any provision to substitute a working version of ICMS in the event that the GUI version is not ready in a timeframe that meets the Court's requirements; There is no mention of ISD's responsibility to provide a fully described data base definition to enable the Court to use third party report generation software; There is no time limit defined for the resolution of problem calls.

The ISD Contract lacked adequate product specifications to protect the Court's and the County's interests. This proved advantageous for ISD.

There were no product delivery deadline dates in the ISD Contract to protect the Court's and the County's interests. This also proved advantageous for ISD.

ISD agreed, in the contract, to establish a real time DMV link as part of the new case management system. ISD has failed to provide that, or any other, operational link.

Effective November 2000, ISD effectively ceased work on the establishment of the -DMV link. Although the establishment of such a link had been an integral part of the obligations of ISD to the Court under the original Contract, for which ISD had already been paid, ISD advised the Court that ISD would only work on a new pay-per-hour fee basis. This action by ISD was inconsistent with the terms of its Contract reviewed by the Grand Jury.

At the start of the implementation process under the ISD Contract, the Court's program management personnel, who were County employees at the time, lacked adequate technical experience or expertise to adequately monitor such implementation. Knowledge of both technical and functional requirements of computer systems on the part of a purchaser/lessee is required in order to assure adequate monitoring of vendor/lessor performance, of both product and services, with regard to such systems.

The training provided by ISD was not sufficient to provide County employees with the necessary skills required to properly operate the system.

As of June 20, 2001, the ISD Case Management System is still not fully functional.

Problems with the ISD system resulted in backups of as much as five months of accounting during 2000. These backlogs resulted in late payments of funds to the State of California. The consequence of these late payments was the assessment of fines and/or penalties against the County by the State.

In addition to these fines and/or penalties, the problems and failures of the ISD system resulted in: A permanent loss of some revenues to the County; Delays in obtaining other revenues; Added personnel costs; Ultimately the loss of some employees out of frustration with the system; and Other unquantifiable losses.