Addendum_3_P2608COC_QA.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 42 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System State and local contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- P-26-08-COC
- Issued by
- Brevard County, Clewiston City, Florida
About this file
This is an Addendum to the City of Cocoa's Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System procurement, document designated as Addendum 3 to solicitation P2608COC_QA. The addendum provides quality assurance modifications and clarifications to the original RFP requirements for the comprehensive ERP solution that will replace the City's legacy systems. The addendum addresses functional requirements across Financial Management, Human Capital Management, Utility Billing & Customer Service, Community Development, and Asset & Work Order Management modules. The City continues to emphasize its preference for a Single Vendor or Lead Vendor approach to streamline implementation and minimize third-party integration complexities, with responses required to demonstrate cloud-native SaaS capabilities and proven security, uptime, and disaster recovery performance.
The addendum establishes quality assurance criteria and evaluation standards for vendor proposals, focusing on system configuration validation, data migration accuracy, staff training comprehensiveness, and post-go-live support capabilities. Vendors must demonstrate technical competency in API integration and compatibility with the City's existing Esri GIS infrastructure. The City expects turn-key implementation services including project management oversight, complete data migration from legacy systems, system configuration, end-user training, and sustained post-implementation support. All proposed solutions must meet cloud-native requirements and provide detailed quality assurance plans demonstrating how vendors will ensure system stability, data integrity, and user adoption throughout the implementation lifecycle and beyond.
View the file
Other files for this state and local contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| P2608COC_NOTICE_OF_INTENT_TO_SHORTLIST.pdf | ||
| 08272026_P2608COC_ERP_System_Meetingv2.pdf | ||
| Master_Bid_Tabulation_Sheet_P2608COC.pdf | ||
| Addendum_2_P2608COC.pdf | ||
| Addendum_1_RFP_P2608COC.pdf | ||
| A1__Proposal_Response_Forms.docx | DOCX document | |
| A2_FRR_2__Finance_Accounting_and_Reporting_Requirements.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| A2__FRR_1__General_System_Requirements.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| A3__Terms_and_Conditions_P2608COC.docx | DOCX document | |
| A4__Combined_Proposer_Certifications_and_Affidavits.docx | DOCX document | |
| A2__FRR_4__Human_Resources_Management_Requirements.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| A2__FRR_6__Citizen_Portal_Requirements.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| A2__FRR_3__Purchasing_Requirements.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| A2__FRR_5__Utility_Billing_Requirements.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP_NO._P2608COC_Enterprise_Resource_Planning_System.pdf |
Show all 15
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Adendum 2 P-26-08-COC Q&A
| # | Question | Response |
| 1 | Would the City consider accepting proposals by email and waiving the requirement for a mailed hard copy/USB to help reduce environmental impact and avoid potential delivery delays? | No. City Policy required physical submittals. |
| 2 | Does the project have an anticipated Go-Live target date(s)? If a phased approach is preferred is there a tentative go-live schedule based on module or department? | Please refer to section 6.11 in the RFP. |
| 3 | Of the 94,000 utility accounts, please provide the number of accounts managed by the City, for each utility service. | As of April 2026, 92,387 water and 2,517 reclaim connections. Approximately 90,000 connections have active accounts. Each account varies in which additional services it bills, such as sewer, garbage, stormwater, hydrant, public tax, etc. depending on the jurisdiction it is in. |
| 4 | How many unions are represented and please indicate the number of unionized and non-union employees. | 5 Unions - 176 non-union employees and 296 unionized employees |
| 5 | Please provide the number of Financial users, categorized as follows: |
a. Full Users: have access to all the features and functionalities of the system and can perform any task within their role.
b. Team Users: Have limited access to view data and complete tasks like entering time, requisitions, or expenses. Some managers may also be team users if they only approve expenses or run reports, without performing accounting entries. a. There are about 10 users with full access to include system control & file maintenance. IT administers user access. There are approximately 50 people who have full access for their role.
b. There are approximately 75 users with limited access.
| 6 | Will the City consider an ERP solution that supports all Financial, HCM and Utility Billing functional areas while integrating with the City’s preferred Community Development solution? | Yes |
| 7 | Is the City open to replacing its current Public Works solutions with an integrated solution? If yes, may we include relevant module details in our proposal? | We aren't procuring a Public Works/Asset Management software at this time, therefore, we cannot accept bids for this module as it would be unfair for the other vendors. |
| 8 | Has a budget range been identified for this project? If so, could you share the estimated implementation cost, annual operating cost, and anticipated term (in years)? | The City has not specified a budget at this time. We expect the vendor to submit their most competitive price that meets all the requirements of the City's RFP |
| 9 | Has the City been in contact with other vendors before the release of this RFP? If so, please list. | Yes. Software companies that specialize in government software. |
| 10 | Is the city working with a consultant firm to assist in the evaluation and procurement? If so, which firm? | Yes. Sciens. |
| 11 | Would the city entertain a best of breed response or is the city looking for a single vendor to accommodate all requirements? | The City may consider a best in breed approach, dependent on the cost. The City will not consider individual responses for each application. We are looking for partners of the main ERP to submit as one bid response. |
| 12 | Although it is noted in the RFP that, "the City will choose to select a proposal from a Vendor/Integrator that provides full integration of the modules in order to achieve its goal to reduce redundant entry and streamline workflow to improve the efficiency of City staff,' it also notes that, "the City will choose the best functional fit to meet its needs." |
With that said, will the City consider a Best-In-Breed solution?
| The City may consider a best in breed approach, dependent on the cost. The City will not consider individual responses for each application. We are looking for partners of the main ERP to submit as one bid response. | |
| 13 | Given the recent technical issues with accessing the City’s RFP via Vendorlink, Tyler Technologies would like to formally request a submission extension of one-week. |
Thank you in adavance for the consideration and understanding in the request.
| The City will extend the bid closing to July 10 at the same time. | |
| 14 | I am reaching out regarding the proposal response form for the City of Cocoa Beach solicitation. The Word document provided appears to be password protected, and I do not currently have access to the password. As a result, I am unable to edit or complete the form as required. |
Could you please provide an unlocked version of the document or share the password so that we may proceed with completing our response?
| All the word documents related to the solicitation will allow you to enter information where required. A password is not needed. If you are experiencing any difficulties with the forms please contact the Purchasing Division at 321-433-8833 or purchasing@cocoafl.gov. Also, we are the City of Cocoa, if you are responding to a City Cocoa Beach solicitation please contact their office. | |||
| 15 | With the size and complexity of this RFP, will the City consider extending the deadline to Wednesday, July 8? | The City will extend the bid closing to July 10 at the same time. | |
| 16 | The City’s website lists Community Development (Permitting/Licensing) and Asset/Work Order Management as part of the scope, but we don’t see any requirements for it. Can you confirm if this is in scope? | Community Services is not in the scope at this time. | |
| 17 | How many capital projects is the City currently managing? | The City is currently managing about 50 capital projects right now. | |
| 18 | Is the City looking for a comprehensive grants management system? If Yes | ||
| o | Which grant types do you have today? (CDBG, HOME/HOPWA, BEAD, DOT, FEMA, Other) | ||
| o | Do you have a unique identifier for your grants in your current system? | ||
| o | Do you manage applications and disburse funds to sub-recipients? If yes, provide an example of the subrecipient process you want built out / replicated. Where is the next application date for each sub-recipient program? | ||
| o | Which grant search tools are desired? (Federal / State / Private Donor) | ||
| o | Which roles apply to your grants management workflow today? | ||
| o | Which reports do you need configured? (SF425, CFR, Other) | ||
| o | Are there approval workflows you would like to incorporate? If yes, how many approvals are part of your workflow? | ||
| a) Yes |
b) CDBG, SHIP, HOME, FEMA, HMGP, FDEP, DOJ, VOCA & any others that we get.
c) Yes - we use a project #.
d) Yes - for CDBG. Applications are usually accepted after public hearings in the beginning of the calendar year.
e) All methods
f) Grant writer, grant program manager, grant accountant
g) SF425, SEFA
h) Yes. 5 approvals for the application, 3-5 approvals for reimbursement requests.
| 19 | For Capital Project Implementation Scoping | |
| o | Can you provide your amortization schedule for debt funded projects? | |
| o | How many active users will be using Capital Projects? | |
| o | What roles and permissions are required for your users? | |
| o | What does your approval workflow look like (i.e., how many steps/approvals to get to PO)? | |
| o | Will you migrate data? How many programs? How is the data captured today? Is the data uniform? | |
| o | Which external systems will you need to integrate with Capital Projects? | |
| o | Will you be using SSO? | |
| a) See City's ACFR on the City web page. |
b) 10-15
c) Project manager, accountant, supervisors
d) Capital projects usually require Council approval. Then the requisition goes through the approval process with with apx. 6 approvals before becoming a PO.
e) We will migrate any project that is open at time of conversion. Data is captured by keeping records in Laserfiche & performing capital project reconciliations both by the department managing the project & an accountant who reconciles the project costs to the budget in the G/L.
f) Currently doing capital budget in Opengov.
g) we can, but not required.
20 For its size, the City of Cocoa has an unusually high number of utility billing accounts due to the multi-jurisdictional or inter-governmental billing requirements making this a very important part of a successful implementation. As a result, would the City consider a "Best-of-Breed" approach for vendors wanting to bid only on the Utility Billing component? The City would consider a best of breed approach dependent upon the cost. Additionally, all proposals must be included in one bid response. The city will not accept individual proposals for each application.
| 21 | Would the City consider an extension given the RFP's complexity and the likelihood of needing multiple vendors to coordinate a single bid? | The City will extend the bid closing to July 10 at the same time. |
| 22 | Would the City consider granting a two-week extension to ensure vendors have sufficient time to put together a thorough response? | The City will extend the bid closing to July 10 at the same time. |
| 23 | From the RFP: |
“To the extent the Vendor is able, the City is looking for the Vendor to conduct a thorough business analysis at the start of each module and to provide the City with a pre-configured system using its best practices and experience as a model. The City is expecting to review and test this pre-configured system, requesting minimal changes as required.”
Can you please elaborate? We would not be implementing or preconfiguring for the demo portion of this RFP.
| The City is looking for the vendor to learn the business processes to recommend the best way to use the software with minimal changes to the COTS software. It is requested that the business analysis be performed prior to implementation of each application. During the demos, it is expected the vendor will provide a demo environment to view the software during the presentations. | |
| 24 | From the RFP: |
” Vendor is required, utilizing the Business Process Review analysis previously described, to pre-configure the system prior to data conversion and allow for testing by the City's Implementation Team as part of the Acceptance Testing Process.”
Can you please elaborate on what data conversion you are referring to and what will be required. Would this be part of the RFP evaluation or is this something that you would expect in terms of a services deliverable in the scope of the project?
| The City desires the vendor to configure their software that best meets the business processes. Certain data will be converted from the existing ERP system to the new one. | |||
| 25 | Do the cities you bill and collect utilities for have different cutoff/shutoff rules/dates? | No. The City of Cocoa is the water provider to all of the municipalities, so it's one delinquency process applied to all water meter accounts. | |
| 26 | How many cycles does each city bill for? Is it the same frequency for each? | There are currently 12 cycles; each cycle receives 1 bill per 30 days approximately. Cycles are mostly used for geographic reporting and planning in our environment as each account has a Cocoa water meter billed on it. | |
| 27 | For utility online payments, is one payment portal sufficient for all customer payments? | Yes. I assume that online payment portal accepts debit, credit, and check payments. Our current online portal also hosts an IVR as well. | |
| 28 | Does Cocoa do any of the utility maintenance or utility work orders for other cities? | No, I don't believe so. | |
| 29 | Do you have a sample of the monthly report that you give to each city you bill and collect for utilities? | Yes. Attached is the cities of receivable report that does all of the calculations necessary (qty and amount billed from new charges, payments, adjustments, rebills, liens, transfer payments, reverse payments, write offs, etc.) to determine the amount due each month. | |
| 30 | Are electronic signatures acceptable on forms? | Yes, I believe so. The city currently uses electronic signatures on many documents. | |
| 31 | Are any signatures required on Attachment A3 (Terms & Conditions) or are vendors just to note any exceptions to that document in the A1 proposal form? | No signatures are required on A3. Please notate exceptions on A1 section 7. | |
| 32 | Does the City require any proof of insurance to be included with the initial proposal submission? | Proof of insurance at submittal is reccomended to facilitate the review process but not a minimum requirement. | |
| 33 | If partnering with another company or using a subcontractor for the proposal submittal, must both vendors fill out all of the Proposal A1 response form, complete affidavits, and provide references, etc.? | ||
| o | How do you prefer both vendors’ information to be separated in the proposal? | ||
| Yes, both vendors need to fill out A1 and provide references. | |||
| 34 | Can the City please clarify the list of files they want included on the electronic USB copy? | We need all files to be included on the required USB flash drive. | |
| 35 | Are vendors to provide a comprehensive PDF proposal of all requested files under their own cover with a TOC following the layout requested on page 14 of the RFP instructions or is the City just looking for the A1 file to be submitted via print/usb along with the Excel files? |
| The vendor are allowed to provide a comprehensive PDF just as long as they submit the all the original files in Excel and Word. | |||
| 36 | Starting on page 36 of the RFP document, several items are requested for vendors to include in the proposal response. Some of these items are already asked to be addressed in the A1 proposal response form. Are these just a summary of what is in the A1 proposal form or does the City specifically want each of these items responded to in addition to the A1 Word document? If so, where should these responses be included, the “Vendor Supplemental Information” fields at the end of each section? | ||
| o | Example: 3.3.1.1 Hosting Provider and Infrastructure | ||
| 3.3.1.1.1 Identify the SaaS service hosting provider and data center locations. | |||
| The RFP Narrative document outlines the City’s requirements related to infrastructure, maintenance and support, acceptance testing, and implementation. Form A1 – Proposal Response Forms is where vendors should respond to these requirements and provide any additional relevant information. | |||
| 37 | What are the key drivers behind the 36 month, 3 phase roll out approach? Are these durations and phases a requirement or a suggestion? | The purpose is to gain momentum to be able to convert to a new ERP systems as quickly & efficiently as possible. Each phase will build on the prior one. These timelines are suggested. | |
| 38 | What are the user training expectations of the SI? Does the number of trainees being substantially less than user counts indicate a preference for a ‘train the trainer’ model? | We would like the vendor to develop a comprehensive training plan based on the numbers outlined in the RFP. Training costs should reflect full training of the system to end users at the City for all functional areas. | |
| 39 | Please expand of how you have differentiated “concurrent users” from “total users”. | Concurrent users represent the estimated number of users expected to access the system simultaneously. Total users represent the total number of licenses the City will need for each module. | |
| 40 | If multiple solutions are presented, is there a preferred or required middleware platform for system integrations? | It is the responsibility of the proposing vendor to integrate all solutions to ensure they operate seamlessly together. Middleware must be supported and maintained by the vendor. | |
| 41 | Would the City consider a best-of-breed approach where specific functional areas (e.g., Community Development permitting and the Citizen Portal) are provided by specialized SaaS platforms integrated with the selected ERP suite? | Yes, the City would consider a best of breed approach dependent upon the cost. Additionally, all proposals must be included in one bid response. The city will not accept individual proposals for each application. |
42 Please provide the number of named and concurrent users anticipated for each functional area (Finance, HR/Payroll, Utility Billing, Permitting, Work Orders, Citizen Portal) to enable accurate subscription pricing. See #5
| 43 | What incumbent systems currently handle Finance, HR/Payroll, Utility Billing, and Permitting, and how many years of historical data must be migrated into the new solution? | Please refer to Section 2.2 of the RFP Narrative for more information on the current applications environment. |
| 44 | Are SOC 1 Type II and SOC 2 Type II certifications required at contract award or only prior to go-live, and will equivalent third-party cloud audits be accepted? | SOC 1 Type II and SOC 2 Type II reports, or equivalent third-party security and cloud control audit reports acceptable to the City, should be provided prior to contract award if available. At a minimum, the selected vendor must provide current and applicable audit documentation prior to go-live. The City reserves the right to review the scope, audit period, exceptions, and applicability of any SOC or equivalent third-party audit reports to determine whether they satisfy the City’s security and compliance requirements. |
| 45 | If vendors propose a joint solution with multiple best-of-breed SaaS components under a single prime contractor, should each component’s pricing be listed on separate Schedule 8 worksheets or consolidated? | They should be consolidated and sent in on one response. |
| 46 | Centralized Cashiering Scope - Section 2.2.2 of the RFP, the City identifies Centralized Cashiering & Batch Controls as missing functionality spanning Finance, Utility Billing, Recreation, and Community Development. Is it the expectation that Recreation and Community Development cashiering will be brought into the ERP solution directly, or is the City open to satisfying this requirement through real-time integrations with existing third-party systems such as RecTrac and Citizenserve? | The City is open to satisfying this requirement through real-time integrations with existing third-party systems, such as RecTrac and Citizenserve. However, the City will also consider alternative solutions proposed by the vendor that meet the intent of the requirement. |
| 47 | Citizen Portal Scope - Our solution includes a utility customer engagement portal. Please clarify: is the expectation that non-utility customers will also be able to use the citizen portal to access non-utility-related City information and services, or is the portal scope limited to utility account holders? | The Citizen Portal requirements are intended to support Utility Billing customer engagement and online payment functionality. At a minimum, the solution should provide residents and customers with a convenient, user-friendly portal to view account information, access billing details, make online payments, and manage common Utility Billing service needs. The City is seeking a solution that improves the overall customer experience, reduces manual staff effort, and provides secure, reliable access to Utility Billing services online. |
| 48 | FRR-6 Citizen Portal Scope Clarification - The RFP notes that vendors only need to complete the Functional Requirements Response Forms that pertain to their proposed solution. Additionally, The RFP lists the Citizen Portal as a module in scope, but FRR-6 only has 65 requirements (the smallest of all FRRs) and the evaluation criteria do not separately call it out. Please confirm whether completion of FRR-6 is required for all vendors, or only for those whose proposed solution includes a citizen portal component. | FRR-6 is only required for vendors whose proposed solution includes a citizen portal component. |
| 49 | Payment Processing: Maintain Existing Environment or Consolidate? - |
Please clarify whether the City is seeking to maintain its current payment processing environment through real-time API integrations (including its existing mix of multiple processors and file-based bank integrations), or whether the City is interested in consolidating to a fully integrated electronic billing and payment (EBPP) platform as part of this procurement. Understanding the City's preference will allow us to propose the most appropriate and cost-effective solution.
| At this time, the City is willing to consider all options for electronic billing and payment. If the vendor has its own EBPP, please propose the cost. | ||
| 50 | Data Conversion Scope - Please clarify the expected data conversion scope for HR/Payroll and Utility Billing; specifically, how many years of historical data the City expects to be migrated for each module. | The number of years to be converted will be determined by working with the vendor. It is anticipated that it will be 1-3 years, depending on the application. |
| 51 | Deployment Approach: Simultaneous vs. Waterfall - Section 6.3.2.1 (Scheduling) states that the City expects vendors to be able to support two module deployments simultaneously. However, Section 6.11.1 (Proposed Project Timeline) specifies a waterfall deployment where each core module is implemented one at a time over a minimum 36-month schedule. Please clarify which deployment approach the City prefers so we can propose the most appropriate implementation schedule. | The City prefers a waterfall deployment approach, where modules are implemented sequentially, one at a time, with little to no overlap between implementation phases. |
| 52 | Brightly and Fleet Management Interface Scope and Requirements - The interfaces table lists Brightly (Service Requests, Work Orders, Asset Management, Facilities) and Faster (Fleet Management, Fuel Management) as Maintain + Interface. However, no functional requirements or interface specifications are included in any of the FRR spreadsheets for these systems. Please clarify the expected depth of integration; specifically, what data needs to flow between the ERP and these systems, and whether vendors are expected to cost the development of these interfaces as part of the fixed price proposal. | At this time, there is no interface requirement between the ERP and Brightly or Faster. |
| 53 | Integration Requirements: Laserfiche and Systems Without an Interface Flag - |
The interfaces table marks several systems as Maintain but does not include an Interface (I) flag for all of them; notably Laserfiche, which the RFP narrative separately describes as requiring deep, seamless integration with the ERP. Should vendors assume all Maintain systems require a billable integration, or only those explicitly marked with an Interface flag in the table? And specifically, for Laserfiche, please clarify the expected depth of integration given the detailed requirements described in Section 2.
| Please refer to FRR 1 - General Requirements, Tab - Interfaces for the current list of required interfaces which includes Laserfiche. The expected interface with Laserfiche is an API for document archival purposes. | |
| 54 | Travel Expenses During Implementation: Included or Billed Separately? - |
The RFP specifies that travel expenses for post-acceptance maintenance resolutions are at the vendor's sole expense. However, it does not include equivalent language covering travel costs during the implementation phase. Please clarify whether vendor travel, meals, and lodging incurred during implementation are expected to be included in the firm-fixed-price proposal, or whether they will be billed as a pass-through.
| Yes, all expected travel expenses during implementation should be included in the firm fixed-price proposal. | ||
| 55 | Neptune 360 / AMI Integration - The RFP lists Neptune 360 as a Maintain + Interface system. Is the expected integration bidirectional (meter reads flowing into UB, and service orders flowing back to Neptune), or is it a one-way read into Utility Billing? | We currently don't use N360 for service orders; however, it is bidirectional in the sense that we import a meters file from CIS to N360 and then export the reads from N360 into the CIS. We do have N360 configured so we can comment/trouble/skip code meters for various reasons and when the reads and codes are sent in to the CIS several service orders are created for various departments through automation. |
| 56 | AI Tools: Customer Service for Utilities - Is the City interested in AI-powered customer service capabilities integrated into the core product; for example, AI-assisted call center support, intelligent chatbots for the customer self-service portal, automated outage or billing inquiry responses, and predictive tools that flag accounts likely to need assistance before they call? | Utility Customer Service cannot support chatbot or standard "canned" responses due to the complexity of the utility system. AI assistance would not be feasible for the utility system call center. |
| 57 | AI Policy - Does the City have an existing AI policy or governance framework that would govern the use of AI tools within a procured ERP system, particularly around customer data, billing data, and HR records? | The City does not currently have a formal AI policy in place and is taking a cautious, risk-aware approach to the use of artificial intelligence. If the proposed solution includes, uses, or plans to incorporate AI functionality, please describe how AI is used within the product, including the specific features, processes, or workflows that are supported by AI. |
In addition, please explain how the City’s data will be protected if AI is used. At a minimum, the response should address whether City data is used to train AI models, how sensitive or confidential data is safeguarded, what security controls are in place, how access to AI-enabled features is managed, and whether the City can enable, disable, or limit the use of AI functionality within the system. The City is seeking to understand both the benefits of any AI capabilities and the safeguards in place to ensure responsible, secure, and transparent use of the technology.
| 58 | As it relates to 3.13 Additional Terms and Conditions: Please clarify whether the “no exceptions” requirement means proposers must accept all contract terms exactly as written at the time of proposal submission. | Exceptions submitted will be evaluated and if acceptable to the City will be negotiated and included as part of the resultant agreement. |
| 59 | As it relates to 3.13 Additional Terms and Conditions: Does the City reserve discretion to consider commercially reasonable revisions to legal provisions such as indemnification, limitation of liability, cybersecurity, confidentiality, or insurance requirements? | Any exceptions must be noted in Proposal A1, Section 7, and will be evaluated by the City. The City reserves the right to reject any proposal if an exception is determined not to be in its best interest. |
| 60 | As it relates to 3.13 Additional Terms and Conditions: Is the City’s intent that the final agreement be executed strictly in the form provided with the solicitation, or does the City retain the ability to negotiate terms with the apparent successful proposer? | It is expected that an agreement will be negotiatiated. |
| 61 | Can you please confirm the number of unions and bargaining groups that the City has if the ratio is not 1:1? Based on the website, there are 5 union contracts listed. | There are 5 unions. |
| 62 | Do you plan to keep your current payment processors(FBS, Metavante, and AdComp) or are you open to a single option ? | We are open to a single option. |
| 63 | Can you please provide the details of your current benefit plans and providers? | City of Cocoa Benefit Booklet can be found using the following link: |
https://www.cocoafl.gov/680/Benefits-Information
| 64 | How significantly will this initiative change current business processes and day-to-day responsibilities for employees, managers, and administrative staff? | This initiative is expected to significantly impact current business processes and day-to-day responsibilities for employees, managers, and administrative staff. The City is not simply looking to replace existing technology; rather, it intends to analyze, redesign, and reconfigure business processes to align with industry best practices and the capabilities of the new system. |
| 65 | Based on past initiatives, what factors have most influenced successful (or unsuccessful) adoption? | Successful adoption has been most influenced by strong leadership support, clear communication, early staff involvement, effective training, and a willingness to improve existing processes. Adoption is less successful when communication is limited, departments work in silos, staff are not adequately trained, or employees do not understand the purpose and benefits of the change. |
| 66 | What role does the City envision internal teams playing in supporting change management activities for this initiative or do you need full Change Management support from your system integrator? | Internal teams will handle some change management during this process, but we expect some change management guidance from the vendor as well. |
| 67 | How are internal communications currently structured and delivered across the organization (e.g., centralized vs. departmental)? | Internal communications are currently managed at the departmental level. However, as part of this project, the City will establish an ERP Steering Committee that will remain actively involved throughout the implementation. The Steering Committee will provide project oversight, support cross-departmental communication, help resolve key decisions or issues, and ensure the implementation remains aligned with the City’s overall goals. |
| 68 | What training approaches have proven most effective for your workforce (e.g., instructor-led, virtual, hands-on, self-paced)? | Hands-on training has proven most effective for our workforce, particularly when employees can practice real business processes in a training or sandbox environment. We have found that a blended approach works best—combining instructor-led sessions (in-person or virtual) to explain concepts and processes, followed by hands-on exercises tailored to each user's role. Self-paced materials, job aids, and recorded sessions are valuable as reference tools and for reinforcement, but they are generally less effective as standalone training methods for ERP adoption. |
&G Addendum 3 P-26-08-COC ERP System Responses to Questions &"-,Bold"&K03+005Finance Department&"-,Regular"&K01+000 65 Stone Street • Cocoa, FL 32922
PHONE: (321) 433-8844
&D &F Pg. &P of &N https://www.cocoafl.gov/680/Benefits-Information image1.jpeg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .