3-Addendum 2 4446-FINAL.pdf

CITY OF NORWALK

PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

12272024

The bid listed below has had addenda issued. The document number to request will be the same as the project number indicated below.

Project # Addendum # # of Pages Original Issue Date

4446 2 9 08/12/2025

Addendum Issued Date 08/21/2025

Project Number 4446

Addenda Number 2

Electronic Deadline 2:00 PM 08/27/2025

Project Title Payment Processing Services

This Addendum is a contract document modifying previously issued documents, which remain in full force except as specifically modified below.

Quotations appearing on the Proposal are to reflect the provisions of this Addendum. Failure to acknowledge receipt of this Addendum in the space provided on the response sheet may subject the candidate to disqualification.

NEW INFORMATION:

1. DATA Requests: The City of Norwalk was able to obtain some information requested regarding volumes and payment methods. The Awarded proposer will be required to provide real time reporting on the transaction types, number of transactions and dollars according to payments/transaction types. It should be easily obtainable by the Tax Collector users group.

It has been included in this issued addendum.

For Calendar Year 2024 For 2025 year to date (mid- August)

Total Payments 43047 37286 Through Shopping Cart 40286 qty/$64,759,486 35280 qty/$56,688,005 IVR 360 qty/$274, 914 263 qty/$271,907 Through Customer Portal 865 qty/$6,436,188 616 qty/$5,169,400 Cloud Store/Biller Initiated 1446 qty/$1,526,099 1028 qty/$1,158,860 Scheduled Payments 90 qty/$214,553 99 qty/$427,382

Page 1 of 9, Addendum 2 4446-FINAL

12272024

RESPONSES TO SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

1 Question: Would the City be open to granting a one-week extension to the proposal submission deadline currently set for August 27, 2025?

Response: No 2 Question: Can forms be signed using digital signatures?

Response: Yes, the City of Norwalk accepts digital signatures.

3 Question: What is the current funding structure (including ACH/CC fees or percentages) assessed by the current provider?

Response: Currently fees are paid by the users (taxpayers). Credit / debit / ATM card users are charged 2.99%. This amount was increased by the vendor after the contract was awarded. E checks are $1.25 each.

4 Question: Why is the City issuing this bid at this time? Is there a critical event (e.g., expiring contract, new functionality needs) that necessitates issuing this RFP at this particular time?

Response: See Question 1 and its associated response issued under Addendum 1 on 08/18/2025

5 Question: What are the City’s key goals for this solicitation? Are there any goals for increased online adoption or reduced walk-ins, calls, and mailed-in checks?

Are there any goals for improved staff efficiency?

Response: See prior answers. Two main goals are 1/ service related – we are looking for better service and 2/ cheaper transaction fees for our taxpayers (at their request)

6 Question: To provide a more convenient digital experience for customers and residents, is the City interested in a multi-service payment portal to host the various transactions/interactions across all departments as part of the merchant services scope?

Response: See Question 2 and its associated response issued under Addendum 1 on 08/18/2025

7 Question: For online payments, is the City interested in a platform that offers convenient features such as AutoPay, eBilling, payment plans, profile functionality with stored payment methods/receipts, etc.?

Response: Not really. The simpler the better.

8 Question: What would the City change about its current level of service and support?

Response: Poor customer service. Lack of timely response to problems. Errors, and the same errors happening over and over. Lack of in person support for customers using the system – current vendor has the tax collector’s office telephone number listed as the number to call with questions on how to use the system. Our staff has to walk customers through the transaction, and the vendor gets paid a service fee for our work.

9 Question: What is the City’s current settlement timeline for each of the payables in scope?

Page 2 of 9, Addendum 2 4446-FINAL

Response: ?

10 Question: What would you change about your online portal experience? Are there any additional features you would like to have?

Response: See question # 8 and its associated response. Not looking for bells and whistles; the simpler, the better.

11 Question: In order to create a more convenient experience for City staff and customers, is the City interested in its payment portal being also able to facilitate non-transaction workflows for the departments/services in scope, such as address change requests exemptions, declarations, and other interactions?

Response: No 12 Question: How many transactions do the in-scope departments receive per year?

What is the total $ collected per in-scope agency per year?

Response: Please review the NEW INFORMATION Section 13 Question: What is the average transaction cost per in-scope agency?

Response: Please review the NEW INFORMATION Section 14 Question: What percentage of payments are card vs. cash vs. check vs. echeck? A merchant statement would also be helpful for us to calculate this information.

Response: Please review the NEW INFORMATION Section 15 Question: What percentage of payments are made Online vs. in-person Point-of-Sale devices?

Response: Please review the NEW INFORMATION Section 16 Question: How many card POS devices would be required?

Response: Four (4) devices 17 Question: What gateways is the City using today for payment acceptance across all channels and departments?

Response: This RFP is for the tax collector’s office only. Not concerned with what other departments are doing.

18 Question: Are you interested in Calculated and/or non calculated forms capability? For example, a utility service relocation, or just new service being turned on, that allows the constituent the ability to choose the service, perform the service request, and for Norwalk to add a fee for it, or not? And then for that form to be routed to the correct department after payment?

Response: Not interested 19 Question: Can you please provide the funds flow that is followed by your current payment provider, if possible, please provide a settlement flow diagram.

Response: The City does not have this information at this time. However, the awarded proposer would be provide required to provide it to the City.

20 Question: Would Norwalk be able to provide one years worth of transaction data as well as the corresponding dollar volume for debit cards, credit cards, eCheck

Page 3 of 9, Addendum 2 4446-FINAL and ACH?

Response: Please review the NEW INFORMATION Section 21 Question: Would it be possible to get a two-week extension for the submission deadline? This additional time would allow us to provide a more thorough and comprehensive response that fully addresses your requirements.

Response: See question 1 and its associated response.

22 Question: Would the City be able to extend the Closing Date for the deadline of submissions?

Response: See question 1 and its associated response.

23 Question: Are there any source systems beyond Tyler Munis and QDS that we would need to integrate with? Additionally, does the City have access to the Tyler Munis and QDS API documentation?

Response: QDS is used for assessment and tax collection. MUNIS is used for financials.

24 Question: What are the total number of transactions across each channel (in person and online) that the City accepts for the payments that are part of this RFP?

What is the breakdown of tender types (cash, check, eCheck/ACH, credit/debit card)? What is the average transaction for each payment?

Response: Please review the NEW INFORMATION Section 25 Question: Does the City absorb processing fees or pass them to the end user? What are the current fees for ACH/eCheck and credit/debit cards?

Response: Fees are passed on. See response to Question #3 above.

26 Question: What is the reason the City is going to RFP for a new modern in person and online solution?

Response: See Question 1 and its associated response issued under Addendum 1 on

08/18/2025 27 Question: What does the City like about their current payments vendor? What does the City not like?

Response: See response to Question #8 above.

28 Question: The RFP includes a set of required response forms provided as a bundled document. To help organize our submission, would the City allow proposers to include the completed response forms as an appendix to the main proposal?

Response: Please structure the proposal submission as requested Section 2.11 29 Question: If the City plans to accept payments in-person, how many point-of-sale terminals will be needed?

Response: See question 16 and its associated response 30 Question: Please allow minimum three weeks of response time from the time you provide volume information. Pricing is highly volume dependent and must be carefully calibrated.

Response: See question 1 and its associated response.

Page 4 of 9, Addendum 2 4446-FINAL

31 Question: Provide an estimate of current and anticipated monthly processing volumes (i.e., dollars and number of transactions by payment method).

a. Total annual volume ($).

b. Average debit/credit/e-check ticket size.

c. Annual debit / credit/ e-check transaction volume (units)

Response: Please review the NEW INFORMATION Section 32 Question: Describe your current payment acceptance ecosystem:

• Number and types of terminals, card readers and other equipment. Please include whether the devices are stand-alone terminals or integrated terminals to Tyler Technologies MUNIS / QDS platforms?

• Provide the payment gateway options that can be used with Tyler technologies platforms

Response: We accept payments online or through the IVR system (provided by the vendor) with credit, debit, or ATM card or E Check. We do not accept these cards over the phone when customers call the tax collector’s office – must use the IVR system provided by the vendor.

We do accept in person transactions with credit, debit and ATM cards at the payment window in our office. We have four POS terminals at each of our four cash stations that each accept credit cards, and four that accept debit cards. All of these terminals are integrated with QDS.

33 Question: Describe the existing solutions in place and its advantages and disadvantages. Do you intend to keep these solutions currently in place, or do you intend to replace them?

Response: See responses to #32 and to #8 above 34 Question: In addition to account reconciliation reporting requirements with QDS what additional compatibility is required with QDS, if payments please list compatible payment solutions with QDS 5 Tax Collector Systems

Response: The awarded proposer would have to work with QDS to determine it.

35 Question: Please list any File format requirements for Tyler Technologies – MUNIS and

QDS

Response: This is up to the vendor. If the vendor does not already know this, we are not going to be the test case.

36 Question: Section 2.5 bullet six, seven and eight– The system should have the ability to set automatic payments and email reminders with content specified and approved by the city, and send only at the discretion of the City. The system should offer the ability to pay online though Venmo, PayPal and similar platforms. The system must be web-based, and operable on a mobile device. Question – These features are generally found within the City’s Tax Collection Software (QDC). Does the City’s current software offer the services described in section 2.5 bullet six, seven and eight?

Page 5 of 9, Addendum 2 4446-FINAL

Response: We do not use something called QDC. Our software is called QDS. We do not currently send email reminders to customers. We send paper bills.

37 Question: Is the City open to new technologies like configurable web portals, Walk-Up

Payment Kiosks, hosted interactive voice response (IVR), live agent support, Pay by Text, Call Center, AI Chat Bots?

Response: Yes 38 Question: Section 2.3 has an implementation timeline of 45 days. Is the City open to a longer implementation timeline if the scope, complexity and benefit justifies such?

Response: See question 6 and its associated response issued under Addendum 1 on 08/18/2025

39 Question: Is the purpose of this RFP to deploy new technology (QDS 5 Tax Collector System) or is this already being used to collect tax payments?

Has the City's tax department acquired a new technology its looking to deploy?

What technology is the City currently using to accept payments? Please provide a list of software providers, payment gateways and hardware/pin pads make and models.

Response: Answer to first question in #39: No. Answer to 2nd question in #39: No.

Answer to third question: QDS assessment and tax collection software. If this is the vendor’s first initiation interfacing with QDS, it is unlikely the City would award the bid to that vendor.

40 Question: State whether the business will be awarded to a single vendor or to multiple vendors. If multiple vendors will be considered, indicate which portions of the business may be bid on separately.

Response: It will be awarded to a single vendor.

41 Question: Explain your objectives for this service, the business problems you would like to solve and expected results.

Response: See question 8 and its associated response.

42 Question: Please outline what types of payments will be accepted by the winning bidder (e.g. property tax, utilities, parking).

Response: Property taxes, sewer use charges, industrial pretreatment program fees and other municipal charges 43 Question: What types of payments (e.g. tax, utilities) does the City currently use autopay for? How do customers use this autopay functionality? As an example, do they use it to pay their full bill on a recurring basis, or partial payments towards a larger bill?

Response: I don’t know. Very few customers use autopay, 44 Question: In what contexts and for which types of payments does the City currently

Page 6 of 9, Addendum 2 4446-FINAL send email reminders?

Response: Rarely 45 Question: In “A. PROPOSED FEES:”, several of the cost response cells have a “$” in them. Does the price need to be specified as a total dollar cost, interchange plus pricing, or a percentage-based service fee?

Response: Up to the vendor. It will be easier for us to understand if the fees are structured as flat fees or percentage based depending on dollar amount of the transaction.

46 Question: Does the City want payer funded service fee pricing, City absorbed pricing, or both pricing structures to be included in the proposed fees response?

Response: See response to #3 and #25 above.

47 Question: Please provide a list of departments, with item types, that will be participating in this contract.

Response: See question 2 and its associated response issued in Addendum 1 on

08/18/2025 48 Question: Please specify which departments/item types use payer funded or absorbed fees.

Response: See question 2 and its associated response issued in Addendum 1 on

08/18/2025 49 Question: Please provide the current card and e-check volume by department/item type. Breakdown by dollar volume and transactions count.

Response: Please review the NEW INFORMATION Section 50 Question: What is the reason that in-person debit card costs are absorbed by the City, but passed onto the payer online?

Response: In person debit card costs currently are 10 cents per transaction in person and 2.99% online. It’s inexpensive enough for the City to absorb the cost in person.

51 Question: How many IVR (interactive voice response) lines would be required by the City?

Response: Don’t know 52 Question: In Section 2.5, the City asks for reports compatible with Tyler Technologies

Munis and QDS. What files does the City currently upload into Tyler systems, and how?

Response: Don’t know 53 Question: In Section 2.11.D.47.(a), under Alternative Payment Services, the City requests mobile payments functionality that includes "mobile reporting services." Can the City please clarify the mobile reporting services it requires?

Response: The City may explore alternate solutions to help facilitate easier payment processing to our payers/customers.

54 Question: In Section 2.11.D.47.(a), under Alternative Payment Services, the City

Page 7 of 9, Addendum 2 4446-FINAL requests mobile payments functionality that includes "mobile reporting services." Can the City please clarify the mobile reporting services it requires?

Response: See response to #53 above

Page 8 of 9, Addendum 2 4446-FINAL

Page 9 of 9, Addendum 2 4446-FINAL