P2608COC_NOTICE_OF_INTENT_TO_SHORTLIST.pdf

Purchasing 65 Stone Street • Cocoa, FL 32922

PHONE: (321) 433-8833

EMAIL: bdale@cocoafl.org

NOTICE OF INTENT TO SHORTLIST

TO: All Participating Vendors & Public Record FROM: Brian Dale, CPPO, Procurement & Budget Manager / Committee Chair DATE: August 28, 2026 SUBJECT: Notice of Intent to Shortlist & Phase 1 Evaluation Results SOLICITATION: RFP No. P-26-08-COC – Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System Replacement

I. EVALUATION COMMITTEE DETERMINATION

On August 27, 2026, at 3:00 PM, the Evaluation Committee for RFP No. P-26-08-COC convened in a publicly noticed meeting at City Hall to review and deliberate on proposals received for the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System Replacement project.

Following a review of submittals, vendor qualifications, pricing proposals, and preliminary scoring evaluations provided by Subject Matter Expert Sciens Consulting, the Evaluation Committee formally voted to establish the shortlist of firms advancing to Phase 2 (Vendor Demonstrations).

II. DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIVENESS

By unanimous vote (8–0 of members present), the Evaluation Committee determined that submittals from the following firms were non-responsive due to incomplete solution submissions:

1. Muni-Link

2. PTG

III. SHORTLISTED VENDORS (PHASE 2 ADVANCEMENT)

By unanimous vote (8–0 of members present), the Evaluation Committee voted to shortlist and advance the following top three ranked proposals to Phase 2 Vendor Demonstrations (listed in alphabetical order):

1. CentralSquare

2. OpenGov

3. Tyler Technologies

IV. LEGAL CONDITIONS & RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

This Notice of Intent to Shortlist is subject to and contingent upon the successful completion of Phase 2 Vendor Demonstrations, final evaluation and scoring by the Evaluation Committee, successful negotiation of a written contract containing terms acceptable to the City, and formal contract award approval by the City Council. This Notice does NOT constitute an award of contract, nor does it form a binding agreement between the City of Cocoa and any shortlisted vendor. No vendor shall acquire any legal or equitable rights relative to the solicitation or contract services until a final contract containing terms and conditions acceptable to the City of Cocoa is fully executed. If a shortlisted vendor fails to participate in Phase 2 demonstrations, fails to negotiate in good faith, or if contract terms cannot be successfully reached following final evaluations, the City of Cocoa may revoke the vendor's shortlist status and advance the next highest-ranked vendor, or cancel the solicitation. The City of Cocoa further reserves the right at its sole discretion to reject this Notice, modify the evaluation schedule, or reject all proposals without penalty.

Purchasing 65 Stone Street • Cocoa, FL 32922

PHONE: (321) 433-8833

EMAIL: bdale@cocoafl.org

V. NEXT STEPS & PHASE 2 DEMONSTRATIONS

Shortlisted vendors will be contacted directly by the Procurement Division with detailed demonstration schedules, scenario requirements, scoring methodology, and scheduling instructions. Phase 2 vendor demonstrations are tentatively scheduled to take place during the month of September 2026.

The City of Cocoa extends its appreciation to all firms that prepared and submitted proposals in response to this solicitation.

ATTACHMENTS:

The draft minutes from the August 27, 2026 committee meeting and the preliminary Evaluation Summary Report are attached to this announcement.

MINUTES

CITY OF COCOA, FLORIDA

EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEETING - RFP NO. P-26-08-COC

ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING (ERP) SYSTEM REPLACEMENT

DATE: August 27, 2026

TIME: 3:00 PM

LOCATION: City of Cocoa City Hall

|, CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL

e The Evaluation Committee meeting for RFP No. P-26-08-COC was called to order at

3:05 PM by Committee Chair Brian Dale.

e Committee Members Present (8):

- Rebecca Bowman

- Christi Grant

- Jessica Dovale

- Diane Kozlak

- Savi Pooran

- Jack Walsh

- Mary Humbert

-.. Mitch Lawyer e Committee Members Absent (2):

- Cary Meyers

- Lisa McCrory e City Staff / Consultants Present:

o Steven Barcey, Sciens Consulting (Subject Matter Expert) o Christine Savage, City of Cocoa e Chair Brian Dale provided opening remarks regarding committee duties, independent evaluation requirements, ethics reminders, and public procurement transparency.

Il. PROJECT OVERVIEW & CHRONOLOGY e Chair Brian Dale reviewed the project background, outlining the scope to replace the legacy Naviline system with a modern vendor-hosted SaaS solution covering

Finance, Procurement, HR/Payroll, Utility Billing, and Citizen Self-Service. The procurement chronology from RFP issuance on May 21, 2026, to the July 10, 2026, proposal opening was entered into the record.

e The advisory role of Sciens Consulting as the City’s independent Subject Matter

Expert was noted for the record.

Ill. CONSULTANT PRESENTATION & PROPOSAL REVIEW .

e Steven Barcey of Sciens Consulting presented the preliminary technical evaluation findings, scoring matrix summaries, and 5-year total cost of ownership models for all submittals received.

e Thecommittee engaged in discussion regarding technical capabilities, functional alignment, and vendor cost proposals.

e Committee discussed the possibility of changing the ranking as presented by the

Consultant number of potential awardees.

e Following a review and discussion of the preliminary submittals and the technical/financial evaluation provided by Subject Matter Expert Sciens Consulting, the committee opened the floor for a motion

IV. COMMITTEE ACTIONS & VOTES ON REGARDING SELECTION

A. Vote on Non-Responsive Proposals: Motion made by Jack Walsh, seconded by

Rebecca Bowman, to reject the submittals from Muni-Link and PTG based on failure to submit a complete solution. Vote: Motion passed 8-0

Vote: Motion Passed (Unanimous of 8 members present).

B. Vote on Shortlist Selection for Phase 2 Demonstrations: Motion made by Rebecca

Bowman, seconded by Jack Walsh, to select and advance the top three ranked proposals from Tyler Technologies, CentralSquare and OpenGov.

Vote: Motion passed (Unanimous of 8 members present).

V. OVERVIEW OF PHASE 2 DEMONSTRATIONS

A. Staff outlined the schedule for Phase 2 demonstrations and scoring logistics.

Committee Chair Brian Dale advised that to submit valid scores for any specific functional demonstration session, a committee member must attend that exact session across all three vendor presentations.

B. Vote on Committee Member attendance at demonstrations

Motion made by Christi Grant, seconded by Jack Walsh, that committee members

Savi Pooran and Cary Myers will be assigned exclusively to attend and score the

Human Resources and Timekeeping/Payroll sessions, and that all other committee members will attend and score all sessions.

Motion passed (Unanimous of 8 members present).

C. Committee then proceeded to have a discussion on the weighting applied for each demonstration session.

D. Vote on Committee Member attendance at demonstrations: Motion made by Jack

Walsh, seconded by Rebecca Bowman, that the Phase 2 scoring for each session will be weighed as follows:

Company Background & Solution Orientation 3

Financial Management / General Ledger 17

Budget & Planning 9

Procurement 10

Revenue, AR, & Cash Management 10

Human Resources 10

Time Keeping, Payroll & Expense 10

Utility Billing 17

Technology, Security & Integration 7

Implementation & Final Q&A ' 7

Motion passed (Unanimous of 8 members present).

VI. ADJORNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:31 PM.

Minutes prepared by: ZL Date: _§& / as [RO Me.

Minutes approved by: Date:

Brian Dale, CPPO

Procurement & Budget Manager / Committee Chair

CITY OF COCOA, FL | ERP VENDOR PROPOSALS EVALUATION

THE CITY OF COCOA, FLORIDA

ERP Vendor Proposals Evaluation

Evaluation Date August 06, 2026

Evaluator Sciens Consulting

# of Proposals Received 10

Vendors Evaluated Aclarian; BS&A Software; Cayenta; CentralSquare; The Groove; Muni-Link; OpenGov; PTG; Strada; Tyler Technologies

Executive Summary Current proposal evaluation results before demonstrations and reference checks.

Rank Vendor Proposal Score / 100 5-Year Cost Solution

1 Tyler Technologies 85.6 $3,383,230 Tyler E-ERP

2 CentralSquare 81.1 $2,114,390

CentralSquare Finance Enterprise (Finance) CentralSquare Naviline Impact (UB) UKG Ready (HR/Payroll) PlanetBids (Procurement)

3 OpenGov 78.9 $1,852,269 OpenGov

4 Strada 72.7 $7,416,678 Workday (Finance, HR/Payroll) SpryPoint (UB)

5 BS&A Software 72.4 $1,723,345 BS&A Cloud

6 Cayenta 72.3 $6,486,045 Cayenta

7 Aclarian 68.1 $5,080,807 Aclarian

8 The Groove 63.3 $7,485,136 Workday (Finance, HR/Payroll) SpryPoint (UB) Can/Am Teller (Cashiering)

DQ Muni-Link 0.0 N/A Muni-Link (UB)

DQ PTG 0.0 N/A Workday (Finance, HR/Payroll) Can/Am Teller (Cashiering)

DQ = Disqualified

Proposal Scoring Matrix

Evaluation Category Possible Points Aclarian BS&A Software Cayenta CentralSquare The Groove Muni-Link OpenGov PTG Strada Tyler

Technologies

Qualifications 10 4.7 7.7 3.7 3.7 5.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 6.0 8.0

Initial References 5 5.0 5.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 0.0 3.3 0.0 3.3 5.0

Functional Systems 25 23.8 22.9 24.3 23.4 23.0 0.0 22.0 0.0 23.1 24.3

Infrastructure 10 5.8 4.5 9.3 9.7 7.5 0.0 8.3 0.0 9.0 9.7

Service & Maintenance 10 7.3 6.7 8.3 7.0 10.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 9.0 8.0

Acceptance Testing 10 10.0 3.3 10.0 10.0 6.7 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0

Implementation 10 6.3 4.0 6.0 8.5 2.7 0.0 5.7 0.0 7.2 9.7

Contract 5 0.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 1.7 0.0 3.3 0.0 1.7 3.3

Proposed Pricing 15 5.1 15.0 4.0 12.2 3.5 0.0 14.0 0.0 3.5 7.6

Subtotal 100 68.1 72.4 72.3 81.1 63.3 0.0 78.9 0.0 72.7 85.6

Rank Performance 7 5 6 2 8 DQ 3 DQ 4 1

A higher score indicates stronger alignment with the weighted proposal requirements. Zeros for Muni-Link and PTG reflect disqualification.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Aclarian

BS&A Software

Cayenta

CentralSquare

The Groove

Muni-Link

OpenGov

PTG

Strada

Tyler Technologies

City of Cocoa ERP Vendor Evaluation - Proposals Scoring

Functional Systems

Infrastructure

Service & Maintenance

Acceptance Testing

Implementation

Contract

Qualifications

Initial References

Pricing (Scaled)

Pricing Comparison

Pricing Component Aclarian BS&A Software Cayenta CentralSquare The Groove Muni-Link OpenGov PTG Strada Tyler Technologies

Subtotal Hardware/Software $661,493 $338,965 $726,519 $320,700 $965,123 N/A $246,975 N/A $942,376 $1,026,930

Subtotal Services/Other $1,643,850 $514,190 $3,562,261 $407,960 $3,206,170 N/A $487,574 N/A $2,974,370 $796,290

Total Initial Project Charges $2,230,343 $853,155 $3,619,661 $665,851 $3,897,606 N/A $734,549 N/A $3,916,747 $1,724,110

Year 2 $681,338 $201,802 $665,035 $336,078 $842,567 N/A $259,324 N/A $820,314 $414,780

Year 3 $701,778 $211,892 $698,287 $352,882 $877,692 N/A $272,290 N/A $855,590 $414,780

Year 4 $722,832 $222,886 $733,201 $370,526 $914,425 N/A $285,905 N/A $892,587 $414,780

Year 5 $744,516 $233,610 $769,861 $389,052 $952,846 N/A $300,200 N/A $931,440 $414,780

Annual Subscription Escalator (Estimated) 3.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 4.0% N/A 5.0% N/A 4.0% 0.0%

Total 5-Year Cost $5,080,807 $1,723,345 $6,486,045 $2,114,390 $7,485,136 $0 $1,852,269 $0 $7,416,678 $3,383,230

Rank - 5 Year * 5 1 6 3 8 DQ 2 DQ 7 4

* Higher Ranking given to Vendors with more favorable pricing

Software Requirements Comparison

Functional Area Aclarian BS&A Software Cayenta CentralSquare The Groove Muni-Link OpenGov PTG Strada Tyler Technologies

General System 97.3% 83.1% 98.4% 96.2% 89.6% N/A 90.2% N/A 89.6% 98.4%

Finance Accounting and Reporting 93.2% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% 91.1% N/A 94.3% N/A 91.4% 99.1%

Purchasing 100.0% 80.2% 94.0% 94.0% 85.3% N/A 91.2% N/A 85.3% 97.2%

Human Resources Management 93.5% 88.3% 92.9% 95.8% 96.4% N/A 95.1% N/A 96.4% 97.4%

Utility Billing 97.4% 94.0% 100.0% 79.1% 96.6% N/A 62.9% N/A 96.6% 95.1%

Citizen Portal 100.0% 58.5% 86.2% 80.0% 90.8% N/A 90.8% N/A 90.8% 81.5%

VENDOR OVERVIEW

Aclarian Current rank: 7 | Proposal score: 68.1/100 | Five-year cost: $5,080,807

Software Solution Aclarian Office Tampa, FL

Employees in Firm 75 Annual Revenue Financial information not disclosed

Total Systems 38 Florida Systems 24

Estimated Project Duration 12-months Total Cost $5,080,807

Highlights and Red Flags

Observation 1 Good overall percentages for system specifications functionality

Observation 2 Didn’t provided required information in various areas such as financial disclosure, topology diagram, and contractual requirements

Observation 3 Below average proposal with limited tailored detail and high price resulted in a lower score

Functional Requirements

General System 97.3% Finance Accounting and Reporting 93.2% Purchasing 100.0%

Human Resources Management 93.5% Utility Billing 97.4% Citizen Portal 100.0%

Proposal and Support Notes

Proposal Quality Decent proposal, but lacked information in some areas and ranked in the middle regarding price

References Hillsborough County Tax Collector; City of Margate, FL; City of Madeira Beach, FL; City of Destin, FL

Data Conversion City is responsible for data cleanup and extraction

Support Support available Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM-5:00 PM; Priority 1 calls responded to within 2 business hours, with same-business-day response for most issues and expedited handling for critical incidents

Litigation No lawsuits

Requirement Summaries

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Smaller firm, but maintains a Florida office and demonstrates relevant experience through Florida client references

3. INFRASTRUCTURE Conformed to all requirements; Azure-hosted SaaS solution with 99.99% uptime, but no data center topology diagram and limited integration, performance, and hardware details

4.0 SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE Conformed to all requirements, SLA provided; Updates and enhancements included but no update schedule provided, support limited to Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 PM (not 24/7)

5.0 ACCEPTANCE TESTING Conformed; Standard testing plan

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION Agreed to specifications; Gantt Chart and Implementation Plan included

7.0 CONTRACTUAL Did not answer

BS&A Software Current rank: 5 | Proposal score: 72.4/100 | Five-year cost: $1,723,345

Software Solution BS&A Cloud Office Bath, MI

Employees in Firm 300+ Annual Revenue Approximately $90 million

Total Systems 2,000+ Florida Systems 50+

Estimated Project Duration 20-months Total Cost $1,723,345

Highlights and Red Flags

Observation 1 Most competitive pricing structure

Observation 2 Experienced organization with a large number of total system implementations

Observation 3 Lacked detail in a majority of areas such as not providing a tiered support queue, limited testing plan detail, and no GANTT chart

Functional Requirements

General System 83.1% Finance Accounting and Reporting 99.0% Purchasing 80.2%

Human Resources Management 88.3% Utility Billing 94.0% Citizen Portal 58.5%

Proposal and Support Notes

Proposal Quality Decent proposal, but lacked detail in a majority of areas

References City of Casselberry, FL; City of Titusville, FL; City of West Melbourne, FL; City of Rockledge, FL

Data Conversion City is responsible for data cleanup

Support Unlimited live support available Monday-Thursday, 8:30 AM-6:00 PM and Friday, 8:30 AM-5:00 PM (ET); live-answer support with an average response time of under 60 minutes and no tiered support queue

Litigation No lawsuits

Requirement Summaries

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Large organization with relevant Florida references and 40 years of experience

3. INFRASTRUCTURE Conformed to most requirements; Azure-hosted SaaS solution with detailed infrastructure, but limited integration information and no formal uptime SLA or response time details

4.0 SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE Conformed to all requirements, SLA provided; Updates included on a defined schedule at no additional cost, maintenance performed outside business hours, but support is limited to business hours and does not utilize a tiered support queue

5.0 ACCEPTANCE TESTING Partially Conformed; Standard testing plan with limited detail

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION Agreed to specifications; GANTT chart not provided, only High-level schedule. Short Implementation Plan included

7.0 CONTRACTUAL 2 exceptions

Cayenta Current rank: 6 | Proposal score: 72.3/100 | Five-year cost: $6,486,045

Software Solution Cayenta Office Burnaby, BC

Employees in Firm 198 Annual Revenue Financial information not disclosed

Total Systems 100+ Florida Systems 5

Estimated Project Duration 33-months Total Cost $6,486,045

Highlights and Red Flags

Observation 1 Good overall percentages for system specifications functionality

Observation 2 Provided a large amount of information and detail about their services but was not tailored to the City

Observation 3 One of the more expensive products out of the vendors evaluated

Functional Requirements

General System 98.4% Finance Accounting and Reporting 99.0% Purchasing 94.0%

Human Resources Management 92.9% Utility Billing 100.0% Citizen Portal 86.2%

Proposal and Support Notes

Proposal Quality Good proposal, large amount of information was provided but was not tailored well to the City

References Lakeland Electric, FL; City of Clearwater, FL; Orangeburg Department of Public Utilities, SC; City of Waukegan, IL

Data Conversion City is responsible for data cleanup, extraction, and input

Support Support available daily, 7:00 AM-8:00 PM (ET), with optional 24/7 support; Priority 1 issues average a 50-minute response time and are backed by a four-level severity model

Litigation No lawsuits

Requirement Summaries

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Smaller firm with 43 years of experience, but limited Florida references and total system implementations

3. INFRASTRUCTURE Conformed to all requirements; Azure-hosted single-tenant SaaS solution with 99.95% uptime, comprehensive integration capabilities, and detailed architecture documentation, but limited performance methodology and hardware specification details

4.0 SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE Conformed to all requirements, SLA provided; Monthly updates and structured priority-based support provided, but no update or maintenance schedule was provided and standard support is not available 24/7 (24/7 support available as an option)

5.0 ACCEPTANCE TESTING Conformed; Detailed standard testing plan

7.0 CONTRACTUAL 13 exceptions

CentralSquare Current rank: 2 | Proposal score: 81.1/100 | Five-year cost: $2,114,390

Software Solution

CentralSquare Finance Enterprise (Finance) CentralSquare Naviline Impact (UB) UKG Ready (HR/Payroll) PlanetBids (Procurement)

Office Lake Mary, FL

Employees in Firm 1,111 Annual Revenue As a privately held company, CentralSquare does not disclose these financial details at this stage

Total Systems 8,000+ Florida Systems 71

Estimated Project Duration 32-months Total Cost $2,114,390

Highlights and Red Flags

Observation 1 Best written proposal, clear and detailed. Provided excellent responses to each individual requirement

Observation 2 CentralSquare is proposing new Financial Enterprise system, but keeping the legacy Naviline system for utility billing

Observation 3 Multiple systems could present future complexities and maintenance challenges

Functional Requirements

General System 96.2% Finance Accounting and Reporting 99.0% Purchasing 94.0%

Human Resources Management 95.8% Utility Billing 79.1% Citizen Portal 80.0%

Proposal and Support Notes

Proposal Quality Best written proposal. Provided detailed responses to each invididual requirement

References City of Fort Walton Beach, FL; City of Tamarac, FL; City of San Angelo, TX; City of San Mateo, CA

Data Conversion CentralSquare: City is responsible for data cleanup.

UKG: City is responsible for data cleanup, extraction, formatting, testing, and input

Support Support available Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM-8:00 PM (ET), with after-hours support available on a time-and-materials basis; Priority 1 issues receive a resolution or resolution plan within 24 hours and are managed through a four-level priority model

Litigation Not answered

Requirement Summaries

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Large organization with relevant Florida references, 45 years of experience, and maintains a Florida office

3. INFRASTRUCTURE Conformed to all requirements; Comprehensive AWS-hosted SaaS solution with strong integration capabilities and detailed hardware specifications, but no specific system response time commitment was provided

4.0 SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE Did not conform to General Maintenance Provisions due to annual subscription pricing; SLA provided, Update and maintenance schedule included, but support is not included 24/7 (after-hours support available on a time-and-materials basis)

5.0 ACCEPTANCE TESTING Conformed; Detailed and thorough testing plan provided

7.0 CONTRACTUAL 18 total exceptions; UKG and PlanetBids combined with CentralSquare

The Groove Current rank: 8 | Proposal score: 63.3/100 | Five-year cost: $7,485,136

Software Solution Workday (Finance, HR/Payroll) SpryPoint (UB) Can/Am Teller (Cashiering)

Office McLean, VA

Employees in Firm 120 Annual Revenue Financial information not disclosed

Total Systems 200 Florida Systems 18

Estimated Project Duration 16-months Total Cost $7,485,136

Highlights and Red Flags

Observation 1 Provided a large amount of information but it was not tailored to the City

Observation 2 Underwhelming detail to the requirements presented

Observation 3 Multiple systems could present future complexities and maintenance challenges

Functional Requirements

General System 89.6% Finance Accounting and Reporting 91.1% Purchasing 85.3%

Human Resources Management 96.4% Utility Billing 96.6% Citizen Portal 90.8%

Proposal and Support Notes

Proposal Quality Below average proposal. Disjoined responses that were not very detailed. Supplemental information was not tailored to the City

References City of Orlando, FL; City of Sarasota, FL; City of Largo, FL; County of Sarasota, FL

Unclear if The Groove was the implementor for the Workday references. Contact information for references were not provided

Data Conversion The Groove: City is responsible for data cleanup, extraction, formatting, and input.

SpryPoint: City is responsible for data cleanup.

Support Workday provides 24/7 support for Severity 1 issues with acknowledgment within approximately one hour, while SpryPoint support is available Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM-8:00 PM (ET), with 24/7 incident reporting and a one-hour response target for system outages

Litigation No lawsuits

Requirement Summaries

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Smaller firm with only 3 years of experience. Unclear if The Groove was the implementor for the Florida Workday references

3. INFRASTRUCTURE Partially conformed; Comprehensive AWS-hosted architecture and integration capabilities, but no explicit five-second response time commitment or minimum workstation hardware specifications were provided, and SpryPoint's standard uptime commitment is 99.5%

4.0 SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE Conformed to all requirements, SLAs provided; Defined update and maintenance schedules included, but SpryPoint support is limited to business hours while Workday provides 24/7 support for Severity 1 issues

5.0 ACCEPTANCE TESTING Conformed; Standard testing plan

7.0 CONTRACTUAL Not clearly identified. 32 total exceptions; 12 Workday, 17 SpryPoint, 3 Can/Am Teller

Muni-Link Current rank: DQ | Proposal score: 0.0/100 | Five-year cost: N/A

Software Solution Muni-Link (UB) Office N/A

Employees in Firm N/A Annual Revenue N/A

Total Systems N/A Florida Systems N/A

Estimated Project Duration N/A Total Cost N/A

Highlights and Red Flags

Observation 1 N/A

Observation 2 N/A

Observation 3 N/A

Functional Requirements

General System 0.0% Finance Accounting and Reporting 0.0% Purchasing 0.0%

Human Resources Management 0.0% Utility Billing 0.0% Citizen Portal 0.0%

Proposal and Support Notes

Proposal Quality N/A

References N/A

Data Conversion N/A

Support N/A

Requirement Summaries

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES N/A

3. INFRASTRUCTURE N/A

4.0 SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE N/A

5.0 ACCEPTANCE TESTING N/A

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION N/A

7.0 CONTRACTUAL N/A

OpenGov Current rank: 3 | Proposal score: 78.9/100 | Five-year cost: $1,852,269

Software Solution OpenGov Office San Francisco, CA

Employees in Firm 27 Annual Revenue Financial information not disclosed

Total Systems 134 Florida Systems 5

Estimated Project Duration 16-months Total Cost $1,852,269

Highlights and Red Flags

Observation 1 Very competitive pricing structure

Observation 2 Provided good supplemental response information relevant to the requirements presented

Observation 3 Failed to meet some functional requirements, mainly in UB

Functional Requirements

General System 90.2% Finance Accounting and Reporting 94.3% Purchasing 91.2%

Human Resources Management 95.1% Utility Billing 62.9% Citizen Portal 90.8%

Proposal and Support Notes

Proposal Quality Good overall proposal. Provided responses and supplemental information that was relevant to the City

References City of La Marque, TX; City of Grapevine, TX; City of Mount Pleasant, TX; City of Mount Vernon, WA

Data Conversion City is responsible for data cleanup and extraction

Support Support is available Monday-Sunday, 7:00 AM-10:00 PM (ET) with a 24/7 self-service Help Center; response times are severity-based: Urgent - 1 business hour, High - 1 business day, Normal - 4 business days, and Low - 8 business days

Litigation 1 lawsuit

Requirement Summaries

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Smaller firm with 28+ years of experience, but no Florida references and limited total system implementations

3. INFRASTRUCTURE Conformed to all requirements; AWS-hosted SaaS solution with strong integration capabilities, 99.9% uptime, and broad end-user support, but no data center topology diagram and limited information on offline capabilities were provided

4.0 SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE Conformed to all requirements: Updates and enhancements included, major releases provided quarterly; however, no specific maintenance schedule was provided. Staffed support is available, with 24/7 access to the self-service Help Center and four priority levels. Sample SLA could not be located

5.0 ACCEPTANCE TESTING Conformed; Detailed standard testing plan

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION Agreed to specifications; GANTT chart not provided, only High-level schedule. Implementation Plan included

7.0 CONTRACTUAL 24 exceptions

PTG

Current rank: DQ | Proposal score: 0.0/100 | Five-year cost: N/A

Software Solution Workday (Finance, HR/Payroll) Office N/A

Employees in Firm N/A Annual Revenue N/A

Total Systems N/A Florida Systems N/A

Estimated Project Duration N/A Total Cost N/A

Highlights and Red Flags

Observation 1 N/A

Observation 2 N/A

Observation 3 N/A

Functional Requirements

General System 0.0% Finance Accounting and Reporting 0.0% Purchasing 0.0%

Human Resources Management 0.0% Utility Billing 0.0% Citizen Portal 0.0%

Proposal and Support Notes

Proposal Quality N/A

References N/A

Data Conversion N/A

Support N/A

Requirement Summaries

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES N/A

3. INFRASTRUCTURE N/A

4.0 SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE N/A

5.0 ACCEPTANCE TESTING N/A

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION N/A

7.0 CONTRACTUAL N/A

Strada Current rank: 4 | Proposal score: 72.7/100 | Five-year cost: $7,416,678

Software Solution Workday (Finance, HR/Payroll) SpryPoint (UB) Office The Woodlands, TX

Employees in Firm 8,000+ Annual Revenue Financial information not disclosed

Total Systems 1,150+ Florida Systems 1 in progress

Estimated Project Duration 25-months Total Cost $7,416,678

Highlights and Red Flags

Observation 1 Large organization with a lot of experience

Observation 2 Provided a focused proposal with good supplemental information

Observation 3 One of the most expensive solutions and a large number of contractual requirements

Functional Requirements

General System 89.6% Finance Accounting and Reporting 91.4% Purchasing 85.3%

Human Resources Management 96.4% Utility Billing 96.6% Citizen Portal 90.8%

Proposal and Support Notes

Proposal Quality Good overall proposal. Provided sufficent detail to the requirements but was not fully tailored to the City

References City of Orlando, FL; City of Sarasota, FL; City of Idaho Falls, ID; Steamboat Springs, CO

Unclear if Strada was the implementor for the Workday references for City of Orlando, FL and City of Sarasota, FL. Contact information for references were not provided for City of Orlando, FL and City of Sarasota, FL

Data Conversion City is responsible for data cleanup, extraction, formatting, input, and testing

Support Workday provides 24/7 support for Severity 1 issues with acknowledgment within approximately one hour, while SpryPoint support is available Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM-8:00 PM (ET), with 24/7 incident reporting and a one-hour response target for system outages

Litigation Not answered

Requirement Summaries

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Large organization with 30+ years of experience, but it is unclear if Strada was the implementor for the Florida Workday references and limited system implementations in Florida

3. INFRASTRUCTURE Conformed to all requirements; AWS-hosted SaaS solution with strong integration capabilities and high availability, but no data center topology diagram, system response time commitment, or SpryPoint scanner compatibility information was provided

4.0 SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE Conformed to all requirements, SLAs provided; Defined update and maintenance schedules included, with structured priority-based support, though only Workday provides 24/7 Severity 1 support while SpryPoint support is limited to business hours

5.0 ACCEPTANCE TESTING Conformed; Detailed standard testing plan

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION Agreed to specifications; Strada and SpryPoint provided a GANTT chart and an implementation plan, however, did not provide much detail

7.0 CONTRACTUAL 53 total exceptions; 23 Strada; 12 Workday; 18 SpryPoint

Tyler Technologies Current rank: 1 | Proposal score: 85.6/100 | Five-year cost: $3,383,230

Software Solution Tyler E-ERP Office Plano, TX

Employees in Firm 8,000+ Annual Revenue $2.15 Billion

Total Systems 2,700+ Florida Systems 135

Estimated Project Duration 35-months Total Cost $3,383,230

Highlights and Red Flags

Observation 1 Provided one of the best overall proposals with great focus and detail. Excellent responses to the RFP requirements

Observation 2 Large organization with great experience, total implementations, and a good number of Florida references

Observation 3 Ranked fourth in pricing and disclosed a significant amout of litigation within the past five years

Functional Requirements

General System 98.4% Finance Accounting and Reporting 99.1% Purchasing 97.2%

Human Resources Management 97.4% Utility Billing 95.1% Citizen Portal 81.5%

Proposal and Support Notes

Proposal Quality Excellent overall proposal. Provided exceptional detail and supplemental information relevant to the requirements

References City of Pinellas Park, FL; City of Pembroke Pines, FL; City of Port Orange, FL; City of St. Petersburg, FL

Data Conversion City is responsible for data cleanup and extraction

Support Application support is available Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM-9:00 PM (ET), with 24/7 support for critical accessibility issues and outages; Tyler targets returning support requests within one business hour, but does not guarantee response times

Litigation 29 lawsuits

Requirement Summaries

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Large organization with relevant Florida references and 35+ years of experience. Large number of litigations

3. INFRASTRUCTURE Conformed to all requirements; AWS-hosted SaaS solution with strong infrastructure and integration capabilities, but no customer-facing service metrics portal or specific system response time commitment was provided

4.0 SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE Conformed to all requirements: Defined update schedule provided, but no specific maintenance schedule was included, and standard support is limited to business hours (24/7 support available for critical outages and accessibility issues).

Sample SLA could not be located

5.0 ACCEPTANCE TESTING Conformed; Detailed and thorough testing plan provided

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION Agreed to specifications; Detailed GANTT Chart and Implementation Plan included

7.0 CONTRACTUAL 14 exceptions

EVALUATION DETAILS

ERP Vendor Proposals Evaluation - Evaluation Details

Rating Scale

Rating Description Numeric Value

0 0 = Does Not Meet Expectations 0

1 1 = Meets Some Expectations 1

2 2 = Meets Most Expectations 2

3 3 = Meets Expectations 3

4 4 = Exceeds Expectations 4

Included Evaluation Sections

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS

3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE

4.0 MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT

5.0 ACCEPTANCE TESTING

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION

7.0 CONTRACT AND INSURANCE

Aclarian

Section Score Summary

Evaluation Section Maximum Value Weighted Vendor Score

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES 15.00 9.67

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS 25.00 23.85

3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE 10.00 5.83

4.0 MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT 10.00 7.33

5.0 ACCEPTANCE TESTING 10.00 10.00

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 10.00 6.33

7.0 CONTRACT AND INSURANCE 5.00 0.00

Detailed Scoring

Section Subsection Criterion Value # REQs Assessment NO/MR Weighted Score

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Experience 3.000 2 = Meets Most Expectations 2.000

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Financial Resources & Stability 2.000 0 = Does Not Meet Expectations 0.000

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES System Business Relative to Total 2.000 0 = Does Not Meet Expectations 0.000

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Overall Requirements and Components 1.000 2 = Meets Most Expectations 0.667

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Litigation & Violation of Laws Concerns 2.000 3 = Meets Expectations 2.000

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Initial References 5.000 3 = Meets Expectations 5.000

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS General System General System 1.113 86 3 = Meets Expectations 0 1.113

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS General System Field Mobility 0.220 17 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.220

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS General System Interfaces 1.036 80 3 = Meets Expectations 5 0.971

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting General Ledger 3.030 234 3 = Meets Expectations 0 3.030

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting Budget 1.644 127 3 = Meets Expectations 0 1.644

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting Fixed Assets 0.712 55 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.712

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting Capital Project & Grant Accounting 0.712 55 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.712

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting Accounts Payable 1.903 147 3 = Meets Expectations 0 1.903

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting Accounts Receivable 0.816 63 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.816

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting Cash Receipting 0.621 48 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.621

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting Banking 0.298 23 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.298

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting General Financial Reporting 0.712 55 0 = Does Not Meet Expectations 55 0.000

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Purchasing Purchasing Workflow 0.440 34 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.440

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Purchasing Vendor Management 0.246 19 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.246

Section Subsection Criterion Value # REQs Assessment NO/MR Weighted Score

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Purchasing Vendor Self-Service Portal 0.518 40 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.518

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Purchasing Requisitions & POs 0.829 64 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.829

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Purchasing Contracts Management 0.777 60 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.777

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Human Resources Management Personnel 1.036 80 3 = Meets Expectations 0 1.036

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Human Resources Management Payroll 1.295 100 3 = Meets Expectations 0 1.295

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Human Resources Management Expense Reimbersement 0.233 18 0 = Does Not Meet Expectations 18 0.000

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Human Resources Management Benefits 0.790 61 3 = Meets Expectations 2 0.764

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Human Resources Management Training 0.233 18 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.233

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Human Resources Management Employee Self-Service 0.414 32 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.414

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Meter Setup & Reading 0.427 33 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.427

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Adjustments 0.311 24 3 = Meets Expectations 2 0.285

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Customer Accounts 0.544 42 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.544

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Billing 0.660 51 3 = Meets Expectations 1 0.647

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Rate Structure 0.233 18 3 = Meets Expectations 1 0.220

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Service Requests 0.350 27 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.350

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Work Orders 0.466 36 3 = Meets Expectations 1 0.453

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Premises 0.181 14 3 = Meets Expectations 1 0.168

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Payments & Collections 0.660 51 3 = Meets Expectations 1 0.647

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Reporting & Querying 0.285 22 3 = Meets Expectations 1 0.272

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Intergovernmental Billing 0.259 20 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.259

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Integration & Reconciliation 0.065 5 2 = Meets Most Expectations 1 0.052

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Interdepartmental Billing 0.091 7 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.091

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Citizen Portal Portal 0.699 54 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.699

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Citizen Portal Data Analytics 0.142 11 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.142

3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE 3.1 Introduction 0.500 3 = Meets Expectations 0.500

3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE 3.2 System Architecture 2.000 1 = Meets Some Expectations 0.667

3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE 3.3 Hosting Environment 1.500 2 = Meets Most Expectations 1.000

3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE 3.4 Integration Services 2.000 1 = Meets Some Expectations 0.667

3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE 3.5 Reliability Requirements 2.000 3 = Meets Expectations 2.000

3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE 3.6 Performance Requirements 1.000 1 = Meets Some Expectations 0.333

3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE 3.7 End User Equipment 1.000 2 = Meets Most Expectations 0.667

4.0 MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT 4.2 General Maintenance Provisions 2.000 3 = Meets Expectations 2.000

4.0 MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT 4.3 Updates and Enhancements 3.000 2 = Meets Most Expectations 2.000

4.0 MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT 4.4 System Maintenance 2.000 2 = Meets Most Expectations 1.333

4.0 MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT 4.5 Support Requirements 3.000 2 = Meets Most Expectations 2.000

5.0 ACCEPTANCE TESTING 5.2 Testing 5.000 3 = Meets Expectations 5.000

5.0 ACCEPTANCE TESTING 5.3 System Acceptance 5.000 3 = Meets Expectations 5.000

Section Subsection Criterion Value # REQs Assessment NO/MR Weighted Score

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 6.2 General Implementation Requirements 0.500 3 = Meets Expectations 0.500

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 6.3 Project Management 1.000 2 = Meets Most Expectations 0.667

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 6.4 Site Planning 0.500 2 = Meets Most Expectations 0.333

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 6.5 Business Process Review 1.000 3 = Meets Expectations 1.000

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 6.6 Pre-Configured System 1.000 2 = Meets Most Expectations 0.667

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 6.7 Coordination Meetings 0.500 3 = Meets Expectations 0.500

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 6.8 Phase-in Requirements 2.000 0 = Does Not Meet Expectations 0.000

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 6.9 Data Migration 1.500 2 = Meets Most Expectations 1.000

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 6.10 Training 1.000 3 = Meets Expectations 1.000

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 6.11 Implementation Plan 1.000 2 = Meets Most Expectations 0.667

7.0 CONTRACT AND INSURANCE Contractual Requirements 5.000 0 = Does Not Meet Expectations 0.000

BS&A Software

Section Score Summary

Evaluation Section Maximum Value Weighted Vendor Score

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES 15.00 12.67

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS 25.00 22.85

3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE 10.00 4.50

4.0 MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT 10.00 6.67

5.0 ACCEPTANCE TESTING 10.00 3.33

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 10.00 4.00

7.0 CONTRACT AND INSURANCE 5.00 3.33

Detailed Scoring

Section Subsection Criterion Value # REQs Assessment NO/MR Weighted Score

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Experience 3.000 2 = Meets Most Expectations 2.000

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Financial Resources & Stability 2.000 2 = Meets Most Expectations 1.333

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES System Business Relative to Total 2.000 3 = Meets Expectations 2.000

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Overall Requirements and Components 1.000 1 = Meets Some Expectations 0.333

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Litigation & Violation of Laws Concerns 2.000 3 = Meets Expectations 2.000

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Initial References 5.000 3 = Meets Expectations 5.000

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS General System General System 1.113 86 2 = Meets Most Expectations 13 0.945

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS General System Field Mobility 0.220 17 2 = Meets Most Expectations 3 0.181

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS General System Interfaces 1.036 80 2 = Meets Most Expectations 15 0.842

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting General Ledger 3.030 234 3 = Meets Expectations 2 3.004

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting Budget 1.644 127 3 = Meets Expectations 1 1.631

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting Fixed Assets 0.712 55 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.712

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting Capital Project & Grant Accounting 0.712 55 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.712

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting Accounts Payable 1.903 147 3 = Meets Expectations 5 1.838

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting Accounts Receivable 0.816 63 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.816

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting Cash Receipting 0.621 48 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.621

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting Banking 0.298 23 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.298

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting General Financial Reporting 0.712 55 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.712

Section Subsection Criterion Value # REQs Assessment NO/MR Weighted Score

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Purchasing Vendor Self-Service Portal 0.518 40 0 = Does Not Meet Expectations 40 0.000

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Purchasing Requisitions & POs 0.829 64 3 = Meets Expectations 1 0.816

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Purchasing Contracts Management 0.777 60 3 = Meets Expectations 2 0.751

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Human Resources Management Personnel 1.036 80 3 = Meets Expectations 4 0.984

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Human Resources Management Payroll 1.295 100 3 = Meets Expectations 1 1.282

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Human Resources Management Expense Reimbersement 0.233 18 2 = Meets Most Expectations 5 0.168

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Human Resources Management Benefits 0.790 61 3 = Meets Expectations 4 0.738

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Human Resources Management Training 0.233 18 0 = Does Not Meet Expectations 18 0.000

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Human Resources Management Employee Self-Service 0.414 32 2 = Meets Most Expectations 4 0.363

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Meter Setup & Reading 0.427 33 3 = Meets Expectations 2 0.401

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Adjustments 0.311 24 3 = Meets Expectations 1 0.298

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Customer Accounts 0.544 42 3 = Meets Expectations 4 0.492

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Billing 0.660 51 3 = Meets Expectations 3 0.621

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Rate Structure 0.233 18 3 = Meets Expectations 1 0.220

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Service Requests 0.350 27 2 = Meets Most Expectations 3 0.311

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Work Orders 0.466 36 2 = Meets Most Expectations 5 0.401

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Premises 0.181 14 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.181

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Payments & Collections 0.660 51 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.660

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Reporting & Querying 0.285 22 3 = Meets Expectations 1 0.272

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Intergovernmental Billing 0.259 20 3 = Meets Expectations 1 0.246

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Integration & Reconciliation 0.065 5 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.065

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Interdepartmental Billing 0.091 7 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.091

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Citizen Portal Portal 0.699 54 1 = Meets Some Expectations 20 0.440

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Citizen Portal Data Analytics 0.142 11 0 = Does Not Meet Expectations 7 0.052

3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE 3.1 Introduction 0.500 3 = Meets Expectations 0.500

3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE 3.2 System Architecture 2.000 1 = Meets Some Expectations 0.667

3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE 3.3 Hosting Environment 1.500 2 = Meets Most Expectations 1.000

3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE 3.4 Integration Services 2.000 1 = Meets Some Expectations 0.667

3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE 3.5 Reliability Requirements 2.000 1 = Meets Some Expectations 0.667

3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE 3.6 Performance Requirements 1.000 1 = Meets Some Expectations 0.333

3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE 3.7 End User Equipment 1.000 2 = Meets Most Expectations 0.667

4.0 MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT 4.2 General Maintenance Provisions 2.000 2 = Meets Most Expectations 1.333

4.0 MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT 4.3 Updates and Enhancements 3.000 2 = Meets Most Expectations 2.000

4.0 MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT 4.4 System Maintenance 2.000 2 = Meets Most Expectations 1.333

4.0 MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT 4.5 Support Requirements 3.000 2 = Meets Most Expectations 2.000

5.0 ACCEPTANCE TESTING 5.2 Testing 5.000 1 = Meets Some Expectations 1.667

5.0 ACCEPTANCE TESTING 5.3 System Acceptance 5.000 1 = Meets Some Expectations 1.667

Section Subsection Criterion Value # REQs Assessment NO/MR Weighted Score

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 6.2 General Implementation Requirements 0.500 2 = Meets Most Expectations 0.333

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 6.3 Project Management 1.000 1 = Meets Some Expectations 0.333

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 6.4 Site Planning 0.500 1 = Meets Some Expectations 0.167

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 6.5 Business Process Review 1.000 2 = Meets Most Expectations 0.667

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 6.6 Pre-Configured System 1.000 1 = Meets Some Expectations 0.333

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 6.7 Coordination Meetings 0.500 1 = Meets Some Expectations 0.167

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 6.8 Phase-in Requirements 2.000 0 = Does Not Meet Expectations 0.000

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 6.9 Data Migration 1.500 2 = Meets Most Expectations 1.000

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 6.10 Training 1.000 2 = Meets Most Expectations 0.667

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 6.11 Implementation Plan 1.000 1 = Meets Some Expectations 0.333

7.0 CONTRACT AND INSURANCE Contractual Requirements 5.000 2 = Meets Most Expectations 3.333

Cayenta

Section Score Summary

Evaluation Section Maximum Value Weighted Vendor Score

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES 15.00 7.00

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS 25.00 24.29

3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE 10.00 9.33

4.0 MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT 10.00 8.33

5.0 ACCEPTANCE TESTING 10.00 10.00

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 10.00 6.00

7.0 CONTRACT AND INSURANCE 5.00 3.33

Detailed Scoring

Section Subsection Criterion Value # REQs Assessment NO/MR Weighted Score

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Experience 3.000 1 = Meets Some Expectations 1.000

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Financial Resources & Stability 2.000 0 = Does Not Meet Expectations 0.000

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES System Business Relative to Total 2.000 0 = Does Not Meet Expectations 0.000

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Overall Requirements and Components 1.000 2 = Meets Most Expectations 0.667

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Litigation & Violation of Laws Concerns 2.000 3 = Meets Expectations 2.000

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Initial References 5.000 2 = Meets Most Expectations 3.333

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS General System General System 1.113 86 3 = Meets Expectations 2 1.088

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS General System Field Mobility 0.220 17 3 = Meets Expectations 1 0.207

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS General System Interfaces 1.036 80 3 = Meets Expectations 0 1.036

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting General Ledger 3.030 234 3 = Meets Expectations 3 2.991

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting Budget 1.644 127 3 = Meets Expectations 0 1.644

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting Fixed Assets 0.712 55 3 = Meets Expectations 1 0.699

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting Capital Project & Grant Accounting 0.712 55 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.712

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting Accounts Payable 1.903 147 3 = Meets Expectations 0 1.903

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting Accounts Receivable 0.816 63 3 = Meets Expectations 1 0.803

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting Cash Receipting 0.621 48 3 = Meets Expectations 2 0.596

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting Banking 0.298 23 3 = Meets Expectations 1 0.285

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Finance Accounting and

Reporting General Financial Reporting 0.712 55 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.712

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Purchasing Purchasing Workflow 0.440 34 3 = Meets Expectations 1 0.427

Section Subsection Criterion Value # REQs Assessment NO/MR Weighted Score

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Purchasing Vendor Self-Service Portal 0.518 40 2 = Meets Most Expectations 9 0.401

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Purchasing Requisitions & POs 0.829 64 3 = Meets Expectations 1 0.816

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Purchasing Contracts Management 0.777 60 3 = Meets Expectations 2 0.751

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Human Resources Management Personnel 1.036 80 3 = Meets Expectations 5 0.971

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Human Resources Management Payroll 1.295 100 3 = Meets Expectations 1 1.282

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Human Resources Management Expense Reimbersement 0.233 18 3 = Meets Expectations 1 0.220

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Human Resources Management Benefits 0.790 61 2 = Meets Most Expectations 12 0.634

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Human Resources Management Training 0.233 18 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.233

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Human Resources Management Employee Self-Service 0.414 32 3 = Meets Expectations 3 0.375

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Meter Setup & Reading 0.427 33 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.427

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Adjustments 0.311 24 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.311

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Customer Accounts 0.544 42 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.544

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Billing 0.660 51 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.660

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Rate Structure 0.233 18 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.233

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Service Requests 0.350 27 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.350

2.0 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS Utility Billing Work Orders 0.466 36 3 = Meets Expectations 0 0.