RFP NO. 16-11 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SOFTWARE SYSTEM

RFP NO. 16-11 – ADDENDUM #2

1

CHARLES COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Department of Fiscal and Administrative Services

Purchasing Division

Telephone: 301-645-0656

August 17, 2015

RFP NO. 16-11

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SOFTWARE SYSTEM

ADDENDUM NUMBER TWO

TO: All Proposers

Please be advised of the following modification(s) & information related to Request for Proposals to

16-11. These modifications, comments, and attachments are hereby made a part of the solicitation

documents to the same extent as if bound therein. The due date for questions has passed and the due

date for proposals remain the same.

I. Changes, Additions, Modifications, and Attachments to the RFP

A. Changes –

1. APPENDIX 2 – PGM Workflow Chart

Delete the strikethrough text below, and replace with the following italicized text:

RFP 16-11 – APPENDIX 2 – PGM Workflow Chart – 150715.pdf

RFP 16-11 – APPENDIX 2 – PGM Workflow Chart – 150817.pdf

2. APPENDIX 5 – Breakdown of Case Types/Permit, Planning, Code Enforcement Types,

Etc.

Delete the existing text, and replace with the following italicized text:

Due to the size and number of documents, the following specifications and requirements

are published separately, and are available with the other solicitation documents

contained in the solicitation listing on the Charles County Bid Board:

RFP 16-11 – APPENDIX 5 – Breakdown of Case Types – 150817.pdf

Solicitation documents are available for download from the Charles County Bid Board

via the County’s web site by the following steps: 1. Go to http://www.charlescountymd.gov.


2

2. Under the Business Opportunities section, click on “Procurement Opportunities”.

3. On the Purchase Page locate the Department Links to the left of the page and click on

the “Bid Board option.

4. Click on “All Solicitations” option and locate the project from the list.

B. Additions –

APPENDIX 1 – Requirements Matrix

Add the following italicized text to page 36 of the Requirements Matrix document:

17.16 List and describe all standard Cashiering reports.

C. Modifications - NONE

D. Attachment –

Attachment A – Pre-Proposal Meeting Sign In Sheets

II. Pre-Proposal Meeting Notes

DATE: July 30, 2015

TIME: 2:00 PM

ATTENDEES: See “Attachment A”

A. Introduction

Good afternoon, and welcome to the pre-proposal meeting for RFP 16-11, COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT SOFTWARE SYSTEM.

My name is Yaffa Seiden, Senior Procurement Specialist for Charles County Government.

With me today is Mr. Peter Aluotto, Director for Planning and Growth Management and Ms.

Evelyn Jacobson, Chief of Information Technology, Mr. Fred Shroyer, Chief of Purchasing

along with several other key staff members.

This pre-proposal meeting includes in-person and telephone conference call participants.

The conference call will be recorded; however, no transcription shall be created or made

available. The meeting minutes and attendance roster will be published in an upcoming

addendum.

The conference call system will inform you when a change has been made with a moment of

music and then the system change will be accepted.

If callers wish to mute their line, please press *6. To unmute your line, press *6 again.

The meeting will begin with each Charles County Government employee clearly stating their

name and position title and spelling it when needed.

Now companies in attendance will begin with a roll call in alphabetical order. Each attendee

will clearly state their name and spell it when needed.


3

The intent of this project is to provide a Community Development Software System to serve

as a core business application. This system will support County processes and have a public

facing portal.

The meeting will be conducted in two parts.

o I will first review selected portions of the Request for Proposals. Items not reviewed

should not be construed as being less important than those reviewed. No information

will be presented that is not already contained within the RFP.

o The meeting will then be turned over Mr. Peter Aluotto, Director for Planning and

Growth Management who will discuss technical aspects of the project.

All participants (in person and by phone) shall HOLD all questions until the end of the

procurement and technical highlights.

The question and answer period will begin after Mr. Aluotto concludes the technical

highlights.

No information obtained from any source other than the Solicitation documents found on the

County Bid Board, or Mr. Aluotto and Ms. Jacobson, other key staff members (during this

meeting) or myself may be considered to be accurate.

B. Procurement Discussion

All solicitation documents may be found on the County Bid Board.

Ensure all required forms and any other information required is complete and in your

proposal package.

A complete proposal package is explained on page I-2. Incomplete proposal packages may

be rejected.

Submit two (2) unbound Original Proposal packages, so identified, and ten (10) bound

copies of the Technical Proposal packages.

Proposal Submission Requirements:

All proposals shall be valid and irrevocable for a minimum of one hundred eight (180) days.

Proposals must be responsive to the scope, specifications, and all other criteria specified in

the solicitation.

The proposed Total Price shall include all work as stipulated in the solicitation. There shall

be NO hidden costs associated with you proposed solution.

The proposal must be signed by an officer authorized to make a binding commitment for the

firm proposing.

Solicitation schedule remains the same as published in the Solicitation document.

There is an aspirational 25% MBE goal for this solicitation.

The project term is explained on page I-7 in Part I, Section 2.2 Term of Contract.

Insurance requirements are located on pages I-20 and I-21 of the RFP.

Questions concerning the RFP should be directed to me in writing via the contact

information on Page I-4.

This RFP is subject to the County’s Small Local Business Enterprise Program. If your firm is

a Charles County registered SLBE and you want to take advantage of the SLBE preference,

please complete the SLBE program forms located on page I-32 through I-34 of the

solicitation. All Charles County small businesses are encouraged to apply.

The protest policy is on page I-8.


4

The County may reject any and all proposals for any reason it deems necessary, and may

waive any irregularities and/or informalities, and make award in any manner that is in the

best interest of the County.

By submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation, the proposer certifies that their firm

is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise ineligible for participation in government

procurement by the federal government, the State of Maryland, or any other state, county, or

municipal government.

Award will be based on a combination of the proposer’s experience and qualifications, as

well as fee proposed and as determined to be in the best interest of the County.

I will now turn the meeting over to Mr. Aluotto, who will discuss technical aspects of the

project, and answer any technical questions.

C. Technical Discussion

My name is Peter Aluotto and I am the Director of Planning and Growth Management for Charles

County. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank you all for joining us today as we embark on a new

era in development services processing. With me today are: Frank Ward, Steven Ball, John Mudd

and Evelyn Jacobson.

Frank is our Chief of Codes, Permits and Inspection Services. His Division is responsible for the

review, approval and inspection of site engineering (horizontal) and the review, approval and

inspection of building construction. He is also responsible for our overall code enforcement

program.

Steve is our Planning Director. His section shepherds the review and approval of development

projects through our Planning Commission, Board of Appeals and any of a number of outside

review agencies with a stake in our process.

John is a Program Manager for Resource and Infrastructure Management. His section is responsible

for compliance with our Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance or APFO as it is called. APFO

accounts for the one unique requirements of our request for proposal, namely, school capacity.

Evelyn is the Chief of IT in our Fiscal and Administrative Services Division. Her Division is

responsible for the County’s hardware, software, licensing and computer interface with the

enterprise accounting system and tax records. She will be a critical point of contact for system

specifications, installation, testing and training.

Why we are doing this?

As you know from your existing clients, ours is the department most responsible for putting taxable

value on the ground. Everything you see in our built environment is reviewed, approved, and

inspected by us. Clearly, ours is a customer service business. It is also very labor intensive,

document intensive, time consuming and, in our case, somewhat inefficient. It is hard to give good

customer service under these circumstances.

Our current community development applications have long since passed their useful economic life.

This fact did not escape the notice of our auditors when they examined our department operations

last year. After much thoughtful consideration, it was decided that additional customization of the

existing system would be insufficient to carry us forward over the next 10-20 year planning horizon.

Hence, we decided to start fresh with a brand new core business application.

In Part III, Special Provisions you have already read our wish list of features and benefits desired

of the successful proposer, so I won’t repeat them here. Instead, let me just say that we’d like a

system that does everything but post a sign on the property.


5

I will conclude with the following thoughts: Our organization chart and our work flow diagrams, as

they exist today, are included in the Appendices of the document. These have been provided for

your convenience and to help you understand how our process works. This does not mean that

either one has been optimized for best effect on customer service.

If, based upon your experience with comparably sized clients, you can recommend a better way to

skin the cat consistent with Maryland laws; we’d certainly like to hear about it. With that, I will

close and open it up for questions.

D. Pre-Proposal Meeting Questions & Responses

Question 1

Question: What are the number of back office users you would require and also the number of

mobile office users?

Response: The number of back office users is 52; see Appendix 6 – Count of Users By

Department. The County currently has 4 mobile users, and we anticipate as many as 15.

Question 2

Question: Based on those number of users, is the preference to have the County host the solution

versus a cloud based solution?

Response: The County wants to host the solution.

Question 3

Question: Does the County have a preferred electronic plan review system that you are interested

in?

Response: The County does not have a preferred electronic plan review product system. We are

looking for: something that is integrated that accommodates all the various processes that we

have; is simple to use; and has an installed user base that we can see and contact. We are flexible

about the product.

Question 4

Question: Does the County have central cashiering using New World Systems (NWS)? Does your

NWS support web service integration?

Response: Yes, the County has central cashiering using NWS. No, our NWS does not support web

service integration.

Question 5

Question: This is a republished bid, is there a particular reason it is being republished? What you

didn’t look at last time that you are looking for this time? From the County’s point of view, could

you please highlight some of the changes?

Response: The reason this is being republished was answered in Addendum #1, Question 1. We are

looking for the requirements in this RFP, which includes several changes from the previously

issued RFP. Some of the changes include: the cost proposal form, the number of licenses,

eliminated 2 special customizations, added a whole section about cash receipting, elaborated on

the integration to our existing systems, and so much more. The Planning Division process has been

clarified to explain the work flow and integration to other departments. This is not an all-inclusive

list of changes.


6

Question 6

Question: We know you are looking at replacing your school allocation application, is it a goal for

the new system to link into the old system/legacy? Is the County looking at the structure, like one

project or may it go over into another such as across school districts?

Response: The specifications in Appendix 4- School Allocation System were provided to give

proposers an idea of the way our current system was designed and get a feeling for what we have.

As far as how the proposed solution is set it up, filed, etc. we do not have a preference. Think of a

school allocation as a commodity. We need to be able to create them, issue them, grant them, track

them, etc. They have a life cycle to them that may need to be extended. It should be project driven.

If it can do more, that’s great; however, more is not required.

Question 7

Question: On page I-11, it indicates that the Maryland property ID numbers are stored inside of

your GEO property monitoring in New World Systems is it also at some point going to reside

inside of GIS? How often is that information provided to you all?

Response: It doesn’t right now however we are working towards that. We receive one (1) big

complete file once a year and then four (4) partial files throughout the year. Additionally, we

manually update property records on an as needed basis.

Question 8

Question: Appendix 5, could you give an annual average of the total number of those records that

you are processing?

Response: The annual average of the total number of records that are processed was answered in

Addendum #1, Question 2.

Question 9

Question: Are you running Arc Server? 10.X or higher?

Response: Yes, the County is running Arc Server. Yes, it is version 10.X or higher.

III. Written Questions Received & Responses

Question 10

Question: Is the County looking for an on-premise solution?

Response: Yes.

Question 11

Question: Would the County consider a comprehensive 100% cloud-based solution designed

specifically for the public sector that cannot be hosted in the County’s facilities?

Response: No. Previously answered in Addendum #1, Question 4.

Question 12

Question: If yes to question above, how will both “cloud” and “on-premise” solutions be graded

and evaluated against the other.

Response: Question not applicable since answer to Question above was no.


7

Question 13

Question: Of the internal user counts listed in RFP Appendix 6, please identify how many of those

are field/mobile users? If none, please identify desired number of field/mobile users.

Response: Previously answered in this addendum, Question 1.

Question 14

Question: How many of the internal user counts listed in Appendix 6 are GIS users? If none, please

identify desired number of GIS users.

Response: Many of the users listed currently utilize GIS for a variety of reasons; the County

currently has approximately 30 GIS user licenses. However we cannot anticipate the desired

number of GIS users until we understand how the proposed system operates.

Question 15

Question: Please confirm Appendix 5 includes all the case types/permit, planning, code

enforcement types created each year in the County’s current system. If not, please identify by count

any other record types created each year.

Response: See Appendix 5 – RFP 16-11 APPENDIX 5 – Breakdown of Case Types – 150817.pdf

for an updated list of case types/permit, planning, code enforcement types.

Question 16

Question: Please list out the details of unique record types anticipated in the new system:

Department or

App Group

Application

Type

Unique Number of

Application Type

Requirements and

Feed Documented? Comments

Permit (example)

Code enforcement

(example)

Response: The County is unable to list out the details of unique record types anticipated because

we are unable to determine what a unique record type is and what is not a unique record type in

the proposer’s proposed solution.

Question 17

Question: Please list out the details of unique workflows anticipated in the new system.

Department or

App Group

Workflow/

Process Type

Number of

Workflow/

Process

Complexity (Low/

medium/high)

Are they

documented? Comments

Response: The amount of workflows required depends upon the functionality that the system

provides. See Appendix 2 – PGM Workflow Chart.


8

Question 18

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: See Appendix 7 – PGM Reports/Queries for the list of County specific reports.

Question 19

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 for the following sections: General Reporting Capabilities, Security,

Permitting, Inspections, Plan Review, Project Planning, Mobility/In Field Use, Contractor and License

Management, Code Enforcement, Public Portal, Workflows, Auditing and Electronic Plan Review.

Question 20

Question: For all reports/queries listed in RFP Appendix 7, please estimate the number of those

reports 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, journal 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: 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 1 - Requirements Matrix, we have

requested a listing of all standard reports included.

Question 21

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.


9

System Name Vendor DB Type # of Base Records # of data fields

Permitting New World Systems

(NWS) DB2

150,000

(approximately) 75

Permitting NWS DB2 1,600,000

(approximately) varies

Electrical

Licenses CCG DB2 3,600 40

Contractors CCG DB2 80 15

Question 22

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: Please see RFP Part I, Section 3.7 – Integration Approach.

Question 23

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 24

Question: What Esri version does the County currently use?

Response: ArcGIS 10.2.

Question 25

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: Please see RFP Part I, Section 3.7 – Integration Approach.

Question 26

Question: Will there be a dedicated Project Manager(s), and if so, will the Project Manager(s) be

from the County or outside consultant? To whom will the Project Manager(s) report? How many

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 Information Technology 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.


10

Question 27

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 County desires a proposed solution that includes details about available training

options as described in Part I, Section 3.9 Training.

Question 28

Question: Please state the County’s desired implementation timeframe (project start to go-live).

Response: The County desires that the proposer includes in the proposed solution the time frames

as described in Part I, Section 3.12 Project Plan.

Question 29

Question: Is it important for the selected solution’s web portal to offer multiple languages to its

citizens?

Response: As long as system is ADA compliant, English should be acceptable language.

Question 30

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

checkpoint of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.

Question 31

Question: What business processes or record types will be enabled for electronic plan review? (i.e.

Simple Residential Permits, Commercial Permits, etc.)

Response: The goal is for all record types that require submission of a site plan or building plan to

be enabled for electronic plan review.

Question 32

Question: 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 project plan shall include electronic document/plan review in the proposed project

plan as described in Part I, Section 3.12 Project Plan.

Question 33

Question: If bidding vendor is not proposing an SLBE firm as part of its team, is the Official Letter

of SLBE Intent form still required as part of the proposal submission?

Response: No, the Official Letter of SLBE Intent form is not required if the proposer is not

intending to use a SLBE firm.

Question 34

Question: Some of the diagrams on the right side of the Appendix 2 are illegible. Can the County

please provide a readable copy of the diagrams?

Response: The document with the diagrams has been reformatted, and loaded to the County Bid

Board. Please see Part I of this Addendum for instructions to the County Bid Board.


11

Question 35

Question: Page III-2 of RFP indicates that there are six (6) web based applications to supplement

the NWS supplied software and those applications will need to be replaced by the new system.

Among the data collected by the six applications, only electric license data is listed in the data

migration table on RFP page III-4. Will other data such as banner licenses need to be converted?

Response: No.

Question 36

Question: Appendix 1 – Requirements Matrix, Item 2.5: Ability to integrate with MS Office. Will

the County use Microsoft Outlook calendar in addition to GroupWise?

Response: The County’s enterprise mail system is GroupWise. We do not currently use Microsoft

Outlook for mail or calendaring.


12

ATTACHMENT A


13

PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING SIGN IN SHEETS


14

Documents

RFP NO. 16-11 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SOFTWARE SYSTEM