1-RFI-27-0023 Specifications.pdf

CITY OF FORT WORTH - PURCHASING DIVISION

SCOPE OF SERVICES

RFI Ref. #: 27-0023 Doc. Ref#: RFI-01 Page 1 of 15 RFI Title: Enterprise Software Licenses and Subscriptions

1.0 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

1.1 The City of Fort Worth ("City") is conducting market research to understand the current marketplace for purchasing software products from various publishers, and is particularly interested in hearing from vendors with established business operations in the City of Fort Worth or in Denton, Johnson, Parker, Tarrant, or Wise counties. The City will use the information received to:

1.1.1 Identify capable suppliers: determine which businesses — including small businesses and City-certified Small Business Enterprises (SBEs) - can perform all or part of the requirement.

1.1.2 Gather market intelligence: learn about prevailing delivery models, publisher/manufacturer authorization structures, subcontracting and teaming arrangements, implementation practices, and pricing structures.

1.1.3 Refine the requirement: identify industry standards, best practices, and alternatives that may improve value, reduce risk, or reduce cost.

1.1.4 Remove unnecessary barriers: identify financial, operational, or contractual requirements that may limit competition or prevent qualified businesses from competing.

1.1.5 Determine acquisition strategy: inform decisions on contract structure, packaging (single vs. multiple awards, lots), and use of cooperative purchasing contracts.

2.0 BACKGROUND AND CURRENT ENVIRNMENT

2.1 The City currently obtains software licensing and subscription services through a variety of contracting methods including direct contracts with software publishers, public solicitations, and cooperative contracts such as those offered by the Texas Department of Information Resources (DIR). These arrangements are meeting the City's operational needs, and the City is using them as a benchmark

RFI Ref. #: 27-0023 Doc. Ref#: RFI-01 Page 2 of 15 for this market research. The City is interested in learning whether the marketplace offers comparable or better approaches, and whether the requirement can be structured to broaden competition without increasing risk.

Current Example Arrangement (Benchmark)

Solution / Platform Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (EA)

Delivery Model Microsoft Authorized Reseller using a DIR contract

Licensing Basis A combination of per user, per computer, per processor and per product

Approximate Scale 9,900 users, 11,000 end-user devices, 600 servers

Pricing Structure Varies by product license

Term Three-year agreement

2.2 Respondents are not required to replicate the current arrangement. The City welcomes alternative approaches that meet the functional need.

3.0 ANTICIPATED REQUIREMENT (PRELIMINARY)

3.1 The following is a preliminary, high-level description and is subject to change. The City may procure some or all of these elements, together or separately:

3.1.1 Software / Subscription: Licenses and/or subscriptions for various software.

3.1.2 Maintenance: Subscription and software updates or patches.

3.1.3 Hosting, Security, and Compliance: requirements, including CJIS, PCI DSS, HIPAA, or other standards.

3.1.4 Ongoing Support: help desk and technical support for

purchased software.

3.2 Classification Codes

3.2.1 The City has identified the following North American Industry

RFI Ref. #: 27-0023 Doc. Ref#: RFI-01 Page 3 of 15

Classification System (NAICS) codes and related NIGP commodity codes for this requirement. Firms registered under any of these codes are encouraged to respond. Firms classified under other codes that can perform all or part of the requirement are also welcome to respond.

NAICS Industry Classification Related NIGP Codes

423430 Computer and Computer Peripheral Equipment and Software Merchant Wholesalers

208-11, 208-80

513210 Software Publishers 208-11, 208-80

518210 Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services

920-05

541512 Computer Systems Design Services 920-31, 920-64

541519 Other Computer Related Services 920-45, 920-46, 920-47

3.2.2 Size Standards: Respondents should self-report their size against the U.S. Small Business Administration size standard for their primary NAICS code above, as published in 13 CFR

121.201 on the response due date. Size information is collected for market research only and does not by itself determine eligibility for City certification programs.

3.3 Software Publishers of Interest

3.3.1 The City currently uses products from the software publishers listed below. For each publisher your firm can support, describe how you would fulfill the requirement. Complete only the rows that apply to your firm, and add rows for other publishers you represent if relevant. Listing a publisher does not mean the City has decided to buy from that publisher, and the City may combine or separate these publishers in any future solicitation.

RFI Ref. #: 27-0023 Doc. Ref#: RFI-01 Page 4 of 15

3.3.2 Column guidance:

3.3.2.1 Relationship / Authorization: publisher

(direct), authorized reseller, certified implementation partner, or other; include partner tier and whether you can provide written authorization from the publisher.

3.3.2.2 Services Offered: which you can provide:

new licenses/subscriptions, renewals and true-ups, implementation, integration, maintenance and support, hosting, training.

3.3.2.3 Contract Vehicle(s): cooperative or other

contracts a Texas local government may use to buy this publisher's products through your firm (e.g., Texas DIR, BuyBoard, TIPS, Sourcewell, OMNIA Partners), with contract numbers.

3.3.2.4 Public-Sector Experience: number of

Texas or other public-sector clients you currently support for this publisher.

# Software Publisher

Relationship / Authorization

Services Offered

Contract Vehicle(s)

Public- Sector Experience

1 Accela

2 BP Logix

3 ESRI

4 Euna Solutions

5 Everlaw

6 Microsoft

7 Oracle

8 Selectron Technologies

RFI Ref. #: 27-0023 Doc. Ref#: RFI-01 Page 5 of 15

# Software Publisher

Relationship / Authorization

Services Offered

Contract Vehicle(s)

Public- Sector Experience

9 Trimble

10 UKG

11 Other:

12 Other:

13 Other:

4.0 REQESTED INFORMATION

4.1 Please organize your response using the section and question numbers below. Answer "N/A" where not applicable. Partial responses are welcome, especially from firms able to perform only a portion of the requirement.

PRIORITY Part A (Company Information, Section 5.0), Part B

(Capability Statement and Publishers of Interest table, Section 6.0), Part C (Barriers to Small Business Participation, Section 7.1.6), and Part C (Contract Structure and Risk, Section 7.1.7). The City requests that all respondents complete these sections.

OPTIONAL Optional sections in Part C - Responses are valued but not required; answer the questions most relevant to your firm.

PAGE LIMIT Priority sections: no more than 10 pages, excluding Part A, the Publishers of Interest table, and the cover page. Total response: no more than 15 pages, excluding marketing materials.

RFI Ref. #: 27-0023 Doc. Ref#: RFI-01 Page 6 of 15

5.0 PART A - COMPANY INFORMATION (PRIORITY)

Item Response

Legal business name / DBA

Fort Worth presence

Principal place of business county (note if in Tarrant, Wise, Johnson, Parker, or Denton County)

Point of contact (name, title, email, phone)

Website

Unique Entity ID (UEI) and/or Texas Comptroller Vendor ID (if available)

Years in business; years providing these products or services

Number of employees; annual revenue range

Business type: OEM / software publisher, authorized reseller, VAR, systems integrator, managed service provider, other

NAICS code(s) from Section 3A (or other) under which your firm would perform this work; primary NAICS; self-reported size under the applicable SBA size standard (small / other than small)

NIGP commodity code(s) from

RFI Ref. #: 27-0023 Doc. Ref#: RFI-01 Page 7 of 15

Item Response

Section 3.2 under which your firm is registered with the City or would register

Small business certification(s) held (e.g., City of Fort Worth SBE through an approved certifying entity, Texas VetHUB) and certifying agency

Interest as: Prime / Subcontractor / Teaming partner / Not interested in this requirement but providing information

6.0 PART B – CAPABILITY STATEMENT (PRIORITY)

6.1 Describe your firm's capability to provide the software

purchases described in Section 3B. Indicate which elements you can perform with your own workforce and which you would subcontract or partner for.

6.2 Provide up to three examples of similar work performed within the last five years, preferably for public-sector entities of similar size and complexity. For each, include the client, scope, number of users, contract value range, period of performance, and a reference contact.

6.3 Complete the Software Publishers of Interest table in Section 3B for each publisher your firm can support. For each, describe how you would fulfill the requirement, including your authorization level, the services you would provide directly versus through the publisher or a subcontractor, and how you handle renewals, true-ups, and escalation of support issues to the publisher.

6.4 Identify elements of the requested information you believe are unusual for the market.

RFI Ref. #: 27-0023 Doc. Ref#: RFI-01 Page 8 of 15

7.0 PART C – MARKET INTELLIGENCE QUESTIONS

7.1 Please describe how your firm fulfills purchases of the identified software licenses:

7.1.1 Delivery Model (Optional)

7.1.1.1 How does your firm typically deliver this

type of solution to public-sector clients (e.g., publisher-direct, through authorized resellers, through systems integrators, or a combination)?

7.1.1.2 Compared with your understanding of the

City's current model, what would you do the same, and what would you do differently? What are the advantages and risks of each approach for the City?

7.1.1.3 Is a single point of accountability (one prime

contractor responsible for software, implementation, and support) common in this market, or are these typically separate contracts?

Which approach produces better outcomes, and why?

7.1.1.4 What portions of the work can be performed

remotely versus on-site? Do you have personnel in or near the Fort Worth area?

7.1.2 Manufacturer / Publisher Authorization and Channel Structure (Optional)

7.1.2.1 If you are not the software publisher or

manufacturer, describe your authorization status (e.g., authorized reseller, certified implementation partner, partner tier) and provide evidence that can be verified.

RFI Ref. #: 27-0023 Doc. Ref#: RFI-01 Page 9 of 15

7.1.2.2 Does the publisher restrict which partners may sell, implement, or support its products in Texas or in the public sector (e.g., territory assignments, deal registration, exclusive distributors)? How does this affect competition and pricing?

7.1.2.3 If you are a publisher, how many authorized

partners are available to serve a Texas municipality? Do you sell direct, through partners, or both? Do pricing or support terms differ by channel?

7.1.2.4 Would requiring publisher/manufacturer

authorization letters at the time of submission limit participation? Is there an alternative way for the City to confirm a reseller or partner's standing?

7.1.3 Subcontracting and Teaming (Optional)

7.1.3.1 Which elements of these purchases are commonly

subcontracted (e.g., license administration, usage reporting and reconciliation, renewals and true-ups, invoicing, technical support)?

7.1.3.2 What realistic subcontracting opportunities exist

for small businesses, including City-certified SBEs, and approximately what percentage of the total contract value could they represent?

7.1.3.3 Describe any teaming arrangements, joint

ventures, or mentor-protégé relationships your firm uses on similar contracts. What makes these arrangements succeed or fail?

7.1.3.4 The City's Small Business Development Program

sets a 30% SBE utilization target for contracts over $100,000 (see Section 7). Is that target achievable for this requirement, particularly for software licensing and subscription purchases? What would

RFI Ref. #: 27-0023 Doc. Ref#: RFI-01 Page 10 of 15 make a small business utilization goal achievable rather than a compliance burden?

7.1.4 Implementation and Transition (Optional)

7.1.4.1 What is a typical implementation timeline for

acquiring software licensing from a new supplier for an organization the size of Fort Worth? Identify the major phases and the critical-path activities.

7.1.4.2 What are the most common implementation

challenges or causes of delay on similar public-sector projects, and how do you mitigate them?

7.1.4.3 What City resources (staff roles, hours per week, subject-matter experts, IT support) are typically required for a successful transition?

7.1.4.4 If the City were to change suppliers, what

transition risks should it plan for (data extraction, parallel operations, service continuity, staff retraining)? What transition period would you recommend?

7.1.5 Pricing Structure (Optional)

7.1.5.1 Describe your standard pricing model (e.g., per

user, per module, enterprise license, tiered by population or volume, consumption-based). How does it compare with the software publisher's pricing?

7.1.5.2 What cost elements are commonly overlooked or

billed separately (e.g., integrations, data storage, test environments, API access, travel, premium support, version upgrades)?

7.1.5.3 What annual price escalation is typical for multi-

year terms, and what escalation mechanisms (fixed percentage, CPI-linked, capped) do you consider fair to both parties?

RFI Ref. #: 27-0023 Doc. Ref#: RFI-01 Page 11 of 15

7.1.5.4 Do you offer public-sector, multi-year, or

cooperative-contract pricing that differs from your standard pricing?

7.1.6 Barriers to Small Business Participation (Priority) - The City is specifically seeking candid feedback on requirements that may unnecessarily limit competition. Responses in this section will be used to refine the requirement and will not be attributed to individual respondents in any public summary.

7.1.6.1 What financial, operational, or contractual

requirements might prevent qualified small businesses from competing? Consider, for example:

• Insurance types and limits (e.g., cyber liability, professional liability/E&O)

• Performance or payment bonds, or letters of credit

• Minimum years in business, revenue, or audited financial statements

• Prior experience thresholds (e.g., number of similar-size public-sector implementations)

• Indemnification, limitation of liability, and liquidated damages terms

• Payment terms, payment timing, and up-front cost carrying (e.g., paying annual software subscriptions before the City pays)

• Publisher authorization or certification requirements

• Security certifications or audits that are costly to obtain

• Contract size or bundling of unrelated services

• Submission requirements, forms, or timelines

RFI Ref. #: 27-0023 Doc. Ref#: RFI-01 Page 12 of 15

7.1.6.2 For each barrier you identify, what alternative

would protect the City's interests while allowing broader participation (e.g., tiered insurance limits by task order, milestone payments, alternative evidence of experience)?

7.1.6.3 Would breaking the requirement into separate lots

or packages (e.g., by publisher, or separating license resale from license administration and support services) increase your ability to compete?

What coordination risks would that create for the City?

7.1.6.4 What would make your firm more likely to

respond to a future City solicitation for this requirement?

7.1.7 Contract Structure and Risk (Priority)

7.1.7.1 What contract structure would encourage greater

participation without increasing risk to the City?

Please address options such as:

• Single award vs. multiple awards (e.g., a primary and secondary provider, or a pool of qualified firms)

• Indefinite delivery / indefinite quantity (IDIQ) or task-order structure for services

• Separate contracts by publisher or product family

• Phased awards (e.g., starting with a limited set of publishers, then expanding)

• Base term and renewal option lengths

7.1.7.2 What performance measures, service-level

agreements, and remedies (e.g., service credits) are standard and reasonable for this type of solution?

RFI Ref. #: 27-0023 Doc. Ref#: RFI-01 Page 13 of 15

7.1.7.3 What risk-allocation terms (limitation of liability, indemnification, data breach responsibility) are customary in this market? Which proposed City terms would cause your firm not to bid?

7.1.7.4 What payment structure best balances supplier

cash flow with City protection (e.g., milestone payments with retainage, quarterly vs. annual subscription billing)?

7.1.8 Cooperative Purchasing and Existing Contract Vehicles

(Optional)

7.1.8.1 Are the listed publishers' products available

through your firm via any cooperative purchasing contracts that a Texas local government may use (e.g., Texas DIR, BuyBoard, TIPS, Sourcewell, OMNIA Partners, HGACBuy, NASPO ValuePoint)? Please list contract numbers and expiration dates.

7.1.8.2 In your experience, how do cooperative-contract

` pricing and terms compare with those obtained through a stand-alone competitive solicitation? Do cooperative contracts tend to limit small business participation?

8.0 FORMAT AND FOLLOW UP

8.1 Format: One searchable PDF, organized by Part and question number.

Product brochures may be included as an appendix and do not count toward the suggested page limit.

8.2 Follow-Up: The City may request clarification or invite respondents to brief one-on-one virtual sessions or product demonstrations. Such sessions are for information only and do not constitute negotiations or create any preference in a future procurement.

RFI Ref. #: 27-0023 Doc. Ref#: RFI-01 Page 14 of 15

9.0 PUBLIC INFORMATION AND CONFIDENTIALITY

9.1 Responses become the property of the City and are subject to the Texas Public Information Act (Texas Government Code, Chapter 552). Respondents should clearly mark any information they consider proprietary or confidential. If the City receives a request for marked information, it will follow the procedures in the Act, which may include notifying the respondent and requesting a ruling from the Texas Attorney General. The City cannot guarantee that marked information will be withheld. Respondents are asked not to submit information that they do not want disclosed, such as detailed proprietary pricing, unless necessary to answer a question.

10.0 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

10.1 The City encourages responses from small businesses and from firms interested in subcontracting or teaming opportunities with small businesses.

10.2 Any goals or preferences that apply to a future solicitation will be stated in that solicitation. More information:

https://www.fortworthtexas.gov/departments/econdev/sbdp

11.0 DISCLAIMER

11.1 This RFI/Sources Sought notice is issued solely for information and planning purposes and does not constitute a solicitation, contract, or commitment by the City of Fort Worth to issue a future procurement.

11.2 The City reserves the right to use information obtained through this process in the development of future solicitations.

https://www.fortworthtexas.gov/departments/econdev/sbdp

RFI Ref. #: 27-0023 Doc. Ref#: RFI-01 Page 15 of 15

Appendix: Response Checklist

Item Included

Part A (Section 5.0) — Company Information table completed ☐

Part A (Section 5.0) — NAICS and NIGP codes and self-reported size included

Part B (Section 6.0) — Capability statement and up to three examples of similar work

Section 3.3 — Software Publishers of Interest table completed (applicable rows)

Priority sections 7.1.6 and 7.1.7 answered ☐

Part C — Responses to market-intelligence questions (all or selected), referenced by number

Proprietary or confidential information clearly marked ☐