City and County of San Francisco Request for Proposal (RFP) For Payment Gateway Services RFP#TTX

Transcription

1 1. Might your office consider extending the submission deadline by two weeks? Can we request a due date extension from 1/5/2016 to 2/2/2016 due to the holidays? Large number of key technical employees are out of the office required to prepare the proposal response. Due to holiday schedules, will the City allow for an extension of the response deadline? 2. Our organization works with both processors, and most often, unlike with the City, our clients do not have the direct contractual relationship. Our questions are tied to the card processor fee model: a) Is the Payment Gateway Services vendor expected to utilize rates in the current contracts ts between the City and the processor? b) Which entity will charge the Service Fee to citizens making card payments via the web and IVR? Or otherwise stated, which entity will receive the bank deposits tied specifically to citizen-paid Service Fees? City and County of San Francisco Request for Proposal Yes, the schedule has been adjusted. An amendment to the RFP has been issued and Respondents may see the new schedule at a) Yes. The provider of Payment Gateway Services is NOT a participant in the rates charged by the merchant card processors. Such rates are the subject of bi-lateral agreements between CCSF and the card processors. A provider of Payment Gateway Services should only quote charges for supplying gateway services. b) See below. Each Respondent, in order to be qualified to participate in this RFP, agreed during the RFQ phase the following minimum requirements: Respondent agrees that CCSF will be the Merchant of Record and own all Merchant IDs. Respondent will direct credit/debit card entries to CCSF s contracted debit/credit card processing vendors: Bank of America Merchant Services ( BAMS ) for Cardholder-Present Transactions First Data Merchant Services ( FDMS ) for Cardholder-Not-Present Transactions For transactions on which Service Fees are to be applied, 1

2 3. Could share additional information on your transaction volume table: a) What is the average ticket size in dollars, per payment category? b) What is the total annual dollar volume, per payment category? 4. When responding to the RFI we were permitted to bid on one or all of the sections, the RFP now seems to require the respondent to provide all services (IVR, Call Center, gateway etc.). Please confirm to be considered, a respondent must be able to provide IVR, Web page development, Call center and gateway services not just one of these services. Respondent will apply the following rules: The paying client will be clearly advised of the Service Fee to be applied to the transaction amount The Service Fee will be processed as a separate transaction to the paying client s credit card statement Each month, the Respondent will charge its fees to CCSF s designated bank account(s) into which the Services Fees have been credited. These minimum requirements have not changed and CCSF expects each Respondent to continue to abide by these minimum requirements. Any failure to satisfy these minimum requirements will result in disqualification. Information is not available. Respondents may submit proposals osals for any of the four (4) service areas. At a minimum, TTX expects each Respondent to propose for online gateway services. IVR, Call Center and Kiosk solutions are a plus. 2

3 5. Please confirm that the City or its agencies will be funded for all service/convenience fees and you are not looking for anyone else to manage those fees (accept payment of the fees on behalf of the City and pay the City s processing expenses with it) 6. Appendix V calls for Customization of Web Payment Pages for Bill Presentment and Customization of IVR Scripts please describe the customization needed. 7. If in our response to the RFI we indicated we could not support garnishments, is support for garnishments now required? 8. In Section 2 Scope of work, it indicates the RFP is for payment gateway services only but it also indicates that the Respondent must be able to transact with Bank of America Merchant Services who the city uses for card present transactions. Are there card present transactions that will be processed through the gateway? If not, is there still a requirement to process with Bank of America Merchant Services? Yes, that is correct. See our answer to Question #2. CCSF, at a minimum, expects that a provider of Payment Gateway Services will customize its webpages and IVR scripts to CCSF branding, colors and specialized wording. Respondents that allow for greater levels of customization including page navigation will receive additional credit. Garnishments are a nice to have but a Respondent s inability to process garnishments will not disqualify that Respondent. The potential for cardholder present transactions is represented by the Service Area #4 that covers: Debit/Credit Card payment acceptance for in-person transactions through Physical Machines: for example, point of sale devices (with pin pads where appropriate), kiosks and parking meters. If a Respondent is able to deliver hardware for acceptance of cardholder present transactions, that Respondent s gateway is expected to deliver er those transactions to Bank of America Merchant Services as CCSF s cardholder present merchant card processor. If a Respondent submits a proposal to Service Area #4, then that Respondent must be able to route card transactions to Bank of America Merchant Services. 3

4 9. The RFP requires that the gateway be able to present multiple obligations to the payor and allow the payor to select one or more of the obligations to pay allow the payor to select one or more of the obligations to pay. The amounts of the obligations must be totaled and presented to the payor for authorization to pay. Is TTX going to allow one single payment for multiple obligations? If so what do you envision the reporting to look like? What do you expect the cardholder to see on their credit card statement? 10. The pricing template provided appears to not cover some of the pricing needed for the Scope provided given a more robust IVR and Gateway. Where would you like us to add pricing that is not included within the template? 11. The values provided on the template don t appear to match up can you please explain the process of determining the values provided? 12. IVR: How many calls per week / per month / annual? 13. IVR: What is the average or anticipated call length? 14. IVR: Does the City require the ability to accept long distance calls or local only? CCSF expects that multiple transactions will be combined into a single transaction that will be authorized and settled to the cardholder s credit card statement as a single charge. However, CCSF expects the Payment Gateway Services provider to supply reporting at the individual transaction level. CCSF does not agree that the pricing template provides insufficient price points for a robust IVR and Gateway. Having said that, if a Respondent wishes to add or modify pricing, it may do so using the OTHER COSTS section of the pricing template. Only estimated values are listed as indicated on the pricing sheet. The annual amount of 2,120 is listed on page 3 of the RFP. 300 of these transacations are sporadic and unpredictable; the other 1,820 occur primarily during the months of December and April of each year. Unknown at this time. This settlement option is infrequently used by payors. A requirement set forth in the RFQ stage of this procurement for Service Area #2 was: 4

5 15. IVR: Does the City currently have an 800 number for their IVR? IVR: Does the City have an existing script or call flow? 17. IVR: Does the city want a full-fledged fledged IVR system that has general information, account information and the ability to make payments? 12. Will there be a need to transfer a call to the city s staff? WEB: Can the system be located within the City s server room? WEB: Please provide an detailed overview of the desired web site functionality. 20. WEB: Is the desire to only have the website take payments Custom Number Selected Respondent, at its own expense, will utilize a toll free custom number provided by CCSF for City s payment solution that will guide the cardholder or account holder through the payment process. Any associated fees to the cardholder or account holder must be clearly stated prior to confirming the payment transaction and allow the cardholder/account holder to discontinue This requirement has not changed. No. Yes. TTX has an existing script and call flow for property tax IVR payments only. Yes, CCSF wants a full-fledged IVR system with the ability to accept and process payments. No, there will be no need to transfer a call to CCSF staff. No. The desired website shall provide a fully integrated service that includes a hosted branded City department welcome & payment instruction webpage, account registration, password/account authentication, electronic bill presentment function, shopping cart, checkout and pay page, payment confirmation page, and confirmation service. Yes. 5

6 and schedule future payments? 21. WEB: Does the City require additional functionality of the web site beyond making a payment? If so, please provide details for the additional functionality. 22. WEB: Would the City consider utilizing an existing City web site with a Make Payment link available to the user that would then call out to a custom website that would allow the user to make a payment? 23. Instead of utilizing the vendor s CSR staff to take payments on behalf of the City, could the vendor propose a solution that See our answer to Question #19. Please refer to the RFP Attachment V, Section 2A(3) which reads: 3. TTX accepts online payments for several obligations owed to CCSF by businesses and residents. That list of payment types is provided in Section 1.3 of the RFP. Each obligation is maintained in one or more data bases controlled by TTX and that data must be accessed in order to successfully process payments through the gateways. TTX delivers obligation information to the payment gateways relying on two different methods: Method #1: a TTX or department hosts a webpage that allows the payor to locate the obligation and the dollar amount and the information needed to complete the payment is exchanged, relying on an API supplied by the gateway provider, with the gateway payment page; Method #2:: the payment gateway allows the payor to locate the obligation and dollar amount at the payment gateway payment page. The gateway facilitates this process by (i) receiving and retaining a file of obligations owed by payors (probably, daily updates) or (ii) through web service calls from the payment page to the obligation data base. No. 6

7 would utilize the City s CSR staff to take the payment? 24. Pricing Worksheet B8-F8: Please describe in further detail these quantities. It is our assumption the quantities of mean there are 12 payment pages integrated to 12 separate obligation databases in the first year, 13 in the second year, etc. Yes, the assumption is correct. 25. Pricing Worksheet B14-F14: Please describe in further detail These quantities mean that there are three (3) different types of what these quantities mean. estimated obligations to continue using IVR as the settlement method. 26. Pricing Worksheet: B20-F20: Please describe in further detail IVR has optional link to CSR service. See question #25 above. what these quantities mean. 27. Pricing Worksheet B26-F26: Please describe in further what These quantities are merely estimates. TTX is not currently these quantities mean. using Kiosk/Physical Machine payment gateway services. 28. Pricing Worksheet: The pricing worksheet does not allow for any modifications. What is the best way for vendors to provide creative and forward looking alternate pricing? Will you allow for the submission of a separate pricing worksheet? 29. Page 6 Attachment III Question E9: Does the City s current vendors for card present and cardholder not present accommodate split payment types today? If so, does the Respondents must use the pricing worksheet. CCSF must have a way to fairly judge each Respondent s pricing submission. Therefore, all Respondents must comply with the pricing schedule provided in the worksheet. If a Respondent wishes to submit alternate versions of pricing, it may do so using the OTHER COSTS section of the pricing worksheet. Yes, CCSF s card processors will accept properly created split payments. Yes to both Scenario #1 and Scenario #2. 7

8 process allow for both split payment scenarios? Scenario #1: One payment can be split between two credit cards in the same transaction. Scenario #2: Partial payment with one payment type, such as a credit card to be paid online and the remaining balance could paid through a second payment type such ACH through the IVR? 30. Which of the following best describes the way the vendor is compensated for services provided? a. A fixed fee per transaction (THE CITY collects convenience fee and pays transaction costs) b. The selected vendor collects the convenience fee and pays for all transaction costs (including, interchange), and keeps the net of the two. (a) Correctly describes the manner in which the Payment Gateway Services provider will be paid. 31. Is the convenience fee paid into CCSF s bank account or the Into CCSF s bank account. See our answer to Question #2 vendors? above. 32. Can RFP respondents provide their own processor, or is integration with First Data and Bank of America required? 33. Can the City provide the annual sales volume for Visa, MasterCard, Discover and American Express? Can the City also provide the average ticket size for Visa, MasterCard, Discover and American Express? 34. Is the performance bond a requirement in this RFP as this may not be applicable? Each qualified Respondent, during the RFQ phase of this procurement, agreed to route payments to First Data Merchant Services or Bank of America Merchant Services (see our answer to Question #2 above). Any Respondent unable or unwilling to satisfy this requirement will be disqualified. See our answer to Question #3. A performance bond will not be required for this contract. 8

9 Attachment 2 T & C Pgs. 8-9 #4.8 Bonding Requirements. The Contractor is required to furnish a performance bond on the form in a form acceptable to the City, in a sum of not less than [insert bonding level] P-600 (9-15) 9 of 28 December 2015 of the annual amount of the contract to guarantee the faithful performance of this contract. The bond must be approved as to sufficiency and qualifications of the surety by the Controller. 35. Can CCSF TTX provide what percentage of the online transactions will be ACH vs. Card? 36. Can CCSF TTX provide additional details regarding parking meter integration requirements? 37. Regarding question 4 on page 3 of Attachment III, in section 2A Payment Gateway Services, Online: A certain subset of payment transactions will be recurring for fixed amounts. For example, a payor may owe $1,200 and enroll in a payment plan that requires payment of $100 for twelve (12) successive months. Can your firm support this requirement by providing an enrollment process and authorization page to the payor and retain the payment instruction (credit card number or checking account details) to enable fixed amount recurring payments? Where would the payment obligation or payment plan information reside? Respondents may find this information in the Attachment IV, the Pricing Worksheet. You will note that total monthly online transaction volume is predicted (but not guaranteed) to range between 20,000 and 24,000 entries. Of that total, monthly ACH transactions are predicted to average between 6,100 and 7,400. No. Parking meter gateway payments are not a component of this procurement. However, if you offer this service, feel free to include a description in your response to this RFP. The payment plan information ion currently resides in TTX s subsystem CUBS. CCSF has a use case for setting-up installment payment plans for delinquent obligations. 9