9969 Addendum 1 Digital Accessibility.pdf

9969: Digital Accessibility Roadmap & Implementation Services

Addendum 1 Page 1 of 7

ADDENDUM NO. 1

SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

Description of RFP 9969: Digital Accessibility Roadmap & Implementation Services

OPENING DATE: 3:00 PM MT (RMEPS Clock) April 12, 2024

To all prospective bidders under the specifications and contract documents described above, the following changes/additions are hereby made and detailed as follows:

1. Section VI, Assessment of the RFP has been revised to reduce the weighting factor for Cost and increase the weighting factor for Experience and Qualifications. The revised Assessment Criteria and Weighting Factors follow:

Assessment Criteria Weighting Factor Scope of Proposal 2.0 Experience and Qualifications 6.0 Cost 2.0

2. Exhibit 1 – Questions and Answers

Please contact Gerry Paul, Purchasing Director, at gspaul@fcgov.com with any questions regarding this addendum.

RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY A WRITTEN STATEMENT

ENCLOSED WITH THE PROPOSAL STATING THAT THIS ADDENDUM HAS BEEN

RECEIVED.

Financial Services Purchasing Division 215 N. Mason St. 2nd Floor PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522

970.221.6775 970.221.6707 fcgov.com/purchasing mailto:gspaul@fcgov.com

Addendum 1 Page 2 of 7

EXHIBIT 1 – QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

1. Because testing is time- and cost-intensive, does the RFP require the actual testing of technologies for accessibility? Or does the RFP require developing an inventory of the City’s technologies, prioritization for testing, and development of time and cost estimates as part of an overall Digital Accessibility Roadmap?

a. Testing of technologies is out of scope for this initial phase of the RFP. However, the

City may elect to initiate additional work under the awarded contract to include testing.

b. The City will provide an inventory of technology, but prioritization for testing is an essential element of the Roadmap.

2. If testing is required under this RFP, can the City provide a representative sample of pages to be tested? Also, can the City provide an estimated count of online services, websites, and software applications that would need to be reviewed?

a. See question #1.

3. What current content management systems (CMS) are used by the City (e.g. WordPress, CivicPlus, etc.)?

a. Below is a partial list of content management systems used by the City:

• www.fcgov.com : Custom CMS, in-house supported

• www.lctix.com: Custom CMS, vendor supported

• www.renewfortcollins.com: Custom CMS, vendor supported

• www.ridetransfort.com: Custom CMS, vendor supported (re-launch in Q2 2024 with Wordpress)

• www.fcconnexion.com: Wordpress

• coftc.sharepoint.com: Sharepoint

• fcmod.org: Wordpress

• ourcity.fcgov.com: Custom CMS, Granicus

4. What third-party apps, plug-in’s, or specialized add-ons does the City use to provide specialized services through its website?

a. We do not use any third-party apps or plugins on www.fcgov.com. Below is a partial list of third-party apps currently in use:

• Alchemer (www.alchemer.com)

• Jobs (fcgov.csod.com)

• Municourt ( http://www.ncourt.com/x-landing/default.aspx?ID=540)

• Access Fort Collins ( https://clients.comcate.com/newrequest.php?id=150)

• Engage (engage.fcgov.com)

• Kubra / Utilities payments ( https://secure8.i-doxs.net/CityofFortCollins/)

• Parking (https://fcgov.t2hosted.com/Account/Portal)

• Finance ( https://fortcollins.munirevs.com/)

• Recreation ( https://webtrac.fcgov.com/wbwsc/webtracrec.wsc/SPLASH.html)

• Golf ( http://www.chronogolf.com/)

• Building ( https://accela-aca.fcgov.com/CitizenAccess/Default.aspx) http://www.fcgov.com/ https://www.lctix.com/ https://www.renewfortcollins.com/ https://www.ridetransfort.com/ http://www.fcconnexion.com/ http://www.fcgov.com/ http://www.alchemer.com/ http://www.ncourt.com/x-landing/default.aspx?ID=540) https://clients.comcate.com/newrequest.php?id=150) https://secure8.i-doxs.net/CityofFortCollins/) https://fcgov.t2hosted.com/Account/Portal) https://fortcollins.munirevs.com/) https://webtrac.fcgov.com/wbwsc/webtracrec.wsc/SPLASH.html) http://www.chronogolf.com/) https://accela-aca.fcgov.com/CitizenAccess/Default.aspx)

Addendum 1 Page 3 of 7

• Municode meetings ( https://fortcollins-co.municodemeetings.com/bc-citycouncil/page/city-council-regular-meeting-33)

• City Codes ( https://www.municode.com/library/co/fort_collins/codes/)

• Recreator ( https://issuu.com/parksandrecfc/docs/24-26041-summer_recreator_- _web)

• CityGive ( https://magic.collectorsolutions.com/magic-ui/en-US/Login/city-of-fort-collins)

• Finance ( https://getfoco.fcgov.com/)

• FCTV ( https://reflect-vod-fcgov.cablecast.tv/cablecastapi/live?channel_id=1&use_cdn=true)

• Crime reporting - Police (https://secure.coplogic.com/dors/startreport/300003812)

• Special Events ( https://specialevents.fcgov.com/)

5. To “analyze current usage,” can the City provide analytics data? Will the City allow the consultant to interview staff to help prioritize technology for remediation?

a. City staff can provide available analytics for the City’s website however the level of analytics may be limited.

b. Yes, the City will allow the consultant to interview staff, and City staff will help coordinate those interviews.

6. Because a project like this involves lots of moving parts with stakeholders throughout the City, is the City willing to devote resources to meeting weekly to make adjustments and ensure that roadblocks are avoided or eliminated within the City?

a. Yes, our Accessibility Team currently meets once a week for discussion and planning. Staff will be reasonably available to meet with the consultant as necessary.

7. What is the City’s budget with respect to this project phase?

a. A project specific budget has not been established for this project. The initial phase of the project will be funded from a general consulting services budget. We anticipate future work may require a project specific funding appropriation.

8. Can the City confirm if local presence is needed throughout the engagement or if the City finds it preferable from a cost savings perspective, that the selected consultant team can perform most work virtually, except in those cases where on-site presence is beneficial to the project and can be scheduled with notice and subsequent travel?

a. Remote work is acceptable for the scope of work in the RFP, however on-site presence for certain tasks may be beneficial. The City will work with the selected consultant to determine the best model for delivering the services outlined in the RFP in a cost effective means. If on-site meetings are necessary, the meetings will be scheduled with adequate notice and time for travel.

9. How many departments / organizations are in scope?

a. This is a City-wide initiative and will involve all departments. A directory of City departments can be found here: https://www.fcgov.com/cityservices/.

https://fortcollins-co.municodemeetings.com/bc-citycouncil/page/city-council-regular-meeting-33) https://fortcollins-co.municodemeetings.com/bc-citycouncil/page/city-council-regular-meeting-33) https://www.municode.com/library/co/fort_collins/codes/) https://issuu.com/parksandrecfc/docs/24-26041-summer_recreator_-_web) https://issuu.com/parksandrecfc/docs/24-26041-summer_recreator_-_web) https://magic.collectorsolutions.com/magic-ui/en-US/Login/city-of-fort-collins) https://magic.collectorsolutions.com/magic-ui/en-US/Login/city-of-fort-collins) https://getfoco.fcgov.com/) https://reflect-vod-fcgov.cablecast.tv/cablecastapi/live?channel_id=1&use_cdn=true) https://reflect-vod-fcgov.cablecast.tv/cablecastapi/live?channel_id=1&use_cdn=true) https://secure.coplogic.com/dors/startreport/300003812) https://specialevents.fcgov.com/) https://www.fcgov.com/cityservices/

Addendum 1 Page 4 of 7

10. Is there a known higher priority for certain departments outside of the prioritization factors that are included in deliverable number two (2)?

a. There is no established departmental prioritization, but external facing technologies will likely be a higher priority than internal-facing ones. This may impact which departments are prioritized in the Roadmap.

11. What is the budget range for the entire project, including both evaluation services and the subsequent implementation of the selected remediation recommendations?

a. See question #7.

12. Can the City provide an estimate of how many of the 400 unique software applications are internal or public facing?

a. The City does not have this information but is currently working on compiling an inventory of existing information communication technologies across the organization. Determining which of these technologies are internal- and external-facing is an important part of the Roadmap.

13. Can the City provide an estimate of how many of the 400 unique software applications are commercially packaged and custom-developed?

a. The City does not have this information; however we anticipate most software applications are commercial solutions, many of which may include customization.

14. In October 2023, the latest updated standard – WCAG 2.2 was released. Colorado HB21-

1110 references a requirement to be in full compliance with WCAG 2.1 AA Guidelines. We’d like to confirm the City does not want to use the WCAG 2.2 standard? Additionally, would WCAG AAA of the chosen standard be considered out of scope?

a. The City is working toward WCAG 2.1 AA compliance but would be interested in understanding the differences between these standards to include advantages/disadvantages of focusing on WCAG 2.1 AA knowing compliance to WCAG 2.2 AA will be required at a future date.

15. Are there restrictions around automated testing to determine the City's current state of digital technology accessibility?

a. See question #1. The City would be interested in understanding the implications of the consultant’s proposed testing approach.

16. Is it the City's intent for the chosen consultant to establish a baseline during the assessment of the City's current state of digital technology accessibility?

a. Yes, the Roadmap should include both an assessment of the City’s current state and recommended approach to ensure compliance with digital technology accessibility requirements.

Addendum 1 Page 5 of 7

17. When will the City be providing responses to submitted questions?

a. Responses to all questions will be posted via an Addenda on BidNet with a target date April 5, 2024.

18. Does the City have a list of non-compliant content on both the City's website and third-party service delivery platforms or is the City anticipating that an inventory of non-compliant items on the City's website and third-party service delivery platforms will need to be identified through a testing evaluation as a part of this project?

a. The City is currently developing an inventory of all information communication technology across the organization. The Roadmap should include prioritizations of these technologies as well as recommendations for how to proceed. Testing and evaluating these technologies for compliance may be part of follow-on work awarded to the selected consultant.

19. If a testing evaluation is needed for this project would all 400 unique software applications be in scope?

a. See question #1.

20. Seeing that Cost is a large factor in the evaluation criteria, can you please provide:

a. Budget range for initial consulting as outlined in the RFP.

i. See response to question #7.

b. Budget range for ongoing work post the initial phase (the statute outlines ongoing monitoring for accessibility as one of the mandates and tooling/software is the best way to cover this).

i. See response to question #7.

21. May the contractor complete the work remotely? Is in-person or on-site work required for any portion of the work or any meetings?

a. See question #8.

22. Is the use of offshore resources permitted?

a. The City may consider the use of offshore resources for certain tasks. If you intend to propose utilization of offshore resources, please provide additional details to address the nature of the tasks to be performed, country(s), relationship with offshore resources, and measures in place to ensure cyber security.

23. Please clarify the expectation for task 3 in the Scope of Services ("provide an evaluation of the time and cost needed to remediate non-compliant content")? This type of evaluation would typically require an assessment of the website and platforms, which seems to be beyond the intended initial scope.

Addendum 1 Page 6 of 7

a. We acknowledge the work will be iterative and therefore challenging to provide firm pricing based on the level of information provided in the RFP. Our expectation is for firms to provide estimated pricing by task based on experience and similar work performed.

We plan to utilize a Work Order agreement so that scope and pricing can be refined for each phase of the project.

In addition, the City has reduced the weighting factor for cost in the assessment of the proposals.

24. Is there a list of sites and systems - including third party systems and services - that are in scope of the review?

a. See questions #3 and #4. The City is currently developing an inventory of all information communication technology across the organization and will require assistance assessing and prioritizing those technologies.

25. Is there an existing tool, such as google analytics, already in place for tracking current usage for webpages, applications, and services?

a. See question # 5.

26. Is there an accessibility team or other responsible party leading roadmap implementation?

a. Yes, the Division of Equity and Inclusion office is responsible for leading development and implementation of the Roadmap.

27. Will key stakeholders such as system managers and users, relevant developers, and business analysts be available for interviews and necessary collaboration?

a. Yes, the City’s Accessibility Team will be available for collaboration. If there are additional staff that the consultant needs to meet with, City staff will facilitate coordinating the meetings.

28. What is the available funding for this project?

a. See question #7.

29. The cost proposal requests a detailed price breakdown for each of the deliverables. Some of the deliverables cannot be scoped until certain tasks and deliverables have been completed.

For example, task 1 – the review and analysis of the City’s digital technology, on-line services, websites, and third-party software applications – informs task 3 (time and cost needed to remediate non-compliant content). Similarly, the time and effort needed to do the review (task 1) is dependent on the number and types of digital products, which is unknown to us at this time. Please advise on how you’d like prospective vendors to handle this in their pricing.

a. See question # 23.

30. Are you currently working with a vendor for accessibility support?

a. The City does not have an existing relationship with a consultant for the scope of work covered in this RFP.

Addendum 1 Page 7 of 7

31. Will the City consider extending the deadline for this RFP?

a. The project schedule does not provide the opportunity to extend the deadline for responding to the RFP.