Development of Training for Courts on Use of Machine Translation Tools, RFP-CFCC-2024-28-LV

Update: March 26, 2024
No Questions Recieved

Update: March 18, 2024
Addendum to the Timeline

RFP#:        RFP-CFCC-2024-28-LV
RFP Title:    Development of Training for Courts on Use of Machine Translation Tools

 

The Judicial Council of California (“Judicial Council” or “JCC”) is the policymaking body of the California court system, which includes 58 superior courts, the courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court. Under the authority of the state’s Constitution and with the leadership of the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, the Judicial Council is responsible for ensuring the fair, impartial, and consistent administration of justice. The Judicial Council recommends improvements to the courts, adopts rules and procedures for court administration, and makes recommendations annually to the Governor and the Legislature. Judicial Council staff assist the Judicial Council with implementing policies and supporting court operations. The Judicial Council’s main office is in San Francisco, California.

Within the Judicial Council’s Center for Families, Children, and the Courts (CFCC), the Language Access Services Program (LASP) works to develop policies and provide services to ensure equal access to justice for court users who are limited English proficient (LEP) or deaf/hearing-impaired. LASP is comprised of the Court Interpreters Program (CIP) unit and the Language Access Implementation (LAI) unit. CIP works on court interpreter issues, and LAI works on making the courts more language accessible via resources such as signage, technology, and translated forms.

Project: The Judicial Council seeks the services of a contractor (“Contractor”) with experience to assist the LASP and JCIT with research and developing and presenting training for varied court audiences regarding appropriate use of machine translation tools. Contractor will work with Judicial Council staff from CFCC and JCIT to develop training for court staff, including self-help center staff, on the appropriate use of machine translation tools within the courthouse. Training will provide guidance on the appropriate use of machine translation tools for different situations and how to support meaningful and accurate communications between litigants and the court. Training will also highlight situations where an in-person or telephonic interpreter may be needed, to help protect legal rights and remedies, how to reduce misunderstandings in communication, and when to consult legal experts.

Questions must be directed to solicitations@jud.ca.gov and must be received March 25, 2024.

Emailed proposals are required for this RFP: Proposers must submit their Technical and Cost proposals in separate email attachments.

Technical Proposals must be sent to the Solicitations Mailbox at solicitations@jud.ca.gov.

Cost proposals must be sent to RFP-CFCC-2024-28-LV-COST@jud.ca.gov

Proposals must be received by April 19, 2024, no later than 1:00 PM Pacific Time

Submission acceptance of proposals will be based on the date and time the email proposals are received by the Judicial Council.

Request for Proposal:

Attachment 1  Administrative Rules 
Attachment 2  JBCM Terms and Conditions
Attachment 3  Proposers Acceptance of Terms and Conditions
Attachment 4 General Certifications Form
Attachment 5  Small Business Declaration form
Attachment 7   UNRUH civil Rights Act and California FEHA Certification
Attachment 8   DARFUR Contracting Act Certification
Attachment 9.  DVBE Certification
Attachment 10 Bidder Declaration
Attachment 11 Cost Sheet
 


NOTE: The Judicial Council, as a public entity, prohibits direct contact with any Council personnel during the solicitation process in order to maintain fairness and equality to all proposers. Proposers are specifically directed NOT to contact any judicial branch entity personnel or consultants for meetings, conferences, or discussions that are related to the solicitation at any time between release of the solicitation and any award and execution of a contract. Unauthorized contact with any judicial branch entity personnel or consultants may be cause for rejection of the Proposer’s proposal.