Queen Anne s County County Commissioners: James J. Moran, At Large Jack N. Wilson, Jr., District 1 Stephen Wilson, District 2 Robert Charles Buckey, District 3 Mark A. Anderson, District 4 OFFICE OF BUDGET, FINANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY The Liberty Building 107 North Liberty Street Centreville, Maryland 21617 Telephone: (410) 758-4064 Fax: (410) 758-3036 County Administrator: Gregg A. Todd Director, Budget, Finance and IT: Jonathan R. Seeman Chief Treasury Officer: Marie Lange ADDENDUM NO. 1 Request for Proposals ( RFP ): PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE PACKAGE MODULES July 14, 2015 This addendum ( Addendum No. 1 ) is hereby made a part of the contract documents ( Documents ) for the project whose title is listed above, and Addendum No. 1 is being issued in order to correct, modify, clarify, and/or explain the contents of the Documents. Addendum No. 1 includes material changes to the Documents and, as such, a copy of Addendum No. 1 must be included with bids. The following amendments to the Documents are hereby made: A question receipt deadline is added. Any outstanding questions concerning the RFP, the Documents, and/or Addendum No. 1 must be received by Queen Anne s County ( County ) by Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 11:59 p.m. local time ( Question Receipt Deadline ). A statement concerning the possible future issuance of a second addendum is added. If questions not addressed herein are received by the County on or before the Question Receipt Deadline, a second addendum will be issued seven (7) calendar days prior to the bid opening date. The County is not responsible for any issuance- or receipt-related delays directly or indirectly related to factors beyond its reasonable control. Page 1 of 6
Page 2 of 6 A list of all of the essentially-unique questions posed by (prospective) bidders not addressed in the RFP and received by the County on or before Friday, July 24, 2015 at 11:59 p.m. local time is added. The answers to said questions are also added. Q1: Are the modules interdependent do they share a common database and/or are there interdependencies due to replicating data that will require that all modules be migrated at once? Or, alternatively, do you anticipate migrating the applications one at a time? If so, is there a preferred sequence to the migrations? To provide some background, the County began using the GRS system (later purchased by SunGard) in 1994 for the Utility Billing, Tax and Permitting systems. All of these modules at that time were in their own separate databases. In 2004/2005, the Utility Billing and Permitting systems were upgraded to the latest SunGard modules but there was no Tax system module to transition to. From 2012 to 2014, the County upgraded to SunGard s most current system that did allow for a customized Tax and Utility Billing module to be added. SunGard s Community Plus 9.0 and Finance Plus 5.0 systems were designed to work with a consolidated database that would then allow for a smooth customer experience when paying taxes, permits, or utility bills. Unfortunately, the consolidation of the three databases into one created a number of issues. SunGard continues to work with the County to resolve all outstanding issues. Migrating modules one at a time may be the best way to ensure everything is working properly before moving to the next module. The preferred order would be Cash Receipts (since it s tied to all of the modules), Tax, Utility Billing, Special Assessments, Permitting, Land Use. Q2: Can a Small Business Enterprise or Minority Owned Enterprise (MOE) without Women Owned submit a proposal? Q3: Can more than one resource be proposed if it is determined more than one person is required to do this work? Or, can just one Project Manager resource be submitted? Yes, more than one resource can be used, but there needs to be a designated project manager. Q4: Can the project manager work remotely when appropriate? Q5: Can the projects listed in question number two be used as references in question number nine?
Page 3 of 6 Q6: Can we assume, due to the limited details provided (relative to the requirement that a bidder provide an outline of its project plan and of the project phases as well as an outline of the estimated time frame needed to complete the components of the project plan), that these are preliminary and high level estimates and final ones will be formulated once we begin the project? Q7: Can we assume that the PM will be provided additional technical resources to implement the integration (of the online payment/credit card billing system)? Will the resources be hired, pulled from the current pool of resources, or both? We assume that the online payment billing system chosen to work with the system will have the technical resources on staff to work with the PM and County staff to get this up and running. Q8: Did your most-recent audit contain any weaknesses of the ERP system that need to be addressed? The auditors found that the County s current utility billing software does not have the ability to prepare accounts receivable aging reports, detailed revenue reports, or reports detailing credits or adjustments to customer accounts. Q9: Do you have an estimate of the number of hours of support required for the project? The actual number of hours needed will have to be provided by the Project Manager. We are asking the Project Manager to advise us regarding module replacement versus an entire ERP replacement. Hours will vary accordingly, and, as such, we would like to see hourly rates. Q10: Does the County have an approved budget for these services and if so, what is it? There is an approved budget to upgrade portions of the county s ERP system. This budget appropriation provides funding for a project manager, as well as the acquisition/ installation of the system. Q11: Does the County recognize the effort of the PM will fluctuate as the project proceeds? That is, the initial documentation and scoping phase will be intensive, while the application module migrations will most likely be scheduled and require periodic support on a less than full-time basis? Yes, we do understand this.
Page 4 of 6 Q12: Has a timeline or target completion date been established for the completion of the project or does the County expect the completion date to be a deliverable of the PM s efforts? The project is estimated to take up to 2 years, and, since we are soliciting advice regarding whether to only transition the six modules versus transitioning to an entirely new ERP solution, we think that s a fair estimate. The Project Manager is expected to stay on this project until its successful completion. Q13: How long has the current software been in use? The County has used some variation of what is now known as SunGard since 1994. Q14: How many end users are using the modules of the current system? There are 97 users of the entire current system. Approximately 35 of those users have access to the 6 modules indicated in the RFP. Q15: How many systems is the current system integrating with? The current system receives data from the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation. Other than that, there are no other external systems integrated into the current system. Q16: How many technical support, maintenance and operations FTE s are being utilized for the current ERP in use? The system is hosted and supported by SunGard, but there are three full-time staff members that perform administrative duties within the system such as setting up accounts and granting permissions. Q17: In case the county decides to come up with an RFP to procure and implement a new system or upgrade the existing system, will it preclude the PM's organization from bidding? The County will be putting out an RFP to procure and implement either pieces of or an entirely new system. Serving as the PM will preclude the PM s organization from bidding to provide the County with a new solution due to conflict of interest. Q18: Is it mandatory to submit résumés for a team or only a Project Manager will be enough? The team members and project manager should submit résumés. Q19: Is the County open to a payment schedule other than by milestone? The County has expectations for the achievement of certain milestones; however, alternative arrangements will be considered.
Page 5 of 6 Q20: Is the County open to not linking the final payment for project management services to the implementation of the application the application could fail to implement for a variety of reasons outside the control of the County and/or project manager? No, the County is hiring a third-party PM to ensure the successful migration and function of the new system. The final payment will hinge on successful completion. Q21: Is the present system integrated to an online payment/credit card billing system? No. Q22: Is your current system self-hosted or vendor hosted? Vendor hosted although there is a strong possibility that older system data on our selfhosted Unix server will also be accessed during the migration to a new ERP. Q23: Payment/credit card billing system to be implemented: Has a billing system been selected for use? Can you tell us what system has been selected? The County has selected a vendor; however, if there are alternatives built into other systems, we would be open to using the alternative. Q24: Project Management tool/methodology: Is there a preferred project management tool or methodology in use at Queen Anne s County and if so can you tell us what it is (i.e., Microsoft Project, etc.)? The County does not have a preferred tool. Q25: Were the six modules listed in the RFP developed in-house at Queen Anne s County? If not, can you tell us the name of the vendor that developed them and whether they were developed specifically for Queen Anne s County or whether they are modified or unmodified commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) applications? If the modules were developed in house, in what language were they developed? What is the underlying database in which the current data resides? Do you have the source code? Are they original application developers still on staff and available to assist with the transition? Does documentation on the current applications exist? No, SunGard created those for us. We use SunGard Community Plus 9.0 and Finance Plus 5.0. SunGard created a customized application for our Tax, Utility Billing and Special Assessments as well as altering any other modules to comply with Maryland Laws such as Payroll and various tax credits. The system is currently hosted and is in a SQL database; we do not have the source code. Since this is a hosted system, the assumption is that SunGard will assist with the transition. The County does not have any documentation on the current applications.
Page 6 of 6 Q26: What modules beyond the six listed in the RFP are also under consideration for upgrade? If the project extends beyond those six we would consider but not be limited to the following additions: Financials General Ledger, Accounts Payable/Receivable/Miscellaneous Billing, Purchasing, Check Processing/Bank Reconciliation, Payroll Processing, Budget Preparation/CAFR, Human Resources Recruitment/Benefit Administration/Position Control, Capital Project Accounting/Capital Improvement Program, Fixed Assets, Contract Management, Inventory control, Time Keeping, GASB 34 Reporting, Grants Accounting, Business Licensing Liquor and Contractor, Animal Licensing, Recreation Registration and Billing, Citizen contact (egov). Q27: Who is the current incumbent maintaining the enterprise software? SunGard. Q28: Will it be a single or multiple award? Single. Q29: Will the interview be in person or telephonic? In person. Q30: Will the work performed by the project manager be on site or remote? If on site, what will be the location? Remote where appropriate. Centreville, Maryland. - END OF ADDENDUM NO. 1 -