Addendum_1.pdf

Purchasing Services 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way

Building C, Room 303 Viera, Florida 32940

Computerized Maintenance Management System

RFP-3-25-12

March 6, 2025 Addendum 1

TO ALL PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTORS

This is Addendum 1 to and shall be considered part of the original RFP-3-25-12 Proposal package for the above-mentioned Proposal. Contractors are requested to acknowledge receipt of this Addendum with their Proposal.

CLARIFICATION TO QUESTIONS ASKED RECEIVED:

1. Question: Is there a budget for this CMMS project? Can the County share the budget?

Response: The initial budget for FY25 is $400,000, as approved by the Board via Capital Outlay.

As indicated on page 12 of the RFP, the County intends to deploy the CMMS/EAM in phases over the next several years based on approved funding. Over time, expansion could include other programs within the Public Works Department, such as Traffic Operations, Road and Bridge, and Engineering programs, as well as other County Departments. Future phases will be authorized via Task Orders issued from the contract. Initial utilization will be for the Facilities program within the Public Works Department. The $400,000 includes an asset inventory of several primary facilities to include a train the trainer for staff on how to appropriately document facilities to the component level, importing of that data, set up, training, use of best management practices for work flow processes, as well as creating linkages to SAP, ESRI, Lansweeper Help Desk, which is utilized at the County Jail and administered by Brevard County Sheriff's Office (BCSO), etc. In other words, its not just for the program. It’s all in.

2. Question: Is the new CMMS replacing the work order system in SAP and iWorQ? What is the motivation for replacing the County’s current systems?

Response: It will replace SAP for the work order and asset management functions but must be tied in for County billing and personnel to eliminate double entry. Also, it is not GIS-centric and lacks sophistication and reporting/tracking capabilities.

3. Question: What is the form and format of existing asset data to be migrated into the new platform (Work Order information, photos, related data)?

Response: Currently Facilities’ existing asset data is limited (Excel spreadsheets and photos) and will need to be created by the CMMS. For Road & Bridge the existing asset data is in ESRI. For Traffic Operations the data is in iWorQ tables.

4. Question: Are there existing workflows that define business processes related to the maintenance of various asset types?

Response: No, this is a key area we need help on especially for Facilities.

5. Question: Is Uniformat II the standard for all building asset systems and sub-systems?

Response: No. Facilities will need help establishing to Uniformat.

6. Question: Does the County plan to initially implement new or existing workflows?

Response: We are planning to rely on Best Management Practices provided by the awarded Contractor in concert with understanding our operations.

7. Question: Does the County have an existing library of PM procedures to be loaded into the system? Are they available for all asset classes?

Response: No. The County desires Best Management Practices provided by the awarded Contractor on how to set up and leverage other jurisdictions.

8. Question: What is the volume of Work Orders managed in the current system?

Response: For Facilities, in FY24 there were 5,356 work orders. This number does not account for service requests. Per the RFP pages 13-14: For Facilities, requests, such as for maintenance, repairs, replacements, etc. are either a work order that is managed in SAP (approximately 1/3 of the maintenance workload or a service request (non-billable) that is managed outside of SAP (approximately 2/3 of the maintenance workload). Monthly, the service requests are scanned and uploaded as part of a general building code per facility, making it impossible to measure or track effectively. For CY24, there were 1,218 service requests and 8,285 work orders for Traffic Operations and 5,809 service requests and 64,203 work orders for Road and Bridge in the iWorQ system.

9. Question: Does the County have “As Built” drawings for all the buildings and floors to facilitate location identification and intuitive access to asset data?

Response: Yes

10. Question: Is there a library of non-CAD documents (specifications, warranties, manuals etc.)

in the current system?

Response: There is a library of such documents, but not in the current system.

11. Question: How frequently is the Facility Condition Assessment updated?

Response: There has been no true Facility Condition Assessment in recent history. Need to build component level data in Uniformat and adopt Best Management Practices for evaluating and capturing this data.

12. Question: What is the scope of historical data to be migrated from the current system?

Response: Work order requests, timesheets, invoices for the past 20+ years.

13. Question: How many warehouses are used to manage and store parts and supplies?

Response: Facilities has 5 maintenance shops, there are 230 buildings with potential storage capacity. Road & Bridge has 5 area maintenance shops in addition to multiple laydown yards, and Traffic Operations has one shop.

14. Question: What is the approximate number of inventoried parts in the current system?

Response: The current system, utilized by Facilities, does not provide parts inventory.

Currently Traffic Operations has approximately 700 parts in iWorQ inventory.

15. Question: What is the expected number of users for the CMMS system?

Response: Unlimited. Please see User Roles and Permissions on page 19 of the RFP for the various user roles identified by the County. Please refer to the note on the Price Sheet:

* Per RFP, Licensing shall not be per seat/user. Please note in the below box if the County will be subject to additional costs (e.g., software, implementation, archiving (including iWorQ), integration, licensing, data collection, training, and testing) if there is future expansion by the County to include programs, such as Road & Bridge and Traffic Operations within the next 3-5 years. Future expansion may be issued by Task Order to this contract. PLEASE DESCRIBE

EXPANSION LICENSING METHOD AND COSTS BELOW

16. Question: Can you provide the expected number of users by User Roles?

• System Administrators – Users responsible for System Administration including System configuration, Audits, access control, User ID, and Authorizations etc.

• Primary Named users - with Read / Write privileges to access the entire system, exercise all functional capabilities, retrieve, and update data, and generate reports and analysis.

• Executive users – focused on performance information access, Key performance indicators, dashboards, reports, and analysis.

• Technicians – field maintenance staff

• Requestor / Limited Access Users – Users just submitting and tracking work orders.

Response: Please see the response to Question 15.

17. Question: In Tab 5: Implementation, Training, and Support, request the County consider increasing the page limit from 3 pages to 10 pages.

Response: In Tab 5, the maximum number of pages is increased from 3 pages to 5 pages, and information that pertains to the “timeline/planning process/archiving process” can also be depicted in print format on an up to 11x17 size page showing flowcharts, timelines, etc., and this graphic representation will not count towards the maximum of 5 pages.

18. Question: Are the following requirements considered must-haves for the County?

a. Does the solution allow for the creation and tracking of work orders/service requests through both a traditional CUI and a GIS interface? Please explain how these features work and the flexibility offered to users.

b. Does the GIS function allow the usage of multiple data layers for creating maps and generating reports? Can these be modified through menus without coding or customization? Please provide examples.

c. Does the solution store documents, photos, and other media types in a database? Does it have the ability to document location with a US Postal address. GIS points for locations without an address, linear coordinates for vertical projects, and GIS shapes for large areas? Please explain storage capabilities and any limitations, as well as how this capability supports various project types and assets.

Response: Items a, b, and c are included in Attachment A: Technical/Functional Requirements. Please note the County’s requirements are outlined in the RFP as follows:

On page 27:

19. Question: Would the County be willing to grant a two-week extension for the RFP-3-25-12?

Response: Please see the updated RFP proposal opening date and time.

20. Question: Can you provide a list of buildings and their respective square footage in order for us to provide a more precise estimate.

Response: Please see the attached Brevard County building list.

21. Question: On the pricing sheet under Data Collection: can we submit pricing in the following subcategories in place of the under 100,000 SF category:

a. <25,000;

b. 25,000-50,000;

c. 50,000-75,000;

d. 75,000-100,000

Response: Please use the Price Sheet as provided in the RFP.

22. Question: In the pricing form under annual costs, there is a note as follows: “*Per RFP, Licensing shall not be per seat/user.” Is the County requesting a site license with unlimited users or would concurrent user licensing be acceptable that would permit unlimited named users in the application?

Response: The County requests a site license that allows unlimited individual user accounts at a fixed cost, with no recurring or future user licensing fees. Please refer to the note on the Price Sheet:

* Per RFP, Licensing shall not be per seat/user. Please note in the below box if the County will be subject to additional costs (e.g., software, implementation, archiving (including iWorQ), integration, licensing, data collection, training, and testing) if there is future expansion by the County to include programs, such as Road & Bridge and Traffic Operations within the next 3-5 years. Future expansion may be issued by Task Order to this contract. PLEASE DESCRIBE

EXPANSION LICENSING METHOD AND COSTS BELOW

23. Question: How many users are anticipated to be included in the initial phase of the software rollout?

Response: Please see the response to Question 15.

24. Question: In February 2024, our company was acquired by another company, a privately held company with annual revenues exceeding $23 billion. As a result of this acquisition, 2022 represents the last year in which our company was audited as a standalone entity. Since the acquisition, our company has been audited in consolidation, and we no longer produce stand-alone audited financial statements. Can we provide unaudited 2024 financial statements or 2022 audited financials to satisfy the requirement?

Response: Please provide the documentation required per the RFP.

25. Question: With the question deadline being so close to the submission deadline, given that vendors are to submit hard copy proposals and the complexity of the RFP, would the County please consider extending the proposal deadline by 2 weeks to allow vendors sufficient time to prepare a comprehensive and compliant proposal?

Response: Please see the updated RFP proposal opening date and time.

26. Question: To follow environmental and sustainability practices, would the Organization consider retracting the requirement for hardcopy proposal submissions?

Response: The County is requesting hardcopy proposals with this submission.

27. Question: Due to the complexity of the submission requirements, we would like to request a due date extension to March 28, 2025, at 3:00 PM.

Response: Please see the updated RFP proposal opening date and time.

28. Question: Would the County please increase the page limitation for the Introduction? We need more space to answer each item in this section that is to be signed effectively and comprehensively.

Response: Tab 1: Introduction remains a maximum 1 page.

29. Question: Has the County seen demos from vendors in the last 12 months? If so, from which companies?

Response: Yes, however, the demos were not comprehensive and were from Cityworks, PSD Citywide, SAP, and VueWorks. This was in addition to roughly a half dozen others that did not make an initial impression, but we are unable to recall or find their information.

30. Question: Has funding been approved for this project? If so, what is the project budget?

Response: Please see the response to Question 1.

31. Question: Our company largely works remotely, and the workforce is dispersed throughout the country. Will you accept electronic signatures and notary on required forms/documents?

Response: Electronic signatures and a notary are acceptable for submitting the proposal;

however, actual signatures and a notary will be required for the contract, if awarded.

32. Question: What is the anticipated project start date and desired go-live date for the solution?

Response: Per page 12 of the RFP: The anticipated commencement date is immediately upon Notice of Award and contract execution. The County intends to deploy the CMMS/EAM in phases over the next several years based on approved funding. Over time, expansion could include other programs within the Public Works Department, such as Traffic Operations, Road and Bridge, and Engineering programs, as well as other County Departments. Future phases will be authorized via Task Orders issued from the contract. Initial utilization will be for the Facilities program within the Public Works Department. Work under this RFP for the Facilities program is to be completed by September 30, 2025.

33. Question: Will our Statement of Work/Scope of Work be counted toward the page limitation?

Response: Please refer to the proposal requirements and page limitations outlined in the RFP. The only update is to Tab 5: Implementation, Training, and Support via Addendum Response to Question 17.

34. Question: How many end users are anticipated?

Response: Please see the response to Question 15.

35. Question: Is the County open to a phased implementation?

Response: Please see the response to Question 32.

36. Question: Please provide a list or summary of asset types for this project.

Response: For Facilities (initial utilization), all building assets, HVAC, doors, windows, plumbing fixtures, etc. However, it is anticipated to include road, drainage system, and sidewalk segments, bridges, traffic and pedestrian signals, light poles, etc. in future phases.

37. Question: Does the County use MS4 for inspections of stormwater assets?

Response: Another County department conducts inspections on behalf of the County Stormwater Program. They may be part of a future expansion of the CMMS, per page 12 of the RFP: Over time, expansion could include other programs within the Public Works Department, such as Traffic Operations, Road and Bridge, and Engineering programs, as well as other County Departments.

38. Question: With which existing County systems must the solution integrate?

Response: SAP, GIS, and HR systems as well as Lansweeper Help Desk, which is utilized at the County Jail and administered by BCSO. Please see pages 19-20 of the RFP System Integration for additional details.

39. Question: What is the System name and version?

Response: The County does not have a current CMMS/EAM. Per page 13 of the RFP: At this time, Brevard County is running SAP ERP Central Component, which is an on-premises enterprise resource planning system from SAP, utilizing modules, including, but not limited to, those for financials, human resources, warehousing, and plant maintenance. The County is migrating to SAP S/4 HANA. The proposed CMMS/EAM solution must integrate with SAP for backend billing, accounting, and timekeeping with minimal reliance on third-party applications or extensive customization.

40. Question: What is the Sync frequency?

Response: Multiple times per day is desired.

41. Question: What Data points are exchanged?

Response: Personnel and cost-related information.

42. Question: What is the goal of the integration?

Response: Please see the responses to Questions 38 and 39. Integration is also needed to eliminate double entry.

43. Question: Does the integration require real-time data transfer or batch imports?

Response: Real time.

44. Question: Is there a Rest API available for the integration?

Response: FME is the Rest API used by BCIT for SAP. ESRI does not need rest services. It is unknown by the County the Rest API for the BCSO’s maintenance database. The Contractor will be expected to determine how to successfully integrate.

45. Question: For data migration:

a. What is the System name

Response: For Facilities (initial implementation), SAP and data contained in Excel. For future migration, iWorQ for Traffic and R&B as well as ESRI.

b. What is the Quality of data

Response: The quality of data is moderate, but not comprehensive. See responses to Questions 1, 6, and 11.

c. What data will be converted? i.e. Work, Cost history, Inspection history, request history, etc.

Response: For Facilities (initial implementation), work orders, costs, labor, PMs, timesheets, and invoices.

d. What assets would need to be in this project?

Response: Please see the response to Question 36.

46. Question: Given the competitive nature of this procurement process and the potential for public disclosure, we would like to inquire if the County would accept a summary financial statement accompanied by reference letters from the bank and lender. This alternative would satisfy the County's due diligence regarding our financial status while protecting our interests as a privately held corporation.

Response: Please provide the documentation requested in the RFP.

47. Question: Reiterating the need for a deadline extension as both technical responses and pricing proposals are dependent on answers to questions. Would the county extend to the due date by 2 weeks to allow vendors time to incorporate answers to questions and to accommodate shipping times?

48. Question: Is the 15-minute demonstration video a mandatory requirement?

Response: Yes, per Tab 4 of the RFP.

49. Question: The County mentions initial utilization will be for the Facilities program within the Public Works Department, but technical requirements speak to all assets. Pricing wise, would the county like pricing for only facility assets at this point in procurement or all functionality described Attachment A?

Response: Please provide pricing per the Price Sheet.

50. Question: Does the County want 5-year pricing for Facilities only or for all requested asset classes mentioned in Attachment A?

Response: Please provide pricing per the Price Sheet. Please note:

*Per RFP, Licensing shall not be per seat/user. Please note in the below box if the County will be subject to additional costs (e.g., software, implementation, archiving (including iWorQ), integration, licensing, data collection, training, and testing) if there is future expansion by the County to include programs, such as Road & Bridge and Traffic Operations within the next 3-5 years. Future expansion may be issued by Task Order to this contract. PLEASE DESCRIBE

EXPANSION LICENSING METHOD AND COSTS BELOW

51. Question: The Main RFP mentions a "GIS-Centric" platform, Does the County have any Facility assets in GIS?

Response: Currently, no.

52. Question: What is the County's budget for this project both for recurring software and implementation during year 1?

Response: Please see the response to Question 1.

53. Question: When does the County anticipate releasing an addenda with all answers to questions? If it is within 1-week of the proposal deadline would the County, consider extending the proposal deadline?

54. Question: Would the County please provide a deadline extension, so vendors have time to incorporate answers to questions with our response and still mail out submission?

55. Question: What is the expectation around work order history migration from SAP?

Response: Please see the response to Question 8. Data includes work order requests, timesheets, PMs, and invoices for the past 20+ years.

56. Question: How many records of historical WO data is the County looking to migrate? Does the County need only basic work order information or also transactional data (ie. Labor hours, parts, etc.)?

Response: Please see the response to Question 55.

57. Question: If the County wants pricing to expand in the future, how many historical work order records will the County need to migrate from iWorQ?

Response: Please see responses to Questions 8 and 55.

58. Question: Is the County working with a consultant for this solicitation? If so, who?

Response: No.

59. Question: We understand the County does not desire per-user pricing, but for general information could the County please provide the following?

a. How many concurrent field users does the County anticipate using the system?

b. How many concurrent admin users does the County anticipate using the system?

Response: Please see responses to Questions 15 and 22.

Please note that the proposal opening date and time has been extended to March 28, 2025, at 3:00

PM.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Sincerely, Mary Bowers Purchasing Manager

END OF ADDENDUM NO. 1