City of Bismarck, ND RFP for a WMS and CRM Addendum #2

Transcription

1 Date Issued: Friday, March 4, 2016 City of Bismarck, ND RFP for a WMS and CRM Addendum #2 This amendment is issued prior to receipt of proposal to provide modification and/or clarification of the Request for Proposals (RFP) identified above. PLEASE NOTE RECEIPT OF ADDENDUM #2 BY SIGNING THE FINAL PAGE AND INCLUDING WITH YOUR FIRM S SUBMISSION. Vendor Questions and Answers Q1: Exceptions and Clarifications (Section 12) If the Vendor finds it impossible or impractical to adhere to any portion of these specifications and all attachments, it shall be so stated in its proposal, with all deviations grouped together in a separate section entitled, exceptions/deviations from proposal requirements. This section will be all-inclusive and will contain a definition statement of each and every objection or deviation with adherence to specific RFP sections. Objections or deviations expressed only in other parts of the proposal, either directly or by implication, will not be accepted as deviations, and the Vendor in submitting a proposal, will accept this stipulation without recourse. Does the above paragraph refer to FUNCTIONAL exceptions or LEGAL exceptions? A: The above paragraph refers to both legal and major functional exceptions. However, functional exceptions represented in Section 9 (Functional System Requirements) only need to be represented on the vendor s response in the City s specification compliance spreadsheet. Any other exceptions should be explicitly be noted as outlined in Section 6 of the RFP. Q2: As a follow up to RFP Question/Answers #14A and #14B: Can the City please provide further clarification on the source code requirement? For a SaaS/PaaS solution the City would not have access to or rights to use the underlying SaaS/PaaS source code that runs the service. The City will only have access to the County s its data and metadata that it puts into the SaaS/PaaS subscription during the term of the service. Therefore, can the City please remove this requirement in for SaaS/PaaS solutions, Client shall then have full rights to use source code for any purposes other than resale. A: The source code escrow requirement will apply to all software code that is installed on the City s premises and managed by the City s staff. For a SaaS/PaaS solution, the City will retain complete ownership of its data, have the option of initiating backups as necessary, receive access to data schema that is consistent with the current production version of the software release. With a SaaS/PaaS arrangement, the City shall also have the option to select an IT business continuity service provider to serve as neutral, third-party to provide failover services for the current production environment in the event of vendor insolvency or if the vendor s data center experiences service disruptions violating the negotiated service level agreement. SaaS/PaaS solution options should also provide a data Page 1 of 6

2 assurance and protection clause in their hosting agreement that will guarantee the integrity and recoverability of the City s data. Q3: Would the City entertain introducing Salesforce technology into their current IT environment? A: The City is open to solutions that satisfy the requirements of this RFP. It will also will seek the most cost-effective solution possible as part of this process. The City reiterates the expectation (on page 8 of the RFP) of its intent to contract with a single firm and not with multiple firms doing business as a joint venture. Prime vendors are welcome to establish sub-consulting partnerships with other vendors to represent a complete, integrated, and cost-effective solution. This includes CRM, Fleet, and/or Facilities Management capabilities, along with others, that may not be native to the prime vendor s products. The prime vendor will be responsible for the successful delivery of any sub-consultant s implementation services and satisfactory performance of the requirements outlined in this RFP. Q4: To educate the City further, with a SaaS licensing model, ongoing licensing costs could be up to 2 to 3x higher (these higher costs are offset because they include all hardware, software, security, reporting, including the ability to build additional applications without increasing licensing costs.etc) in one environment, than the proposed licensing model proposed in the needs assessment. Is this licensing and pricing model, something the City would commit to if the solution meets the technical and functional need outlined in the RFP? A: Page 17 of the RFP states: The City is evaluating options for a City-hosted solution with a traditional, perpetual use licensing option and a Vendor-hosted solution (Private Cloud (ASP) / Public Cloud (SaaS) with associated managed services. It is optional, but not mandatory, for Vendors to provide both solutions as part of their RFP response. If a Vendor does propose both approaches any differences in capabilities between each should be clearly noted in the appropriate sections of the RFP response. The City understands the differences of a SaaS licensing model. The City will conduct its own cost of ownership analysis to determine whether the SaaS licensing model or traditional, perpetual use model is best suited to satisfy its requirements. Q5: On page 28 of the RFP it lists the proposal format. It appears the City is looking for the following, but we just wanted clarification. Can you verify that vendor s responses should be the following: Proposal Signature Form (Separate Sealed Document) Sections 1 14 Cost Proposal (Separate Sealed Document) A: The first sealed document should include the proposal signature form, along with Sections The second sealed document includes the cost proposal only. Page 2 of 6

3 Q6: In the Specifications Spreadsheet, there are several areas where it has a question with a subset of questions. For example, on the Service Request and CRM spreadsheet, question number 3, the priority is left blank and there is a subset of questions underneath. a. In these instances, do you want the vendor to fill anything on and this line or just leave it blank? A: The vendor does not have to respond to the categorical header lines and may leave the line blank. Any responses to these headers with a priority of - will not be scored. b. If you would like vendors to make a selection under the Availability section on these, what if we can meet some but not all? How would you want us to answer in those instances? A. As mentioned in the response above, responses to the headers that have a priority of - will not be scored and should be left blank. For all other requirements, vendors are asked to represent the elements they can and cannot meet in the comments section. Partial compliance should have an availability response of N. Clarify all assumptions and represent all answers as accurately as possible. Q7. The Technical Requirement Spreadsheet has an entire section on Outsourcing and Contract Management. a. What is the City s importance of these requirements? b. What if a vendor cannot meet any of the requirements on this section, will they be eliminated from consideration? c. Please clarify the level of importance on this functionality. A. The City s is evaluating the capabilities of the requirements represented to provide an unbiased comparison of each vendor s functionality. The City has a business need to represent the work performance by contracted service providers and other third party providers conducting work for the City. Vendors unable to meet certain requirements will receive a lower score but will not be disqualified if a solution is unresponsive to a given section of requirements. Q8. It s clear in the RFP that the City is interested in Fleet Management and they are currently using PetroVend for their fuel management system. a. Should a vendor include an integration with PetroVend in the pricing? b. Would they like it included in the base price or listed as an optional service? A. The City directs vendors to complete the Microsoft Excel Pricing form, which includes a request to price out interfaces, such as the PetroVend interface listed as item 11. The City would like each interface price itemized as noted in the spreadsheet for comparison purposes and so the City has the option to include/exclude a given interface as part of the implementation scope of services necessary. Q9. On pages of the RFP, it lists the current systems in use and the City s plan with them moving forward. It also lists whether the system data will be a source of data conversion. Page 3 of 6

4 a. How are vendors supposed to price out the data conversions? b. What if it s a Consider and it has a Yes for the Data Source for conversion. Should the vendor price out the cost to convert this data? A: Vendors are asked to represent assumptions regarding the data conversion process, demonstrating their familiarity with the formats and systems they have previously converted at other client sites. The initial conversion cost represented will need to be further validated and could be adjusted as part of the SOW development process should the City enter into negotiations with a preferred vendor. Any items designated as consider should be represented with assumptions. The City would like to have as many options as possible for prioritizing and determining the business benefits to performing each conversion and can represent these needs within its scope of services. Q10. On page 18 of the RFP, it states the City currently has 50 Concurrent Users, and it also lists 150 are anticipated. a. Is the anticipated 150 named users or concurrent users? b. How many initial named users should a vendor quote in the pricing section if the City isn t sure exactly how many are needed initially? A. The City anticipates a user base at full solution deployment to be at 150 named users with about 50 requiring concurrent access. The City will seek to scale its licensing requirements in accordance with its implementation phasing plan which may be several years. Therefore, it wants to have the option to purchase additional licensing entitlements as the user base and business value of the system grows. Q11. Question number 44 on the Service Request & CRM technical spreadsheet, the RFP says System tracks a communication log based on each interaction to a request for service. a. Can you clarify what a communication log means and what functionality you are looking for with this question? A: A communication log represents a documented account of a customer interaction by a City staff member with a citizen of the community. This log will represent the type of interaction (phone, , over the counter, Internet, etc.) and will time/date stamp each interaction with a system time that cannot be manipulated by the staff member or customer. The log will be used to document these interactions to provide better service to citizens and provide a means to audit a staff member s interaction with a customer, as necessary. Q12. For the Airport Operations Requirement (page 41), does the City want the vendor to create all these reports, or is the City willing to build some of them using a Report Writing Tool if the structure to run them is built into the software? A. The City would like to pursue the most cost-effective approach possible. Providing the option to train staff to prepare their own forms through the development of several examples which can serve as templates is a preferred approach. Should the City seek to have additional forms created by the vendor it can request these additional services. Page 4 of 6

5 Q13: On pages it briefly discusses the asset applications that must be implemented in this scope of work. Appendix B also lists the GIS features. On page 17 it specifically lists Facilities and Fleet, but makes no mention of Pavement, Signs, Street Lights, Airport, Water Mains, Storm Pipes, Sewer Mains, etc. a. Can the City please clarify the list of infrastructure assets that the vendor should implement in this project? b. Does the City want the vendor to implement them all, or is the City willing to have access to them and set some of them up at a date and time of their choosing? A. The City invites the vendor to review the assets detailed in Appendix B that are associated with the functional areas identified on pages of the RFP. Appendix B makes explicit mention of streets, street sign posts (signs), street lights, airport, water mains, storm pipes, and sewer mains on pages of the RFP. The vendor should represent its capabilities in supporting the linear, discrete (point), and area asset types common to municipal implementations especially those represented by the references noted in Section 3.10 in the RFP detailed in Section 10 of the vendor s response. The City will provide the selected vendor with process maps of the most significant activities involved in each of the service areas represented. These process maps can be used to identify the most common assets within each. The City expects flexibility to implement its own asset types using a baseline training process for its own staff members so it can independently add new asset types as its solution evolves. Page 5 of 6

6 PLEASE NOTE RECEIPT OF ADDENDUM #2 BY SIGNING BELOW AND INCLUDING WITH YOUR FIRM S TECHNICAL AND PRICING PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS. I ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF ADDENDUM #2: Company: Name: Title: Signature: Date: Page 6 of 6