Addendum One - Cloud Migration & ArcGis Utility Network Implementation.pdf

April 24, 2026

ADDENDUM NO.: ONE

TO ALL OFFERORS:

REFERENCE:

RFP No: 2026002-IT-P Dated: April 16, 2026

Commodity: Cloud Migration and ArcGIS Utility Network Implementation RFP Closing On: May 11, 2026

1) Please note the clarifications and/or changes made to this solicitation:

a) Following the engagement, is the ACSA interested in ongoing managed services & cybersecurity for the various IT environments? Or simply seeking extra muscle for a simple one-time “lift and shift”?

We are willing to entertain the possibility of ongoing managed services but are not actively seeking it. Most of this work is a one-time lift and shift. Ongoing support would preferably be on a usage-based hourly rate contract.

b) Curious of the motives behind the change-it sounds like the goal is to use the same product, only in an IaaS Azure instance. Too many limitations in ESRI’s straight cloud-based offering? Worried hosting and bandwidth charges will be rough.

There are multiple parts of this project. Regarding the Azure migration for SQL Server and file shares, we are interested in collaborating with the contractor to determine the best solution to fit our needs. This could be IaaS, PaaS, or SaaS. Regarding ArcGIS Enterprise, we are expecting this migrated into Azure as IaaS. Regarding Trimble Unity, that is a SaaS product for which the ACSA will handle the contract.

Assistance is needed from the contractor to perform the migration and reconfigure the integrations.

c) Could you please confirm whether a pre-bid or pre-proposal conference is planned for this opportunity, or if one may be scheduled.

There are no pre-bid or pre-proposal conferences planned for this RFP. There is no anticipation that one will be scheduled.

d) Do you require a certain level of Esri Business Partnership to propose on this RFP (e.g., Gold Partners Only)?

There is no requirement for ESRI partnership, though being partners may influence the scores.

e) Do you require ArcGIS Utility Network Specialty by the proposer?

There is no requirement for this specialty, though having this specialty will probably influence scores.

f) Who implemented your Cityworks?

Timmons Group

g) Do you require proposers to be partners with Trimble?

There is no requirement for Trimble partnership, though being partners may influence the scores.

h) Can we get a copy of the Utility Network feasibility and preparedness study?

This study will be available to the selected proposer.

i) Does the work need to be performed on premises (at ACSA offices) or can it be done remotely?

This work can be done remotely.

j) Could you please confirm the preferred sequencing of the major workstreams (Azure migration, ArcGIS Enterprise, Utility Network, Trimble Unity, file servers)?

This is not concrete. The Azure portion would likely come first while the Utility Network and Trimble Unity implementations would come after.

k) Should the proposer assume a phased approach, or are any components expected to run concurrently?

This is flexible. It may be beneficial to do some portions concurrently, though a phased approach may be smoother. We are open to suggestions.

l) Are there any blackout periods or operational constraints that would restrict migration or cutover activities?

The CIS go-live likely in Spring of 2027 would restrict cutover activities for a couple weeks. At the end of the calendar year or around major holidays are generally suboptimal. Other than that, no significant time hurdles are anticipated. Sufficient notice will be necessary.

m) How should the project timeline align with the upcoming SpryPoint CIS implementation?

Some of this work, such as standing up ArcGIS Enterprise in Azure, will need to occur prior to CIS go-live. It would be ideal to have the Utility Network for the water dataset in place with an attribute rule established to create unique identifiers for water meters prior to CIS go-live. Some portions of the work may entail reintegration with SpryPoint based on timing.

n) Does ACSA anticipate a single consolidated go-live or staggered go-lives for each system?

Stagger go-lives if practical

o) Would ACSA like optional accelerated or alternative timeline scenarios included in the proposal?

This can be provided

p) Does ACSA have a preferred Azure SQL deployment model (VM-based SQL Server, Managed Instance, or Azure SQL Database)?

This will be covered in the discovery process with the selected firm

q) Are there existing Azure governance standards, naming conventions, or landing zone frameworks that the proposer should follow?

This will be covered in the discovery process with the selected firm

r) Which Azure region should be used for deployment?

East US or East US 2 preferred. Data must reside within the United States of America.

s) Does ACSA require high availability or geo-redundancy for ArcGIS Enterprise and SQL workloads?

This is not a requirement

t) Should the proposal include Azure cost optimization recommendations as part of the deliverables?

This can be provided

u) Are any Azure security or monitoring tools already in use (e.g., Defender, Sentinel, Log Analytics) that the solution should integrate with?

Defender and Sophos endpoint protection need to be integrated with

v) Should the proposer assume an upgrade from ArcGIS Enterprise 11.1 to 11.5 or higher during the migration?

Upgrading is not a requirement, but is preferred

w) Are there specific performance expectations or SLAs for GIS editing, map services, or web map loading times?

This will be covered in the discovery process with the selected firm

x) Will ACSA provide access to the current ArcGIS Enterprise configuration, service catalog, and customizations?

This will be provided to the selected firm

y) Should the proposer maintain the current ArcGIS Server architecture or recommend a redesigned topology?

Recommendations are welcome

z) Are there any licensing constraints or Esri entitlements that must be considered during migration?

We have the ESRI small utility ELA which grants us uncapped ArcGIS Server Advanced licenses, one production ArcGIS Portal license, and 50 user type extensions for ArcGIS Utility Network.

aa) Has the Utility Network readiness study finalized the data model, or should the proposer include refinement and validation?

The data model has not been looked at in depth and needs to be included within scope for this project.

bb) Are there preferred tracing configurations, reporting formats, or output templates for trace results?

No

cc) Should training be provided for editors, administrators, or both?

Both

dd) Are there existing attribute rules, contingent values, or validation rules that must be preserved or re-implemented?

There are three attribute rules in place, no contingent values, and no validation rules. The existing attribute rules likely will need to be preserved.

ee) Should the proposer include automated scripts or tools for branch versioning migration and schema updates?

If this is necessary for future schema changes, yes.

ff) Will ACSA provide documentation for all Cityworks AMS customizations, integrations, and reporting components?

This will be covered in the discovery process with the selected firm

gg) Should the proposer include recommendations for alternative customer portal solutions beyond Granicus?

This does not need to be included in the proposal, but does need to be a part of the project

hh) Are there specific workflows, inspections, or service request types that must be replicated in Trimble Unity?

All existing work activity templates need to be migrated over from Cityworks to Unity. This is effectively a lift and shift into the SaaS platform where relatively few changes are anticipated.

ii) Should the proposer include data cleanup activities or only migration of existing data?

Cityworks data cleanup is not in scope

jj) Does ACSA prefer Azure Files, Azure NetApp Files, or SharePoint/OneDrive for the 3 TB file server migration?

This is flexible. This will be covered in the discovery process with the selected firm

kk) Are there retention, archival, or compliance requirements that should be incorporated into the file migration strategy?

No

ll) What is the expected cadence for project meetings, progress updates, and stakeholder reviews?

This is flexible. Effective communication is necessary.

mm) Should the proposal include extended support options beyond the required three-month post-go-live period?

Proposers are welcome to include extended support options in the proposals

nn) Does ACSA require specific documentation formats (runbooks, SOPs, architecture diagrams), or may the proposer use their standard templates?

No specific documentation formats are required

oo) Does the Utility Network feasibility and preparedness study identify issues that need to be addressed with the existing GIS data prior to move to Utility Network?

pp) The study did identify data issues which needed to be corrected. These corrections have largely taken place. Any remaining issues will need to be handled during implementation to determine what options we have to account for exceptions.

There is the possibility additional issues have arisen since the study took place, as the study was concluded in 2024.

qq) Are you looking for GIS Managed Cloud Services as part of the response?

We are not looking for GIS Managed Cloud Services as part of the response.

rr) Can we get the current specs of your machines along with Data and Services? How many VDI's do you need?

We are initially wanting two virtual desktops. The machine specs, data, and services will be made available in greater detail during discovery with the selected proposer.

Currently the primary ArcGIS Server hardware is insufficient. The RAM on the database server is insufficient as well. The on-prem hardware overview in place is as follows:

Component Metric Value Unit Notes

ArcGIS Server Number of Active Services 39 Count Excludes System and Utilities services

ArcGIS Portal Number of Active Users 89 Members Production Enterprise Geodatabase

Feature classes within the Water Distribution Feature Dataset 22

Feature Classes

Production Enterprise Geodatabase

Feature classes within the Sanitary Sewer Distribution Feature Dataset 12

Feature Classes

Production Enterprise Geodatabase

Feature classes outside of water/sewer Feature Datasets 20

Feature Classes

Does not include tables, deprecated feature classes, or other database objects

2) The final date to submit additional questions pertaining to this RFP is May 1st, 2026.

If necessary, a second Q&A document will be released after that date.

3) All other terms and conditions of the solicitation remain unchanged. Sealed proposals must be received in accordance with the solicitation requirements by May 11, 2026. Late proposals will not be considered.

4) A signed acknowledgement of this addendum (below) must be received by this office either prior to the proposal due date or attached to your proposal. Signature on this addendum does not constitute your signature on the original proposal document. The original proposal document must be signed also.

Sincerely, Justin Ray jray@serviceauthority.org

Name of Firm Signature/Title

Date Printed Name mailto:jray@serviceauthority.org