ESBD_453813_1759933826614_RFP 2025-047 Addendum 2.pdf

Purchasing Services Post Office Box 2570

Waco, Texas 76702-2570 Phone: 254-750-6616

Fax: 254-750-8063 daryleb@wacotx.gov CITY OF WACO

Date: 10/8/2025

RFP No: 2025-047 Commodity: Point of Sale Software and Services Purchasing Agent: Daryle Bullard

Closing Time: 2:00 P.M. CST, October 24, 2025 Opening Time: 2:05 P.M. CST, October 24, 2025

RFB Opening Location: Via Zoom Video and Dial In

Addendum No: 2

The above-mentioned RFP has been changed. Sign and return addendum to the Purchasing Office by the closing time and date with your RFP response.

Returning this page signed by your authorized agent will serve to acknowledge this change. All other requirements of the invitation remain unchanged. If you have any questions, please call or stop by the Purchasing Office at the above address.

Firm:

Address:

Signature of Person Authorized to Sign Bid:

Signor's Name and Title (print or type):

E-mail Address:

Date:

Telephone:

Fax:

RFP 2025-047

Addendum 2 mailto:daryleb@wacotx.gov file://NETAPP/HOMES/JodyC/0%20Purchasing/Utilities/2014/RFB%202014-012%20Generator%20Rebuild/www.waco-texas.com

RFP

For Point of Sale (POS) Software & Services

The City shall distribute all addendums (official changes, modifications, responses to questions or notices) relating to RFP for POS Software and Services by posting this addendum to the City’s website.

No oral explanation or instruction of any kind or nature whatsoever given before the award of a contract to a Vendor shall be binding. Any bid received after stated closing time will not be accepted.

The following changes/clarifications have been made to the original request for proposal.

RFP clarifications and changes

1. The due date for the proposals has been extended to October 24, 2025.

2. If submitting a hard copy, you must also submit a digital copy of Attachment A, B, and C.

3. Addendum No. 1 (this addendum) includes Q&A through September 24, 2025.

Addendum No. 2 will be issued with responses to questions received after September 24 and before the question deadline of October 3, 2025.

Vendor Questions and Responses

1. Question: On Page 9 of the RFP, there's a requirement for “a brief company history and narrative of the proposer’s approach to the project and a statement of understanding targeting the specific nature of this project as detailed in Appendix A, Section D(1).” However, we’ve been unable to locate Appendix A, Section D(1) in the RFP materials. Could you please clarify where this section can be found, and advise where you would like us to include the company history and narrative in our response?

Response: Please refer to “Section O. Proposal response format.” In section one (1), it includes the RFP response and includes (a) Executive summary, “The submitter should provide a brief narrative, not to exceed two pages, describing the proposed solution. The summary should contain as little technical jargon as possible and should be oriented toward non-technical personnel. The executive summary should not include cost quotations.”

2. Question: For hosting services, would the City prefer a dedicated server or shared environment?

Response: The City would like to see both options, including details on where their servers are located if cloud based.

3. Question: In regards to the required services, are you looking for the Core POS system? See link for more info: https://www.corebt.com/our-solutions/payment/point-of-sale-devices/ Response: Yes, the scope includes services required to implement the scope the vendor is proposing (general POS and/or golf and/or concessions).

4. Question: What type of devices are currently in use, and how many? Are you looking to replace them with updated units?

Response: The City expects to replace the devices as part of this procurement/implementation.

5. Question: On pages 20–26 of the RFP, the city provides a summary of metrics and standards, reflecting actual and estimated volumes. The metrics are a mix of daily, monthly and annually

RFP 2025-047

Addendum 2 https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.corebt.com%2Four-solutions%2Fpayment%2Fpoint-of-sale-devices%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cnatalie.schwarz%40plantemoran.com%7C8718b941d9bb47d1b33f08de002e785e%7C64591f40df924ba4b17ab8f7aac94a4e%7C0%7C0%7C638948396751861152%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Q2%2FG4P2W0tas2CKIVrTJKkpFp5yvTUqSaUteBsIlXhs%3D&reserved=0 but based on those figures (excluding Golf), we calculated the following. Can you please confirm whether our calculations are correct — specifically, that the projected annual revenue is $39,742,364 with 18,307,491 projected transactions? Additionally, can you confirm that our library numbers are accurate?

If our calculations are not correct, could you please provide the City’s projected annual revenue and transaction totals for all scope (excluding Golf)?

Response: The summary of metrics reflect accurate counts from RecTrac aside from Library.

The Library’s revenue (shown as “daily”) should have said “annual.” RecTrac annual revenue indicates ~$10.5M, and additional departments beyond those currently utilizing RecTrac will be part of this procurement. Golf indicated that they earn ~$12,000 in revenue daily, which equates to ~$4.3M annually.

6. Question: In the Facility Management section, could the City please offer an example of what they mean by "calculate the most cost-effective rate based on the amount of inventory requested of the reservation"?

Response: A resident wants to reserve a community center for a birthday party. They need:

• 1 large room

• 10 folding tables

• 60 chairs

• A sound system

• Access to the kitchen

The City offers multiple pricing options:

• Package A: $300 flat fee for up to 50 chairs, 10 tables, and kitchen access.

• Package B: $400 flat fee for up to 75 chairs, 15 tables, kitchen access, and sound system.

• À la carte pricing:

o Large room: $150 o Tables: $5 each o Chairs: $2 each o Kitchen: $50 o Sound system: $75

The system should automatically compare all available pricing options and select the most cost-effective one based on the inventory requested. In this case, system selects Package B as the most cost-effective option that meets all requirements:

• À la carte total: $150 + (10×$5) + (60×$2) + $50 + $75 = $515

• Package A: $300 → but doesn't include sound system or enough chairs

• Package B: $400 → includes everything needed

This feature ensures users aren’t overcharged and staff don’t have to manually calculate the best deal. It’s especially useful when inventory needs vary and multiple pricing tiers or bundles exist.

7. Question: Regarding transaction fees, are these passed on to end users or absorbed by the City? Does this vary by department?

Response: Not currently, but this may change as early as next year.

8. Question: Is there a need for devices that can scan passes or tickets for entry?

RFP 2025-047

Response: Yes. For example, this may be considered for Zoo ticketing/entry, special events ticketing for Parks, etc.

9. Question: Would the City be open to an API integration with a system currently marked for replacement (for example, Shopify)? If our API could eliminate duplicate entry and allow you to avoid switching systems, would this be of interest?

Response: The City may consider this through the evaluation process.

10. Question: Today, how many users are required to access the system?

Response: RecTrac’s current user count is 176. As part of this process, the City expects that the future number of end users will increase, including potentially additional departments.

11. Question: If this information can be made or is public, what is the current and future budget allocated for this service?

Response: The City is not disclosing a budget at this time.

12. Question: Could you provide more details on the specific use cases you expect this solution to address?

Response: Please review Attachment C - POS Functional Requirements of this RFP.

13. Question: What is the preferred data center location for the solution being procured, and is there flexibility to use data centers in other regions or locations?

Response: There is flexibility in data center location, but City data may not be housed in non- US data centers.

14. Question: Is there an incumbent vendor currently providing the procured solution? If so, could you share the reason for issuing this new RFP (e.g., performance concerns, feature gaps, end of contract term, etc.)?

Response: Please review the background to this RFP; RecTrac is the current provider of a solution in use.

15. Question: Is it required to answer all fields on attachment C or just the categories for the proposal option we selected? (example: If we are responding to option 2, should we only address the requirements under Core point of sale, General and technical, and Concessions/Restaurant?)?

Response: It is only required to answer fields in the attachment related to the Option selected.

The example provided is correct.

16. Question: What is the city defined expectation policy referenced in #133?

Response: If there are limitations, please describe them in the comments of that requirement.

17. Question: Please clarify what is being asked in requirement #140.

Response: Registers closed will not be posted until reviewed by someone else.

18. Question: Please clarify what is being asked in requirement #215.

Response: A single transaction can include multiple revenue codes that can be reported on individually.

19. Question: What fields are being referred to in requirement #401?

Response: Any data field in the system.

20. Question: Can you explain your request for a change control plan, referred to in section 3 in attachment A?

Response: User adoption of new technology and processes is critical to fulfilling the goals of this RFP. The vendor(s) should respond with efforts to address change impacts.

21. Question: Does requirement 140 in attachment C refer to bringing the registers to a physical location at the end of the day or is it referring to an end of day report that would need approval to be posted?

Response: The latter

22. Question: Is "wildcard" in attachment C requirement #456 referring to an unknown variable?

Response: If a user searches a portion of a field or code, all items including that portion should show up.

23. Question: What is the global search function that is referenced in requirement #466 in attachment C?

Response: Ability to search across the system, restricted by role.

24. Question: What are the city requirements for MFA, referenced in attachment C requirement #485?

Response: SSO through the City’s existing Microsoft Azure is preferred; if SSO is not available, MFA is required for employee accounts.

25. Question: Are cashiers and future end users the same? If not, how should the total number of users be calculated to respond to questions 6.2 in attachment A?

Response: At this time, estimate end users based on the summary of organizational metrics in the RFP.

26. Question: Is appendix B the same as attachment A?

Response: Attachment A includes questionnaires that are not included in Appendix B.

However, required forms and contract terms and conditions in appendix B are also in attachment A to make it easy for populating in Word.

27. Question: What is an expected response for the budget plan?

Response: A response of how the vendor will make sure the product is implemented within the proposed budget.

28. Question: Is DocuSign acceptable for notarization?

Response: Notarization is not necessary on this RFP. DocuSign is acceptable.

29. Question: What is expected for the quality management plan?

Response: Vendors are expected to provide their plan to ensure that the City implements a product to the vendor’s quality standards.

30. Question: How should departments be ranked by go-live priority and business impact, and are there any pilot locations for early rollout?

Response: Vendors should propose what they believe would be the best approach for the City.

There is not a go-live order priority at this time.

31. Question: Is the Q2 2026 go-live intended to be a single citywide cutover or staggered by department?

Response: The City would anticipate going live in Q2 2026 for at least the first phase of the project, though vendors should propose what they believe would be the best approach for the City. There is not a go-live order priority at this time.

32. Question: Are there departments or functions that should be prioritized for early go-live ahead of the target Q2 2026 citywide date?

Response: Vendors should propose what they believe would be the best approach for the City.

There is not a go-live order priority at this time.

33. Question: What decision SLAs should we follow for scope, configuration, data, integrations, and reporting, and what is the escalation path?

Response: Vendors should provide SLAs used based on previous projects and understanding of what would best support the City.

34. Question: Can you clarify which POS systems (other than RecTrac) are currently in use across departments, and whether full replacement or partial integration is expected? Are there any mandatory integrations with existing City financial, HR, or ticketing systems beyond those listed?

Response: Please review the current application environment listed in the RFP. The future of the systems listed is subject to the results of this RFP. The City may update the list of integrations based on information provided from vendors throughout this RFP.

35. Question: Does the City require mobile POS or self-service kiosks, and if so, for which departments?

Response: The City is aiming to have accessibility to the POS from a mobile device and is exploring self-service kiosks. Departmental usage is subject to the results of this RFP.

36. Question: Are third-party payment processors mandated or is vendor flexibility allowed?

Response: Currently, Wells Fargo is the exclusive merchant card processor and there are multiple different payment gateways. The City expects the vendor/solution to be compliant and compatible with these vendors, however, flexibility may be an option in the future.

37. Question: User Experience & Accessibility Beyond WCAG 2.1 AA, does the City require multilingual support in staff or customer-facing workflows?

Response: Customer-facing support for Spanish may be preferred. Staff-facing workflows can use different tools.

38. Question: What user device mix is anticipated (desktop kiosks, tablets, mobile phones), and what are the preferred operating systems? As flexible as possible is desired Are there policies on BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) for frontline staff that must be enforced in the POS solution?

Mobile is under consideration - so we should assume so?

Response: There is no BYOD use in the City; all use of the platform will be through City-issued devices. The mix of devices will be determined based on the specific operational and functional requirements and priorities of each department to ensure optimal functionality and support.

39. Question: Integrations -For Tyler EERP (Munis), what are the most common reconciliation errors today that the City wants eliminated? -Should the bidirectional integration with Blackbaud Altru and LS2 ILS be real-time, or will nightly batch sync be acceptable? -How many simultaneous interfaces must be live at go-live (vs. phased in later)? -What error handling, retries, and reconciliation reporting is required? -For each integration (Tyler EERP, LS2 ILS, Altru, Maintstar, Comprise, Chameleon, Cure MD), what is the business impact of downtime or sync failures? Is queue-based retry acceptable, or must failover be immediate? -Should integrations be designed with an event-driven pattern (e.g., Kafka, webhooks) or are nightly batch updates sufficient in some cases?

Response: The City is open to a variety of approaches and will share more information with shortlisted vendors.

40. Question: Data Conversion & Migration How many years of historical data must be migrated from RecTrac, Shopify, and other systems? What level of data cleansing (deduplication, validation, enrichment) does the City expect will be required before import? Will the City provide data cleansing prior to migration, or is the vendor expected to handle it? Should failed or partial conversions (e.g., incomplete records) be logged for client remediation, or must we deliver a “clean” dataset only? How many mock conversions are expected, and what are the sign-off criteria and blackout windows? What is the current size of transaction data (volume, number of SKUs, memberships, ticket sales, etc.) to be migrated? Is historical data migration required, and if so, how many years back?

Response: All data conversion in scope at this time is included in the pricing forms. The City expects to clean data ahead of and during implementation, with an effort to align the data with the POS format. The City is open to a variety of approaches and will share more information with shortlisted vendors.

41. Question: Technical and Security Beyond PCI-DSS v4.0 and SOC 2 Type II, are there City-specific penetration testing or certification processes we must complete? Does the City expect the vendor to host in a specific U.S. government cloud region/provider (e.g., Azure Gov, AWS GovCloud)?

Response: The City does not require additional certifications beyond PCI-DSS v4.0 and SOC 2 Type II. Vendors may be asked to provide recent third-party security assessment or penetration test results as part of due diligence. All systems must host City payment data within the continental United States. Use of U.S. government cloud regions such as Azure Government or AWS GovCloud is acceptable and preferred but not required. Hosting environments must comply with PCI-DSS and align with the Texas Cybersecurity Framework and applicable requirements under Texas Government Code Chapter 2054.

42. Question: Are there specific audit logging requirements (e.g., immutable storage, integration with SIEM tools)?

Response: Yes, Vendors must maintain detailed and tamper-resistant audit logs for user access, administrative actions, and payment transactions. Logs must be retained in accordance with PCI-DSS requirements and protected from unauthorized modification or deletion. Logs must be exportable and made available to the City upon request for audit or security review purposes. Vendors are required to follow Texas data breach notification requirements.

43. Question: What MFA (multi-factor authentication) methods are mandatory for staff—SMS, authenticator app, hardware token?

Response: SSO through the City’s existing Microsoft Azure is preferred; if SSO is not available, MFA is required for employee accounts.

44. Question: Should the POS system support geo-fencing or location-based access for sensitive operations?

Response: All requirements in scope at this time are included as an attachment to this RFP.

45. Question: Are there compliance or audit obligations specific to municipal government in Texas

(beyond PCI and SOC2) that should be addressed in vendor responses?

Response: Not at this time.

46. Question: Are there City-specific QA standards, test data anonymization rules, or acceptance criteria frameworks vendors must adopt?

Response: Not at this time.

47. Question: Does the City require accessibility testing beyond WCAG 2.1 AA compliance, and who validates it? How will WCAG 2.1 AA compliance be verified?

Response: City IT will monitor WCAG 2.1 AA compliance. Other accessibility requirements may be discussed with shortlisted vendors.

48. Question: Hosting, Environments, and Performance What are the uptime, maintenance window, and concurrency expectations? What are peak load profiles and latency targets? How many environments (dev, test, UAT, training, pre-prod) are required, and how often should data be refreshed? What hosting environment does the City prefer (on-premises, SaaS, hybrid)?

Response: Vendors are required to respond to their ability to meet a 99.95% uptime requirement in the bidder questionnaire. Attachment C requests responding vendors to include the number of supporting environments, though multiple are required. The City prefers a SaaS hosting environment.

49. Question: Department-Level Scope Confirmations Across all departments, can you share transaction volumes, peak throughput, seasonality, and concurrency expectations?

Response: At this time, please refer to the metrics table in the RFP for this question. More information may be shared with shortlisted vendors.

50. Question: How should timed entry, capacity controls, blackout dates, and scanning hardware be handled, including offline access?

Response: This information will be shared with shortlisted vendors.

51. Question: What are the rules for membership tiers, family/household accounts, renewals, proration, and loyalty tracking?

Response: These rules may vary by department or location. All requirements at this time are included in the requirements attachment to the RFP.

52. Question: What are the requirements for kitchen routing, combo pricing, taxes, tips, voids, and waste tracking? What catalog, barcode, label, and stock count rules should be supported? How important is real-time inventory visibility across all locations during peak events?

Response: The City would like to have the ability to route food/beverage orders for kitchen/concessions, configure combo pricing, process tips, taxes, and nontaxable items for certain customers. The City would like the ability to catalog inventory items. The City has cash handling and receipting procedures (including voids, refunds, and stock count rules) that will be shared with the selected vendor(s) for implementation.

53. Question: What tee-sheet patterns, dynamic pricing rules, tournament setups, and weather management processes must be supported?

Response: Please refer to the Requirements attachment for functionality questions at this time.

54. Question: How much historical cancellation and reservation data must be converted?

Response: Any data conversions in scope at this time are included in the Pricing Forms attachment of the RFP.

55. Question: How should recurrence, exceptions, sublocations, deposits, and conflict resolution rules be managed? What are the requirements for rosters, prerequisites, instructor management, and waitlist automation? How should household hierarchies, demographics, communication preferences, and retention policies be structured? What are the rules for donation campaigns, funds, receipts, and recognition?

Response: These questions may be subject to the selected vendor(s) from this procurement.

56. Question: Hardware, Peripherals, and Networks How many terminals are required per site, and what is the spare ratio and lifecycle plan? What card readers, scanners, printers, kiosks, mobile devices, and tablets must be supported? What assumptions should we use for hardware refresh across all departments? Should hardware be owned, leased, or refreshed on a set lifecycle?

Response: This will be subject to the decisions made with the selected vendor(s).

57. Question: Implementation and Change Management What internal resources (IT staff, business analysts, trainers) will the City assign to the project? Does the City want a train-the-trainer model or vendor-led training for all frontline staff? The City has prepared a stakeholder governance structure at this time for the evaluation that will likely serve as the core project team for implementation. A specific staffing approach will be based on how vendors respond to this RFP.

Response: The City will explore training options and advantages of the proposed approaches and has not yet identified the preferred method.

58. Question: Has the City identified “super users” in each department who will lead change adoption?

Response: Yes

59. Question: What are the cutover expectations: freeze rules, parallel runs, rollback criteria?

Which risks does the City already anticipate (e.g., adoption, data quality, integration complexity, seasonality, staffing)?

Response: These will be modified with the shortlisted vendors.

60. Question: Will this be a “big bang” deployment, or is dual-run with incremental cut-over desired? If incremental, what is the City’s expected timeline for a phased rollout vs. citywide go-live?

Response: Vendors are suggested to offer their optimal approach.

61. Question: Does the City expect formal change impact assessments and communications planning across departments, or only role-based training?

Response: Vendors are suggested to offer their optimal approach based on experience and the City’s complexity.

62. Question: How many distinct user roles require tailored training materials, and should these be delivered in both written and video formats?

Response: This number is not known at this time. Please review the key metrics table in the RFP to estimate the number of training materials needed. Vendors are suggested to offer their optimal approach to training.

63. Question: Does the City require ongoing managed services (e.g., system monitoring, upgrades) post-implementation, or is the expectation to transition knowledge fully to internal support staff?

Response: This will be determined with shortlisted vendors.

64. Question: Will City staff be available full-time for the project, or is the vendor expected to supplement staffing?

Response: This will be determined with shortlisted vendors.

65. Question: What are the City’s expectations for onsite vs. remote vendor presence during implementation?

Response: There is no set expectation at this time; vendors are suggested to offer their optimal approach.

66. Question: Which departments rely most heavily on PowerBI today, and should reporting integrations prioritize them?

Response: Currently, the Zoo is the only department utilizing PowerBI, however, all departments expressed a need for more robust reporting of data from current and future systems. Currently, reporting integrations are not prioritized but is expected to be an active part of contract negotiations and/or implementation.

67. Question: How important is self-service, natural-language reporting versus predefined dashboards?

Response: This response may vary by department and will be refined during demonstrations and due diligence.

68. Question: Are there compliance reports (state/federal) that must be automated by day one?

What are the audit requirements for cashiering, refunds, voids, and approvals?

Response: If/where they exist, audit or policy requirements for compliance reporting or cash handling processes, will be shared with the selected vendor(s).

69. Question: Should analytics be unified across all departments, or will each department require its own reporting environment?

Response: This will be determined as part of scoping with the selected vendor(s).

70. Question: Does the City require predictive analytics or demand forecasting (e.g., for concessions or memberships), or is reporting limited to descriptive and compliance outputs?

Response: All currently identified reporting requirements are included in the Requirements attachment of the RFP. Additional requirements may be added to scope as the project continues.

71. Question: Which financial reporting codes and structures are the highest priority for redesign in this implementation? Does the City prefer vendor-led business process mapping, or does it already have documentation we should align to?

Response: The City currently utilizes ledger codes in the ERP that are broken down further in the POS systems. Alignment to the codes in the ERP are the highest priority for the City.

Vendors are suggested to offer their optimal approach for mapping.

72. Question: Should we replicate current fee, membership, and donation structures, or propose optimizations?

Response: The City is interested in optimizations as well as compliance with current structures.

73. Question: Are there departments with seasonal peak workflows (e.g., aquatics, zoo admissions) that require special scaling or offline handling?

Response: These may be shared with shortlisted vendors.

74. Question: Should concessions support both fixed and roaming/mobile POS units, and does the City expect integration with kitchen display systems?

Response: Yes; yes

75. Question: Support and Maintenance What support hours are expected (business only, extended, or 24×7)? Does the City require 24×7 monitoring and incident response, or will after-hours support be routed through a lower-priority queue?

Response: Vendors are expected to respond with their proposed support hours in the questionnaire attachment of the RFP.

76. Question: What severity levels, escalation paths, and response time targets must be built into the SLA? Should upgrades and patches be applied automatically on a rolling basis, or must they be scheduled during designated maintenance windows? Should upgrades be fully vendor-managed, or will City staff be trained to handle minor updates/configurations? What metrics (uptime, resolution time, adoption) will be used to measure vendor performance during support periods?

Response: Vendors are expected to respond with their approaches to these questions as part of the questionnaire attachment of the RFP.

77. Question: Governance and Decision-Making Who holds final sign-off authority across departments if priorities conflict during implementation? What cadence of governance checkpoints (e.g., steering committees, executive reviews) should vendors plan for during delivery? These will be built as part of the project with the selected vendor(s).

Response: Responding vendors are expected to respond with suggested governance structures recommended for this project.

78. Question: Training & Support How many end-users and administrators require training? Is training expected to be in-person, virtual, or train-the-trainer style?

Response: This number is not known at this time. Please review the key metrics table in the RFP to estimate the number of training materials needed. Vendors are suggested to offer their optimal approach to training.

79. Question: What are the City’s expectations for ongoing support (hours, SLAs, escalation processes)?

Response: Vendors are expected to respond with their proposed support metrics in the questionnaire attachment of the RFP.

80. Question: Pricing & Contract Does the City expect bundled pricing options (hardware + software + support) or strictly itemized?

Response: If vendors propose bundled pricing, please describe in the comments of the pricing form what the pricing includes (i.e., which modules/processes).

81. Question: How will change orders for additional integrations or customizations be handled and priced?

Response: This will be negotiated with the shortlisted vendor(s).

82. Question: Are there any renewal caps on subscription fees beyond CPI-U/3% noted in the RFP?

Response: CPI-U/3% is the expected renewal cap. Vendors should indicate if the escalation is different than this.

83. Question: Evaluation & Selection Will vendors provide demonstrations in the selection process? If so for demonstrations, what specific modules or workflows should vendors prepare to showcase? The City will utilize vendor demonstrations after a review of proposals.

Response: Information will be shared with shortlisted vendors.

84. Question: In the General & Technical sections, there is a question regarding "Juvenile PI records". Can you please provide an example of when Juvenile PI records need to be stored within the Recreation System?

Response: This includes youth name and contact/address information for things like memberships and league setup.

85. Question: What dollar amount was processed by credit cards for the golf facility in 2024?

Response: Please review the organizational metrics table of the RFP.

86. Question: We are a Centralized Cashiering Solution offering a fully unified payment hub with POS, imports, revenue submission and online, and are integrated with over 100 companies, but we do not offer any of the other requested applications (Parks & Rec, scheduling, donations, facility management, golf, etc.). Can we respond just as a cashiering solution with integration points to all the other applications?

Response: Vendors are encouraged to partner in order to meet the scope options included in this RFP.

87. Question: If yes to the above, which applications would you like to be real-time, bi-directional (we are the cashier for those applications and integrated real-time with the appropriate software) and which would be imports (software application collects payments and we import that data nightly)?

Response: Vendors are expected to respond with their approach to each integration in the pricing form.

88. Question: Would the City like to have POS equipment quoted as part of the response, or wait to have the selected vendor do an audit of existing equipment?

Response: Quoted in the response.

89. Question: It is noted that the City is considering replacing the current credit processor. How would you like responders to note they have options?

Response: Currently, Wells Fargo is the exclusive merchant card processor and there are multiple different payment gateways. The City expects the vendor/solution to be compliant and compatible with these vendors, however, flexibility may be an option in the future.

90. Question: Would the City like the new cashiering solution to become the City’s Online Customer Payment Portal? If so, what applications would the City like to take online payments for?

Response: Yes; all departments in scope

91. Question: Does the City have a multi-check scanning process in place for recording checks and invoices/bills in batch? If not, should this be included in the response? What is the annual check volume that the City would scan using this process?

Response: Yes, however, multi-check scanning is not a City priority, as the City prefers the bulk of payments to be online.

92. Question: Would the City like the cashiering solution to create an Image Cash Letter (ICL) containing check images for deposit and send it to your bank? If so, what bank?

Response: An integration with the bank is not in scope at this time.

93. Question: There are non-traditional point of sale departments. They are however mentioned on page 14. Do these departments require a customer facing point of sale system, or are their payments separate from your "concessions / retail" type of environment?

Response: Departments in the City are considering how to best use this RFP for their needs.

The scope of departments is not final at this time.

94. Question: https://www.plantemoran.com/ - Plante Moran is listed as providing advisory services. Will the POS provider need to integrate into any of their systems, or provide specific reporting?

Response: The POS provider will not need to integrate with or provide reporting for Plante Moran.

95. Question: 1.) Are ticket purchases only available in-person, or do you expect to sell tickets online as well? 2.) Is there a preferred ticket vendor that you would need the core point of sale to integrate into, if ticket validation is not an option?

Response: The expectation is that the City will be able to sell online tickets; the City will utilize this process to explore potential ticket vendors.

96. Question: Is the city looking for a Wi-Fi specific Mobile Point of Sale? Are you looking for cellular connected devices?

Response: The City will require connectivity with and without internet (Wi-Fi/cell) connection.

As part of this process, City departments will determine how many devices will need connectivity and the type for each device. For example, devices for golf will need Wi-Fi/cell connectivity to accept mobile payments on the golf course.

97. Question: Is there a requirement for our point of sale to integrate directly into your existing biblioteca software for Library check out / payments?

Response: This is an ideal scenario as outlined in the pricing forms.

98. Question: This request is outside of the POS scope, but I saw that it was referenced on the RFP.

Does WACO take payments with JotForm? Newtek can connect as your payment processor utilizing Authorize.net payment gateway.

Response: Currently, Jotform is only used for waivers associated with group bookings.

99. Question: I believe RECTRAC has access to all of your existing concession menus and retail inventory. Will RECTRAC allow you to export such data? If so, we can use the exported data as your initial inventory upload.

Response: Yes

100. Question: What type of customer accounts are you looking to implement? Is this for automatic payments, or do you want to create a house account, or lay-a-way type of environment.

Response: Please review the Requirements attachment of the RFP.

101. Question: Page 35 (d) mentions integration and interfaces - Section 4. Is this requirement specific to inventory or transaction reporting?

Response: Integrations in scope are included in the Pricing Forms attachment of the RFP.

102. Question: Each location listed pages 20-26 show # of future POS, but do not mention concession vs retail at these locations. Are you able to provide a full breakdown of concession vs retail at each location? This will help determine hardware costs, where certain peripherals are required.

Response: Please provide estimates of hardware costs based on information at this time.

103. Question: Pg 36(E) Organization change management. Any project plan will involve Newtek requesting change of ownership and modifications to the appropriate stakeholders. On the Waco side, who are those decision makers?

Response: The City is not sharing this information at this time.

104. Question: Please correct me if I am wrong, but I understand Tyler Cashiering to be a ledger type of software. 1.) Are you looking to also replace Tyler Cashiering? 2.) Will the point of sale need to integrate or send data to Tyler cashiering?

Response: Replacing Tyler Cashiering may be an outcome of this RFP; all integrations at this time are included in the Pricing Forms of the RFP.

105. Question: What does WACO consider a qualified firm? Is a firm based on your approval, or is this just a generalized term for vendors that meet the RFP criteria?

Response: Please review the minimum criteria for this RFP.

106. Question: Hello is there a merchant processing opportunity? I see you are considering replacing CardPointe as a vendor. Newtek can facilitate that, based on your requirements. Does our POS need to integrate with a processor of your choice?

Response: Please review the scope of the RFP and requirements.

107. Question: What do you define as operators? The POS User? What type of Custom Menus? Are you asking to have POS Users restricted to specific screens and functionality?

Response: POS user; yes, users should be restricted based on role and department.

108. Question: There is a feature request on this module to support error processing. Where would the "true" values originate from? An internal system of yours? Please explain the request further.

Response: The City would like the system to proactively flag errors for user review.

109. Question: What type of information are you looking to search for globally? Would the POS need to integrate into any of your internal systems as part of the search?

Response: Searching across the system depending on role visibility; the POS would not need to search into other external systems.

110. Question: General and Technical POS - System Interface - Filter on User Based Reporting.

Please elaborate and provide specifics for this feature request Response: Ability to filter on a general report by attributes/fields in the system. I.e., reports are dynamic and editable.

111. Question: Merchandise and Inventory - POS - Ability to track equipment and inventory usage.

Hello, please elaborate on this. Are you asking for a report that details sales by a specific location and piece of hardware? For example are you looking for a report that says "Waco zoo processed x transactions on register 1, x transactions on register 2, etc.?

Response: This requirement is asking for the ability to track how individual items in inventory is used. I.e., how stock is updated when a transaction is processed.

112. Question: Hello, most food items would not have an item number persay. Can you elaborate on this request Response: The City would imagine that each revenue item has a code associated to it. If this is not alphanumeric, please indicate how items will be coded.

113. Question: There is an overall requirement to report back customer data. One specific feature on Concessions and Restaurant ask for Customer Zip code. Are you expecting cashiers to add customer profiles to every sale? This information is not generally provided when a card is inserted or tapped for payment.

Response: If this is not something the system is able to provide, please indicate “Not Available.”

114. Question: Concessions and Restaurant - POS - Link Customer that exists in a separate system.

What is the separate system that the customer data originates from?

Response: If the concessions system is separate from the general POS, vendors are encouraged to show how total spending across the systems is associated with one customer.

115. Question: Does the City prefer either an annual software subscription pricing model or a fee-per-transaction pricing model?

Response: No preference at this time.

116. Question: What is the annual contract value of the current RecTrac system?

Response: This is not being shared at this time.

117. Question: What are the transactional fee rates of the current system? Are any of these fees passed on to the end user, or are these fees paid by the City?

Response: The City currently absorbs transactional fees, but this may change as early as next year. At this time, the City is not sharing fee rates.

118. Question: What is the total annual revenue generated by transactions to be processed via the platform for the other departments not included in the summary of organizational metrics in Section IV.M.4? If possible, please provide a breakdown of annual revenue generated from these transactions for each department that would use the new system (e.g., Health, Animal Services, Police, etc.).

Response: This is not being shared at this time. Refer to the transaction volumes table in the RFP and response to questions #122 below for the current revenue estimates available at this time.

119. Question: Do the organizational metrics provided for the Tourism category refer to the welcome center specifically? Or are other locations included in these metrics as well?

Response: Welcome center

120. Question: Does the revenue amount for “daily transactions” in Section IV.M.4 refer to in-person transactions via the current POS system?

Response: Yes

121. Question: Please confirm if the following revenue estimates are accurate based on the numbers for daily/monthly and online transactions provided in Section IV.M.4 (excluding refunds): - Parks and Recreation: $2,045,700/yr - Cameron Park Zoo: $4,109,889/yr - Golf Course: $4,380,000/yr - Texas Ranger Hall of Fame & Museum: $1,550,375/yr (including admissions) - Waco Mammoth National Monument: $985,500/yr - Waco-McLennan County Library: $31,378,325/yr Response: The summary of metrics reflect accurate counts from RecTrac aside from Library.

The Library’s revenue (shown as “daily”) should have said “annual.” RecTrac annual revenue indicates ~$10.5M, and additional departments beyond those currently utilizing RecTrac will be part of this procurement. Golf indicated that they earn ~$12,000 in revenue daily, which equates to ~$4.3M annually.

122. Question: The RFP notes that the City is aiming for a Q2 2026 go-live. Does the City desire for the new system to be available for all departments at once, or does the City intend to roll out the new system in a phased approach over a period of time for each department?

Response: Vendors are encouraged to propose an optimal approach to go-live based on the information provided.

123. Question: Will the City allow vendors to provide responses to questions in Attachment A using the vendor’s own template, or must proposals provide responses to each question within the Attachment A template provided?

Response: Use the questions within Attachment A’s template.