Addendum1 Clarification Questions Final.pdf

Addendum #1 April 9th, 2026

ADDENDUM #1

RFP #6120-01-26

Recreation Management Software

Questions For Clarification

1. To properly scope licensing, implementation, and support, could you please provide:

• Number of active households and participant records 12,500 Accounts

• Annual program registrations (approximate volume) 100+

• Annual revenue processed through the system $700,000+

• Number of facilities and bookable locations 12 facilities with 45 bookable locations

• Number of staff users (full-�me, part-�me, seasonal) 12 full-time 15 part-time

• To confirm pricing assumptions, does the County’s annual revenue processed through the system include all programs, facility rentals, leagues, and passes/memberships, and are there any revenue types that should be excluded (e.g., grant-funded programs, internal transfers, or $0 registrations)? Yes and no other funds go through our system

2. Current System & Goals

We understand the current system is RecDesk.

• What are the primary challenges or limitations with RecDesk today? No app and deposits

• What are the top 3–5 outcomes you are hoping to achieve with a new solution? User friendly mobile app, ADA compliance, easier financial reports and solutions to deposits.

• Are there any workflows that are critical to improve immediately post-implementation?

Summer Camp registrations and account transfers

• Are there specific seasonal or peak registration periods the County considers critical to support at go-live? Must go live July 1, 2026

• Should pricing be proposed for a specific initial term length (e.g., 3 or 5 years), or should vendors propose their standard term? Standard term

3. League Management Requirements

The RFP references league scheduling and roster management.

What level of complexity is required (e.g., round robin, tournaments, playoffs)? Seasonal scheduling and tournament brackets.

• Should schedules be public-facing, internal, or both? Both

• Are standings, scoring, or statics tracking required? No

4. Program Attendance & Secure Sign-In/Sign-Out

The RFP mentions attendance tracking and secure sign-in/sign-out.

• What level of functionality is required for child check-in/check-out (PIN, barcode, staff-assisted, etc.)? Staff assistance with guardians and PIN

• Are there any regulatory, audit, or compliance standards the system must meet for childcare programs? No

• Is real-time visibility required, or is attendance tracking sufficient? Attendance tracking is sufficient.

5. Financial System Integration (Tyler Munis)

The RFP specifies integration with Tyler Munis.

• What is the current method of integration (manual, batch upload, API, middleware)?

Unknown

• Can the County confirm whether transaction-level posting is required, or if summarized daily batch postings are acceptable? Summarized daily batch postings are acceptable.

• What data is required to sync (GL entries, batch totals, transaction-level detail)? GL Entries and

Batch Totals.

6. Payment Processing

Does the County currently use a payment processor? If so, which provider? Parks and Recreation currently uses Clover and is open to other options.

• Should vendors include merchant services, or integrate with an exisitng provider? Include merchant services.

• Are there requirements for fee structures (pass-through fees, convenience fees, etc.)?

Customer is responsible for fees.

7. Reporting & Data Access

Can you provide examples of key reports used today?

• What level of reporting is required (standard, ad hoc, dashboards)? All three are preferred.

• Are there any executive or board-level reporting requirements? No

8. Website & CMS Integration

• What CMS or website platform is currently used? Revize

• What level of integration is expected (embedded widgets, API integration, full website replacement)? Embedded widgets.

9. Data Migration

• What data sets should be migrated from RecDesk? Accounts and Facilities

• How many years of historical data should be included? 3 years

• Is data cleansing or normalization expected? Yes

10. Implementation Timeline & Go-Live

The RFP indicates a target go-live date of July 1, 2026.

• Is this date fixed or flexible? No

• If full go-live is not achievable, will phased or functional rollouts be considered acceptable?

No

• Are there any blackout periods or peak seasons that should be considered? No

11. Mobile Application

• Should mobile app functionality be included in base pricing or proposed as optional? Base

• Are there specific use cases the County would like supported via mobile? No

12. Evaluation Criteria & Pricing

• Among the listed evaluation criteria, what are the primary decision drivers? Functionality and Flexibility of software, Quality and Experience of the company.

• How will pricing be evaluated (first-year total, multi-year total, best value, or lowest cost)?

Best Value

• Will interviews and demonstrations be formally scored as part of the evaluation? Yes

1. Would the County consider accepting proposals by email and waiving the requirement for mailed hard copies to help reduce environmental impact and avoid potential unforeseen delivery delays? No

2. How many active card-holding members do you currently have? 12,500

3. How many bookable spaces (including segmented spaces) do you have? 12 facilities with 45 bookable locations

4. How many courses do you offer annually? Include if offered several times annually. 100+

5. What financial software will require integration with the new RMS? Tyler Munis

6. Does the County have a preferred 3rd party hosted payment gateway in place or should we present a list of our integrated options in our response? If a payment gateway already exists, what is the system? Clover is our present vendor but please present a list.

7. How many cash registers for POS are required? 4

1. POS Hardware: The RFP references compatibility with touch screen computers, barcode scanners, cash drawers, magnetic stripe readers, customer displays, and tablets. Should vendors include hardware procurement and pricing in the proposal, or is the County planning to procure hardware separately? If hardware should be included, how many POS stations are needed and at which facilities? Vendor should include

2. Tyler Munis Integration: Can you describe the preferred method for posting transactions to the General Ledger — real-time API, scheduled batch file import, or another approach? Is there a specific version of Tyler Munis / Enterprise ERP currently in use? Scheduled batch file report. Tyler Munis

2024.7.5 version.

3. Data Migration Scope: Approximately how many active patron/household records, programs, and facility listings exist in RecDesk today? Is there historical transaction data that should also be migrated, and if so, how many years? 12,500 accounts, 100+ programs, 12 facilities and 45 bookable locations.

4. Number of Users: The RFP mentions training for a minimum of 10 employees. How many total staff members will need system access, and how many would be concurrent users? 12 full-time and 15 part-time

5. County Website Platform: The RFP mentions the ability to communicate with the County website.

What CMS or platform does the County website currently run on? Revize

1. Method of submission: Section V of the RFP indicates that proposals shall be submitted via email, however Section VII references submission of sealed paper copies. Could the County please confirm that electronic submissions are acceptable and confirm which email we should submit proposals to? Please submit two sealed paper copies.

2. Revenue & Transaction Volume: Could the department provide more information regarding the following:

a. Annual revenue transacted on RecDesk today, ideally broken out by payment method (e.g. online credit card, in-person, cash, check, etc) Cash-$29,500/Check- $121,000/Credit Card-$569,000

b. Any budgetary considerations or information regarding current fees, especially payment processing; None, customer is responsible for fees.

3. Payment Processing: We would appreciate insight into whether the department currently absorbs or passes on payment processing fees to residents and/or is open to that approach? We pass to customer.

4. Desired Contract Term: Could the department clarify the desired term (e.g. three or five years) for the software? No desire

5. Launch live date: The RFP indicates a target go-live date of July 1, 2026. Could the County confirm whether there is flexibility in this �meline? Based on similar implementations, Rec typically recommends approximately four (4) months for implementation including data migration, configuration, and training. July 1st is a must for us.