PR-26-629 Addendum 2_Final.pdf

Department of Financial Management 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 6th Floor

Long Beach, CA 90802

(562) 570-6425

April 29, 2026

NOTICE TO PROPOSERS

ADDENDUM NO. 02: Q & A

No. RFP PR-25-629

Recreation Management Platform

This addendum changes and supersedes the language in the original RFP.

Please acknowledge receipt of this addendum by signing and submitting with your proposals. Any proposer who fails to submit this addendum may be disqualified.

The City would like to remind Proposers that pursuant to Section 5.2.27 of the RFP, the City will not be responsible for or bound by any oral communication or any other information or contact that occurs outside the official communication process specified herein, unless confirmed in writing by the City Contact.

The questions and answers are as follows:

1. Q: As we evaluate the scope of services, we wanted to confirm whether the

City of Long Beach Parks, Recreation and Marine Department operates any campgrounds or RV camping facilities - such as El Dorado East Regional

Park's overnight camping area - that would be included within the scope of this RMS implementation.

A: Yes. PRM operates an overnight group campground at El Dorado East

Regional Park for organized youth groups only. This facility is included in the scope of the RMS implementation.

2. Q: Are you migrating to AWS?

A: No. Migration to AWS is not part of this project. Proposers should describe how their solution will align with the City’s existing technology environment and support the City’s security, integration, and operational requirements.

3. Q: Are you using AWS to host your platform?

RFP PR-25-629

Addendum No. 2

A: No. AWS is not the City’s hosting standard for this project. Proposers should describe their proposed hosting model and how it will meet the City’s security, compliance, integration, and operational requirements.

4. Q: How many staff users do you anticipate needing access to the system?

Please provide a breakdown as follows:

• Front desk staff (transaction processing only)

• Back office staff (configuration and transaction processing)

• Supervisors and administrators (reporting, system management)

• Class instructors (attendance and check-in only)

A: PRM anticipates a broad range of internal users, including full-time and seasonal part-time staff across programs utilizing the Recreation

Management System. Final user counts will be determined during implementation. Estimated users include:

• Front desk staff (transaction processing only): 200–225

• Back office staff (configuration and transaction processing): 5–10

• Supervisors and administrators (reporting, system management): 30–40

• Class instructors (attendance and check-in only): 50–60

This represents approximately 250–300 total internal users.

5. Q: How many unique online visitors does the City's current public-facing recreation portal receive per month?

A: Our homepage averages 4,600 unique visitors a month and our Recreation

Class Webpage averages 6,300 unique visitors a month.

6. Q: How many active customer/participant accounts currently exist in your system? Of those, how many have had transactions in the past 24 months?

A: There are 39,152 active customer/participant accounts with transactions in the past 24 months.

7. Q: How many household accounts are currently managed in the system?

A: The current system manages 113,425 household accounts

8. Q: What is the target go live date of the new system?

A: The City’s target go-live is Fall 2027, which falls within the current system contract timeline and optional extension period. The target may be adjusted based on implementation constraints and vendor recommendations. The

City’s desired hard deadline is early Spring 2028.

9. Q: What is your total transaction volume processed last year?

A: The City processes approximately 290,576 total annual transactions across recreation operations. This includes:

• 120,060 transactions processed within the current vendor system

• 170,516 transactions processed through City-procured devices operating outside the vendor system

Transactions include program registrations, point-of-sale activity, drop-ins, passes, and facility-related transactions.

10. Q: What is the volume of online transactions?

A: Approximately 27,431 transactions occur online annually.

11. Q: How many physical credit card terminals will you require? How many need to be wireless?

A: The City will determine final hardware needs during implementation, but anticipates requiring approximately 24–36 payment devices. Final quantities will depend on site configuration and operational needs.

12. Q: Are there any additional systems you are using in your department not noted in the RFP (Tyler Munis, ePact, Team Sideline, Azure AD)?

A: Proposers should assume the systems identified in the RFP are the primary systems currently known to require consideration for this procurement. Any additional interfaces or dependencies identified during discovery and implementation will be addressed during project planning.

13. Q: The RFP identifies Bank of America Merchant Services (BAMS) as the preferred payment processor. Is integration with BAMS a firm requirement, or will the City consider alternative PCI-compliant payment processors if the proposed solution demonstrates equivalent security, competitive processing rates, and a superior total cost of ownership?

A: Bank of America Merchant Services (BAMS) is the City’s preferred payment processor. The City may consider alternative PCI-compliant processors provided the proposer demonstrates that the solution meets all City requirements for security, PCI compliance, integration, reconciliation, reporting, and overall cost effectiveness.

14. Q: What is your target go-live date, and are there any hard deadlines (e.g., a program registration season you need to be live for)?

A: See response to question 8.

15. Q: Are you expecting a phased rollout or a full cutover?

A: The City prefers a phased rollout to support staff training, operational continuity, and risk mitigation. The final approach may be adjusted based on vendor recommendations and project timeline constraints.

16. Q: What is your approximate annual transaction volume?

A: See response to question 9.

17. Q: Is Bank of America Merchant Services a hard requirement, or would other

PCI-compliant processors be considered?

A: See response to question 13.

18. Q: What data (if any) are you looking to migrate, specifically? (i.e. – public user account, memberships, future facility reservations, etc.)

A: The City anticipates migrating core operational data necessary to maintain continuity for staff and customers. This may include customer and household accounts, active memberships or passes, account credits and balances, active and future program registrations, facility reservations and permits, and key historical enrollment and transaction records. The final scope and level of historical depth will be confirmed during implementation based on system capabilities and operational needs.

19. Q: What is the revenue projected to run through this solution annually (or last normal year)?

A: The City processes approximately $5,049,413.26 in annual credit and debit card revenue (excluding transaction fees).

20. Q: How much revenue is from Credit/Debit Card transactions in your last normal year?

A: Credit and debit card revenue totaled approximately $3,767,015.26 from devices operating within the current vendor’s system, with an additional

$1,282,398.00 processed through City-procured devices outside the vendor’s system.

21. Q: How many total annual transactions do you process (receipts)?

22. Q: How many internal users (full-time and part-time staff) do you anticipate using the system?

A: See response to question 4.

23. Q: What criteria are being evaluated to determine if this is a successful project in 2-3 years? (i.e. – resident satisfaction, staff ease of use, specific metrics, etc.)

A: In addition to the performance metrics outlined in RFP Section 2.2, success will be measured through improved customer satisfaction, increased online adoption, reduced manual workload for staff, accurate financial reconciliation, system reliability, accessibility compliance, and overall staff ease of use and operational efficiency.

24. Q: Regarding security and compliance, will a vendor’s inclusion or exclusion from the GovRAMP framework be more or less favored by the evaluation committee?

A: Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria set forth in the

RFP. Participation in GovRAMP or a similar recognized security framework may be viewed favorably as evidence of security maturity, but is not, by itself, determinative unless specifically identified as a requirement in the RFP.

25. Q: In consideration of the anticipated DOJ regulations regarding web accessibility, how will your team weigh and score proposed vendor solutions for compliance and readiness?

A: Accessibility readiness is important to the City. Proposers should describe how their solution supports compliance with applicable accessibility requirements, including accessible web experiences, forms, documents, and ongoing content management. Responses demonstrating strong accessibility capabilities, testing practices, remediation processes, and product readiness will be evaluated in accordance with the RFP criteria.

26. Q: Has your team considered web accessibility requirements for PDFs and forms, and would you value vendors responding with solutions that address this need?

A: Yes. The City values solutions that address accessibility for digital content, including forms, notices, receipts, and PDF or other document outputs generated by the platform. Proposers should describe current capabilities and any known limitations.

27. Q: Under “Integration Capabilities” - are looking for Asset Management

Software to be included in this project or are you asking if proposed Rec solution integrates with Asset Management?

A: The City is asking whether the proposed Recreation Management solution can integrate with asset management-related systems or workflows, as needed. The City is not requesting a separate standalone asset management platform unless proposed by the vendor as part of its solution.

28. Q: Could you please confirm the approximate number of internal staff users, instructors, and external/public users expected to access the system at launch and over time?

A: See response to question 4.

29. Q: Is there an estimated budget range allocated for this Recreation

Management System, or any cost expectations or thresholds that vendors should consider when preparing their proposals?

A: The City does not publish a budget range for active procurements.

Vendors should propose a competitive, comprehensive solution aligned with the RFP requirements (see 2.2.3 Contract Payment and 3.2 Evaluation Criteria

Weight for Reasonableness of Cost.)

30. Q: Beyond the requirements outlined, are there any specific operational challenges, workflows, or priority use cases the City would like the solution to address in more detail?

A: The City seeks to improve customer experience for online registration and reservations, streamline workflows to reduce manual processes and staff workload, enhance reporting and financial reconciliation, improve facility permitting and program management, ensure ADA/WCAG accessibility compliance, and increase overall system reliability.

31. Q: The RFP references a cloud-based solution; does the City have any preferred data center location or residency requirements, and is there flexibility regarding hosting in different regions?

A: Proposers should describe their hosting model, data residency approach, disaster recovery capabilities, and available regional hosting options. Any proposed hosting solution must meet the City’s security, compliance, integration, and operational requirements.

32. Q: Is there an incumbent system or vendor currently providing these services? If so, could you share the key drivers for issuing this RFP (e.g., end of contract, need for enhanced functionality, user experience improvements, etc.)?

A: Yes. The City currently utilizes a recreation management system under an existing contract that is approaching the end of its term. As part of standard procurement practice, the City is issuing this RFP to evaluate available solutions in the marketplace and ensure continued alignment with evolving community needs and industry standards. The City is interested in exploring modern capabilities that enhance customer experience, support future integration opportunities (including mobile payment options, AI-supported tools, and dynamic service features), and provide long-term flexibility as technology and user expectations evolve.

33. Q: Could you provide information on the current contract value and term for the existing solution, if available?

A: The City has an active agreement for its current reservation and registration system. Contract value and term details are not included in this

RFP.

34. Q: Please provide examples of the challenges experienced and/or improvements sought by the City relating to the current reservation system from a customer, field staff, and administrative perspective that you are looking to address with this RFP?

A: As part of the City’s ongoing commitment to improving service delivery and adapting to community expectations, staff have identified areas where enhanced functionality would support future operations. These include simplifying registration and permitting workflows, reducing manual processes, expanding self-service options for customers, improving tools for managing high volumes of program and facility requests, and enhancing data tracking, dashboards, and reporting capabilities to support informed decision-making.

35. Q: What is the planned go-live date?

A: See response to question 8.

36. Q: What is the annual cost to the Agency for the POS and Website channels?

A: The City does not incur separate per-transaction costs for the POS or website channels beyond standard credit card processing fees. Hardware costs vary depending on whether devices are procured through the current vendor or through City purchasing.

37. Q: What is the annual revenue generated from the POS and Website channels?

A: Annual credit/debit card revenue includes approximately $3,767,015.26 processed through devices integrated with the current vendor’s system and

$1,282,398.00 processed through City-procured devices operating outside the vendor’s system.

38. Q: What is the volume of transactions across the POS and Website?

39. Q: What are the credit card volumes for the past three years?

card revenue across all recreation operations (excluding transaction fees).

This includes revenue processed both within the current vendor system and through City-procured devices operating outside the vendor system.

40. Q: What is the credit card processing fee?

• Staff-side technology/transaction fee: 2.2107%

• Staff-side credit card processing fee: 3.3094%

• Electronic Check Processing (ECP): 1.50%

• Refund fee (all payment types): $0.10

Online tiered fees:

• Tier 1 ($0–$149): 8.5006% + $0.61

• Tier 2 ($150–$499): 4.5773% + $6.11

• Tier 3 ($500+): 3.2694% + $12.21

• Refund fee: $0.10

41. Q: Is the vendor required to provide connectivity? Primary and Secondary?

A: No. The City will provide network connectivity. Proposers shall identify all connectivity requirements, dependencies, bandwidth requirements, and any recommended failover configurations necessary to support the proposed solution.

42. Q: Please provide the fee(s) paid to/retained by the current vendor per transaction in the most recent fiscal year broken out by POS and Website.

A: Total Fees paid to current vendor for FY25 amounted to $277,953.57.

Unfortunately, we are unable to provide a breakdown of these fees by POS and Website.

43. Q: Credit Cards -What is the current processing rate for card transactions?

A: See response to question 40.

44. Q: Will the City be open to a different payment provider?

45. Q: How many POS card reader devices does the City anticipate needing for this project?

A: See response to question 11.

46. Q: Do you currently use access management hardware for building entry and exit tracking?

A: No.

47. Q: Do you want to transfer data from your current provider to your new provider? If yes, please outline the use cases (e.g. active memberships, account credits, active program registration, etc).

A: See response to question 18.

48. Q: Are there any specific integrations required? (with existing software)

A: Proposers should assume integration with the systems identified in the

RFP is required or strongly preferred, where applicable, including financial, identity and access, and program-related systems. Proposers should clearly identify standard integrations, configurable integrations, API-based options, and any third-party dependencies or limitations.

49. Q: Do you have a list of expected/required reports?

A: The City requires standard and ad-hoc reporting, dashboard analytics, financial reconciliation tools, and access to the backend reporting database for custom report development. A detailed list will be finalized during implementation.

50. Q: Can the vendor provide a list of exceptions to the City’s MSA?

A: Assuming MSA means Master Service Agreement, the City reserves the right to negotiate any final contract terms with the selected Proposer. See

Number 26 of the Terms and Conditions of the RFP. Proposers must submit any contract terms it wishes the City to consider in their bids.

51. Q: On the DTPR vendor worksheet, page 6, can you provide more information on what is required here- >Number the items below that best describe the purpose(s) of this technology deployment in order of importance/relevance. Is this what the vendor deems to be important for the deployment?

A: Yes. The vendor should rank the items that best describe the primary purpose(s) of the technology deployment in order of importance. Vendors should select their top three purposes where possible, though additional selections may be included if applicable. For this procurement, examples may include Commerce, Inform, and Planning & Decision-Making.

52. Q: For listed subcontractors, do you also mean organizations that we partner with, such as TeamSideline or just resources that are true subcontractors?

A: True Subcontractors.

53. Q: Are you requesting a full proposal that addresses the requirements for

Section 2, Scope of Work or does the City expect only these documents to be returned?

• Section 4.3,

• TID_Data Privacy Policy Attachment_RFP

• VISA Questionnaire~5

A: The City expects the following:

1. Section 4.3

2. Cost Proposal

3. Financial Stability

4. Other mandatory attachments (Refer to ‘Mandatory Attachments’ in section 4.2)

The Scope of Work requirements will be addressed when completing Section

4.3.

54. Q: Is texting/messaging bidirectional or 1-way/notification only?

A: 1-way/notification only

55. Q: What volume of historical data is being migrated (number of accounts, transactions, bookings, etc)?

A: The exact volume of historical data to be migrated is not being provided in this addendum. Proposers should state their assumptions regarding migration volumes and identify any pricing or technical dependencies associated with data conversion scale. The City expects migration of the data necessary to maintain continuity of operations. Relevant use cases may include active customer and household records, memberships or passes, account credits or balances, active and future program registrations, future reservations or bookings, and other key operational data. Proposers should describe their recommended migration scope, assumptions, exclusions, and validation methodology.

56. Q: Can we get an estimate of volume of bookings in a year, and volume of transaction (count or volume in spend)?

A: Annual booking activity represents a portion of the City’s overall transaction volume, which totals approximately 290,576 transactions per year across all recreation operations. These transactions include program registrations, POS activity, drop-ins, passes, and facility-related transactions.

57. Q: Do you have current payment hardware you are planning on using, or would we be replacing that as well?

A: The City is open to evaluating new payment hardware as part of the RMS

Implementation. Existing hardware may be replaced if required for PCI compliance or system capability.

58. Q: Strategic Outcomes & Success Metrics - How will the City define success

12–24 months post-implementation (e.g., increased online adoption, reduced front desk volume, improved customer satisfaction, etc.)?

A: See response to question 23.

59. Q: Current System Challenges - What are the primary limitations or pain points with your current recreation management system that you are aiming to resolve through this initiative?

A: See response to question 34.

60. Q: Revenue & Transaction Volume - Can you provide insight into the total annual revenue processed through your current system, along with approximate annual transaction volumes and average transaction value?

card revenue. The City processes approximately 290,576 transactions annually across all recreation operations. Average transaction value is not currently calculated but can be provided upon request.

61. Q: Channel Usage (Online vs. In-Person) - What percentage of registrations and transactions currently occur online versus in-person, and does the City have a target for increasing digital adoption through web and mobile app?

A: The City processes approximately 290,576 transactions annually across recreation operations, with approximately $5,049,413.26 in total credit and debit card revenue. The City anticipates increasing online adoption but has not established a specific percentage target currently. Proposers should describe tools and strategies that support increased digital engagement.

62. Q: User & System Scale - Approximately how many:

• Active household/accounts

• Annual program registrations

• Staff users (including seasonal)

• Bookable facilities/equipment does the City currently manage?

A: The current system manages 113,425 household accounts, 29,302 annual program registrations, 250-300 staff users, and 526 facility and amenity types.

63. Q: Integration Priorities - Are integrations with TeamSideline and ePACT required at go-live, or would a phased or alternative approach be acceptable if core functionality is met initially?

A: The City prefers that key integrations be delivered as early as practical;

however, the City is open to a phased implementation approach if the proposer demonstrates that core functionality can be delivered effectively at initial go-live and that any deferred integrations can be implemented within a clearly defined subsequent phase.

64. Q: Integration Priorities - Beyond the specifically listed integrations (e.g., TeamSideline, ePACT, Munis), is the City open to leveraging a flexible, API-first integration approach that may streamline or consolidate systems over time, rather than maintaining multiple point-to-point integrations?

A: Yes. The City is open to a flexible, API-first integration approach, provided it supports the City’s operational, security, supportability, and reporting needs and does not reduce required functionality.

65. Q: Financial System & Payment Processing Requirements - Beyond the preference for Bank of America Merchant Services (BAMS), are there any specific reconciliation workflows, reporting requirements, or constraints we should be aware of?

A: The City requires audit-friendly financial reconciliation and real-time reporting with robust analytics. No specific constraints. Refer to Section 1.3 and Section 2 on the RFP for more information.

66. Q: Financial System & Payment Processing Requirements - Is the City willing to consider other payment processors or vendor partnerships beyond BAMS, provided they meet all PCI, security, integration requirements, and cost savings?

• If yes, please provide current processing rates for card present and card-not-present to include a total cost analysis.

67. Q: Implementation & Change Management Expectations - What level of internal resources will be dedicated to implementation, and are there preferred timelines or key milestones the City is targeting for go-live?

A: The City anticipates dedicating appropriate business, technical, and project management resources to support implementation. Proposers should identify the City roles they expect to engage, the level of effort required, key assumptions, and a proposed implementation plan with milestones for discovery, configuration, integrations, data migration, testing, training, and go-live.

PREPARED BY:

Elisa Landeros

Elisa Landeros, Procurement Analyst II

ACKNOWLEDGED BY:

Company Name

Print Name Title

Signature Date