Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Records Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County approves $34,400 impact study to evaluate Aegis records management replacement
Summary
McLean County authorized a $34,400 change order to Mission Critical Partners to produce an impact study on replacing or continuing the Aegis records management system; the study will analyze effects on RMS, JMS, CMS and CAD integrations ahead of July go‑live dates.
The McLean County Executive Committee approved a change order with Mission Critical Partners to conduct an impact study on the county’s planned Aegis records management replacement, at a fixed price of $34,400 to be paid from a shared sales tax fund.
Tony Nelson (Information Technologies) turned the item over to the department’s lead where the presenter described the county’s integrated justice ecosystem and said the study will lay out three options: continue with the current vendor (Caliber Public Safety), implement Caliber and later replace it, or stop implementation now and move immediately to an alternative vendor. "We sought out three different proposals… Mission Critical Partners has been our partner through the entire Aegis replacement up to this point," the presenter said.
County staff reported the current records management system (RMS) implementation was scheduled to go live on July 22, with the CAD replacement following on July 29; staff told the committee that stakeholders have raised interest in exploring newly available vendor alternatives since the original selection. The impact study is intended to assess technical, operational and schedule risks across RMS, the jail management system (JMS), the courts management system (CMS) and the computer‑aided dispatch (CAD) integration.
The presenter said the $34,400 fixed‑price engagement was the lowest of three proposals; staff recommended proceeding because a vendor change at this stage could generate large downstream costs and schedule impacts. The committee approved the change order by voice vote.
Committee members and presenters framed the study as an insurance policy to understand tradeoffs before making a potentially costly vendor change that would affect multiple justice system modules.
