ADDENDUM II RFP 26_03 Community Development_.pdf

ADDENDUM II RFP 26-03: Community Development, Code Enforcement, and Building Official Software

1 | Page RFP26-03: Community Development, Code Enforcement, and Building Official Software – Addendum II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

RECEIPT OF ADDENDUM II

ADDENDUM II RFP 26-03: Community Development, Code Enforcement, and Building Official Software

Please note that this issuance constitutes Addendum No. II to RFP 26-03 – Community Development, Code

Enforcement, and Building official Software . Addendum No. II is issued to formally respond to vendor questions received and to provide clarifications to the solicitation. The responses contained herein are intended to clarify the City’s requirements and shall be incorporated into and made part of the official RFP documents. Also, note, the numbers are an estimated number. Unless expressly modified by this

Addendum, all other terms, conditions, scope requirements, evaluation criteria, and submission deadlines remain unchanged and in full force and effect. All proposers are responsible for acknowledging receipt of

Addendum No. I in their proposal submission.

Upon receipt of documents, please email this page to:

City of Mableton Procurement Manager Email : Pearl.Alexander@mableton.gov

I hereby acknowledge receipt of documents pertaining to the above reference RFP.

COMPANY NAME:

CONTACT PERSON:

ADDRESS:

CITY: STATE: ZIP:

PHONE: FAX:

EMAIL ADDRESS:

Signature Date mailto:Pearl.Alexander@mableton.gov

2 | Page

The following updates or clarifications are being applied to the standard agreement:

ADD: Due date Proposal Extension: March 4, 2026 @4:30pm

ADD Questions and Answers:

ADD:

1. Harris Computer Thank you for your follow-up questions regarding RFP No. 26-03 – Community Development, Code Enforcement, and Building Official Software. Please see the City of Mableton’s responses below.

Exhibit B – Affidavit Verifying Status for Public Benefit Application (O.C.G.A. § 50-36-1) The intent of Exhibit B is to ensure compliance with Georgia law for entities seeking to receive a public benefit from the City. The affidavit applies to the individual executing the affidavit on behalf of the proposer, not to the corporate headquarters location itself.

A company headquartered outside of the United States, including Canada, is not prohibited from submitting a proposal under this RFP, provided that:

− The affidavit is executed by an individual who meets the statutory requirements under

O.C.G.A. § 50-36-1, and − All other contractual, legal, and statutory requirements outlined in the RFP are satisfied.

As you noted, having a qualified U.S. citizen or lawfully present individual from your executive leadership sign the affidavit and related documents would be acceptable, provided the affidavit is completed accurately and in accordance with the statute.

Project Budget The City has identified funding for this project; however, a specific budget amount or historical cost information will not be disclosed as part of the solicitation process.

Proposers are encouraged to submit competitive, transparent pricing that reflects best value, total cost of ownership, and scalability over the initial term and any renewal options.

All responses provided are for clarification purposes only and do not modify the RFP. Any material changes or additional clarifications, if necessary, will be issued through a formal addendum.

Thank you again for your interest in partnering with the City of Mableton. We appreciate your diligence and look forward to reviewing your proposal.

ADD:

2. CivicPlus Thank you to CivicPlus for your review of RFP No. 26-03 – Community Development, Code Enforcement, and Building Official Software and for submitting your questions ahead of the deadline.

1. Please see the City of Mableton’s responses below.

2. System Integrations (GIS, Financial, Public Safety)

3 | Page

3. The City anticipates the need for integration with GIS, financial systems, and enforcement related public safety functions; however, the City is currently in a transition phase and certain enterprise systems are subject to change.

4. − GIS: The City utilizes a standard municipal GIS platform and expects proposed solutions to demonstrate compatibility with common GIS environments.

5. − Financial / ERP: The City has issued a separate RFP for a new ERP/financial system. The selected solution under this RFP should support integration with a future ERP.

6. − Public Safety / Enforcement Systems: Integration expectations are primarily related to enforcement workflows and data sharing, not real time dispatch or emergency response systems.

7. "Both real-time and scheduled/batch integrations may be proposed".

8. Proposers should clearly describe their recommended integration approach, capabilities, and any dependencies.

9. Data Migration Scope

10. The City expects migration of active and relevant historical data across permitting, code enforcement, and related records from existing systems. Proposers should:

11. − Describe their approach to data discovery and assessment.

12. − Identify assumptions regarding data quality and structure.

13. − Distinguish between full historical migration and partial migration with archival access.

14. The City is open to a phased or hybrid migration strategy, provided it is clearly defined and supports operational continuity and records retention requirements.

15. Contracting & Pricing Structure for Unified Solutions

16. If a proposed solution includes multiple tightly integrated components (Community Development and Code Enforcement delivered as a unified platform), the City is open to a single master agreement with combined pricing, support, and service levels.

17. Alternatively, proposers may present clearly defined line item pricing under a unified delivery and support model. Regardless of structure, pricing and responsibilities must be transparent, non-duplicative, and aligned with the RFP requirements.

All responses provided are for clarification purposes only and do not modify the RFP. The City reserves the right to issue formal addenda should any material clarification or change be required.

3. Granicus Addendum Response – Functional & Technical Clarifications

These responses are provided to ensure proposers have sufficient clarity to submit comprehensive

4 | Page and scalable solutions aligned with the City’s operational structure and anticipated growth.

1. Plan Review Tools

The City is open to either:

− A fully built-in/proprietary plan review module or − A third-party plan review solution that is fully integrated

The key requirement is seamless integration, single sign-on capability, centralized record retention, and unified workflow tracking. The solution must not create fragmented records or duplicative data entry.

2. Digital Stamping

Digital stamping may occur:

− Within the permitting system or − Within an integrated plan review tool

However, final stamped documents must automatically sync back to the primary system of record.

The City requires:

− Tamper-proof audit trail − Date/time stamp logging − Reviewer identification − Version control history

3. Interactive Zoning Maps / GIS Integration

The City requires integration with:

− Esri ArcGIS − ArcGIS Online − On-premises GIS environments (if applicable)

The system must integrate with:

− Parcel layers − Zoning layers − Future land use layers − Address points − Code enforcement case mapping

Real-time or near real-time API-based integration is preferred.

4. Public Engagement Features

The City expects more than basic commenting functionality.

Minimum required capabilities:

− Public-facing portal for application status tracking − Online submission of comments − Automated public notice generation

5 | Page

− Meeting scheduling integration − Email/SMS notifications − Role-based internal review routing

Advanced engagement workflows (e.g., structured feedback forms, dashboard reporting, public hearing analytics) are strongly preferred.

5. Financial / ERP Integration

The solution must integrate with the City’s Financial ERP system for:

− Fee calculation − Online payments − GL posting − Revenue tracking − Refund processing

The City is currently undergoing ERP implementation under RFP 26-02. Proposers should assume integration with a modern cloud-based municipal ERP capable of API integration.

The permitting solution must support:

− Real-time payment confirmation − Revenue code mapping − Automated reconciliation support

6. Document Management

The City currently utilizes structured shared-drive storage with controlled access and is evaluating long-term enterprise document management strategies.

The selected system must:

− Serve as the primary system of record for Community Development case files − Support export and archival capabilities − Allow integration with future enterprise document management systems

Final records must be exportable in non-proprietary formats.

7. AI / Automation

Required at Go-Live:

− Workflow automation − Automated status notifications − Auto-routing based on permit type − Fee auto-calculation

Long-Term / Phase 2 Enhancements:

− AI-assisted intake review − Automated code citation suggestion − Predictive inspection scheduling − Analytics dashboards for trend analysis

6 | Page

AI features must remain configurable and auditable.

8. Performance Outcomes & Success Metrics

The City’s objectives include:

− Reduced permit processing time − Improved inspection turnaround − Increased code enforcement case resolution rates − Enhanced transparency

Baseline metrics are currently being formalized. Proposers should assume success will be measured by:

− Average days to permit issuance − Inspection cycle times − Open vs. closed case ratios − Revenue collection efficiency − Public portal adoption rates

The system must provide dashboard-level reporting to measure KPIs.

9. Legacy Systems & Data Migration

The City is a recently incorporated municipality operating with limited legacy data volume.

Expected migration scope may include:

− Active permits − Open inspections − Open and historical code enforcement cases − Attachments and plan documents − Business license records (if applicable)

Data may exist in Excel, CSV, or third-party hosted platforms.

Proposers must:

− Define migration methodology − Identify validation procedures − Reconcile migrated data to financial records where applicable

10. Prime Vendor with Integrated Partners

Yes. A prime vendor utilizing integrated partners may fulfill the requirement provided that:

− The prime vendor remains contractually responsible − The solution operates as a unified system − There is a single point of accountability − Integration is seamless and supported long-term

The City will not manage multiple contracts for core system components.

11. Standard Services Agreement

7 | Page

The City intends to utilize its standard professional services agreement.

The agreement will be provided to the selected finalist during negotiations. Proposers may submit exceptions or requested redlines with their proposal for review.

The City reserves the right to negotiate final terms prior to award.

These responses are provided to ensure proposers have adequate clarity to submit responsive, scalable, and future-ready solutions aligned with the City’s operational and compliance framework.

All other terms and conditions of RFP 26-03 remain unchanged.

City reserves the right to issue formal addenda should any material clarification or change be required.

4. OpenGov Thank you for your interest in RFP No. 26-03 – Community Development, Code Enforcement, and Building Official Software and for submitting your detailed clarification questions. Please note that this solicitation is issued by the City of Mableton, Georgia (not the County). Responses to your questions are provided below for clarification purposes only and should be read in conjunction with the full RFP. Where appropriate, formal clarifications may be issued by addendum.

1. Evaluation & Procurement Process

2. Evaluation Committee The evaluation committee will be comprised of City staff representing relevant functional and technical areas, which may include Community Development, Code Enforcement, Building, Information Technology, Finance, and Purchasing. Specific committee membership will not be disclosed.

3. Hard Copy vs. Digital Submission At this time, proposers must comply with the submission requirements as stated in the RFP. Any modification to submission format requirements would be issued via formal addendum.

4. Funding Approval / Budget Disclosure Funding has been identified for this project; however, the City will not disclose a specific budget or budget range. Proposers are encouraged to submit their most competitive, transparent pricing based on best value and total cost of ownership.

5. Pricing, Contract Terms & Renewals

6. Cost Evaluation Period Pricing will be evaluated based on the information requested in the RFP, including total cost of ownership. Proposers should clearly identify base costs, optional components, and renewal pricing assumptions.

7. Annual Escalators Proposed escalators, if any, must be clearly disclosed and justified in the cost proposal. The City reserves the right to evaluate such provisions as part of overall value.

8 | Page

8. Maximum Contract Duration The initial contract term and renewal options are outlined in the RFP. Any extensions are subject to City approval and funding availability.

9. Vendor Eligibility & Security

10. U.S. Headquarters Requirement The City does not require that proposers be headquartered in the United States; however, vendors must comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and security requirements.

11. Third-Party Security Audits Third-party security audits such as SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, and penetration testing are strongly preferred and should be clearly documented in the proposal.

12. Implementation & Technical Considerations

13. Target Go-Live Date The City anticipates an implementation kickoff in Q4 2026. Proposers should include recommended timelines and milestones based on their proposed approach.

14. Phased vs. Single Go-Live The City is open to phased implementation and/or phased go-live by module or department, provided the approach is clearly explained and supported by a sound implementation plan.

15. City Staff Availability Proposers should assume limited City staff availability consistent with a growing municipal organization. Proposals should clearly outline City staff expectations for SMEs, configuration reviews, testing, and training.

16. Regulatory / Statutory Deadlines No specific statutory deadlines beyond standard regulatory compliance are currently identified for this implementation.

17. Data, Integrations & Systems

18. SMARTGov Configurations The City currently utilizes SMARTGov workflows. Proposers should identify any assumed critical workflows during discovery and describe how their solution accommodates or improves upon existing functionality.

19. Legacy Data Quality Legacy data includes structured records, documents, and scanned materials. Proposers should describe their approach to assessing data quality, duplication, and completeness during discovery.

20. Integrations (ERP, Payments, GIS, etc.)

Both real-time and scheduled/batch integrations may be proposed. Proposers should clearly describe integration methods and priority use cases. Current payment processors and ERP solutions are subject to change as part of other City initiatives.

21. Cost Scoring & Contract Execution

9 | Page

22. Cost Scoring Methodology Cost scoring will be normalized across vendors; however, the City will not disclose detailed scoring formulas.

23. Electronic Signatures Yes, the City will accept electronic signatures for contract execution and related affidavits, provided they are legally valid.

24. Data Retention & Migration

25. Historical Data Retention Proposers should assume multi-year historical retention requirements consistent with municipal records standards and describe their migration approach accordingly.

26. Document Migration The City prefers full document migration, including attachments and scanned plans, where feasible.

Proposers may also propose archival access strategies for older records, clearly identified as such.

27. RFP Formatting & Reference Clarifications

28. Cover Letter Sections The Cover Letter referenced in Section VI is a single requirement. It should precede the “History & Organizational Structure” section.

29. Comparable Projects – Three (3) vs. Five (5) Proposers should provide a minimum of three (3) comparable municipal projects. Providing up to five (5) is acceptable.

30. References (Page 14 vs. Page 12) The minimum three (3) references requested on page 14 may overlap with the comparable projects referenced on page 12.

31. Minimum Qualifications vs. Technical Capability Yes, the “Minimum Qualifications” section is a separate requirement. While it may align with the Functional and Technical Requirements, it should clearly demonstrate threshold eligibility before detailed technical discussion.

32. All responses provided herein are for clarification only. The City reserves the right to issue formal addenda for any changes or material clarifications. Thank you again for your interest in partnering with the City of Mableton.

5. Avocette Technology Together Thank you for your inquiry regarding the City of Mableton’s Community Development, Code Enforcement, and Building Official Software RFP. The City’s responses are provided below for clarification purposes only and should be read in conjunction with the RFP. These responses do not modify the solicitation.

1. Vendor Demonstrations / Presentations Yes. The City has participated in informational demonstrations from various vendors within the past 12 months. Participation in any demonstration did not influence the development of the RFP and does not provide any competitive advantage. In the

10 | Page interest of fairness and equal treatment, the City will not disclose vendor names.

2. Project Budget Funding has been identified for this project; however, the City will not disclose a budget amount, range, or historical spending information. Proposers are expected to submit their most competitive pricing based on the scope outlined in the RFP and overall best value.

3. References – Three (3) vs. Five (5) Proposers are required to submit a minimum of three (3) comparable municipal project references. Submission of up to five (5) references is acceptable.

4. Users, Records, Volumes, and Metrics The City will not provide specific user counts, record counts, transaction volumes, inspection counts, fee counts, or internal workload metrics. As a newly incorporated and growing municipality, the City is seeking a scalable, role-based solution.

5. Proposers should reasonably assume system usage across:

- Community Development (Planning, Land Development)

- Business Licensing

- Building Permits and Inspections

- Code Enforcement

6. Licensing, capacity, and concurrency models should be proposed based on comparable municipalities of similar size and growth trajectory.

7. Inspections, Checklists, and Fees The City manages multiple inspection types, many of which require configurable checklists and fee calculations based on permit or application attributes. The City will not provide specific counts. Proposers should describe how their solution supports flexible inspection workflows, configurable checklists, and rule-based fee calculations.

8. Plan Review The City currently utilizes electronic plan review functionality and expects proposers to include electronic/digital plan review as part of their proposed solution.

Plan review access will be required for City staff and, as applicable, third-party reviewers or consultants. Proposers should describe support for collaborative and concurrent review workflows.

9. GIS, Payments, and Current Systems

- GIS: The City utilizes a standard municipal GIS environment. Specific platforms or versions will not be disclosed.

- Payments: The City supports online payments and expects continued secure electronic payment processing.

- Current Systems: The City is transitioning from legacy and interim systems.

Proposers should describe their ability to replace and/or integrate with existing systems.

10. Data Conversion & Sources Legacy data includes structured records, documents, and spreadsheets. The City will not provide a detailed inventory of data sources, database types, or spreadsheet counts.

Proposers should describe their data discovery, assessment, and migration

11 | Page methodology.

11. Integrations The City anticipates integrations with commonly used municipal systems, which may include:

- Single Sign-On (SSO)

- Email / Exchange

- Financial / ERP systems

- GIS

- Document management systems

Proposers should identify standard integrations supported and describe their approach.

Quoting Period Proposers should clearly identify pricing for the initial contract term, any optional renewal terms, and all pricing assumptions.

12. Mobile Access The City anticipates mobile access for inspectors and enforcement staff. Proposers should describe mobile functionality, including offline capability, synchronization, and security controls.

All responses provided are for clarification purposes only and do not amend or supersede the RFP. Any material clarification or change will be issued by formal written addendum.

Thank you for your interest in partnering with the City of Mableton.

6. Tyler Technologies, Inc.

Thank you for your thoughtful questions regarding RFP No. 26-03 Community Development, Code Enforcement, and Building Official Software.

1. Please see the City of Mableton’s responses below. These responses are provided for clarification purposes and should be considered in conjunction with the full RFP package issued through the Georgia Procurement Registry (GPR).

2. City staff access to the system

The City anticipates system access for staff across Community Development, Code Enforcement, and Building Permits/Inspections, including administrative, supervisory, and field personnel.

At this time, the City is requesting scalable, role-based licensing and encourages proposers to recommend an appropriate licensing structure based on similar municipal implementations rather than a fixed headcount.

3. Staff actively performing plan review

Plan review functions are performed by a subset of Community Development and Building staff, including internal reviewers and, as applicable, third-party or consultant reviewers.

Proposers should assume multiple concurrent plan reviewers and propose configurations that support collaborative and parallel plan review workflows.

12 | Page

Conversion/import of legacy data (CloudPermit)

4. Yes. The City does wish to convert and/or import legacy data from its current system, CloudPermit, to the extent feasible, accurate, and cost-effective.

Access to legacy data in a non-proprietary format

The City anticipates having access to legacy data in standard, non-proprietary formats (e.g., CSV, XLSX, PDF, or database exports), subject to confirmation during the implementation and discovery phase. Proposers should describe their data migration approach and any assumptions.

5. Application types to be tracked

The new system is expected to support, at a minimum, the following application and case types:

− Building permits − Electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and gas permits − Trade permits − Inspections (all disciplines) − Certificates of Occupancy / Completion − Zoning and planning applications − Land development applications − Business licenses − Code enforcement cases and violations Proposers may recommend additional application types or configurable workflows that align with best practices for municipal governments.

6. Outside assistance with drafting the RFP

No. The City did not receive assistance from any software vendor in drafting the requirements contained within this RFP. The RFP was developed internally by City staff with input from relevant departments and based on operational needs, statutory requirements, and public-sector best practices.

7. Software demonstrations in the past 12 months

Yes. The City has received informational demonstrations from multiple vendors offering community development, permitting, and code enforcement solutions within the past 12 months. Participation in prior demonstrations does not confer any advantage in the evaluation process, and all vendors are encouraged to respond fully to the RFP requirements.

8. Project budget

The City has allocated funding for this project; however, a specific budget amount will not be disclosed at this stage. Proposers are encouraged to submit competitive, transparent

13 | Page pricing that reflects best value, total cost of ownership, and scalability over the initial and renewal terms.

9. Integration with the City’s future ERP system

Yes. The City has issued a separate RFP for a new ERP/financial system. It is strongly preferred that the selected Community Development, Code Enforcement, and Building Official software solution support integration with the future ERP, including but not limited to:

− General Ledger − Cashiering and payments − Reporting − Document management − Single Sign-On (SSO) Proposers should clearly describe integration capabilities, APIs, and prior experience with ERP integrations.

10. Code Enforcement pricing in relation to the ERP RFP

For this RFP (26-03), proposers should include pricing for Code Enforcement functionality as part of their response. Vendors responding to both solicitations should ensure pricing is clearly delineated and not duplicative across proposals.

Please submit any additional questions in accordance with the RFP Schedule. All official responses will be issued via written addendum and posted on the Georgia Procurement Registry.

Thank you for your interest in partnering with the City of Mableton.