The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2026451-01 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Crisis Intervention Software System Questions & AnswersRFP 2026451-01 Request for Proposals for Crisis Intervention Software System Questions & Answers Q: User Volume: Could you share the anticipated number of users who will be accessing the system — both during the initial phase and once fully rolled out across all crisis intervention personnel and MH/IDD/EI staff? A: Initially 20-25 users are expected. We anticipate approximately 40 users once fully implemented. Q: The County has indicated approximately 20-25 initial users scaling to 40 fully implemented. To help us structure licensing, user roles, and training appropriately, can the County provide an approximate breakdown of users by function — for example, how many are expected to serve primarily as call center staff, mobile crisis staff, walk-in intake staff, MH/IDD/EI county reporting staff, and system administrators? A: Approximately 10-15 users are to be cross trained in call center/mobile/walk-in client service. Approximately 7-10 users will provide only mobile or walk-in client services. Approximately 6-8 MH/IDD/EI County staff will view reporting and there will be approximately 4-6 system administrators. Q: Implementation Timeline: The RFP references a contract completion date of June 10, 2026. We want to ensure we correctly interpret this milestone — is June 10th intended to represent full system implementation and go-live, or does it serve as a project start/kickoff date? We ask because, given the scope of potential EHR integration, true end-to-end implementation timelines can be a nuanced conversation, and we want to make sure our proposed plan is realistic and aligned with the County's expectations. A: June 10, 2026, is intended to represent system implementation and go-live at minimum at a pilot level. The system should be operational and ready to receive information. Q: Implementation “shall be completed on or before June 10, 2026.” Please clarify: • What deﬁnition of “completed” the Franklin County Mental Health Department will use (go-live of 988 call center, mobile, and walk-in, etc.). • Whether any phased rollout is acceptable, (i.e. go live of phone/walk-in, mobile, then import of legacy data, etc.) A: A phased rollout is acceptable based on mutual agreement between the County and the vendor. Include your recommendations for how a phased rollout could work in your proposal. As of June 10, 2026, the system is working at a minimum of a pilot level and it should be ready to receive information at that point. Q: Is this a replacement for an existing software? If so, what is the current software? A: This is a new software and not a replacement. Q: Is there an incumbent vendor? If so, can you share who they are or where we can ﬁnd out? A: No there is not an incumbent vendor. Q: Does Franklin County currently use any crisis intervention software, and if so, what system? A: This is a new software and not a replacement. Q: Have you participated in product demos for software related to this RFP? If so, what products? A: Yes. Demos were seen from BHL, Chorus & iCarol. Q: What is appropriated budget for this project? A: The county is not publishing a budget for this RFP. Q: Budget: Is there a project budget or anticipated cost range that has been established for this initiative? Any guidance around budget parameters would help us tailor our proposal to best meet the County’s needs. A: The county is not publishing a budget for this RFP. Q: Is there existing data that will need to be migrated into the new system? If so, what is the volume and format of that data? A: No. Q: Does the Franklin County Mental Health Department expect any data migration from existing crisis systems (call logs, client data, historical encounters, database of resources/service providers for the purposes of making referrals)? If so: • What is the approximate volume and data source? • What time range of historical data must be migrated? A: No data migration is expected. Q: Is Fulton County included in the scope of this contract, or will it be covered under a separate agreement consistent with the existing joinder arrangement? If Fulton is part, do you expect more than the 40 licenses expected after is fully implemented? A: Fulton County is included in the scope of this contract. This is included in the count of 40 licenses and additional licenses for Fulton County are not needed. Q: The solicitation notes that Fulton County is also to be served. Do services provided to residents of Fulton county need to be served in a separate instance of the software, or is service to all residents of both Franklin and Fulton counties permissible by a single instance of the software? A: Services to all residents of both counties are to be served by a single instance of the software. At times residents of Fulton County are seen in Franklin County or vice versa. However, it is preferred that the system be able to limit certain users to only have access to one county’s information. Q: Is there a need, for purposes of security or compliance, to limit certain system users to only be able to document interactions and access client records for residents of a speciﬁc county? Said another way, do you envision a need to segment your system users by whether they are able to access records only from Fulton, only from Franklin, or both counties? A: Yes it is desired to be able to segment certain users so they may only access records or document interactions for one county. Q: Approximately how many crisis contacts (calls, walk-ins, mobile dispatches) are handled per month across the combined service area? A: Approximately 600 contacts per month are handled in the combined service area. Q: The solicitation notes that, “Crisis interventions services are provided 24-hours a day, seven days a week by telephone, walk-in and mobile-crisis intervention services. There is also a 988 call center.” Can you please share approximately how many individual contacts or interactions occurred across telephone, walk-in, and mobile services in calendar year 2025 (or 2024 if 2025 data is not yet available) that would be documented within the software system. Do you have projections for volume in 2026 and beyond based on historical data as well as trends? A: There has been growth in the number of encounters each year from ﬁscal year 23-24 with 5,070 encounters to ﬁscal year 24-25 with 6,230 encounters. The majority of those being walk-in or call center encounters. Mobile crisis may account for 100 of those encounters. A more detailed breakdown is not available. The number of encounters per year is expected to continue to increase although no speciﬁc projection is available. Q: For walk-in crisis encounters, can the County conﬁrm whether staff initiate documentation from a ﬁxed workstation at a physical crisis center location? We ask because this informs whether walk-in workﬂows are best supported within our call center module or would require a distinct intake workﬂow separate from call center and mobile crisis services. A: Walk-in crisis encounters could happen in a variety of rooms so the workstation would be mobile. Q: What kind of safety features are expected for staff in the ﬁeld? A: Safety features desired include GPS tracking so we are aware of where the mobile teams are located. It is desired to also include a feature to check in and correspond between dispatch and the mobile team. If the staff person in the ﬁeld feels concerned, they should be able to communicate back to the app to inform dispatch of the situation. Q: Does the County require a waitlist or queue management feature for walk-in arrivals? A: It is not required but would be considered if included in the solution. Q: Regarding the task functionality, is the ability to receive and manage incoming calls a mandatory software requirement? A: It is preferable but not required. Q: The RFP references crisis intervention tools that 'follow the 988 call center template.' Can the County clarify what is meant by this — for example, whether this refers to SAMHSA's 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline best practice protocols, a speciﬁc call documentation template the County currently uses, or a particular standardized assessment tool? This will help us ensure our proposed solution is conﬁgured to match the County's expectations. A: This refers to SAMHSA’s 988 suicide and crisis lifeline best practice procedures. Q: The RFP requires "standardized and customizable risk assessments of both adults and youth in crisis." To ensure the proposed solution meets the County’s needs, what type of customizations are expected? A: The expectation is for the ability to update, edit and create screeners and/or assessments. Q: The RFP references a 988 call center and crisis hotline as service delivery channels. Can the County conﬁrm whether telephony infrastructure (e.g., phone system, ACD, or call routing) is within the scope of this procurement, or whether the County has an existing telephony solution in place that the software platform would need to integrate with? If an existing system is in place, can the County identify the telephony platform? A: Telephony infrastructure is not within the scope of this procurement and there is no expectation for the software platform to integrate with any telephony solution. Providers each provide their own telephony infrastructure. Q: Are there staff who are cross-trained across multiple functions and would need access to more than one workﬂow within the platform? A: Yes and some staff will need multiple workﬂows. Q: The solicitation mentions, in SECTION IV. SCOPE OF SERVICES REQUESTED, B. Tasks to be completed by the software include: Respond to requests - receive and manage incoming calls. Please clarify if the Franklin County Mental Health Department also needs a telephony system as part of this procurement process, or “receive and manage incoming calls” refers to the only call/contact documentation workﬂow of the crisis intervention software system for tasks such as documenting and collecting client information, providing assessment/intake/referral/dispatch to mobile crisis, etc. A: A telephony system is not included in this RFP. Q: How many EHR integrations are expected? Should those be itemized as separate line items in the budget proposal? A: EHR integration is not required. If the proposed system can provide this the County may be interested in a future phase, but it is not necessary. There could be up to 3 future integrations – Credible, EPIC and CPR-web depending on provider interest. If you can provide this, please state so in your proposal and provide itemized pricing. Q: How many EHR systems will require integration, and which speciﬁc EHR platforms are currently in use by the County and its crisis service providers? A: EHR integration is not required. If the proposed system can provide this the County may be interested in a future phase, but it is not necessary. There could be up to 3 future integrations – Credible, EPIC and CPR-web depending on provider interest. If you are able to provide this, please state so in your proposal and provide itemized pricing. Q: For the EHR integration, what is the expected direction of data exchange—one-way (read-only from EHR, or push to EHR) or bi-directional? A: The expectation is a one-way push to the EHR. Q: Is the integration expected to be real-time or batch-based (e.g., nightly ﬁle exchange)? A: A batch-based integration with a minimum of one exchange in each 24-hour period is acceptable. A real-time or near-real time exchange would be preferred. Q: In SECTION IV. SCOPE OF SERVICES REQUESTED, D. Features Ability to integrate with existing electronic health records. Can you please specify, if known: • Which EHR(s) are in use today (vendor and version)? • Whether integration is expected via standards-based APIs (e.g., REST/JSON, HL7, FHIR), ﬂat-ﬁle/SFTP, or another method? • Whether the County expects real-time, near real-time, or batch integration? • Is bi-directional integration required (write-back to the EHR) or is read-only data exchange suﬃcient? A: • Current providers use Credible, EPIC and CPR-web for documentation. However, there is no EHR speciﬁc to crisis. • The integration technology is not known. • The minimum acceptable level is batch integration once a day. However, near real-time or real-time is preferred. • Read only data exchange is suﬃcient. The software does not need to write back to the EHR. Q: For the EHR integration what types of data are expected to be exchanged (e.g., demographics, clinical assessments, encounter summaries, referral status, discharge information)? A: There is no speciﬁc requirements and we are interested in hearing your proposal on what is available. Q: For integration, which system is considered the system of record for shared data elements? A: The provider’s system would be provider’s record. Q: Will the EHR vendor(s) provide technical assistance and API access to support the integration, or is the selected vendor solely responsible for building and maintaining the integration? A: The facility or provider would be required to provide technical assistance and API access in order to be part of this system. However, some may elect not to integrate with the system. Q: For the EHR integration, are there existing integration standards in use (e.g., HL7 FHIR, HL7 v2)? A: This is not known. Q: The RFP lists "referral resources and outpatient appointment scheduling" as a required task. To properly scope this capability, is the system expected to directly integrate with existing facility or provider scheduling systems? If so, which scheduling platforms are currently in use? A: The scheduling platforms are not known. It is acceptable to present this as an option for a later implementation. Q: What is the expected scope of the scheduling function, scheduling directly into provider calendars, or generating referral requests that providers act upon in their own systems? A: Please describe what is available, or if there is an option to implement these features later. Q: How many outpatient providers or facilities would need to be connected to the scheduling function? A: Approximately 20 providers could be connected to the scheduling function. Q: Similar to the EHR integration question above: will the receiving facilities provide technical assistance and API access to support scheduling integration? A: The facility or provider would be required to provide technical assistance and API access in order to be part of this system. However, some may elect not to integrate with the system. Q: Section 5.03 of the Response Format instructs offerors to describe how the proposed solution meets 'the speciﬁc functional requirements listed in Section III.' However, Section III appears to describe the system's objectives, while Section IV contains the detailed functional and technical requirements. Can the County conﬁrm whether the Solution Overview should address the requirements outlined in Section IV, or is the intent to address both Sections III and IV within that section? A: Section 5.03 should read: Describe how the proposed solution meets the speciﬁc functional requirements listed in Section IV including relevant features and functionality of the solution. Q: Similarly, Section 5.06 (Security Plan) also references Section III. Can the County conﬁrm whether this is likewise intended to reference Section IV? A: Yes, the last paragraph of Section 5.06 should read: The proposer must include a certiﬁcation from its Chief Operating Oﬃcer, or individual with an equivalent title with authority to represent the vendor, that all of the above elements listed in Section IV are addressed in vendor’s security policies, and that such policies are at least as rigorous as the policies set forth in this document and the County Information Security Policies. If vendor cannot make such certiﬁcation for any reason (e.g. vendor’s policies do not address an element listed above), vendor must notify the County of the deﬁciency in its proposal/response to the RFP. Q: Sections 5.08 and 5.12 both request that offerors include contract and agreement documents, speciﬁcally, Section 5.08 asks for 'your contract for implementation' and Section 5.12 asks for 'a sample of the annual maintenance agreement.' Can the County clarify what is being requested, for example, whether this means the vendor's standard Master Services Agreement or SaaS subscription terms, a draft Statement of Work scoped to this engagement, or a written acknowledgment that the vendor's contract terms comply with the non-negotiable provisions outlined in the RFP? This will help us ensure we submit the appropriate documentation. A: The County would like a copy of your implementation contract and maintenance contract that have been updated to meet the requirements of the RFP listed in Section VIII Contract Provisions & Insurance Requirements. Q: Should these agreement documents be included within the main proposal PDF, the cost proposal PDF, or submitted as separate documents? A: The agreement documents may be submitted as part of either, but it is preferred to have it in the cost proposal. Q: What is the initial contract term the County anticipates—is it a 1-year contract with four annual renewals, a 5-year contract, or another structure? A: The preferred term will be a 1 (one) year contract with four optional annual renewals. Note that the ﬁrst term may be adjusted by a month or two to align with the Commonwealth of PA ﬁscal calendar of July 1 to June 30. Q: Section 8.01 lists "County ownership of the instruments of service/deliverables" and "Work-for-Hire Transfer of Copyrights/Intellectual Property" as non-negotiable contract provisions. Can the County clarify whether these provisions apply to the vendor’s pre-existing software platform and intellectual property, or only to custom- developed solutions, reports, and deliverables created speciﬁcally for the County under this contract? A: This would apply to custom-developed solutions, reports and deliverables created speciﬁcally for the County and not to the vendor’s pre-existing software platform and intellectual property. Q: For vendors offering a commercial SaaS platform, is the County’s intent that the vendor licenses the platform to the County (vendor retaining ownership of the underlying software IP), with the County owning all data and custom conﬁgurations? A: Yes. Q: Will the solution be hosted on the vendor's servers or on the County's? A: A cloud solution on the vendor’s servers is preferred. Q: Can you share any speciﬁc outcomes and metrics that will need to be tracked? A: Outcomes desired to be tracked include the result of the telephone call, mobile response or walk-in visit. We would like to track the number of contacts to include demographics, assessments completed, follow-up care completed, response time, disposition, trends in crisis incidents, etc. the ability to obtain a county of unduplicated individuals served is a high priority. Outcomes can also be tracked to determine length of calls, response time, day/time of calls, etc. We are open to learn about what outcomes and metrics you already track in your systems to determine what options we may have. Q: The RFP references County Information Security Policies. Can Franklin County Mental Health Department provide those policies (or a summary) so vendors can accurately conﬁrm that their policies are “at least as rigorous”? A: County information security policies can be summarized as based on NIST and HIPAA requirements. Q: The security plan requires NIST 800-53 “or better.” Can you clarify which NIST control baseline level (Low/Moderate/High) or speciﬁc control families are most relevant to this engagement? A: The County requires a moderate or higher control baseline. The access control family is the highest priority followed by the maintenance tools family. Q: For post-contract data access “using non-proprietary means,” can you specify: • Required duration and method of post-termination access • Any expectations around vendor assistance with data migration at the end of the contract term (and whether that should be priced in the proposal or treated as a separate future SOW). A: The vendor is expected to return all County data over to the County within 1 month after the end of the contract term in an open database format. Microsoft SQL database is preferred but any open database is acceptable. The County would expect this to be completed at no additional cost as part of the contract close-out. Q: ATTACHMENT B Non-Collusion Aﬃdavit includes a section for Notary Public witness and stamp. Please conﬁrm that the notary public is required for this solicitation, and conﬁrm that the Franklin County Mental Health Department will accept notary stamp or seal in accordance with the jurisdiction of the vendor representative signing, and that a raised seal is not expected or required given that the proposal will be submitted digitally. A: A notary is required for this solicitation and a notary stamp or seal in accordance with the jurisdiction of the vendor representative signing is acceptable. A raised seal is not expected or required due to the digital format of the submission. Q: [Redacted] is an out-of-the-box crisis intervention software system that already provides the majority of the requirements outlined in the solicitation. Is the Franklin County Mental Health Department willing to entertain some custom development of features described as required or preferred within the solicitation that are not currently offered, or offered but require modiﬁcations to meet county requirements, and have such development outlined within the cost proposal for consideration? A: Yes, the County is willing to entertain some custom development. Q: Thank you for providing parameters for the response format including page limits. Does the Franklin County Mental Health Department wish to see software screenshots within the response, and if so can these be omitted from page limitation criteria? If screenshots are explicitly not desired and instead only to be shared during a product demo, please specify. A: Screenshots should be included in the supplemental section if included. Q: The solicitation response format parameters include the provision for supplemental sections. Does the Franklin County Mental Health Department prefer these be submitted as separate attachments, or can they be submitted as additional pages within the PDF document containing the rest of the proposal (minus the cost proposal which will be submitted as a separate PDF)? A: Supplemental sections are to be submitted as a separate section at the end of the main PDF document, although if there are limitations to ﬁle size, etc. it may be submitted as a separate PDF. Q: Considering the quick turnaround from when the answers to these questions will be provided and the current proposal due date of April 2, will the County consider a short extension of the response due date as outlined in the original solicitation?. A: The County is not going to extend the due date for the proposal.