15-Addendum 1.pdf

ADDENDUM TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 25-0128

CUSTOMER INFORMATION SYSTEM (CIS) SOFTWARE

PURCHASING DIVISION

ADDENDUM NO. 1 DATE ISSUED: August 6, 2025

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP): 25-0128

BID OPENING DATE: August 28, 2025 (Unchanged)

ITB No. 25-0128, issued July 11,2025, is hereby amended as follows:

1. Questions and Answers document is hereby incorporated, in full text, pages 2-22.

2. RFP-06-Evaluation Factors and Scope of Services V2 is hereby incorporated in full text.

3. RFP-07-Questionnaire and Requirements is hereby incorporated in full text.

4. Exhibit-B- FWWD RFP Functional Requirements V2 is hereby incorporated in full text.

5. Exhibit C – FWWD RFP Technical Requirements V2 is hereby incorporated in full text.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Heather Oakes Purchasing Manager By the signature affixed below, Addendum No. 1 is hereby incorporated into and made part of the above referenced RFP.

COMPANY NAME:____________________________________________________

SIGNATURE:_________________________________________________________

NOTE: Company name and signature must be the same as on the original bid documents. Failure to return this form with your sealed bid may constitute grounds for rejection of your offer.

RFP 25-0128 Customer Information System (CIS) Software Addendum No. 1, Page 2 of 22

Questions and Answers Scoring Q1. Can FWWD please clarify how the evaluation factor scoring is calculated?

A1. The scores are a combined total, the total amount available is up to 255 points.

The evaluation factors can be found on page 1 though 5 of RFP-06-Evaluation Factors and Scope of Services. The maximum points available for each evaluation factor are listed to the right of the evaluation factors. The documents listed under each factor is what the evaluation panel will use to score.

Q2. RFP-06 – Evaluation Factors and Scope of Services point i allocates up to 100 points for vendor self-scoring; however, when tallying the points listed across all evaluation factors (i-xvii), the total sums to 255 points, with 100 attributed to vendor self-scoring and 155 to the remaining factors.

Could you please clarify:

• Whether the total number of points available is 255?

• If evaluation factors ii–xvii are included in the vendor self-scoring, or if they are separate and evaluated independently by the City?

A2. The total number of points available is 255.

Evaluation factors ii – xvii are not include in the vendor self-scoring, these are separate and evaluated independently by the City.

MWBE/ DVIN Goal Q3. Have any M/WBE targets been set for this project, if so please elaborate?

A3. No. There are no M/WBE targets for this project

Q4. Can FWWD confirm there is no MBE/WBE requirement for this RFP?

A4. No. There are no M/WBE targets for this project.

Time Frames/ Extensions Q5. Providing answers to questions which could possibly eliminate vendors prior the end of the month? Provide a 2-week extension to the due date so that upon answering the questions on August 7th vendors have sufficient time to prepare a response to the RFP.

A5. Vendors are being provided a 3-week period from the time the answers are posted to the time the bid is due. This has been determined to be sufficient amount of time for vendors to submit a response.

Q6. Is there an opportunity for an extension to the bid submission date?

A6. To ensure that we stay on schedule we are unable to extend the bid.

Addendum No. 1, Page 3 of 22

Q7. Given the release of updated documents and potential scope refinements, would the City consider granting a three-week extension to ensure a fully compliant, competitive, and thoughtful proposal submission?

A7. To ensure that we stay on schedule, we are unable to extend the bid. There are three weeks from the time that this addendum is published to the time that the bid submissions are due.

Q8. The City mentioned on the pre-bid call yesterday that new versions of the required

Word document and Excel functional spreadsheet will be posted soon (14-Exhibit B - FWWD RFP Functional Requirements). We just have a simple request that the City consider granting all vendors at least three (3) weeks to respond after posting the new versions of those documents.

A8. There are three weeks from the time that this addendum is published to the time that the bid submissions are due.

Q9. What are the anticipated timelines for shortlisting, best and final offer (BAFO) rounds, and contract award after the Close Date?

A9. The shortlist should be known by October 3, 2025. Best and final offer would be after the demos which end on November 6, 2025. Contract negotiations would start around December 5, 2025.

Q10. Can the vendors who are shortlisted for software demonstrations please receive the demo scripts and agendas at least 3-4 weeks prior to the demo dates?

A10. We have established that the demo scripts will be provided 2 weeks prior to the vendor's scheduled demonstration date.

Q11. What is the estimated timeframe FWWD will request a best and final offer from the product software vendor?

A11. Best and final offer would be after demos, which end on November 6, 2025.

Q12. What is the estimated timeframe that FWWD wishes to enter into product licensing contract negotiations?

A12. Contract negotiations would start around December 5, 2025.

Q13. What is the estimated timeframe FWWD will release an RFP for consulting implementation services?

A13. Our estimate for releasing the RFP for the SI is January-February 2026.

Addendum No. 1, Page 4 of 22

Q14. What is the estimated timeframe FWWD would like to have the implementation project kick-off?

A14. We estimate completing the RFP/selection process for the SI in the summer of

2026. Actual kickoff of implementation will depend on contract negotiations.

Resellers Q15. Are system integrators who are also resellers allowed to respond to this RFP, or is the RFP limited to vendors that are owners of CIS software?

A15. Yes, system integrators who are also resellers are allowed to respond to this

RFP. Please keep in mind that selection of a system integrator will be a separate and distinct process. The software reseller would still need to compete in that process.

Budgets Q16. We would like to request an estimate from the county for the budget for this project. Additionally, does the county require any licenses? Would the license cost be a part of the budget as well?

A16. We will not provide budget estimates for the project. The proposer should identify their cost to deliver within the requirements of the RFP. If your question regarding licenses refers to the software license, then the answer is yes, the cost of licensing should be included in your response.

Q17. Could the City provide the anticipated budget range or funding source (e.g., general fund, grant, etc.) for this project?

A17. We do not plan to provide a budget range for the project. Proposers should estimate cost based on their own pricing models.

Agreement Types Q18. Is FWWD open to using the Texas State DIR Agreement for “license” terms and conditions with the product vendor of choice?

A18. Following a comprehensive review of all procurement options in coordination with the Purchasing Department, Fort Worth Water Department (FWWD) determined that the Request for Proposal (RFP) process is the most suitable method for this procurement.

Q19. Will the City provide a redlined version of its standard contract for review before the submission deadline?

A19. Document RFP-05-Draft Vendor Service Agreement is a draft copy of the standard service agreement. Proposers are encouraged to submit redlines with their bid submissions.

Addendum No. 1, Page 5 of 22

References Q20. Would FWWD accept references out of the US to meet the requirement listed?

A20. There are no defined location limitations regarding references. The FWWD will evaluate the references as provided.

Q21. You require 3 references for utilities with over 250k accounts. Please clarify if those utility references are required to be on the proposed version.

A21. References can be any organization you have worked with. There is no limit to the number of references you may provide. Please keep in mind that the references and the work you did for them will be part of determining suitability for this project.

Number of Accounts, Agreements, Data Channels Q22. How many active service agreements do you have for each of the following services? Water, wastewater, sanitation, stormwater.

Q23. Can you please provide a breakdown of those accounts by service type? (Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, Garbage, Fireline) (e.g., Water: 50,000; Wastewater:

40,000; Fire Line: 30,000... ect.)

A 22 & 23. The figures have been rounded.

Service Type # of Accounts Wastewater 286,000 Water 290,000 Fireline 3,600 Irrigation 7,300 Environmental 285,000 Garbage 280,000 Storm Water 273,000

Q24. Can FWWD please provide the number of device “data channels per month” for

Ft Worth’s AMI enabled metered devices. A device channel is defined as measurement data of any frequency (set or variable), of a single unit of measure, as transmitted by a metering device more often than at the time of billing. The number of channels will vary based on meter size and meter types, so any breakdown or information on this would be appreciated.

A24. The number of data channels is not relevant to this specific project.

Q25. How many total accounts are managed by FWWD?

A25. Active Customer: 297,000 *The figure has been rounded.

Addendum No. 1, Page 6 of 22

Q26. How many billing cycles does FWWD have?

A26. 23 Cycle total (only 22 are billed)

Q27. How big is the largest billing cycle?

A27. 20,900 *The figure has been rounded.

Q28. How many billing items are currently being billed?

A28. FWWD bills Customers for Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, Garbage, and

Environmental. Within these billing categories there are a total of 42 unique billing items.

Q29. How many usage types are defined in the current system?

A29. FWWD bills Customers based on their usage, either through a tiered, flat, or volumetric rate structure. Usage is recorded through a water meter installed at the service connection. FWWD has 23 usage types.

Documents and Exhibits Q30. Can FWWD please provide an editable Word version of RFP-07-Questionnaire and Requirements so Vendor’s can provide adequate responses to answer each question?

A30. Yes this document has been changed to a word format, however it will require being converted to PDF for submission.

Q31. The required Excel Bid Table (BT-14FQ) document asks for 10 years of pricing with standard third party maintenance; with another line item for enhanced third party maintenance. 15-Exhibit E - FWWD CIS Pricing Model also requests costs for 10 years, but in a different format, including the 10 years of managed services. Please confirm that both pricing spreadsheets are required and what the City considers the difference between the two spreadsheets.

A31. The total on Exhibit E FWWD CIS Pricing Model should be entered in for the BT-

14FQ. Yes both documents are required.

Q32. Exhibit A states the following: “The following list of current Reports is provided as a reference for Responders for pricing in Exhibit E, FWWD CIS Pricing Model.”

Where in Exhibit E do these costs need to be provided?

A32. There is no discrete line item in Exhibit E for pricing reports. The list of current reports in Exhibit A is provided to assist in overall pricing.

Q33. Is there a way to respond “Roadmap” to certain functional requirements in Exhibit

B?

Addendum No. 1, Page 7 of 22

A33. It appears you are indicating that some functional requirements are not yet in place but are a part of your roadmap. If this is the case, please select the response, "Not Available / Not Answered" in the "Feature Score" column and indicate it's in your roadmap in the "Comments" column. Also, identify the appropriate items in the document "RFP-07 Questionnaire and Requirements", on questions 2.9.1 and/or 2.9.2

Q34. Can you please provide updated Functional and Technical Requirements

Spreadsheets that allow for comments to be added to the entire column (some cells that require comments are locked)? Additionally, copy/paste will be required to move existing responses to the updated spreadsheet. Can the City please enable copy/paste due the high volume of items?

A34. There are some cells that are locked in the comments column in both the

Functional and Technical Requirements spreadsheets. These have been corrected and will be reposted to Bonfire. The copy paste functionality was tested and should not be an issue.

Q35. Regarding the Mobile Workforce Management (MWFM) requirements (Exhibit B, REQ #1831-2278), does the City's operational vision require a fully automated, optimization-based scheduling engine (e.g., a system that optimizes technician routes for minimal travel time based on skills, service level agreements, and real-time availability)? Or, is a manual or semi-automated dispatch capability, where a dispatcher assigns and sequences work from a central console, sufficient to meet current and future needs?

A35. The system should be fully optimized with the ability for a dispatcher to manually override, as required.

Q36. Exhibit B – Ref#304: Which outage management system is FWWD using?

A36. We do not have one.

Q37. In Exhibit B several requirements reference “time-of-use”

• #844: “The ability to configure rate calculations with separate multipliers based on time of use consumption (on peak/off peak).”

• #878: “The ability to store consumption as on peak or off peak based on time of use.”

• #879: “The ability to charge the entire months consumption at the on peak rate if on peak usage is greater than zero.”

Please clarify how FWWD uses time-of-use and on-peak/off-peak in the context of water billing?

A37. This is a future process we would like to implement.

Addendum No. 1, Page 8 of 22

Q38. Exhibit B #580: “'The ability to manage and bill pre-paid ticket booklets”. Please provide additional definition for pre-paid ticket booklets and their applications.

A38. All waste haulers, both Permit Only and Monthly Disposal, are required to use trip tickets. These tickets are printed by a third-party vendor and ordered by our office approximately every 6 to 8 months. Waste haulers purchase the trip tickets from our office for $10 per book, with each book containing 25 tickets. Currently, payment is accepted only by check or money order and must be made in person at our office. In the future CIS, the ability to manage and bill for trip ticket books would serve primarily as a payment mechanism for waste haulers. Online credit card payments would be welcomed, provided the system includes a notification feature for each purchase so that our office can assign the corresponding ticket books to the appropriate company.

Q39. Are comments required for each of the 2278 Functional Requirements in Exhibit

B?

A39. No, a comment in column L is not required in for each of the 2278 Functional

Requirements in Exhibit B.

Q40. In the functional Requirements, there is a drop down list of 4 options (Feature

Score column). The options include Requires Customization, or, Not Answered Not Available. Those 2 items are clear in definition. Can you help us understand why the 2 options "Available Out of the Box" and "Requires Configuration" are considered different and listed separately? When setting up a billing system feature, checking a simple box is considered configuration for a feature that is actually out of the box. Features that are out of the box do need configuration.

Can you help us understand the purpose of separating “out of the box” from “requires configuration”?

A40. We define “Out of the Box” as immediately available without modification or extensive setup. “Requires Configuration” is defined as functionality that exists within the software but requires advanced setup that may require custom logic, extensive rule-building, or conditional workflows.

Q41. The technical requirements list compliance with Payment Application Data

Security Standards (PADSS) as a high-priority item (Exhibit C, Ref #87). Could the City clarify the intended scope of this requirement? Does it apply specifically to the payment capture components of the solution, which would typically be handled by an externally integrated, PADSS-compliant payment vendor like Paymentus (Exhibit H, Interface #7)?1 Or does the City expect the entire CIS/CRM software platform itself to undergo a formal PADSS certification?

A41. Yes. No, to the expectation of entire CIS/CRM software platform part of question.

Addendum No. 1, Page 9 of 22

Q42. Exhibit C – Ref#53: Please clarify what is meant by ‘regulation-to-field associations’:

“The ability to manage regulatory field associations: Does the system allow FWWD to configure regulation-to-field associations and disable specific system functionality to reduce regulatory exposure?”

A42. There have been occasions when for example, a water customer has private well and they have notified TCEQ that they want to abandon their wells and connect to our water system and an inspection is performed by water staff to ensure the wells are properly capped before connecting to our system to ensure there is no cross-connection. Another example may be a CSI inspection is required before service is connected or restored.

Q43. Is there any restriction on answering specific questions in Exhibit D, by referencing to annexes? For example, we have an annex with a list of all our reports. Could this be attached and referenced in question 3.1, or should we list the reports directly within the question?

A43. Providing a list of reports in an annex is acceptable. Please ensure Exhibit D indicates the location and title of each annex.

Q44. Exhibit D – Section 5.10.1, Item 5: Please share FWWD’s current security policies?

A44. We do not feel that these should be shared with vendors at this time.

Q45. Regarding section 5.10 on Data Access:

1. How critical is it for FWWD to have real-time data synchronization between the production database and the data replica?

2. Which business applications does FWWD have that rely on real-time production data available in the replica?

3. We offer various ways to synchronize data. Can the FWWD business applications continue to operate as needed if data were synchronized hourly, once every 4 hours, etc.?

A45. 1) Very

2) This is not relevant to the requirements.

3) We are requesting “near real-time”. Please describe the synchronization time frame your solution can provide, as close to “real time” as possible.

Q46. Can FWWD please provide quantities per month for letters and also for notices mentioned in Exhibit D?

Addendum No. 1, Page 10 of 22

A46.

Month Number of

Notices Month Number of

Notices October – 2023 3,726 September - 2024 3,941 November – 2023 3,194 October - 2024 5,961 December – 2023 2,998 November – 2024 4,230 January – 2024 2,872 December – 2024 4,027 February – 2024 3,317 January – 2024 4,367 March – 2024 3,845 February – 2024 4,586 April - 2024 3,799 March – 2024 3,921 May - 2024 3,620 April - 2024 3,083 June – 2024 3,510 May – 2024 3,948 July - 2024 4,133 June - 2024 4,280 August – 2024 3,874

Q47. In question 5.1.5 in Exhibit D, can you please clarify what “Enterprise-wide” database management means?

A47. Includes the entire City of Fort Worth “organization” and not restricted to only Fort

Worth Water.

Q48. In question 5.1.15 in Exhibit D, It appears that the first part of the question is repeated in question 5.1.14. Can you please confirm if this is a mistake?

A48. 5.1.14 is a duplication of 5.1.15. Please ignore 5.1.14.

Q49. In the context of question 5.4.8 in Exhibit D, is the question referring to the software running on FWWD client computers?

A49. Not only Client computer, but any/all client devices that runs said software.

Q50. In question 5.5.6 in Exhibit D, can you please clarify what is meant by custom dictionaries?

A50. FWWD desires to easily tailor the software vendor’s dictionary through an administrative interface without relying on the vendor’s or SI vendor’s assistance.

Q51. Can you please clarify what is required for question 5.7.3 in Exhibit D?

A51. Describe and or list any certifications held, related to cybersecurity.

Q52. In Exhibit E, what is considered year 1; after go-live or the start of the project?

A52. This will be covered during contract negotiations.

Q53. In Exhibit E – Managed Services sheet, please clarify what is meant by configuration management.

Addendum No. 1, Page 11 of 22

A53. Management/tracking/approval/version control of system configurations applied to the solution.

Q54. In Exhibit E – Managed Services sheet, please clarify what is meant by integration / interface management.

A54. Management/tracking/approval/version control of integrations and interfaces applied to the solution.

Q55. In Exhibit E – Managed Services sheet, we noticed that several of the listed services are already included as part of our SaaS offering. For our response to this section, would it be acceptable to identify which services are covered under our standard SaaS pricing, and then provide pricing details only for those that would incur additional costs?

A55. This is acceptable as long as the services already included in standard SaaS pricing are fully detailed (e.g., if 10 services are listed, and 6 are already part of standard pricing, the response should list the 6 specific services already included and the 4, with pricing, that are not.)

Q56. How does the City envision the pricing model in Exhibit E accommodating the two-phase approach? The "Managed Services" tab, for instance, lists items such as "Database Administration" and "Performance Management," which are typically services delivered by an implementation and support partner.1 Should proposers provide a software-only price in this phase, and if so, how should these partner-dependent services be addressed in the pricing schedule?

A56. The pricing model outlined in Exhibit E applies only to Phase One – Software

Selection – and does not account for a two-phased approach. A separate pricing model will be developed for the implementation phase, which will include professional services, travel, and Managed Services. Software proposers should include detailed pricing for the Managed Services they offer. Provide additional details in the Comments section. Final decisions on the approach to managed services will be reserved until after the process for the second RFP (system integration) is complete.

Q57. Exhibit E – FWWD CIS Pricing Model: There is no option to provide a single item cost for SaaS or managed services. Should costs be calculated as of go-live, or is project start considered year 1?

A57. Vendors may provide a single price for SaaS hosting that includes multiple applications ( i.e., CIS, CRM, MWFM). Explain the components of SaaS pricing in the Comments section. Vendors may also provide a single hosting price that includes Managed Services. List those services in the Comments section.

Addendum No. 1, Page 12 of 22

Q58. Regarding the Managed Services Tab of Exhibit E, some of the line items are to be provided by the system integrator (SI) and/or by the City. Can we indicate this and not provide pricing for those items?

A58. We encourage you to identify managed services you provide relative to the software. However, final decisions on the approach to managed services will be reserved until after the process for the second RFP (system integration) is complete.

Q59. In exhibit E – Managed Services sheet, can you please clarify what is meant by

“batch / process management”?

A59. Batch/process management refers to services provided to schedule, monitor, control, and manage automated background jobs and system processes. This includes batch job scheduling, performance monitoring, issue resolution, and maintenance of batch programs to ensure reliable and timely execution of critical system functions.

Q60. In exhibit E – Managed Services sheet, can you please clarify what is meant by

“user security & access management”?

A60. User security and access management refers to the controls and processes used to define, enforce, and manage who can access the system, what they can see, and what they are allowed to do within the application.

Q61. In exhibit E – Managed Services sheet “software modifications / customizations” is line referring to the guarantee for any modifications or customizations or is this asking for a recurring bucket of hours?

A61. We generally do not want software modifications or customizations, but want to know pricing for development specific to the City of Ft. Worth.

Q62. In exhibit E – Managed Services sheet, can you please clarify what is meant by

“data migration and extract transform. Load (ETL) Services”?

A62. The software vendor may perform data migration and ETL services on an ad-hoc basis when unexpected or non-routine data needs arise during the life of the system, after the initial implementation. These services are typically reactive or driven by one-time events, business changes, or data corrections that require vendor involvement due to their complexity or impact.

Q63. Exhibit E – FWWD CIS Pricing Model, has a Managed Service tab. Per .pdf attachment, 17-RFP-06-Evaluation Factors and Scope of Services, page 6 of 10, this will be a software only procurement. Will the same Managed Services items also be included in the phase 2, SI bid, or will there be an extended scope of requirements for managed services for that RFP?

Addendum No. 1, Page 13 of 22

A63. We intend to include the same Managed Services pricing tab in the second RFP for Implementation services. Final decisions on the approach to managed services will be reserved until after the process for the second RFP (system integration) is complete.

Q64. Regarding the MuleSoft Enterprise Service Bus (Exhibit H, Interface #1), will the

City's internal IT team or an existing MuleSoft partner be responsible for the design, development, testing, and long-term support of the required APIs and integration flows?

Alternatively, is the Proposer for the CIS solution expected to provide these MuleSoft-specific development services as part of the "turn-key" offering?

A64. Yes, the City's internal IT team or an existing MuleSoft partner will be responsible for the design, development, testing, and long-term support of the required APIs and integration flows.

No, the Proposer for the CIS solution is not expected to provide these MuleSoft-specific development services as part of the "turn-key" offering.

Q65. Exhibit H lists interfaces for "Maximo Enterprise Asset Management" and "City

311 Motorola CRM". To ensure the correct architectural design for data flows and master data management, can the City confirm that these systems are the definitive systems of record for asset management and non-water-related 311 service requests, respectively?

A65. Yes, these systems are the definitive systems of record for asset management and non-water-related 311 service requests.

Q66. If the vendor proposed solution can replace other systems listed on FWWD’s interface list (Exhibit H), to reduce complexity or replication like screen pop functions, or a 2nd CRM with Ivanti, would the City be open to consider this?

A66. Yes. Please identify any recommended approaches, interfaces, etc. that we may not have specifically covered in the RFP.

Q67. In the Interfaces Exhibit H document, what does “ISM” stand for, as mentioned in the “Ivanti CRM/ISM”.

A67. It stands for Service Manager.

Q68. In Exhibit I lists 35 staff for “Meter Service Field Operations & Mobile”. Can you please confirm that this is the number of users that would need to access the MWFM solution?

A68. Yes, the 35 staff listed under “Meter Service Field Operations & Mobile” in Exhibit

I are the current field staff who would need access to the MWFM solution, using it remotely on a mobile device. However, the total number of staff in Meter

Addendum No. 1, Page 14 of 22

Services is 55, so additional team members beyond the current field staff will also require remote access.

Q69. Of the 72 Mobile Field Service users documented in "Exhibit I - End Users" how many of these users will require full read/ write capabilities vs. read only?

A69. At this point, we expect all 72 to require full read/write capability.

Q70. Regarding the end-user counts provided in Exhibit I, can the City confirm if the 35 users designated as "Meter Service Field Operations & Mobile" represent the primary licensed users for the MWFM mobile application? Furthermore, for licensing and pricing purposes, should the user counts provided across all departments be considered concurrent users or named users?

A70. Yes, the Meter Services team will be the primary users. There will be other users based on duty needs (e.g., IT). All users should be considered concurrent users.

Further, the actual number of users may increase as the City's customer base and number of employees needed to manage that customer base increases.

Q71. Exhibit I – End users: FWWD indicated 50 CSRs. Our solution supports omnichannel communications — chatbot, SMS, phone, and email. Will all CSRs require full omnichannel capability, or will roles be segmented (example: some handling calls, others managing chat).

A71. Not all 50 CSR's will be on every communication type but there will be agents that are skilled on multiple communication types.

Q72. Exhibit J – Rates: FWWD services approximately 300,000 water customers.

What is the approximate number of customers billed for garbage services?

A72. Approximately 280,000 are billed for garbage services.

Q73. Are the letters and notices listed in Exhibit K always sent ( or printed ) as PDFs, or are some sent strictly as emails without an attachment?

A73. Letters are sent as a PDF file and are also mailed out.

Proposed Applications Q74. Would the City consider having one of our proposed applications perform the screen pop that is currently being done elsewhere?

A74. Yes. Please identify any recommended approaches, interfaces, etc. that we may not have specifically covered in the RFP.

Subcontractors Q75. Will the City consider proposals that include subcontractors located outside of

Texas or the U.S.?

Addendum No. 1, Page 15 of 22

A75. Any subcontractors must be approved by FWWD. Subcontractors from outside the U.S. are not acceptable.

Specs

Q76. Considering that this is an RFP for the software provider, what is FWWD’s definition of level 1 and level 2 support?

A76. There will be a need for support from the provider of cloud hosting and for managed services (potentially two different providers). Each or both could be provided by the software provider, the SI, or a combination of the two.

Q77. What BI tools does FWWD use?

A77. FWWD uses LOOKER, and Power BI. The City is open to considering other alternatives to current tools.

Q78. Is the database replication environment (asked for in Exhibit E) for FWWD’s BI tool?

A78. The replicated environment will enable data access for multiple uses, including BI tools, reporting, and ad hoc queries. We need to safely consume data across various platforms without impacting the operational workload of the production systems.

Q79. Does FWWD require high availability for its production environment? If so, what is the expected uptime?

A79. Yes, the expected uptime is 99.99%

Q80. Is disaster recovery required for FWWD’s production environment?

A80. Yes, vendors need to share what they offer.

Q81. How many years of historical data will be migrated to the new system?

A81. We expect to transition up to 3 years of data for active accounts into the new

CIS. Additionally, we will also transition any accounts (active or inactive) with an outstanding debt balance that is less than 10 years old.

Q82. Is Fort Worth currently using a CRM system and if so, which one?

A82. Yes, Oracle Service Cloud

Q83. For this RFP are you seeking a fully functional CRM like Salesforce, MS

Dynamics, and Hubspot?

Addendum No. 1, Page 16 of 22

A83. We are brand agnostic. Respondent should present the option(s) that is/are best-fit based on our technical and functional requirements.

Q84. Over the past five years, there have been very few new CIS implementation projects in the United States for water utilities serving greater than 250,000+ customers. Unfortunately this requirement will eliminate almost all prospective vendors and will not afford the City the opportunity to evaluate some of the most modern and cutting edge CIS applications. Will the City please consider removing this requirement?

A84. We are not prepared to remove this requirement at this time. However, we encourage you to identify the size and number of CIS implementations your company has provided. Please feel free to go as far as implementations completed within the last 10 years and those started but not yet complete. Please include the number of accounts serviced in each project, as well as start/completion dates. All of this may be considered in evaluating proposals.

Q85. We identified the following minimum requirements in RFP: Water/wastewater utilities: The clients must be water or wastewater utility providers in the United States and Each client must manage over 250,000 customer accounts (i.e., households or service connections). If we don't have this exact experience, can we still go ahead and submit a bid? Or is this a mandatory requirement?

A85. Yes. The specs were updated to list this as a preferred qualification and are included in this addendum.

Q86. Our organization is based in North America, and our Client Success team is based in Canada but includes remote employees based in the United States .

Will the City consider allowing Level 1 support to be provided from within North America if the vendor can provide assurances that data will reside in the United States at all times?

A86. The personnel providing Level 1 support, as well as all data, must be within the

United States.

Q87. Does FWWD currently have an OMS with which the new solution should be integrated?

A87. OMS is not in Scope for this project.

Q88. Can you please describe how FWWD current bill print process works?

A88. Water IT downloads the billing cycle data two days before billing and prepares for the process.

Water IT requests the read file from Meter Services.

Meter Services extracts and uploads the file containing meter readings.

Addendum No. 1, Page 17 of 22

Water IT executes updates, automatically processing any accounts that can be billed without review.

Accounting reviews the bills that were updated overnight.

If any accounts need to be removed from the bill file, an email is sent to both

Billing and Water IT.

After completing the Daily Bill Review (DBR) by 10 AM, an email is sent to Water

IT to confirm the DBR is finished, allowing them to forward the file to Metrix Imaging Solutions.

Metrix Imaging Solutions generates invoices from the response file, which are typically ready by noon.

Q89. Regarding the two-phase procurement process described in RFP-06, could the

City elaborate on the definition of a "complete, turn-key" solution within the context of Phase 1? Specifically, what are the precise deliverables, performance metrics, and success criteria for which the selected software vendor will be held responsible, independent of the services to be provided by the yet-to-be-selected System Integrator?

A89. The term “complete turn-key” solution refers to the proposer’s integrated system, including all necessary software, tools, and components required to enable City staff to perform essential utility billing, customer engagement, and field service operations. The specific deliverables, performance metrics, and success criteria for the selected software vendor will be defined during contract negotiations and the development of the Statement of Work.

Q90. Is Ivanti connected directly to the solid waste pickup/routing application?

A90. No, Ivanti is not connected directly to the solid waste pickup/routing application.

Q91. If the system already contains an MDM system inherently able to receive interval meter reads from the head-end system (which would eliminate the need for the integration with an existing MDM), would the City like to consider that?

A91. Yes, the City would like to consider that.

Q92. Does the City have an SMS Broker Service and a print/mail vendor that they would like to consider using as it seems Dataprose is producing the print/ mail services or would you like a proposal for print/mail services and SMS service to be used to send out correspondence and messages as there are several questions on the printing and mailing in the functional requirement. (Some of those questions are located between 986-1133).

A92. We would like to see what you have to offer. Please provide your offerings.

Q93. There is reference to the system’s ability to ‘support’ a chatbot. To clarify, does the city use a chatbot now, want the system to make the functionality available through APIs, or is the city looking for a chatbot as part of this proposal?

Addendum No. 1, Page 18 of 22

A93. We do not have Chatbot today but are looking for it as a part of the proposal.

Q94. Regarding the following paragraph in the RFP, is it correct to assume that

FWWD prefers that project implementation services not be submitted at this time? ... "The CIS project will proceed in two phases, with the current RFP being intended to identify the CIS software that best meets the City’s needs. A second phase will consist of an additional RFP to identify the system integrator (SI) that best meets the City’s needs to implement the selected CIS software."

A94. That is correct. Implementation/Integration requirements will be outlined in a separate RFP once the software has been selected.

Q95. Regarding the following paragraph in the RFP, is it correct to assume that

FWWD prefers that managed services provided by a consulting services agency not be submitted at this time? -- "The CIS project will proceed in two phases, with the current RFP being intended to identify the CIS software that best meets the City’s needs. A second phase will consist of an additional RFP to identify the system integrator (SI) that best meets the City’s needs to implement the selected CIS software."

A95. We encourage you to identify managed services you provide relative to the software. However, final decisions on the approach to managed services will be reserved until after the process for the second RFP (system integration) is complete.

Q96. Is there a need to print any bills in-house vs. sending to Dataprose? If so, how many per month, per type?

A96. No, there is no need to print any bills in-house.

Q97. Are there any specific deliverables, performance milestones, or KPIs associated with this contract that proposers should consider in pricing or timelines?

A97. These are specific to the implementation. This RFP focuses on the CIS software.

Q98. Will there be any legacy systems or existing vendors involved in the transition process? If so, who is the incumbent, and are there integration expectations?

A98. Yes, there are legacy systems. We feel that this information would be provided to those who are shortlisted to the project.

Q99. Can the City provide more details regarding the expected term length and renewal options for the Agreement (Section 20.0 refers to “RFP-06,” which is not included)?

A99. Term length can be found in Section 3.0 of the RFP-06- Evaluation Factors and

Scope of Work.

Addendum No. 1, Page 19 of 22

Q100. Are there any data migration responsibilities or expectations included in the scope of work, especially if transitioning from an existing system?

A100. Data migration will be included in the next RFP for system implementation.

Q101. Will proposers be allowed or encouraged to conduct site visits or discovery sessions with relevant departments before proposal submission or during evaluation?

A101. There will not be any site visits or discovery sessions included as part of submission for this RFP.

Q102. Is the City open to remote delivery of services (where applicable), or is on-site presence mandatory for certain project phases?

A102. This RFP is for Software as a Service (SaaS) only. We do not expect the SaaS vendor to be onsite at all phases of the project. This will be fully determined during contract negotiations.

Delivery of services will apply to the second RFP for System Implementation services.

Q103. Does FWWD currently utilize an Executive Information System (EIS) that can be integrated with the proposed solution? If so, could you please specify which system is being used?

A103. No, please refer to Exhibit H for a list of the interfaces that are in scope.

Q104. Does FWWD currently generate PDFs (e.g., bills, letters, notices) directly within its CIS, or are these PDFs produced through a third-party software? Additionally, could you please clarify the expected scope for the current system regarding PDF generation—should it include native generation within the CIS, integration with a third-party solution, or both?

A104. No, please refer to Exhibit H for a list of the interfaces that are in scope.

Q105. Can the City confirm that the CIS must be delivered as a true multi-tenant, cloud-native SaaS solution, distinct from hosted or single-tenant models—and demonstrate scalability for over 300,000 accounts without requiring separate instances or extensive hardware scaling?

A105. FWWD is open to both single and multi-tenant approaches. We look forward to your offering.

Q106. Will the City require a standardized release schedule with automated quarterly updates to avoid manual patching or prolonged upgrade cycles?

Addendum No. 1, Page 20 of 22

A106. Yes, quarterly or more frequent - Vendor should propose their best practice.

Frequency will be determined in the contract negotiation.

Q107. Is it a requirement that the proposing vendor retain full governance over the entire SaaS stack, including upgrades, support, and integration standards?

A107. Yes, it is a requirement that the proposing vendor retain full governance over the entire SaaS stack, including upgrades, support, and integration standards.

Q108. Does the City require that business users manage configuration and workflow via graphical interfaces, without vendor intervention or code changes?

A108. Yes, the City requires that business users manage configuration and workflow via graphical interfaces, without vendor intervention or code changes.

Q109. Will preference be given to platforms with a built-in, user-configurable business rules engine for managing billing logic, rates, and workflows?

A109. No vendor or specific capability will be given "preference." All vendors will be evaluated/scored on their ability to meet the requirements outlined in the RFP.

Q110. Is it a requirement that customer service and finance teams can adjust workflows, rates, and rules without relying on IT or vendor support, using configurable visual tools instead of scripting or development environments?

A110. This is our preference.

Q111. Does the City require the CIS to natively support all core utility billing and meter-to-cash functions, including rate calculation, consumption processing, payment posting, and delinquency handling—without reliance on third-party extensions or custom modules?

A111. Yes, City requires the CIS to natively support all core utility billing and meter-to-cash functions, including rate calculation, consumption processing, payment posting, and delinquency handling—without reliance on third-party extensions or custom modules.

Q112. Will the City prioritize platforms with native support for complex rate structures

(e.g., tiered, TOU, seasonal, consumption-based), AMI integration, consumption validation, and delinquency processing?

A112. No, the City will not prioritize platforms with native support for complex rate structures (e.g., tiered, TOU, seasonal, consumption-based), AMI integration, consumption validation, and delinquency processing.

Addendum No. 1, Page 21 of 22

Q113. Is embedded workflow and case management functionality a core requirement to support automated exception handling, approvals, and customer service workflows?

A113. Yes, embedded workflow and case management functionality is a core requirement to support automated exception handling, approvals, and customer service workflows.

Q114. Is it a requirement that the platform provides native workflow and case management tools to manage escalations, exception processing, and internal handoffs without reliance on third-party systems?

A114. Yes, it is a requirement that the platform provides native workflow and case management tools to manage escalations, exception processing, and internal handoffs without reliance on third-party systems.

Q115. Will preference be given to vendors who provide all core functionality on a single platform, eliminating the need for middleware, integration brokers, or multiple licensing tiers?

A115. No vendor or specific capability will be given "preference." All vendors will be evaluated/scored on their ability to meet the requirements outlined in the RFP.

Q116. Will the City require a fully integrated customer communication and self-service portal (rather than third-party add-ons) that supports billing, service requests, alerts, and account management?

A116. No, the City will not require a fully integrated customer communication and self-service portal (rather than third-party add-ons) that supports billing, service requests, alerts, and account management.

Q117. What specific transaction types and engagement capabilities does the City expect the online portal to support (e.g., inquiries, payments, service requests, permitting)?

A117. For customers: Inquiries, payments, submit & view multiple types of service request (ex. set new service, move/transfer service, cancel service, billing inquiries, etc. - a full list of current options can be provided,) view all account data/usage, compare data to themselves, other like customers and all FW customers, Conservation programs, etc.

Agents need to be able to view all of the above exactly how the customer sees the information.

Q118. Will preference be given to vendors offering a mobile-optimized, unified portal experience—capable of handling billing, alerts, usage insights, two-way communication, and citizen self-service from a single application?

Addendum No. 1, Page 22 of 22

A118. No vendor or specific capability will be given "preference." All vendors will be evaluated/scored on their ability to meet the requirements outlined in the RFP.

Q119. Does the City require native support for open standards such as RESTful APIs, JSON, and XML for integration with ERP, GIS, and document management systems?

A119. Yes, the City requires native support for open standards such as RESTful APIs, JSON, and XML for integration with ERP, GIS, and document management systems.

Q120. Will preference be given to vendors that allow unrestricted access to all customer and operational data, free of proprietary formats or additional licensing?

A120. No vendor or specific capability will be given "preference." All vendors will be evaluated/scored on their ability to meet the requirements outlined in the RFP.

Q121. Will the City prioritize solutions that include native integration middleware— eliminating the need for third-party tools to connect CIS, finance, customer engagement, and field operations systems?

A121. No, the City won't prioritize solutions that include native integration middleware— eliminating the need for third-party tools to connect CIS, finance, customer engagement, and field operations systems.

Q122. Will the City disqualify vendors unable to demonstrate at least three recent SaaS implementations in U.S. water/wastewater utilities with over 250,000 accounts?

A122. An addendum will be issued, making experience with SaaS implementation of

250,000 accounts "preferred" rather than "required."

Q123. Can the City clarify how many of the 297 identified users will require full access to billing, account management, and reporting features versus limited or inquiry-only roles?

A123. Refer to Exhibit I.

Q124. Is it a requirement that platforms have served as the primary CIS in at least three large-scale implementations (not limited to CRM)?

A124. An addendum will be issued making experience with SaaS implementation of

250,000 accounts "preferred" rather than "required."