RFP 2108 New Permit System Addendum 1 Vendor Questions and Answers Questions and Answers:

The County has requested hard copy submissions. However, due to Pandemic restrictions, many offices and production equipment have become inaccessible. Since the County is recognizing Pandemic safeguards as mentioned in section 2.3 of the RFP, we request that the County consider accepting electronic submission in lieu of hard copies. RFP Section 1.13.14 & 2.3.

The hard copy requirement will remain.

Has the County received any Demos within the last 6 months pertaining to the system being replace? The past 12 months?

No Regarding item 272 - "Ability to view the Kenosha County Land Information database existing relationships"...is the intent to bring these relationships from the county database into the new permitting system or just to be able to view the relationships on the county's site via a web browser?

It is a “should have” requirement that these relationships are brought into the Permit System from the Land Information database to be visible in the Permit system.

What is your dollar amount threshold for needing to release an RFP? Is there any reason a proposal would be thrown out due to being over a specific dollar amount?

There is no dollar threshold for a proposal. That said, Cost is a portion of the evaluation criteria, as defined in Section 1.12 in the RFP.

Did the County employ the aid of any consultants or other vendors in the development in this RFP?

No.

Does the County have an estimated budget, or allocated funds, for this project?

KC has an existing budget guestimate. That said, the ultimate budget will depend on the features, functions, and technical design for the submitted proposal.

Attachment 4 had many unaccepted changes (from Track Changes ON) and many editorial comments. It probably needs review and cleanup to ensure no miscommunications.

All of the formatting marking have been removed; a new document has been published to the vendor.net website titled “Revised KCC_ATT_04_Tech.doc”

1.10 Pre-Proposal Conference - How many attendees were in attendance?

Not sure of the exact number: est. >15.

1.10 Pre-Proposal Conference - Was there a sign-in process? If so, who was in attendance?

There was no sign-in requirement; the pre-proposal conference was voluntary only. Also, although KC was interested in knowing which vendors that did attend, an official list of vendors attending the conference was not created.

1.10 Pre-Proposal Conference - Is there a published list of the questions asked and answered?

No. The pre-proposal conference was an informal question and answer session. Any questions asked or answers given were not official. Any question needing an official answer to must be submitted to Kenosha County in writing.

2.4.3 System Design - What is the expected level of effort that the vendor must perform to satisfy “what changes in business process are required”? Can this be addressed through a ‘bounding assumption’ and still be judged ‘responsive’?

The level of effort is difficult to qualify and quantity without knowing the process details of both the current and proposed systems. That said, Kenosha County will not select a solution that does not meet our “must have” functional requirements. So, assuming that the solution’s functions are adequate, there may be a change in the business process itself to accomplish the business process and workflow requirements by the actual users of the system. Beyond the illustration of the solution’s various business functions shown during the demonstration part of the selection process, any new business process or workflow changes would be taught to new users during User Training. Kenosha County will look to the vendor to define the appropriate level of training, as well as the method to do so.

Any assumptions made in the proposal should be documented and clear. Listing as a “bounding assumption” will work.

2.4.5 Conversion - Assertion: Data quality and data cleanup are the responsibility of the county and are not part of scope of work of the vendor. Is this correct?

Source data quality and any cleanup of any quality issues will be is the responsibility of Kenosha County. Any translation/mapping of existing data to the proposed system is expected to be a joint effort.

2.4.7 Go Live and Support - Assertion: Outbound communications (and training) of the business community and the public community are the responsibility of the county and are not part of scope of work of the vendor. Is this correct?

It is expected that Kenosha County will be the primary communicator/trainer to the external users. Training of internal staff is the responsibility of the vendor. The exact manner is up to the vendor, such as a train-the-trainer for internal users, all users in a class, etc.

3.6 Price Proposal - What is budget or expected price range that is acceptable to the county? For software license fees? For professional services to define requirements through go live? For ongoing software support and maintenance and hosting?

Price for any/all components of the proposed solution shall be based on the metrics and requirements listed in the RFP. The overall cost of your proposal is part of the solution’s score (as defined in the RFP, section 1.12). If there is a specific question about those metrics and/or requirements, Kenosha County will address those directly.

Attachment 4.2 Workstation Standards - Internet Explorer 11 (IE 11) is listed as a requirement, later in the document, other browsers are listed including Edge, Chrome, Firefox. Is IE 11 a requirement?

Internet Explorer 11 is NOT a requirement. Any solution should work with Edge, however.

How many inspectors and/or code enforcement officers are considered mobile?

6-8 How many County staff are involved in processing business and contractor licenses?

P&D currently does not process licenses; the license is recorded as an attribute to the vendor record. If a contractor licensing function is part of the solution as implemented, 2-3 people.

What is the current data format of the County’s in-house developed sanitary maintenance system? (SQL, Excel, etc.)

Not sure of the purpose of this question in relation to the vendor’s solution, unless it relates to migrating data. Regardless, SQL server AO. The Sanitary Maintenance (KCSMP) app uses both its own database plus the TRAKiT database -- all the data is being stored in TRAKiT; the KCSMP database just manages non-permit type data, such as user logins, audit logs, etc.

Licensing - Is County comfortable with "Named User" licensing model? If "Named User" model is not preferred, how will County capture the audit information of records?

Yes, the “named user” model is required. If the proposed solution has a different model, that model must be highlighted in the proposal, along with how the system provides secure access and audit capabilities.

As a side, the core users should be able to access the system from different locations; Eg, if the user temporarily moves to a different device to view/present permit data without having to log out of the first session.

Out of 63 users, how many users will be the full-time users?

Not sure exactly what “full time” means. P&D has 6 people using the system as part of their day-to-day operations; there are 15-20 periodic users that are largely read-only, with a 3-4 that would periodically add/update information.

Customer Portal - How many customers are expected to use the system every year?

Currently, there are 64 building contractors that have contractor-type credentials using the online permitting function.

The exact number of regular property owners/contractors that have setup their own public user-type credentials to utilize the online permitting function is unknown. If there is a cost component of your solution based on customers, please highlight that in your proposal.

Customer Portal - Will the customers require to login in order to apply for the permits?

Yes. All customers are required to have credentials and login in order to apply for permits. Of the 320 zoning permits applied for in the 2020 calendar year, 113 of them were applied for online. Of the 170 Sanitary permits applied for in 2020, 157 of them were applied for online. Starting in 2021, all sanitary permit applications must be submitted online.

Data conversion - What is the amount of data that County expects to migrate?

What databases are we looking to migrate data from? Data from both the current Permit system and the Sanitary Maintenance portal (if part of the new solution) will be converted.

Approximately how many records need to be migrated from each database?

· ~ 2,000 code case (zoning) records.

· ~ 350 code case (sanitary) records

· ~ 23,000 zoning permit records.

· Note: ~ 36,000 additional are “placeholder” records for scanned documents

· ~ 9,200 sanitary permit records

· ~ 300 shoreland permit records.

· ~ 150 stormwater permit records

· ~ 2 access review application records.

· ~ 8 affidavit of correction application records.

· ~ 20 comp. plan amendment application records.

· ~ 1,000 rezoning application records.

· ~ 120 temporary use permit records.

· ~ 1,000 variance application records.

· ~ 1 engineering records.

· ~ 5 mapping records.

· ~ 2,400 daily register records.

· ~ 1,900 conditional user permit application records.

· ~ 700 certified survey map application records.

· ~ 700 certificate of compliance application records.

Very high-level number of data points for each record? See KC_ATT_08_Requirements for data attributes for each functional area.

Implementation Cut over - Is County planning to run existing system and new system in parallel for some time or will it be a complete transition to new system?

It is expected that there will be no parallel usage of both the old and new systems, unless there is valid business reason(s) to do so. If so, ensure that is explicitly stated in your proposal.

Go-live timelines - What are County's expectations for Go-live timelines?

It is expected go-live would occur 4-6 months after implementation begins. However, Kenosha County understands go-live may vary based on a number of variables and risks as defined during implementation plan development.

2108 Attachment 8 - Requirements - no. 48 - Is County comfortable with the option to export report in CSV, XLS (MS Excel) and XLSX (MS Excel) formats only?

No. PDF is required for most reports, especially customer facing “reports” such as letters, notices, and forms, and for administrative reports.

2108 Attachment 8 - Requirements - no. 50 - Can County elaborate more on OCR searchable text? Is County looking for searching capabilities in the uploaded scanned documents?

For exported documents, a searchable pdf format is desired.

For uploaded documents, OCR’d pdf documents is not required; if needed, OCR’ing a pdf document will be done by staff at the time it is needed.

2108 Attachment 8 - Requirements - no. 78 - How many Contractors are expected to use the system? Will Contractors have more than 1 user per Contractor Organization?

The system should not have any reasonable threshold. If the proposal cost is based on user count, highlight those cost levels in the proposal.

Would the County consider a Standalone Solution for Electronic Plan Review to coincide with the permitting solution of the County's choice?

This function is not a requirement. But, if it is part of your solution, please highlight as an optional feature/module in your proposal along with any details (features, functions, cost, etc) you’d like Kenosha County to be aware of.

What is the difference between the SaaS Solution Questionnaire and the Web Solution Questionnaire?

SaaS Solution: use this form when the solution will be hosted off-site at a third-party data center, regardless of the solution’s architecture.

Web Solution: use this form for a browser-based solution that will be hosted on-site at Kenosha County What are the transaction volumes by quantity and dollar value for the various types and methods of transactions?

2020 Calendar Year Totals:

· 572 transactions

· At-counter Cash Transactions – $ 2,083

· At-counter Check Transactions – $ 101,168

· Credit Card Transactions – $ 140,656

· 132 online credit card transactions initiated by Contractors

· 135 online credit card transactions initiated by Public Users

· 52 at-counter credit card transactions

Attachments:

Revised Attachment 4 General Technical Information

END ADDENDUM

Date|April 21, 2021 Page 1 | 6