Answers To Vendor Questions Related to the Permit & Project Tracking RFP City of San Mateo 11/9/2012

Transcription

1 Answers To Vendor Questions Related to the Permit & Project Tracking RFP City of San Mateo 11/9/2012 Question Answer Notes 1. What data would the City like converted?(i.e. permits, inspections, code cases, contact information)? How many records would the City like converted? Refer to metrics table - Section 2 Page 5 in RFP 7 yrs. of data in current system. Specific numbers will be addressed in contract negotiations. 2. What other systems if any, would the City like data migrated from? Details regarding data type(s) and how many records is helpful. 3. For each existing City application listed on RFP pages that requires data conversion, please provide the number of base records and number of data fields in each system. 4. Does the City have a budget for purposes of this RFP? If so, what is it? 5. Is the City s preference to host the solution onsite at the City or to have it hosted off site? 6. The City has indicated an interest in a hosted solution. We provide two hosted options and would like clarification regarding what the City is interested in. Is the City seeking a solution that is offered as infrastructure as a service or 1.Link to document management system (250, records) 2.Replace IVR system (migration and records counts TBD during contract negotiations). 3. Other migration dependent upon vendor capabilities. To be addressed in contract negotiations and implementation. The City will respond to the cost proposals provided by RFP responders. The project is funded. No preference. The City welcomes a discussion of both options. If the City were to select a hosted solution, it would be an SAS. 1

2 software as a service? 7. How much Business Process Reengineering is desired by the City? Does the City have well established and documented (diagrams, etc.) processes? Does the City intend for this to be performed solely by the vendor or as a collaborative approach by both parties? 8. How many total users will need mobile access for inspection and code enforcement processes? 9. Is electronic plan reviews a core philosophy of the City s technology and implementation strategy? Electronic plan review is defined as centralized document management (drawings) that can be submitted on-line, concurrently reviewed, redlined, marked-up, facilitate collaboration, allow external review agencies to participate, etc. 10. Please provide a list of City resources available for the project along with availability for project activities: a. Project Manager b. Subject Matter Experts c. Report Developers (Crystal) d. IT / IS Resources e. Departmental Resources Please refer to the Process charts included within the RFP (Page 30). More in-depth analysis, appropriate for a future implementation phase, has been conducted by the City. The vendor likely will not be required to perform the analysis or the reengineering. Please refer to Page 7 of the RFP. Vendors are encouraged to provide costs related to adding users to their system as well. As noted in the Requirements Document, the City wishes to explore this capability, and is very interested in seeing what proposers have to offer, but it is not a requirement at this point. The question presumably relates to a future implementation phase; as such, any vendor requirements should be listed in the proposal. The City will make certain that the selected provider has the necessary City resources to make the project successful. 11. Does the City have estimated project The City anticipates 2

3 timeline expectations (expected Go-Live date)? 12. Can you elaborate on Permit System Requirement #54 Supports Intergraph/GeoMedia? 13. Can you elaborate on Permit System Requirement #56 Supports MapInfo? 14. Can you provide detailed information on the current process of Permit System Requirement #132 Fire inspection billing. Currently supported by a link with FireRMS and Eden to set up fees. Briefly describe your functionality. Link between Fire RMS & Eden is 3rd party My Fire Rules.? 15. Does the City prefer a Train the Trainer or Complete End User Training model? that implementation will take about 1 year to complete. An actual date will depend upon successful vendor selection and completion of successful contract negotiations. Ability to consume a web service produced by Intergraph. Also, ability to connect to a SQL server database. City is not interested in having vendor utilize warehouse of shapefiles. Ability to consume a web service produced by MapInfo. Also, ability to connect to a SQL server database. City is not interested in having vendor utilize warehouse of shapefiles. Please refer to the embedded chart of existing systems on Page 28 of the RFP. Yes, My Fire Rules is a 3 rd party provider, which acts as a kind of lock-box for reporting between Fire RMS and Eden. MFR pulls data from Fire RMS and formats it for ingestion by Eden. Train-the-trainer comes closest to describing the City s preference. The City would also like 3

4 16. Can you provide information on reporting requirements? a. Number of reports b. Report writing resources available (Crystal Reports) c. List of reports 17. Please estimate the number of reports and custom documents the City would like developed based on High, Medium or Low complexity for scoping purposes. 18. Please identify the number of parcel records that currently exist in the CityView application. 19. Please identify the number of licensed professional records that currently exist in the CityView application. 20. Please identify what versions of SIRE and MS SharePoint are currently in place for the City s document management needs. to be able to provide staff with short-subject training that can be repeated as needed. As noted, the City prefers integration with Microsoft Office tools for report writing, but is open to other solutions. Proposers are urged to describe their reportcreation tools and solutions, and note the reports that come standard with the software. Any answer to this question depends upon the vendor s capabilities and data schema. What is standard for one may be custom for another. The City is interested in learning how each system manages reporting, both standard and ad hoc. 28,262 active parcels and 6,000+ inactive/historic parcel records. Is the question dealing with tracking licensed contractors, or with records that require licensed professional signature or something else? SIRE 3.3 SharePoint 2010, testing What vendor systems has the City seen The City has not held 4

5 or had demonstrated in the past two years relative to this RFP? 22. The Payment and Schedule, Maintenance, and Services terms described on RFP pages do not appear to be best practice terms for COTS software purchases. Will the City negotiate these terms in good faith or are these terms non-negotiable? 23. For each existing City application listed on RFP pages that requires an interface, please identify whether each will be a one-way or two-way interface, as well as the desired frequency of each (batch vs real-time). 24. To whom will the City s Project Manager report? How many dedicated City staff will be assigned to the duration of this system implementation and in what roles? 25. Does the City currently have Adobe Acrobat X licenses or Adobe Acrobat 9 licenses that can be upgraded to Acrobat X? If so, do all the plan review personnel have licenses allocated to them for Acrobat Pro? If not, does the City have a volume price agreement of government rate agreement for the Adobe suite of products? any formal demonstrations of systems related to this RFP. Please submit your exceptions to the RFP using the form provided in Appendix H (Page 31) of that document. For most interfaces, one-way is sufficient; however, the City is interested in learning of the vendor s capabilities for both one-way and two-way interfaces. Question is not related to the RFP, and is only appropriate to a future implementation phase. Vendors are free to suggest their preferred structure to the City in its proposal. The City is an Adobe client and makes Acrobat available to its staff. It stays current in its licensing. 5