CHARLES COUNTY GOVERNMENT RFP NO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SOFTWARE SYSTEM

Transcription

1 TO: All Offerors CHARLES COUNTY GOVERNMENT Department of Fiscal and Administrative Services Purchasing Division Telephone: September 25, 2014 RFP NO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SOFTWARE SYSTEM ADDENDUM NUMBER THREE Please be advised of the following modification(s) & information related to Request for Proposals to These modifications, comments, and attachments are hereby made a part of the solicitation documents to the same extent as if bound therein. The due dates for proposals remain the same as published in Addendum Number Two. I. Changes, Additions, Modifications, and Attachments to the RFP A. Addition 1. Appendix 5 PGM Reports/Queries II. Written Questions Received Question 1 Question: Please provide the total # of users that will be utilizing the new system. Response: Previously answered in Addendum #1, Question 1; however, the new anticipated number of users is one hundred-ten (110) users. Question 2 Question: Of the total # of users, how many users will operate primarily in a field environment (i.e. inspectors, code enforcement officers, etc.)? Response: Previously answered in Addendum #1, Question 1. Ten (10) users in the field. Question 3 Question: Please provide details with regard to all required integrations. For each, please list the following: a. Target System Name b. Target System Development & Database Platform c. Business Case (i.e. what is the goal of the integration) d. Whether or not an API is provided e. Frequency of data exchange (i.e. real time or batch) Response: From RFP Part I, Section 3.7 Integration Approach: 1

2 a. Target System Name: New World Systems (NWS) b. Target System Development & Database Platform: IBM iseries VR7 DB2 System Modules: General Ledger, Revenue Accounting, and GeoProperty c. Business Case: General Ledger Validate G/L account numbers and types Revenue Acct. Ideally, at end of the day new system would create the necessary NWS Revenue Accounting files of permit monies collected which would be used for NWS report generation and updating GeoProperty Our GeoProperty module contains all valid Charles County property numbers; the MD State Department of Assessments and Taxation supplies these property number to us. We have to ensure that property numbers in the new system are valid property numbers. d. API: None exist. e. Frequency of Data Exchange: G/L & GeoProperty Ideally real time Revenue Acct. Nightly batch update Please note that Part I, Section 3.7 Integration Approach requests that the offeror present the recommended approach for integrating the proposed solution with our current New World System modules. Question 4 Question: Please provide details with regard to all required data conversions from legacy systems. For each please list the following: a. Source System Name b. Source System Development & Database Platform c. Types of records to be converted (i.e. Permits, Plans, Inspections, Projects, Violations, Invoices, Fees, etc.) d. Does the conversion include digital documents? Are these associated to the record types above with unique ID? Are they stored in the database or on a separate file server? Response: a. Source System Name: New World Systems b. Source System Development & Database Platform: IBM iseries VR7 DB2 c. Types of records to be converted: See RFP, Part III, Section 4.0 Data Migration d. Digital Documents: Our digital documents reside in Laserfiche on a separate server. Currently our system provides a link from the permit/project record which opens up associated documents stored in Laserfiche. We would like to preserve that functionality. Therefore, the Laserfiche index must be converted. Question 5 Question: Please provide a list of the types of permits currently issued by the County (i.e. Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, etc.). Response: Previously answered in Addendum #1, Question 3. 2

3 Question 6 Question: Please provide a list of the types of planning and zoning applications currently processed by the County (i.e. Rezoning, Conditional Use, Special Use, Annexations, etc.). Response: Previously answered in Addendum #1, Question #3. Question 7 Question: Please provide a list of the reports currently generated by staff out of the current land management system(s). Response: See Appendix 5 of this Addendum titled PGM Reports/Queries. Question 8 Question: Please provide a list of the reports that the vendor will be expected to develop (if different from the list provided in the previous question). Response: We want to see the proposed solution s standard best practice, industry reports. See RFP Appendix I, Section 3.0 General Reporting Capabilities. See Appendix 5 of this Addendum titled PGM Reports/Queries. Question 9 Question: Please confirm that the County is only interest in an on-premise deployment (i.e. not vendor hosted). Response: Previously answered in Addendum #1, Question 2. Question 10 Question: Approximately how many permits does the County issue per year? Response: Approximately 8,000. Question 11 Question: Approximately how many inspections does the County conduct per year? Response: Approximately 29,000. Question 12 Question: How many users does the County anticipate will require access to the system at any one time? Response: Anticipate 50 users. Question 13 Question: How many total users will need training? Response: All users, 110. Question 14 Question: What is the County s existing GIS environment? Does the County have ArcGIS Server? If so, please provide the version number. Response: Charles County GIS environment consists of products from Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). We are currently running products that work with the 10.0 platform in a desktop, web-based and mobile environment. We have an ArcGIS Server with a MS SQL database 3

4 that meets the minimum of 10.0 SP3 compatibility. See RFP, Appendix I, Requirements Matrix, Section 15.0 GIS. Question 15 Question: Regarding mobile computing, what is the device of choice? Does the County want the ability to work in both an online and offline mode? Response: We are not currently set on a specific device. The County wants the ability to work in both an online and offline mode. Question 16 Question: How many plan reviewers will utilize the electronic plan review module (with the ability to red-line, comment, overlay & company, etc.?) Response: 30. Question 17 Question: Is the County interested in scheduling inspections and obtaining inspection information via touch tone phone with IVR? Response: No. Question 18 Question: Will you please clarify what social media interfaces the County is interested in and details on the interfaces desired? Response: As detailed in the RFP, Appendix I, Requirements Matrix, Section 1.0 General Requirements, Item 1.14, the County is interested in learning about all social media outlets that the proposed solution has to offer and how they are integrated. Question 19 Question: Regarding the Laserfiche integration, is the County interested in a real time push interface to allow all documents in the vendor s solution to push to Laserfiche and make them available County-wide? Response: The County is interested in learning exactly how the proposed solution will interface with Laserfiche. As Laserfiche is the County s standard RDBMS, and is used heavily by Planning & Growth Management, the more integration available, the better. Question 20 Question: Does the County utilize central cashiering? Response: Yes. Question 21 Question: Does the County have a budget for purposes of this RFP? If so, will you please provide? Response: The County does have a budget; however, the County declines to release it. Question 22 Question: To provide an accurate price estimate, please identify the number of distinct name back office users the County requires for the new system (please identify number of names users by business function). [Back office users are staff members who will have partial or complete access to the 4

5 system. They may comprise one or more departments. Their total number may affect how the system is licensed and is needed to determine the number of users that will need to be training on using the system]: a. Land Management/Permitting b. GIS Response: 110. Question 23 Question: How many field/mobile users does the County expect to use the new system? Of the number of mobile uses, how many are included with the number of back office users requested in the previous question? Response: 10. Question 24 Question: Please list the average number of record types created each year for each of the following in the County s current system: a. Compositions b. Cases c. Permits d. Applications e. Work Orders f. Services Requests g. Licenses h. Others? Response: a. Compositions n/a b. Cases Zoning Code Enforcement 5,000 c. Permits 8,000 d. Applications 16,000 e. Work Orders n/a f. Services Requests n/a g. Licenses 3,600 h. Others? Board of Appeals 25/year; Public Information Act Requests 200/year; Request for Assistance 3,000/year Question 25 Question: What standard reporting tools will be used in the new system (i.e. Crystal Reports, Oracle Reports, MS SQL Server Reporting)? Response: As detailed in the RFP Appendix I, Requirements Matrix, Section 3.0 General Reporting Capabilities, the County is interested in learning about the standard report generator and associated tools that are included with the proposed solution. Question 26 Question: Does the County have any specific reports (defined format) that must exist at the time of go-live? If so, how many reports does the County desire? (The definition of a report is any document emitted by the system including letters, citations, permits, statistical reports, etc.). Response: Previously answered in this Addendum, Question 7. 5

6 Question 27 Question: Please describe County s report writing resources. Response: The County s current Planning & Growth Management Permitting System lives on an IBM i5 in a DB2 database. The County currently utilizes the Query Manager tool that is supplied with the IBM. See RFP Appendix I, Requirements Matrix, 3.0 General Reporting Capabilities. Question 28 Question: As part of the training protocol, does the County want to be trained in report writing and development; and if so, what percentage of reports does the County wish the vendor to write as part of the implementation? (For example, vendor writes 20 reports, the County is trained to write 30 reports). Response: Yes, the County wants to be trained in report writing and development. In response to the percentage of reports that the vendor must develop, this depends on the standard reports that the vendor currently has available. We anticipate that the selected solution will have many of the required reports as part of the standard package. In Appendix I, Requirements Matrix, we have requested a listing of all standard reports included: 3.11, 4.17, 5.34, 6.32, 7.8, 8.12, 9.18, 10.23, 11.21, 16.40, 17.34, 18.12, and Question 29 Question: Please estimate the number of reports and custom documents the County would like developed based on High, Medium, or Low complexity for scoping purposes. Complexity Description Number High Reports that require complex queries, joins, multiple sources, etc. Examples include statistical and analytical reports, schedules, management summaries and agendas. Medium Reports that require some calculations and summaries. Examples include forms and transaction reports (receipts, permits, inspection tickets, journals, logs). Many reports fall under this category. Low Reports that require a simple pull from a limited number of database fields and presentation on a document. Examples include letters and notices. Response: Previously answered in this Addendum, Question 28. Question 30 Question: Please complete the following table with all systems data that must be converted into the new system. System Name Vendor DB Type # of Base Records # of data fields Response: Charles County IT staff will work with the selected vendor to produce appropriate upload files. See RFP Part III, Section 4.0 Data Migration, for record counts for Electrical Licenses and Contractors. System Vendor DB Type # of Base # of data Name Permitting New World Systems (NWS) Records DB2 Permit Master 142,750 (approx.) fields 75 6

7 Permitting NWS DB2 - Permit subsidiary records (inspections, fees & payments, narratives) 1,543,045 (approx.) Varies Question 31 Question: Will the County require a periodic Address, Parcel, and Owner (APO) load into the new, selected system? If yes, please complete the table below. System Name Vendor DB Type # of Parcel Records Response: Previously answered in this Addendum, Question 3. Question 32 Question: Does the County have resources to put the legacy data into a prescribed format, and then participate in the conversion process in the new system? Response: Yes. Question 33 Question: Is there a GIS solution that is expected to integrate with the new solution? If so, what vendor and version does the County currently use? Response: Previously answered in this Addendum, Question 14. Question 34 Question: What imaging and/or document management systems are currently in place? Does this solution support web services integration? Response: Laserfiche, Client/ Server Version Yes. Question 35 Question: What is the budget for this project? Response: Previously answered in this Addendum, Question 21. Question 36 Question: What vendor systems has the County seen or had demonstrated relative to this RFP/RFI? Response: The County has seen general demonstrations over time. No formal RFI was conducted. Question 37 Question: Please list/clarify all interfaces required to or from the new, selected system; please include as much detail as possible. Interface Name One-Way or Two-Way Frequency (Batch, real-time) Description Response: Previously answered in this Addendum, Question 3. Question 38 Question: Will there be a dedicated Project Manager(s), and if so, will the Project Manager(s) be from the County or an outside consultant? To whom will the Project Manager(s) report? How many 7

8 dedicated County staff will be assigned to the duration of this system implementation and in what roles? Response: There will be a dedicated Project Manager from the County. A dedicated team, consisting of County Planning and Growth Management staff and IT staff will be assigned to the project. The County staff assigned to the duration of this system implementation and their roles shall be based upon the accepted proposed solution. Question 39 Question: Please clarify whether the selected vendor will train all of the system users in each area, or if the County desires a Train-the-Trainer approach? Response: The proposed solution shall include a training plan as described in Part I, Section 3.9 Training. Question 40 Question: Please state the County s desired implementation timeframe (project start to go-live). Response: - The proposed solution shall include implementation time frames as described in Part I, Section 3.12 Project Plan. Question 41 Question: Does the County desire electronic document/plan review functionality as part of this project? Response: Yes. Question 42 Question: If yes to Question 41, what business processes or record types will be enabled for electronic plan review? (i.e. Simple Residential Permits, Commercial Permits, etc.) Response: All permits that include either site plans, plats, grading plans, site construction plans or building construction plans will need to be included in the proposed solution. Question 43 Question: If yes to Question 41, does the County plan to roll out electronic document/plan review functionality for all record types at once or phasing in record types over a specified timeframe? Response: The proposed solution shall include roll out or implementation plans as described in Part I, Section 3.12 Project Plan. Question 44 Question: Does the County currently have Adobe Acrobat X license 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 County have a volume price agreement or government rate agreement for the Adobe suite of products? Response: Some staff members already have Acrobat X and Acrobat XI licenses. If needed, we can purchase additional licenses. 8

9 Question 45 Question: Is it important for the selected solution to be 508c compliant? Response: The selected solution should be ADA compliant, at a minimum meeting priority one checkpoints of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Question 46 Question: How many dedicated full time equivalent (FTE) staff manage and maintain the current system? Response: The equivalent of one (1) FTE IT staff member maintains the entire New World Systems suite of software, as well as the IBM i5. Question 47 Question: What is the County s current disaster recovery strategy? How are systems backed up? Is there a second data center? Response: We backup our entire network on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. Yes, there is a second data center. Question 48 Question: Does the County run a VM environment, and if so, which product? Response: Yes, Microsoft Hyper V. Question 49 Question: How many applications is the County supporting agency-wide? Response: In the Hundreds. Question 50 Question: Please summarize the County existing security policy for your current system. Response: Physically, the i5 is located behind 3 locked doors with multiple security cameras throughout the area. Operating system access is limited to IBM Security Officer. Two levels of authentication are required to access New World Systems (NWS). Once in NWS, specific screen and function security settings are established for each user ID. Question 51 Question: Page 1-1, Section 1.2 of RFP required Offeror to provide no less than 5 representative project. Are 5 reference projects required from each company in a prime and subcontractor team arrangement, or the team can submit total of 5? Response: It is the County s intent to award to a single firm; therefore, the prime shall submit five (5) representative projects within the past thirty-six (36) months of their own. The County may request from the prime the experience information about the subcontractor at any time. Also see Addendum #1, Question 24. Question 52 Question: Page III-4 Section 3.1 to 3.3, is it County s expectation that costs for developing the 3 customized processes/applications be included in this proposal? Response: Yes. Page I-14 of the RFP states, All costs must be included in the cost proposal. 9

10 Question 53 Question: What are the format (SQL Server, Access, Excel sheet, etc.) of current legacy data that need to be converted to the new system? How many databases need to be converted? Response: Previously answered in this Addendum, Questions 4 & 32. Question 54 Question: To allow an appropriate amount of time between receiving answer to these questions, and the submission deadline we request the County provide a two week extension to the proposal due date. Response: The due date has already been extended. Please see Addendum #-2 for the most current solicitation schedule. Question 55 Question: For requirement 3.10, can the County provide more detail as to the example noted and the ultimate need expressed by this requirement. Is the intent to establish the ability of the system to create reports on the three items noted across all case types? Response: Yes. Reporting would need to be available for all case types. Reports should be available to note cases pending or issued in particular geographic location. Reports should also be available to determine a status on any case type and allow for all internal business functions to be properly reports. Question 56 Question: Addendum #1 states that the successful Offeror shall furnish all requirements due at contract/agreement execution, which may include, but is not limited to performance bonds, and/or payment bonds Will the County consider another form of surety other than a performance bond? Response: There are no bonds required. Question 57 Question: If an Offeror is working with a sub who is an approved MBE in the State of Maryland, do they also need to register with Charles County in order for the bid to receive proper credit for the MBE requirement? Response: Vendors certified as MBE s by the Maryland Department of Transportation are recognized and accepted by Charles County Government. We encourage vendors to register as a MBE with Charles County Government; however, it is not required. There is an aspirational minimum goal of 25% MBE participation for each project. There is no MBE requirement. 10

11 APPENDICES 11

12 APPENDIX 5 PGM REPORTS/QUERIES 1. DAILY REPORTS/QUERIES 1.1 Outstanding Approvals 1.2 Daily Permit Tracking Approvals Health Department 1.3 Outstanding Temporary Use and Occupancy Certificates 1.4 Permits Having Last Agency Sign Off 1.5 SFD Permits Aging Report 1.6 Missing Last Action Dates for Reviewers 1.7 KPI for SFD Permit Reviews 2. FREQUENT OR MONTHLY PERMIT REPORTS 2.1 Change Related Permit Number 2.2 Change Permit Property Numbers 2.3 Change Q Property Numbers 2.4 Statistics Reports 2.5 Estimated Value List 2.6 Display Permit Fee Codes 2.7 Plancheck Invoice 2.8 Utility Stats 2.9 Same Day Permit Count 2.10 Add Fees to Permits 2.11 Chamber Report 2.12 Dates Not Posted 2.13 Search Narratives 2.14 Plumbing without Issue Date 2.15 Electrical with No Issue Date 2.16 Outstanding RFA Print 2.17 Archive Inventory List 2.18 CAL Square Footage 2.19 CAD Square Footage 2.20 NC Square Footage 2.21 SFD Construction Value 2.22 SVD CON1 Construction Value 2.23 Building Permits for Active Permits 2.24 Building Permit Two-Week Reports 2.25 Building Permit Issued Permit Report (Monthly) 2.26 Building Permit Averages Report 2.27 Building Permit Compliance Report 2.28 Zoning Violation Aging Report-Outstanding 30 Day Inspections 12

13 2.29 Zoning Violation Aging Report-Outstanding Re-Inspections 2.30 Zoning Violation Aging Report-Outstanding County Attorney 2.31 Zoning Violation Aging Report-Outstanding Court Date 2.32 Zoning Violation Aging Report-Outstanding Court Ordered Inspections 2.33 Zoning Violation Aging Report-Outstanding Show Cause 3. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PERMIT QUERIES 3.1 Monthly Permit Application Report 3.2 Monthly Permit Issuance Report 3.3 Active Permits 3.4 Two-Week Reports 3.5 Completed/Issued Permits 3.6 Averages Report 3.7 Compliance Report 3.8 Construction Inspection Report 3.9 Permit Inquiry (Permit Status for Individual Permits) 4. MONTHLY STATISTICS 4.1 Building Permit Applications by Type Per Month Two (2) Years 4.2 Building Permits Approved by Type Per Month Two (2) Years 4.3 Use & Occupancy Certificates Issued Per Month by Permit Type Two (2) Years 4.4 Building Estimates & Revenue, Yearly & Fiscal Year 4.5 Utility Permit Report Summary 4.6 Building Permits Voided 4.7 Zoning Statistics, Incoming & Outgoing 4.8 Building Permits Issued by Fiscal Year 4.9 Building Permit Applications Rolling Average 4.10 Code Enforcement Statistics 4.11 Development Services Permits by Month for Applications & Issuance 5. ANNUAL REPORT DATA COLLECTION 5.1 PRIMARILY PLAN APPROVALS Total Number of Preliminary Plans Approved Total Number of Lots and/or Units Approved Inside & Outside the Priority Funding Are (PFA) & Development District (DD) Total Approved Subdivision Area (Gross Acres) Lot Area (Net Acres) Subdivisions & Lots Approved Inside the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan Type: Residential, Commercial, etc. 13

14 5.2 FINAL PLATS (RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL) Total Number of Plats Approved Total Number of Lots and/or Units Approved Both Inside & Outside the PFA & DD Total Approved Subdivision Area (Gross Acres) Lot Area (Net Acres) Subdivisions & Lots Approved Inside the PUD Type of Plats that Record Lots: Residential, Commercial, Industrial, etc. 5.3 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS Total Number of Site Plans Approved Type of Use (Commercial, Public Use, Cell Towers, Residential Apt., etc.) Total Building Square Feet Approved (Gross) Total Square Feet Constructed (Gross) Total Lot Size (Net Acres) Site Plans & Square Feet Approved Inside the PUD Total Number of Redevelopment Projects 5.4 BUIDLING PERMITS (RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL) Total Number of Permits Issued Permit Type (NC, SF, APT, TH, etc.) Total Number of Units Approved Inside & Outside the PFA & DD Total Number of Units Approved Inside the PUD Total Number of Apartments Approved for Senior Housing Total Number of Condos vs. Apartments 5.5 USE & OCCUPANCY PERMITS Total Number of Permits Issued Permit Types (NC, SF, APT, TH, etc.) Total Number of Units Approved Inside & Outside the PFA & DD Total Number of Units Approved Inside the PUD Total Number of Apartments Approved for Senior Housing Total Number of Condos vs. Apartments 14

15 6. FREQUENT OR MONTHLY PERMIT REPORTS List of reports currently generated out of existing, excel and custom School Allocation program and requests for **new system: A. Water and Sewer Allocation - Excel Tracking Chart Existing Medium Complexity 1. A manually produced excel chart that presently serves as our primary historical and active tracking chart for the approval process for water and sewer allocation. 2. This individual, stand-alone application process should be interlinked with the overall Permits system by a common identifier such as a parent parcel, subdivision name, etc. This would allow for more efficient determination of status for W&S allocations and should provide active status to multiple users for permits, plats, and Development Services Permit applications. B. Development Rights & Responsibility Agreements (DRRA) Existing Low Complexity 1. Tracked and managed on two (2) separate excel spreadsheets that are used to: a. Track and manage the status of active applications: This is a basic data entry excel sheet that is used to add new applications and track progress through several internal review processes, leading to consideration, approval and recordation of the document. **Other Divisions and Departments should be able to query the status. b. Track the payments or other milestones required by each approved application/agreement. (Medium Complexity): This manually produced excel spread sheet comprises all historically approved DRRA agreements and provides a yearly phasing schedule, presently out to year This spread sheet contains basic formulas to provide totals of receipts per project, total receipts per year as well as future yearly expected totals based upon approved yearly payment phasing schedules, unique to each DRRA. c. **This current application would benefit from an inter-linked status specifically with the record plat process. (Parent parcel or subdivision name) This should also have a notes area or narrative section. C. School Allocation System Existing Medium Complexity 1. A current system, custom prepared system used to enter, track and administer the school allocation process, performed as a sub-set of the Plat review process. This is a bi-yearly process of allocating available school seats to eligible projects. This process includes the automatic preparation (mail merge) of offer and acceptance letters, tracking expiration dates as well as tracking and the preparation of refund letters for deposits paid. **The new system can replicate the existing elements of the current system, however may not be necessary to provide automatic letter preparation. The new system should provide the envisioned inter-link with other applications, especially with regard to the Final Plat process. Will need refund tracking and ability to query data to make refund determinations and provide back-up receipt data. 15