Project Information

Bid Title

RFP 10014746 Website Design - Q&A responses

Issuing Agency

Jackson County 16th Circuit Court

Location

Missouri

Published Date

Jun 12, 2026

Closing Date

Jun 23, 2026

Government Level

State & Local

Status

Closed

Original Source

Join to Access Full Details

Bid Inquiries

Join to Access Full Details

Bid Documents

Join to Access Full Details

Project Description

RFP 10014746 Website Design
Q&A responses

Attachment Preview

16th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT of MISSOURI

Q&A Response for Vendors

Website Implementation | RFP Number: 10014746

Topic

Budget

Timeline

Q#

Question

Answer

1 Does the Court have an established budget The Court has an internal budget but is not

range, ceiling, or not-to-exceed figure for disclosing it. This allows vendors to propose

this engagement?

their most competitive pricing and unique

solutions.

2 What is the current annual spend on

hosting, support, and maintenance for the

existing website?

The site is hosted on-premise. Costs are

distributed across the Court IT budget and

staff rather than a single line-item annual

spend.

3 If the selected CMS has commercial licensing Our preference is to have the CMS costs

costs, is the Court or the vendor responsible incorporated into the yearly maintenance

for ongoing license fees?

costs

4 Should hosting costs be included in the

project budget, or are they procured

separately?

Our preference is to have the hosting costs

incorporated into the yearly maintenance

costs

5 Is the project budget already approved, or

will an award require additional governing

body approval?

The money is earmarked for this project.

However, a standard approval process is still

required.

6 Is the March 31, 2027 desired completion The date is a goal and is flexible if scope or

date a firm contractual deadline, or is there discovery phases require additional time.

flexibility?

7 Can the Court grant a one to two week

No

extension to the proposal submission

deadline?

8 Is the period of performance from selection Yes

(July 30, 2026) to completion (March 31,

2027) the planning window vendors should

use?

pg. 1

9 How many pages, documents, and media

Scope: Content

and Migration

assets exist on the current site, and what

portion is expected to be migrated?

The current site has approximately 355

pages and less than 2 GB of media, including

PDF forms. The site runs on mojoPortal, and

export artifacts can be provided to the

awarded vendor. External sites and content

will remain external. The Court anticipates

that approximately 90% of the current

content will be migrated.

10 What CMS currently powers 16thcircuit.org, The current site is powered by mojoPortal,

and what version is it on?

running on Windows Server with an MSSQL

database.

11 Will the Court conduct a content audit prior The Court will complete the internal content

to migration, or is the vendor expected to audit. Court staff will assist with auditing

lead the audit?

and refining text content during the

migration.

12 Will the Court require copywriting, editing,

or new content development from the

vendor?

No. Copywriting and content development

will be handled by Court staff.

13 Will original or stock photography or

videography services be required?

Not initially. These would be considered as a

separate line item.

14 Are there pages, sections, or document

types that should NOT be migrated to the

new site?

Yes. The internal content audit will identify

content to be retired or excluded.

15 Are 301 redirects from the current URL

No

structure required to preserve SEO

rankings?

16 Are there statutory archiving or record-

retention mandates that affect how legacy

content is handled?

Yes. However, the exact detention period is

still being determined

Scope: Site

Boundaries

17 Is the scope of this engagement limited to

16thcircuit.org, or does it include

consolidating other Court systems or

microsites?

The scope is limited to the existing

16thcircuit.org content.

18 Will the Juror Login feature be integrated

into the new site, or remain an external

link?

Juror Login will remain an external link.

19 Is the Delinquent Land Tax application in

scope for this project?

No, this is an external application. We

should be able to use IFrames

20 Does the Court operate other web

properties, subdomains, or microsites that

need to align with the new site in brand or

navigation?

These are outside the scope of this project.

pg. 2

Scope:

Integrations

21 Are there CRM, marketing automation, or

third-party platforms currently in use that

the new site needs to integrate with?

The Court does not currently have any

specific integrations to third-party services.

The Court would like to see the CMS

capabilities for connecting to other services.

The Court may require the ability to render

content based on internal database

connections.

22 Is the marketing automation requirement a It is aspirational and intended for potential

confirmed need or aspirational?

future development.

23 Does the Court currently use a CRM

platform?

No. CRM integration is for potential future

development if needed.

24 Should the new site provide deeper

integration with Case.net, eFiling, or

Workday beyond hyperlinks?

No, not required. However, we would

consider utilizing APIs to access external

data for future development

25 Will the new site include site search

Yes. The site requires a search feature that

functionality, and what level of capability is returns text matches from pages. The Court

expected?

is open to additional search features, but

they are not a priority.

26 Should the site search index the contents of It is not required, but full text indexing of

PDF and Office documents?

documents is preferable.

27 Are interactive online forms, e-signature

No. The Court is not planning to launch with

workflows, or form-fill capabilities required an interactive forms feature. These

at launch?

capabilities may be considered for future

development.

28 Is integration with a public notification

No, this is an external application. We

system (emergency closings, weather alerts) should be able to use IFrames

required?

29 Beyond Google Analytics 4 and Google

Search Console, does the Court use or plan

to use any other analytics or reporting

tools?

We will use Lighthouse and axe DevTools

and may use additional tools.

30 Does the Court have a preferred or required The Court is open to different CMS solutions

Technical

Requirements:

CMS

Functionality

CMS platform?

31 Will the Court consider a fully custom-built

CMS, or is a recognized platform required?

32 What are the primary shortcomings of the

current CMS that this project should

but prefers to avoid WordPress.

The preference is for a recognized platform,

but not a requirement.

mojoPortal is open source but is no longer

actively developed. A platform that supports

remedy?

modern standards is the goal.

33 Will the Court consider Microsoft

No, regarding SharePoint and Salesforce

SharePoint, Salesforce Experience Cloud, or Experience Cloud. Our preference is a CMS

other enterprise platforms as the CMS?

platform, not another category platform

with a CMS extension

pg. 3

34 Does the Court prefer cloud-hosted or on- The Court currently uses on-premise hosting

Technical

Requirements:

Hosting

premise deployment, will it accept managed

third-party hosting, and does vendor-

proposed hosting require a separate

procurement?

but is open to either solution. For cloud-

hosted proposals, vendors should include

technical and pricing details. If a cloud

solution is selected, the Court would not

store PII or transfer that information

through the platform. The Court must be

able to make modifications without vendor

intervention. The Court will accept a hosting

arrangement through a third-party platform,

with no preference for a specific hosting

environment or provider. If hosting is part of

the vendor's proposal, it will not require a

separate procurement process.

35 Where is the site currently hosted?

The site is hosted on-premise, on VMs at the

LightEdge data center.

36 Are SOC 2, CJIS, FedRAMP, StateRAMP, or

NIST compliance certifications required for

hosting?

Those certifications are not currently

required.

37 Are there data residency, jurisdictional, or There are no current restrictions, since only

judicial-system hosting restrictions vendors public data is stored on the site.

should account for?

38 Does the Court manage its own SSL

certificates and DNS, or should the vendor

manage those?

The Court manages its own domain name

and SSL certificate.

39 Does the Court require a formal SLA with

financial remedies for downtime, or is the

99.9% uptime a target metric?

Yes, a formal SLA would be required for a

hosted solution.

40 Who is responsible for the uptime

guarantee if the solution is cloud hosted

versus on-premise?

The uptime guarantee burden falls on the

vendor if the solution is cloud hosted. Server

uptime issues are only the burden of the

vendor if the solution is not hosted on-

premise.

41 Is a separate staging or UAT environment Yes

required in addition to production?

42 Should the staging environment mirror

production capacity, or is a lower-spec

environment acceptable?

The staging environment does not need to

have the same capacity as the production

environment

43 Does the MFA requirement need to

No. The MFA solution is not required to

Technical

integrate with an existing identity provider? connect to an identity provider.

Requirements:

44

What identity provider does the Court

currently use?

Security and

The Court currently uses independent CMS

accounts. The Court has an Active Directory

environment with an ADFS server, and is in

Access

the process of moving to the Microsoft

Exchange environment, which may enable

other identity methods.

pg. 4

45 Are there specific security compliance

No

frameworks beyond standard best practices

that the website must adhere to?

46 Are regular third-party security audits or

No

penetration testing required as part of

ongoing maintenance?

47 Is encryption at rest required for content

stored in the CMS database, or is HTTPS in

transit sufficient?

HTTPS is sufficient

48 What is the expected frequency for security As soon as possible for security. For

updates and patching?

patching, quarterly would be sufficient

49 Are the PageSpeed Insights and Core Web

Technical

Requirements:

Vitals requirements measured only at

launch, or are they ongoing contractual

obligations?

Performance 50 Does the PageSpeed requirement apply to

all pages, key landing pages only, or a

representative sample?

These metrics are required at launch.

Beyond launch, the Court expects that any

metric issues can be addressed through a

support ticket.

All pages

51 From which location or monitoring tool will Kansas City metropolitan area. PageSpeed

TTFB be measured?

Insights for TTFB

52 Is a chatbot feature required?

No. The Court has a preference for no

Technical

chatbot capabilities.

Requirements:

53

Are additional permission levels required

beyond the minimum 3 (Admin, Editor,

No, not required

CMS

Author), such as department-specific roles?

Functionality 54 How many tiers of approval are required in At least 1. But, multiple with granualarity is

the content publishing workflow?

preferred.

55 Does the versioning retention and rollback

requirement extend to media files and

documents, or only page content?

Only pages is required.

56 Is scheduled publishing (future publish or

unpublish dates) required?

No, not required. However, it would be a

nice feature to have available.

57 What is the expected format and scope of

the full export requirement?

The preference is to export as a standard

structured data format, i.e., JSON or XML

58 Does the Court expect ownership of custom Yes

code, themes, and templates in addition to

content, design assets, and database?

59 Should MFA extend to Editor and Author

roles in addition to Admin?

Required for Admin, but optional for other

roles

Accessibility

60 The RFP references both WCAG 2.1 and

WCAG 2.2 in different sections. Which

standard is the binding requirement?

WCAG version 2.1 or later at Level AA is the

binding requirement.

61 Is a third-party accessibility audit required as Third-party audit not required

a project deliverable, or is vendor self-

certification acceptable?

pg. 5

Commodity Codes

• NAICS 541511Custom Computer Programming Services

* Disclaimer: Government BidHub provides information on bids, RFPs (Requests for Proposals), and RFQs (Requests for Qualifications) solely for convenience and informational purposes. This site is not an official public notice board. For official details, responses, or inquiries, please contact the relevant government agency directly.