PHILADELPHIA GAS WORKS Fleet Management Software RFP # Addendum #2 Questions & Answers Questions and Answers October 14, 2013

Transcription

1 QUESTIONS ANSWERS Q1 Please advise the current browser used at PGW and the A1 PGW currently uses Internet Explorer 8 version? The RFP indicates PCs with Windows 2007, but does not list browser. Q2 I wanted to see if I could request a 2 week extension to the due date for the RFP? A2 We cannot extend the due date of the proposal submission for this RFP. Q3 Item G3 Section and contradict each other, can A3 We will accept proposals for both solutions. you please clarify what type of solution and/or deployment method is being required? Web Based or Direct Installation (within PGW s IT infrastructure) Q4 Item AM5 What applications will require integration? A4 We would like the package to be integrated with Oracle ebusiness for finances, FuelForce for fuel management, and possibly Telogis OnTrack for GPS location services. Q5 Would it be possible to receive a copy of the required forms in a Word Format? A5 We cannot provide you with a word version of our RFP document due to security purposes. All of our posted RFP s are in pdf format Q6 Throughout the requirements there are numerous references to Parts Warranty tracking, Parts issues and costs on the work orders, re-order points, parts usage reports, etc. Please describe the method that PGW is currently using to acquire and manage the parts issued to work orders. A6 only. Currently PGW uses Oracle for parts tracking and cost. Our current system can read data from Oracle to obtain information such as part cost, available number of parts, and parts issued to work order. We would like the new solution to at least be able to provide the same information via integration with Oracle. Page 1 of 5

2 Q7 Q8 PHILADELPHIA GAS WORKS What are PGW s plans for Parts Inventory management with the new system and which system will be the system of record? Will an interface be required between the new system and the existing parts system? A7 A8 Oracle ebusiness is the system of record. We would like to integrate Oracle with our new solution. Q9 What is the current financial application in use by PGW? A9 Oracle ebusiness is our current financial system. Yes Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Is it your intention to interface the fleet and financial system? If so what are the specific requirements. In regards to bar coding technology, is PGW using handhelds or wedge units currently? If so, please provide model details? If not, will purchasing bar code devices be part of this procurement and, how many devises would be required? Project Definition and Requirements section, items 2.2 Scope of Work. Please confirm that section 2.2 is for background and reference only, not to be directly included, verbatim in the response document. On page 15 of the RFP, item Tab 6 refers to attachment B. Attachment B is not in the RFP nor on the PGW Procurement web site? Section 2.1 Overview of PGW/PGW Fleet, refers to a fleet breakdown listed on Attachment A. Attachment A is not in A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 Yes. We would like the new system to be able to update inventory based upon number of available units, number on order/backorder, and number used in the past fiscal quarter. Currently we use handheld barcoding devices. They are Unitech Model MS 180-1UG Section 2.2 is an abbreviated version of Attachment P. This does not need to be addressed verbatim within the proposal; however attachment P must be filled out completely. This was a typographical error. It should have read Attachment P which was sent as an attachment to the initial RFP. Attachment A has been posted to the PGW website as of October 14, Page 2 of 5

3 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 the RFP document nor on the PGW Procurement web site? On page 6, section it states: The system must be completely user definable for all fields in the User Interface including: reports, columns, labor codes (both direct and indirect), calendars (fiscal and otherwise) and user dashboard. The value of a that is COTs (Commercial Off The Shelf) and highly customizable is the lower cost over a completely customized solution. Is PGW only interested in a custom developed software solution specifically for PGW? Section 4.2 Qualification Statement. It refers to the undersigned but has no signature line provided. Is there a formal document for the Qualification Statement or are we to add a signature line below the paragraph? Attachment P: Detailed Vendor and System Requirements, item TE 1 refers to PGW Development Standards. Where can we get a copy of these standards to review? Does PGW expect the proposed solution to be hosted by the vendor? Does PGW expect pricing to be for a specific number of years? A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 PGW will accept proposals for both COTS solutions and a completely customizable solution. We understand there will be a divergence in how these two types of solutions are priced and proposed. The evaluation criteria for the proposals takes into account this disparity to ensure all vendors are evaluated on a level playing field. The undersigned is the signatory on page 27. That is the signature for the whole of Section 4. This document has been posted to the PGW website. We will accept proposals detailing both options of either selfhosting or having the vendor host the solution. Base pricing should include implementation of hardware/software, personnel training and data migration. Proposers may also include an approximation of annual software maintenance as a separate Page 3 of 5

4 Q20 Does PGW expect to own a license for the software? A20 Yes line item in procing. Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25 Q26 The RFP references a requirement for Fourth Generation Language. Please clarify this requirement as to what qualifies as a 4GL? Does the customer have a preference between a Commercialoff-the-shelf (COTS) solution versus a customer solution? How many users are anticipated to utilize the system? Unique users? Concurrent users? How many mobile devices are anticipated to be part of the initial solution deployment? Page 40, Section G31 It says the system shall support messaging. (Mandatory) - What is PGW looking for and what is the desired result? Our maintenance management system is licensed by several variables, one being number of Named users of the maintenance management system. Can you please provide number breakdown via the following categories; A21 A22 A23 A24 A25 A26 4 th Generation Language refers to the programming language used within software for report generation, data management and more. Some examples of 4GL are LabVIEW FoxPro and SQL. We would like to see a solution that is customizable to meet our needs. Around 75 users total will be using the system. These users will range in permissions from read-only to full-access. At the maximum we see about 25 users using the system at one instant. N/A PGW does not use mobile devices with our current solution, nor do we plan to have mobile devices integrated to our new solution at this time. Our current system has an application in order to send messages from one user to another. What we are looking for is a simple messaging system to you within the solution for communication. The minimum we require is text based messaging. About 55 Full named users About 20 Read only users This is an approximation based on the current number of users we Page 4 of 5

5 Read Only Named Users (Also known as analysis license, this is used by those that will only run / set up reports. This license had data view capability, but NO data edit) Full Named User All others not covered under the two outlined above. NOTE: In addition to licensing, this number of system users will aid in the calculation of required deployment and training activities. have in our department. These numbers may change slightly over time due to employee addition/termination and promotion. Page 5 of 5