Agenda,_Legislative,_and_Public_Meeting_Management_Solution.pdf

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

2026-RFP-056

AGENDA, LEGISLATIVE, AND PUBLIC MEETING MANAGEMENT

SOLUTION

City of Palm Desert

73-510 Fred Waring Drive

Palm Desert, CA 92260

RELEASE DATE: August 26, 2026

DEADLINE FOR QUESTIONS: September 3, 2026

RESPONSE DEADLINE: September 16, 2026, 2:00 pm

RESPONSES MUST BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY TO:

https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/cityofpalmdesert https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/cityofpalmdesert

City of Palm Desert

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

Agenda, Legislative, and Public Meeting Management Solution

1. Background and Introduction

2. Notice Inviting Proposals

3. Scope of Services

4. Requests for Clarification

5. Content and Format of Proposal

6. Submittal Requirements

7. Evaluation Criteria

8. Selection Process

9. General Conditions

10. Protests

Attachments:

A - Draft Professional Services Agreement

Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-056 Title: Agenda, Legislative, and Public Meeting Management Solution

1. Background and Introduction

1.1. Summary

The City of Palm Desert (“City”) is seeking proposals from qualified firms to provide a comprehensive, modern Agenda, Legislative, and Public Meeting Management Solution that supports the full lifecycle of the City’s legislative and public meeting processes.

The City seeks a solution that will streamline agenda development and approval, meeting administration, minutes preparation, public access to meeting materials, video streaming and recordings, records management, and related workflows. The selected solution should improve efficiency for City staff, reduce duplicative processes and system handoffs, enhance accessibility and transparency for the public, integrate with the City’s existing technology environment, and provide a reliable and sustainable platform for future operations.

The successful Proposer will be responsible for providing the proposed software solution together with implementation, configuration, data migration, integration, testing, training, go-live support, and ongoing maintenance and technical support.

The City anticipates entering into an Agreement for an initial term of three (3) years, with two (2) optional one-year extensions, for a maximum potential term of five (5) years.

1.2. Background

The City of Palm Desert is a charter city located in the Coachella Valley in eastern Riverside County, California. Incorporated in 1973, Palm Desert operates under a council-manager form of government with a five-member City Council elected by district. The City has approximately 50,000 year-round residents, with the population increasing significantly during the seasonal winter months. The City

Council regularly meets on the second and fourth Thursdays of each month, and the City supports a variety of additional boards, commissions, committees, and other public meetings.

The City currently utilizes eScribe to support portions of its agenda and public meeting management processes. As the City’s operational, accessibility, records management, public transparency, and technology needs have evolved, the City is evaluating available solutions that can provide a more integrated and efficient approach to managing the complete agenda and meeting lifecycle.

The City’s goal is not simply to replace an existing software platform, but to evaluate opportunities to improve the way agenda items are created, reviewed, approved, published, presented during meetings, recorded in minutes, retained as official records, and made accessible to the public. The City is particularly interested in reducing duplicate data entry and manual handoffs, improving workflow visibility and accountability, strengthening accessibility of public-facing materials, improving search and access to historical meeting information, and establishing effective integrations with other City systems.

The selected solution will be expected to support both current operational needs and the City’s long-term objectives for legislative management, public meeting administration, records accessibility, digital services, and transparency. The City is open to vendor-recommended approaches, including phased implementation, integrations, and migration strategies that balance functionality, accessibility, operational risk, cost, and long-term sustainability.

1.3. Contact Information

Project Contact:

Damian Olivares

Senior Deputy Clerk

73510 Fred Waring Drive

Palm Desert, CA 92260

Email: dolivares@palmdesert.gov

Phone: (760) 776-6334

Procurement Contact:

Celina Cabrera

Senior Management Analyst

73510 Fred Waring Dr

Palm Desert, CA 92260

Email: ccabrera@palmdesert.gov

Phone: (760) 776-6449

Department:

CMO - City Clerk

1.4. Timeline

The scheduled dates are tentative and City retains the sole discretion to adjust the schedule. Nothing set forth herein shall be deemed to bind City to award a contract for the Services and City retains the sole discretion to cancel or modify any part of or all of this RFP at any time.

Release of Request for Proposal August 26, 2026

Last Day to Submit Questions for

Clarification

September 3, 2026, 2:00pm

Clarifications Issued by City on or before September 9, 2026, 2:00pm

Deadline for Receipt of Proposals submitted on or before

September 16, 2026, 2:00pm

2. Notice Inviting Proposals

2.1. NOTICE

RFP No.: 2026-RFP-056

Project Title: Agenda, Legislative, and Public Meeting Management Solution mailto:dolivares@palmdesert.gov tel:(760)776-6334 mailto:ccabrera@palmdesert.gov tel:(760)776-6449

PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that proposals will be received by the City of Palm Desert (“City”) electronically through the City of Palm Desert’s ("City") online bid management provider (“OpenGov

Procurement”), until 2:00 pm, Wednesday, September 16, 2026. Proposals may not be submitted by fax, email, telephone, mail, hand delivery, or other means; any proposals received through any means other than OpenGov Procurement will be returned to the proposer unopened.

The City is requesting proposals to provide: Procurement of a modern agenda and public meeting management solution to support agenda preparation and approval, meeting administration, minutes, public access, streaming and recordings, records management, integrations, migration, implementation, training, and ongoing support.

The award of this contract is subject to available budget adequate to carry out the provisions of the proposed Agreement including the identified scope of work. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals determined not to be in the best interest of the City.

The City of Palm Desert is committed to inclusion and diversity and welcomes proposals and bids from contractors, consultants, and vendors of all faiths, creeds, ancestries, and ethnicities without regard to disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, or immigration status. The City condemns and will not tolerate prejudice, racism, bigotry, hatred, bullying, or violence towards any group within or outside of our community.

2.2. SCOPE OF SERVICES

The Services sought under this Request for Proposals (“RFP”) are set forth in more detail in the Scope of

Services Section, incorporated herein by this reference. Notwithstanding the inclusion of such Services in the Scope of Services Section, the final scope of Services negotiated between City and the successful

Proposer shall be set forth in the Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) executed by and between City and the successful Proposer. A copy of the Agreement is attached and incorporated herein by this reference.

2.3. REGISTRATION

Interested proposers may register as vendors and download the Request for Proposals (“RFP”). To register, visit the City's electronic bidding website, OpenGov Procurement, and proceed to "Subscribe" as a vendor with the City to receive new project notifications. Interested proposers may "Follow" the RFP to view and/or download the RFP details, receive addenda alerts and notices, and draft and submit a response.

2.4. PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING

For this RFP, there is no pre-proposal meeting.

3. Scope of Services

3.1. Scope Overview

The City seeks a comprehensive agenda, legislative, and public meeting management solution that supports the complete lifecycle of agenda preparation, review and approval, meeting administration, https://secure.procurenow.com/portal/cityofpalmdesert minutes, public access, records management, streaming and recordings, and related administrative functions.

The requirements described below identify the capabilities, outcomes, and services the City considers important to the successful implementation and ongoing operation of the solution. The City recognizes that solutions may accomplish these objectives through different technologies, configurations, integrations, or service models and encourages Proposers to recommend the approach that best meets the City’s needs.

For each applicable capability, Proposers shall clearly identify whether the functionality is:

• Included as a standard feature of the proposed solution;

• Available through configuration;

• Available as an optional module or additional-cost service;

• Provided through a third-party product, integration, or subcontractor;

• Currently under development or planned for future release; or

• Not available.

Proposers should identify any assumptions, limitations, dependencies, licensing requirements, third-party costs, or City responsibilities associated with the proposed approach.

3.2. Agenda Development and Approval

The proposed solution should provide the ability to:

• Create agenda items, staff reports, and related materials using City-defined templates, including attachments, collaboration, version history, comments, deadlines, and assignment of responsibility.

• Configure routing and approval workflows based on department, legislative body, agenda item type, or other City-defined criteria, including the ability to return items for revision, place items on hold, withdraw items, and reschedule items for a future meeting.

• Assemble and publish agendas and agenda packets efficiently, including controlled late changes, supplemental materials, bookmarks, pagination, and maintenance of publication history.

• Search prior agenda items, staff reports, actions, decisions, and attachments, and track referrals, assignments, or other post-meeting follow-up when applicable.

3.3. Meeting Operations and Minutes

• Prepare meeting workspaces from the approved agenda and support attendance, item order, presentations, recesses, public-comment sequencing, motions, amendments, recusals, and votes.

• Create draft minutes from meeting actions and City templates, with authorized editing, approval, correction, and publication.

• Provide secure access for authorized meeting participants and allow private or personal annotations where supported, with clear controls governing the confidentiality, retention, visibility, and administrative accessibility of such annotations.

• Support the City's in-person, hybrid, and legally permitted remote-meeting practices, whether natively or through reliable integrations.

3.4. Public Access, Media, and Records

• Provide a responsive, accessible, mobile-friendly public portal or website experience, integrated with or accessible through the City website, where members of the public can locate, view, download, and share agendas, staff reports, attachments, minutes, notices, actions, video, and captions without requiring an account or specialized software.

• Offer practical search and filtering across meetings, bodies, dates, agenda text, attachments, actions, and media. Maintain persistent or stable links to published meeting records and describe how links and public access will be preserved through system upgrades, migration, or contract termination.

• Stream and record meetings reliably, provide item-level timestamps or chapters, support captions and transcripts, and maintain links among agenda items, minutes, and the corresponding media segment.

• Describe options for subscriptions, multilingual content, third-party streaming destinations, network interruption, local or redundant recording, storage, retention, and evening meeting support.

3.5. Accessibility

Accessibility is a core requirement. Public-facing web and mobile content and interactions provided through the proposed solution must conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA and applicable Title II requirements.

The City also encourages Proposers to identify the extent to which the proposed solution conforms to

WCAG 2.2 Level AA and any roadmap for addressing applicable criteria not currently supported..

• Provide a current Accessibility Conformance Report based on the applicable VPAT, including the product version, evaluation date and method, known material exceptions, and remediation approach.

• Explain how the solution supports keyboard and assistive-technology users and helps City authors create accessible agendas, reports, attachments, links, tables, and PDFs.

• Describe live and on-demand captioning and transcript options, correction workflow, languages, turnaround, and pricing.

• Identify the vendor's responsibilities, the City's content-authoring responsibilities, and the process for reporting and resolving accessibility defects.

3.6. Integrations, Data, and Portability

• Integrate effectively with the City's identity environment, Laserfiche or a successor records platform, Microsoft 365, website, audiovisual systems, streaming destinations, and other relevant tools.

• Support standards-based single sign-on, role-based access, and documented APIs, webhooks, or managed integration services appropriate to the proposed solution.

• Maintain useful metadata and audit history and support export of City data, documents, captions, media metadata, and relationships in documented, commonly usable formats.

• Recommend a practical approach to migration from eScribe and any remaining historical archive, including what should be migrated, linked, retained in place, or converted.

All City records and City-supplied content remain the City's property. Upon request and upon expiration or termination of the Agreement, the City must be able to obtain its data and records in documented, commonly usable formats without unreasonable restrictions or proprietary dependencies. Proposers shall describe available export capabilities, applicable costs, anticipated timelines, and any limitations associated with data extraction or transition to another system.

The selected solution must support the City's obligations under the California Public Records Act, the

Brown Act, applicable retention schedules, and other legal requirements.

3.7. Security and Service Reliability

The City expects security and service practices appropriate for a cloud service supporting public meetings. Proposers should provide sufficient information for the City to evaluate the security and resiliency of the proposed solution without including confidential security documentation in the proposal. Additional documentation may be requested from finalists or the selected Proposer through an appropriate confidential review process.

• Identity and access controls, including single sign-on, multifactor authentication where appropriate, least privilege, role management, and audit logging.

• Encryption, tenant separation, secure development, vulnerability management, backups, recovery, privacy, subprocessors, and incident response.

• Current independent assurance such as SOC 2 Type II, ISO/IEC 27001, or equivalent evidence, with sensitive material available through an appropriate review process if needed.

• Proposed availability and support commitments, planned maintenance, recovery objectives, historical reliability, and practical continuity arrangements for scheduled meetings.

3.8. Automation and Artificial Intelligence

The City welcomes thoughtful use of artificial intelligence and automation to improve captioning, transcription, summarization, drafting, search, translation, tagging, accessibility, or workflow efficiency.

AI is not limited to these examples, and the City does not require a particular model, provider, or architecture.

• Describe the AI-enabled capabilities available today, the user experience, expected benefits, limitations, human-review points, and whether each capability is included or optional.

• Explain at a practical level what City information is processed, where it is processed, how long it is retained, whether it is used to train shared models, and what administrative controls are available.

• Official agendas, notices, votes, minutes, and other City records must remain subject to review and approval by authorized people before publication or finalization.

• Identify pricing and material third-party dependencies and describe how significant changes affecting data use, privacy, or contracted functionality are communicated.

3.9. Administration, Support, and Product Direction

• Allow authorized City administrators to manage routine users, roles, legislative bodies, templates, workflows, calendars, notifications, public labels, and reports without unnecessary professional-services engagements. Proposers shall identify which administrative and configuration functions may be performed directly by City staff and which require vendor assistance, professional services or additional fees.

• Provide useful operational visibility into workflow status, publication history, failed integrations, usage, storage, service health, and support activity.

• Offer accessible training and documentation for administrators, staff, meeting operators, and participants, together with go-live and ongoing support appropriate to evening public meetings.

• Describe the assigned service team, escalation process, release communications, product roadmap, user community, and approach to customer enhancement requests.

3.10. Implementation Approach

The selected Proposer will be responsible for providing a coordinated implementation that minimizes operational disruption and City staff workload while preparing the City for successful long-term administration of the solution. The City is open to a phased, modular, or other vendor-recommended implementation approach and does not prescribe a particular project methodology.

Proposers shall identify a single accountable implementation lead and clearly define the respective responsibilities of the Proposer, any subcontractors or third-party partners, and City staff.

• Discovery, configuration, integrations, environment preparation, and confirmation of success measures.

• A proposed schedule with major decisions, deliverables, dependencies, risks, and the level of

City participation required.

• Testing and validation of key workflows, integrations, accessibility, security, migration, meeting operations, and recovery procedures.

• Role-based training, practice meetings, administrator handoff, go-live support, stabilization, and transition to ongoing service.

3.11. Migration and Cutover

The Proposer shall describe its recommended approach for migrating data, documents, meeting records, media, metadata, and other applicable content from the City’s current eScribe environment and any remaining historical archives. The proposed approach should identify what content is recommended for migration, conversion, linking, or retention in place, based on record value, accessibility, searchability, cost, technical feasibility, and implementation risk.

The Proposer shall describe its process for assessing the City’s existing data and records, performing representative migration testing, validating and reconciling migrated information, addressing exceptions or unsuccessful conversions, and supporting final cutover to the new solution. The approach should also address preservation of public access to historical meeting information and continuity of stable or persistent links where practicable.

The Proposer shall identify:

• The information, system access, data extracts, or other assistance required from the City to evaluate and perform the migration;

• Any assumptions, limitations, dependencies, or exclusions associated with the proposed migration approach;

• The anticipated responsibilities of the Proposer, any third-party providers, and City staff;

• The estimated level of City staff participation required;

• Any migration tools, services, or third-party products that will be used; and

• Whether all proposed migration and cutover services are included in the proposed implementation cost and, if not, the basis for any additional fees.

The City does not assume that every legacy record must be migrated or converted in the same manner and encourages Proposers to recommend a practical approach that balances accessibility, operational needs, long-term records management, cost, and risk.

3.12. Acceptance

Prior to production acceptance, the City and selected Proposer will establish reasonable and measurable acceptance criteria for the implemented solution. At a minimum, acceptance testing is anticipated to address configured workflows, integrations, migration results, accessibility, security, user permissions, public access, meeting operations, training, documentation, and successful practice and production meetings.

The Proposer should identify its recommended testing and acceptance methodology, including how defects, configuration issues, migration discrepancies, and other deficiencies will be documented, prioritized, corrected, retested, and approved.

4. Requests for Clarification

All questions, requests for interpretations or clarifications, either administrative or technical must be requested in writing via the "Questions & Answer" tab through the City’s online bid management provider

(“OpenGov-Procurement”).

All written questions, if answered, will be answered in writing, conveyed to all interested firms, and posted through OpenGov-Procurement. Oral statements regarding this RFP by any persons should be considered unverified information unless confirmed in writing. To ensure a response, questions must be received in writing by 2:00 pm (local time) on Thursday, September 3, 2026.

5. Content and Format of Proposal

5.1. Proposal (Without Cost)*

Proposals shall be concise, well organized, and sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the Proposer’s qualifications, understanding of the City’s needs, proposed solution, implementation approach, and ability to successfully provide the Services described in this RFP.

Proposals shall be organized in the order listed below and should clearly identify each section and subsection. Proposers are encouraged to provide direct, specific responses and avoid unnecessary marketing materials or information that does not relate to the requirements of this RFP.

The proposal shall include the following:

1. Cover Letter and Executive Summary

Include a brief introduction to the firm and proposed solution. The Executive Summary should:

• Identify the solution being proposed, including major modules or components.

• Summarize the Proposer’s understanding of the City’s objectives.

• Describe the overall approach to implementation and ongoing support.

• Identify any significant third-party products, integrations, or subcontractors included in the proposed solution.

• Identify the individual authorized to negotiate Agreement terms and compensation on behalf of the Proposer, including name, title, email address, and telephone number.

2. Firm Qualifications and Relevant Experience

Provide information demonstrating the Proposer’s qualifications and experience providing agenda, legislative, public meeting, records, streaming, or related management solutions comparable to those requested by the City.

At a minimum, include:

• A brief history and background of the firm.

• The length of time the firm has provided the proposed solution or substantially similar solutions.

• Experience providing comparable services to cities, counties, special districts, or other public agencies.

• The approximate number and type of public-sector agencies currently using the proposed solution.

• Experience implementing solutions of similar size, scope, complexity, and functionality.

• Relevant certifications, partnerships, or technical qualifications applicable to the proposed solution.

3. References

Provide a minimum of three (3) references for clients currently using the proposed solution in an environment comparable to the City.

For each reference, provide:

• Agency or organization name.

• Brief description of the project and services provided.

• Solution, modules, or major components implemented.

• Approximate implementation date and go-live date.

• Name, title, email address, and telephone number

• A brief description of any significant similarities between the referenced implementation and the City's proposed implementation.

4. Proposed Solution and Functional Capabilities

Provide a detailed description of the proposed solution and explain how it will meet the requirements identified in Section 3, Scope of Services.

For each applicable capability, clearly identify whether the functionality is:

• Included as standard functionality of the proposed solution;

• Available through configuration;

• Available as an optional module or additional-cost service;

• Provided through a third-party product, integration, subcontractor, or partner;

• Currently under development or planned for future release; or

• Not available.

Identify any significant limitations, dependencies, licensing requirements, third-party requirements, City responsibilities, or additional costs associated with the proposed functionality.

At a minimum, the response shall address the following:

• Agenda Development and Approval.

• Meeting Operations and Minutes

• Public Access, Media, and Records.

• Accessibility.

• Integrations, Data, and Portability.

• Security and Service Reliability.

• Automation and Artificial Intelligence.

• Administration, Support, and Product Direction.

5. Implementation, Migration, and Transition Approach

Describe the Proposer’s recommended approach to implementation, migration, testing, cutover, go-live, and transition to ongoing operations.

At a minimum, include:

• Proposed project methodology and governance structure.

• Proposed implementation schedule, including major phases, milestones, dependencies, decision points, and anticipated go-live.

• Discovery, configuration, and system setup activities.

• Proposed approach to required integrations.

• Testing and validation methodology.

• Proposed approach to migration of data, documents, meeting records, media, metadata, and historical content.

• Training approach for administrators, staff, meeting operators, and other applicable users.

• Practice meetings, go-live support, and stabilization activities.

• Transition from implementation to ongoing support.

• Responsibilities of the Proposer, any subcontractors or third-party partners, and City staff.

• Key assumptions, risks, limitations, and dependencies.

• Estimated level of City staff participation required throughout implementation.

6. Project Team and Staffing

Identify the personnel who will be principally responsible for implementation and ongoing support of the proposed solution.

At a minimum, provide:

• Name and title of each key individual.

• Proposed role and responsibilities.

• Relevant experience and qualifications.

• Length of time with the firm.

• Availability during implementation and go-live.

• Identification of any subcontractors, implementation partners, or third-party personnel who will have a significant role in providing the Services.

• Identification of any anticipated differences between the implementation team and the ongoing support or account management team.

Resumes for key personnel may be included as an appendix to the proposal.

7. Support and Service Model

Describe the Proposer’s ongoing support and customer service model.

At a minimum, include:

• Standard support hours.

• Availability of support during evening public meetings.

• Methods available for submitting and tracking support requests.

• Support severity levels and target response and resolution times.

• Escalation procedures.

• Assigned account management, customer success, or technical support resources.

• System maintenance practices and planned maintenance notifications.

• Software release and upgrade practices.

• Training resources available after implementation.

• Any support levels, tiers, services, or response commitments that require additional fees.

8. Security, Privacy, and Accessibility Documentation

Provide sufficient documentation to allow the City to evaluate the security, privacy, and accessibility of the proposed solution.

At a minimum, include or identify the availability of:

• A current Accessibility Conformance Report based on the applicable Voluntary Product

Accessibility Template (VPAT).

• Current SOC 2 Type II, ISO/IEC 27001, or comparable independent security assurance, if applicable.

• A summary of the proposed hosting environment and location of City data.

• Security incident response practices.

• Data retention, backup, recovery, export, and deletion practices.

• Identification of material subprocessors and third-party providers.

• Artificial intelligence and automated processing data-use practices, where applicable.

• Any known material accessibility, privacy, or security limitations associated with the proposed solution.

Sensitive security documentation may be made available through an appropriate separate review process if necessary.

9. Additional Information

Provide any additional information the Proposer believes would assist the City in evaluating the proposed solution, including value-added services, optional functionality, future capabilities, or product roadmap considerations.

Optional products or services shall be clearly identified as optional and shall not be presented in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as included in the base proposal.

*Response required

5.2. Fee Proposal*

The Proposer shall provide a complete and transparent fee proposal identifying all costs associated with implementation and ongoing use of the proposed solution.

Pricing shall clearly distinguish between one-time implementation costs, recurring subscription or licensing costs, optional services, third-party costs, and any other applicable fees.

At a minimum, the Fee Proposal shall identify:

• Software subscription or licensing fees.

• Implementation and configuration costs.

• Data migration costs.

• Integration costs.

• Training costs.

• Streaming, media hosting, storage, captioning, or transcription costs, as applicable.

• Accessibility-related services, if separately priced.

• Artificial intelligence-enabled functionality, if separately priced.

• Third-party products or services.

• Ongoing support and maintenance costs.

• Optional modules, features, or services.

• Travel or reimbursable expenses, if applicable.

• Pricing for each proposed renewal year.

• Hourly rates or other pricing for services performed outside the proposed scope.

The Proposer shall clearly identify all pricing assumptions, user limits, storage limits, meeting limits, usage limits, transaction limits, annual price escalators, minimum commitments, or other factors that may affect the City’s total cost.

The Fee Proposal shall also identify any costs that are dependent upon final configuration, migration volume, third-party services, or usage levels and describe the basis upon which such costs will be calculated.

*Response required

5.3. Changes to Agreement*

The City standard professional services agreement contract is included as an attachment herein. The

Proposer shall identify any objections to and/or request changes to the standard contract language in this section of the proposal (or type "N/A"). If you are identifying changes here ALSO upload a copy of the redlined Language/Agreement with your Proposal. Changes requested may affect the City's decision to enter into an Agreement.

*Response required

5.4. Non-Collusion Declaration*

The undersigned declares:

I am an authorized representative of my company, the party making the foregoing Proposal, to certify the following.

The Proposal is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization, or corporation. The Proposal is genuine and not collusive or sham. The Proposer has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other Proposer to put in a false or sham bid. The

Proposer has not directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any Proposer or anyone else to put in a sham bid, or to refrain from bidding. The Proposer has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the Proposal Price of the Proposer or any other Proposer, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of the Proposal Price, or of that of any other Proposer. All statements contained in the Proposal are true. The Proposer has not, directly or indirectly, submitted his or her Proposal Price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or data relative thereto, to any corporation, partnership, company, association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or agent thereof to effectuate a collusive or sham Proposal, and has not paid, and will not pay, any person or entity for such purpose.

Any person executing this declaration on behalf of a Proposer that is a corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or any other entity, hereby represents that he or she has full power to execute, and does execute, this declaration on behalf of the Proposer.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

☐ Please confirm

*Response required

5.5. SAM.gov*

Please enter your legal entity name for SAM.gov verification.

*Response required

5.6. Type of Business*

☐ C Corporation (if corporation, two signatures are required)

☐ S Corporation (if corporation, two signatures are required)

☐ Limited Liability C Corporation (if corporation, two signatures are required)

☐ Partnership

☐ Limited Liability Partnership

☐ Sole Proprietor/Individual

☐ Other

5.7. Litigation*

Provide litigation history for any claims filed by your firm or against your firm related to the provision of

Services in the last five (5) years (or type "N/A").

*Response required

5.8. No Deviations from the RFP*

In submitting a proposal in response to this RFP, Proposer is certifying that it takes no exceptions to this

RFP including, but not limited to, the Agreement. If any exceptions are taken, such exceptions must be clearly noted here, and may be reason for rejection of the proposal. As such, Proposer is directed to carefully review the proposed Agreement and, in particular, the insurance and indemnification provisions therein (or type "N/A").

*Response required

5.9. List the Signatory(s) Authorized to Sign and Bind an Agreement.* (If two (2) signatures are required, include the following information for both signatories)

1. Full Name

2. Title

3. Physical Business Address

4. Email Address

5. Phone Number

Corporation (C-Corp): Requires two signatures from authorized officers— one from President or Vice

President, and the other from the Secretary or Treasurer.

An alternate signatory may be used if authorized by a Notarized Corporate Resolution or Article of

Authority.

LLC: Usually requires one signature from an authorized member or manager. For significant contracts

(e.g., over $50,000 for construction or over $25,000 for service agreements), additional approvals or signatures may be required.

Sole Proprietorship, Non-Profit, Single LLC: Only the one signature is necessary.

*Response required

5.10. Conflict of Interest Disclosure*

The Proposer understands that any and all relationships with other professional firms that may submit

Proposals for projects developed under this agreement will require full disclosure of any direct or indirect conflicts of interest, financial interests, relationships, and the nature of any relationships with any related project bid submitters; and that any violation of this provision may result in the immediate termination of the Agreement

☐ Please confirm

5.11. Certification of Proposal*

The undersigned hereby submits its proposal and, by doing so, agrees to furnish services in accordance with the Request for Proposal (RFP), and to be bound by the terms and conditions of the RFP.

☐ Please confirm

*Response required

6. Submittal Requirements

6.1. General

It is strongly recommended that the Proposer submit proposals in the format identified in this RFP to allow the City to fully evaluate and compare the proposal. All requirements and questions in the RFP should be addressed and all requested data shall be supplied. The City reserves the right to request additional information which, in the City’s opinion, is necessary to assure that the Proposer’s competence, number of qualified employees, business organization, and financial resources are adequate to perform according to the Agreement.

6.2. Preparation

Proposals should be prepared in such a way as to provide a straightforward, concise delineation of capabilities to satisfy the requirements of this RFP. Responses should emphasize the Proposer’s demonstrated capability to perform the Services. Expensive bindings and promotional materials, etc., are not necessary or desired. However, technical literature that supports the approach to providing the

Services and work plan should be forwarded as part of the proposal. Emphasis should be concentrated on completeness, approach to the work and clarity of proposal.

6.3. Site Examination

Proposers may visit the City and its physical facilities to determine the local conditions which may in any way affect the performance of the work; familiarize themselves with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and codes affecting the performance of the work; make such investigations, as it may deem necessary for performance of the Services at its proposal price within the terms of the

Agreement; and correlate its observations, investigations, and determinations with the requirements of the Agreement.

6.4. Authorization

The proposal shall be signed by an individual, partner, officer or officers authorized to execute legal documents on behalf of the Proposer.

6.5. Confidentiality of Proposal

Proposals submitted in response to this RFP shall be held confidential by City and shall not be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Cal. Government Code section 6250 et seq.) until after either City and the successful Proposer have completed negotiations and entered into an Agreement or

City has rejected all proposals. All correspondence with the City including responses to this RFP will become the exclusive property of the City and will become public records under the California Public

Records Act. The City will have no liability to the Proposer or other party as a result of any public disclosure of any proposal or the Agreement.

If a Proposer desires to exclude a portion of its proposal from disclosure under the California Public

Records Act, the Proposer must mark it as such and state the specific provision in the California Public

Records Act which provides the exemption as well as the factual basis for claiming the exemption. For example, if a Proposer submits trade secret information, the Proposer must plainly mark the information as “Trade Secret” and refer to the appropriate section of the California Public Records Act which provides the exemption as well as the factual basis for claiming the exemption. If a request is made for information marked “Confidential”, “Trade Secret” or “Proprietary” (“Proprietary Information”), the City will provide

Proposers who submitted the information with reasonable notice to seek protection from disclosure by a court of competent jurisdiction. Proposer shall have five (5) working days after receipt of such notice to give City written notice of Proposer's objection to the City's release of Proprietary Information. Proposer shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, and its officers, directors, employees, and agents from and against all liability, loss, cost or expense (including attorney's fees) arising out of a legal action brought to compel the release of Proprietary Information.

Proposals which indiscriminately identify all or most of the proposal as exempt from disclosure without justification may be deemed unresponsive and disqualified from further participation in this RFP.

6.6. Submittal Instructions

The proposal must be received no later than 2:00 pm, on or before Wednesday, September 16, 2026 through the City’s electronic bidding system, OpenGov Procurement. It is solely the responsibility of

Proposer to see that its proposal is properly submitted in #Content and Format of Proposal in proper form and prior to the stated closing time. The City’s electronic bidding system will not accept late proposals.

The City will only consider proposals that have transmitted successfully and have been sent an email with a time stamp from the City’s electronic bidding system indicating that the proposal was submitted successfully. Proposers shall be solely responsible for informing themselves with respect to the proper utilization of the City’s electronic bidding system, ensuring the capability of their computer system to upload the required documents, and the stability of their internet service. Failure of the Proposer to successfully submit an electronic proposal shall be at the Proposer’s sole risk, and no relief will be given for late and/or improperly submitted proposals.

Proposers experiencing any technical difficulties with the proposal submission process may contact

OpenGov Procurement Support using the instant help chat function (located at the bottom right of the screen while on the website) during business hours, or by emailing support@procurenow.com. Neither the City nor OpenGov Procurement make any guarantee as to the timely availability of assistance or assurance that any given problem will be resolved by the proposal submission date and/or time.

7. Evaluation Criteria

Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by an evaluation committee based on the criteria below. The

City may award a contract to the proposer whose proposal is determined to be in the best interest to https://secure.procurenow.com/portal/cityofpalmdesert/projects/295119/document?section=2838186 mailto:support@procurenow.com the City, taking into consideration the evaluation criteria, qualifications, proposed approach, cost, and overall value to the City. The lowest-cost proposal will not necessarily be selected.

No. Evaluation Criteria Scoring Method Weight (Points)

1. Proposal Clarity, Completeness, and

Responsiveness

Evaluation will be based on the organization, clarity, completeness, and responsiveness of the proposal. Consideration may include whether the proposal follows the required format, addresses all requested information, clearly identifies assumptions and exceptions, and provides sufficient detail for the City to evaluate the proposed solution.

0-5 Points 5 (5% of Total)

2. Qualifications and Relevant Experience

Evaluation will be based on the Proposer’s demonstrated qualifications and experience successfully providing and implementing agenda, legislative, public meeting, records, streaming, or comparable management solutions.

Consideration may include experience with public agencies; experience with implementations of similar size, scope, and complexity; length of experience providing the proposed solution; demonstrated performance on comparable projects; client references; and relevant technical qualifications.

0-5 Points 15 (15% of Total)

3. Proposed Solution and Functional Capabilities

Evaluation will be based on the extent to which the proposed solution meets the City’s functional and operational requirements identified in the Scope of Services.

Consideration may include:

• Agenda development, routing, approval, and publication;

• Meeting administration and minutes;

• Public access, search, streaming, recordings, captions, and historical records;

• Integration capabilities;

• Data management and portability;

• Administrative configuration and reporting;

• Automation and artificial intelligence capabilities;

• Ease of use for staff, meeting participants, administrators, and the public;

• Reliance on optional modules, third-party products, or custom development; and

• Significant limitations, dependencies, or functionality that is not currently available.

0-5 Points 30 (30% of Total)

4. Implementation, Migration, and Transition

Approach

Evaluation will be based on the quality, practicality, and completeness of the

Proposer’s approach to implementing and transitioning the City to the proposed solution.

Consideration may include the proposed implementation methodology and schedule;

project governance; configuration;

integrations; testing; migration of eScribe and historical records; training; practice meetings;

cutover; go-live and stabilization support;

identification of risks and dependencies; City staffing requirements; and the Proposer’s approach to acceptance and transition to ongoing operations.

0-5 Points 20 (20% of Total)

5. Project Team, Support, and Service Model

Evaluation will be based on the qualifications, experience, availability, and organization of the personnel proposed to support implementation and ongoing operations.

Consideration may include the qualifications and experience of key personnel; availability and continuity of the proposed team; use of subcontractors or third-party partners;

assigned implementation and account-management resources; standard and after-hours support; response and escalation procedures; training resources; and the overall quality of the ongoing customer support model.

0-5 Points 10 (10% of Total)

6. Security, Privacy, and Accessiblity

Evaluation will be based on the Proposer’s demonstrated ability to provide a secure, reliable, accessible, and appropriately managed solution.

Consideration may include:

• Accessibility conformance and supporting VPAT/Accessibility

Conformance Report;

• Compliance with applicable Title II and WCAG requirements;

• Security controls and independent security assurance;

• Hosting, backup, recovery, and service reliability;

• Privacy and data-management practices;

• Subprocessor and third-party dependencies;

• Artificial intelligence data-use practices, where applicable; and

• The Proposer’s approach to identifying, reporting, and correcting accessibility or security deficiencies.

7. Cost Proposal and Overall Value

Evaluation will be based on the completeness, reasonableness, transparency, and competitiveness of the proposed pricing and the overall value of the proposed solution to the City.

Consideration may include one-time implementation costs; recurring subscription or licensing costs; migration, integration, training, support, storage, streaming, captioning, artificial intelligence, and third-party costs; optional services; annual price adjustments; usage or licensing limitations;

and the anticipated total cost over the proposed Agreement term.

The City is not obligated to select the lowest-cost proposal and may consider the relationship between cost, functionality, implementation risk, service quality, and overall value.

8. Selection Process

1. During the evaluation process, the City reserves the right, where it may serve the City's best interest, to request additional information or clarifications from Proposers, or to allow corrections of errors or omissions.

2. It is the City’s intent to select a Proposer best evidencing demonstrated competence and professional qualification to perform the Services. The City reserves the right to reject all proposals, select by proposal review only or interview as needed. Certain Proposers may be selected to make a brief presentation and oral interview after which a final selection will be made.

The successful Proposer will be selected on the basis of information provided in the RFP, in-person presentations, and the results of the City’s research and investigation. Upon selection of a

Proposer, the City will endeavor to negotiate a mutually agreeable Agreement with the selected

Proposer. In the event that the City is unable to reach Agreement, the City will proceed, at its sole discretion, to negotiate with the next Proposer selected by the City. The City reserves the right to contract for services in the manner that most benefits the City including awarding more than one contract if desired.

3. After negotiating a proposed Agreement that is fair and reasonable, City staff will make the final recommendation to the City Council concerning the proposed Agreement. The City Council has the final authority to approve or reject the Agreement.

9. General Conditions

9.1. Federal Requirements

If the Services are funded through a federal funding source, the successful Proposer and its subconsultants/subcontractors shall be required to take cognizance of and comply with all requirements set forth in the Federal Requirements, attached and incorporated herein by this reference.

9.2. Amendments to RFP

The City reserves the right to amend the RFP or issue to all Proposers addenda to answer questions for clarification.

9.3. Amendments to Proposals

Unless specifically requested by the City, no amendment, addendum or modification will be accepted after a proposal has been submitted to City. If a change to a proposal that has been submitted is desired, the submitted proposal must be withdrawn and the replacement proposal submitted prior to the deadline stated herein for receiving proposals.

9.4. Non-Responsive Proposals

A proposal may be considered non-responsive if conditional, incomplete, or if it contains alterations of form, additions not called for, or other irregularities that may constitute a material change to the proposal.

9.5. Costs for Preparing

The City will not compensate any Proposer for the cost of preparing any proposal, and all materials submitted with a proposal shall become the property of the City. The City will retain all proposals submitted and may use any idea in a proposal regardless of whether that proposal is selected.

9.6. Cancellation of RFP

City reserves the right to cancel this RFP at any time…