Request for Proposals-RFP # 08-200 ERP System Software and Implementation Services
Addendum Number 3 Issued December 23, 2008
This Addendum Number 3 is issued to document the responses to questions received since the issuance of RFP #08-200 on October 13, 2008. This Addendum Number 3 is hereby made a part of RFP #08-200.
1. Q. Is it possible to get a copy of the GFOA assessment? A. The GFOA assessment was issued only in draft form several years ago and is no longer applicable. 2. Q. Do you already have a Document Management system that we will need to interface with? o If so who is the vendor? o If not, do you want us to propose one? A. The City does not currently have a document management system for PR/HR or GL applications. The RFP does not call for a document managing system; however, the capability to support such a system by the ERP is called for (see for example ERP Essential Functionality items IT12 and PO3). Respondents are free to propose a document managing system; however pricing for a document managing system should be provided as additional information only, and not included in the cost proposal matrix. The City plans to implement Microsoft Office Sharepoint Services (MOSS 2007). This platform can be considered as a potential interface for Document Management. We would entertain recommendations to
Addendum 3- Page 1
enhance the functionality of the proposed ERP via interfaces to MOSS 2007. 3. Q. Are you currently using a software product for publishing your Budget and / or CAFR document? a. If so wo uld you like to keep that? b. If not, do you want us to propose one? A. The CAFR and Budget are currently published using standard office tools (i.e. MSWord and Excel). Several of the ERP Essential Functionality (Attachment 3 to the RFP) items call for a publishing tool for the budget applications (see for example BP11, BP12, BP13, and BP14). A publishing tool for the budget application should be included in the RFP response, and pricing for the budget publishing tool should be included in the cost proposal matrix. The RFP does not call for a CAFR publishing tool. Respondents are free to propose one; however pricing for the CAFR publishing tool should be provided as additional information only and not included in the cost proposal matrix. 4. Q. Do your Capital Projects lead into Asset Maintenance? A. No. Capital assets created in the General Ledger do not currently interface with an asset management system. 5. Q. Are capital projects currently linked to your ESRI GIS? A. No. 6. Q. How are you currently tracking capital projects? In the General Ledger? A. Financial transactions for capital projects are currently tracked, reported on, and available for inquiry though the General Ledger. Other aspects of capital project management are tracked in separate homegrown data base applications. We seek to improve on this situation with capital project management functionality in the new ERP. See for example ERP Essential Functionality BP15 and GL7. 7. Q. Do you sell bonds? A. Yes.
Addendum 3- Page 2
8. Q. What is the reason for wanting to implement HR/PR first? A. We anticipate it will be simpler and easier to build and then manage a temporary batch interface from the new PR/HR system to the existing general ledger that would be used after we go live with the new PR/HR system while the new GL system is in implementation as phase 2 of the project. The City will be flexible in working out an implementation schedule with the successful vendor. 9. Q. Why do you feel you need a site license? A. Our current system meters the number of simultaneous users which has at times created significant inefficiencies (by preventing access to the system) which we do not wish to repeat in a new system. 10. Q. Would you consider an alternative pricing model with growth built into it that would be more cost effective? A. Yes. Our objective is that all personnel of the City who need to interact with the system will never be prevented from doing their tasks by metered software access limitations. 11. Q. Why do you require a price proposal that is valid for one year? A. To insure there is adequate time for the selection and contract negotiation processes. 12. Q. To what extent does the City want the Vendor to develop a Help Desk strategy? a. Does the City already have a Help Desk? A. Yes. b. If so, how many staff are assigned to the Help Desk? A. Two. c. What task do they perform today? A. Problem resolution related to the use of PCs, printers, software, logins, etc. Sixty percent of calls are handled by the Help Desk Staff. Dispatch tickets are created for all other requests/problems. d. Do they provide functional as well as technical support? A. Technical mainly. e. How do users contact the Help Desk? A. Via phone or e-mail. A. The City has a Help Desk within the IT department staffed with two members. We are not seeking general Help Desk proposals at this time, however, the successful vendor is expected to provide on-line and telephonic support for its ERP system on an on-going basis under maintenance and support agreement after project implementation. See, for example, RFP sections 1.4.7, 1.15, 2.17, and 3.8.0.
Addendum 3- Page 3
13. Q. To what extent will City staff be involved with the development of interfaces and conversion of data? What roles will they play? A. The IT Staff will provide as much help as it can with respect to conversion and interfaces. The existing platform has been in place for 14 years and several staff have gained a good knowledge of the applications and interfaces. Help to actually convert data may be solicited from the current vendor.
Addendum 3- Page 4