PR8409_-_Addendum_1_-_GIS_Utility_Network_Migration_Project_and_Support_Services.pdf

PR8409

GIS Utility Network Migration Project and Support Services

ADDENDUM 1

DATED: August 15, 2025

The RFP has been amended as stated below (or on the following page).

In your Proposal submittal, you MUST note this Addendum was received OR YOUR PROPOSAL MAY BE CONSIDERED NON- RESPONSIVE. If additional information is required regarding this RFP, please feel free to contact the buyer of record at asegura@ouc.com. Thank you for your participation in this RFP.

All proposals must be submitted no later than 2:00 PM EST on August 28, 2025.

Questions/Clarifications:

1. Can you confirm whether the scope of the Utility Network migration includes GIS data for water treatment facilities, or is it limited to water distribution and collection systems?

• Limited to water distribution

2. Is there a Pre-Proposal Conference?

• There is not Pre-proposal conference scheduled for this solicitation.

3. Which vendor has completed your assessment?

• This is unknown until the opening date, and proposals are evaluated.

4. Are you looking for a vendor to provide all of your integrations?

• Yes where possible. Otherwise, selected vendor may need to coordinate with specific software vendors who are actually doing the integration

5. Could you please clarify the bonding requirements outlined in Sections 3.18 and 3.19? The cover page indicates that no Bid Bond or Payment & Performance Bond is required, but these sections still reference bonding provisions. Can you confirm whether any bonds will be required for this solicitation?

• Bonds are not a requirement for this solicitation.

6. Can you clarify whether the project phases outlined in the RFP (Water, Electric, and Fiber) are intended to run sequentially or concurrently? Specifically, will the phases be staggered or overlap?

• Sequential phases are our preference, however, specific scheduling with vendor will make final determinations

7. How will coordination with parallel initiatives like ADMS be structured? Will there be a shared steering committee?

• The UN Migration project will have an executive steering committee. Not determined if it will be shared with other efforts.

8. Will OUC handle initial data remediation (cleanup, domain value updates) or should we scope that as part of our proposal?

• Minor remediations could be handled by OUC staff, otherwise, vendor should scope this effort in their proposal

9. Will OUC provide a dedicated internal Project Manager and SME team for each domain?

• Yes

10. Are there any legacy systems being retired in parallel that we should be aware of?

• Yes, the ARM360 (Geocove) application will be retired. In addition Arc Engine and Arc Reader apps will be retired.

11. Can OUC provide a detailed integration map or system architecture for current GIS-related systems and integrations (e.g., CGI OMS, ARM360, SynerGi)?

• Yes, existing integraton map can be provided

12. Are there any OUC-mandated hosting constraints (e.g., on-prem only, cloud)?

• On-prem only

13. Will vendor staff be required to go through background checks or obtain specific security clearances for remote access?

• Yes, background checks are required

14. Does OUC expect a Train-the-Trainer model or direct end-user training sessions?

• Direct end-user training for core GIS staff. Train-the-trainer model for several OUC staff that will be responsible for training various staff from multiple departments.

15. Can OUC clarify the expectations for the 90-day post go-live support period? (e.g., full-time resources, SLA response times, issue tracking tool)

• 7x24 remote support for first 2 weeks, on-call resource to provide immediate response, vendor to provide issue tracking tool. After first 2 weeks, transition to

5x8 remote support for remainder of 90 days, 1 hour SLA for acknowledgement of trouble tickets

16. Should we assume any overlapping activities between phases, or are they expected to be strictly sequential?

• See Question 6

17. Is OUC expecting a firm-fixed price for each phase or a single contract for the entire engagement?

• Single contract with pricing for each phase.

18. Will each phase (Water, Electric, Fiber) be subject to independent go/no-go reviews before the next phase starts?

• Yes, go/no-go reviews will be required for each phase

19. What are the expectations around documentation—will OUC provide templates for architecture diagrams, test plans, or should we plan to supply them?

• Vendor to supply

20. Attachment A, Section 2.1 Stakeholder Engagement, Page 23 of 34 Can OUC summarize the full-time and part-time personnel counts (OUC employees and vendors) from Business, GIS, and IT that ensure GIS and the interfaces with other systems are operational in the current state, as this helps with estimating the coordination effort by each phase?

• GIS Department has 5 staff in the Technical Group that support this

21. Attachment A, Section 2.2 Improvements and Functional Needs, Page 24 of 34 If OUC has conducted analysis or assessments or proof-of-concepts or pilots or similar with ArcGIS Utility Network to prioritize the functional needs, can OUC share the details as this helps with estimating the effort associated with water, electric, fiber, etc.?

• This information is not available

22. Attachment A, Section 2.4 Current State Overview, Page 24 of 34 Is OUC’s GIS currently deployed on-premises, in cloud infrastructure, or a combination? Does OUC have a preference for the target state with ArcGIS Utility Network? Any information shared will help with estimating the level of effort needed with architecture.

• Current GIS is on-prem and will continue as an on-prem solution

23. Attachment A, Section 2.4 Current State Overview, Page 24 of 34 Is OUC’s hydraulic model for water currently interfaced with GIS or maintained independently? Which product is used for hydraulic modeling?

• Current hydraulic modeling is not interfaced with GIS

24. Attachment A, Section 2.4 Current State Overview, Page 25 of 34 Can OUC share the approximate quantities of assets and pertinent details currently not in GIS for water, electric, and fiber to help with estimating the effort involved, such as the example provided for substation and transmission data? A breakdown by portfolio (i.e., electric generation, water production, transmission, and distribution of electric and water services to OUC customers within its service area as well as chilled water, lighting, back-up generation, electric vehicle charging, and solar) would be very helpful to estimate the effort.

• Electric substation details and manhole details are being considered for conversion into the UN

25. Attachment A, Section 5.2.3 Vendor's Change Manager Responsibilities, Page 31 of 34 Can

OUC share user counts (employees and contractors) using GIS today and impacted within each phase? If possible, a breakdown of users with edit access and others by phase is appreciated as this helps with estimating the change management strategy and effort.

• Approxiamtely 450 OUC staff currently use GIS in some capacity. Edit environment - 20 electric approvers, 10 water approvers, 7 electric editors, 4 water editors. 2 fiber editor/approvers.

26. Attachment A, Section 5.4 Staffing Plan, Page 32 of 34 Can physical workspace be provided at OUC facilities for key vendor staff members anticipated to work on-site for longer durations to ensure alignment?

27. Does OUC have a specific Addenda form template for Tab 4 that vendors should use? If so, could you provide a working link? Page 20

• Compliance submittal Forms have been added to the Vendorlink as a document that will need to be included with your submittal.

28. Does OUC have a specific Exceptions form template for Tab 4 that vendors should use? If so, could you provide a working link? Page 20

• Compliance submittal Forms have been added to the Vendorlink as a document that will need to be included with your submittal.

29. Can OUC provide more detail with regards to the data quality and augmentation requirements? Page 25, 2.4

30. Has OUC Selected a platform for ADMS? Page 24, 2.4

• No, RFP process in progress

31. Can OUC provide a more detailed overview of the use cases and internal applications? Page 25, 2.4

32. Can OUC provide a summary of the functionality available to field users in water engine?

Page 26, 3.2

• General searches, navigation, valve isolation tracing, flush activity for hydrants

33. What level of training is expected (e.g., train-the-trainer vs. full organization-wide training)?

Pages 27/28 and 31/32, Sections 4.1 Scope of Work, 5.2.3 Vendor’s Change Manager Responsibilities

• See question 14

34. Are user personas and workflows already documented, or is discovery and documentation part of the vendor’s role? Pages 27/28, Section 4.1

• Vendor will be responsible for creating and documenting new workflows

35. How should the vendor coordinate timelines and data handoffs with the Electric ADMS project scheduled for 2027? Pages 23/24, Section 2.3

• To be determined

36. Should the vendor include integration testing with mobile apps, ADMS, OMS, and other thrid-party applications? Pages 27/28, Section 4.1

• Current mobile apps will need to be tested

37. Does OUC have existing documentation or diagrams of current GIS system integrations and data flow architectures (e.g., with OMS, CC&B, AutoCAD, ARM360, Synergi, etc.)? Pages 24/25, Section 2.4

• See question 11

38. Are there any middleware platforms (e.g., ESB, APIs, ETL tools) currently used to facilitate integrations, or are integrations point-to-point? Pages 24/25 and 27/28, Section 2.4 Current State Overview, 4.1 Scope of Work

• OMS / GIS integration uses third party tool. FME is used for a GIS to CAD integration. Synergi uses DNV’s electric data prep tool.

39. Should the vendor assume responsibility for testing, documentation, and cutover of each integration, or will OUC staff or third-party vendors perform portions of this work? Pages 24/25 and 27/28, Section 2.4 Current State Overview, 4.1 Scope of Work

• Vendor will be responsible for testing, cutover, documentation for all integrations. OUS staff will provide testing and cutover support where needed.

40. Is there a centralized test environment that includes all systems (GIS, OMS, CC&B, etc.) for validating integrations? Pages 24/25 and 27/28, Section 2.4 Current State Overview, 4.1 Scope of Work

• Non-prod environments are available for integration testing

41. Are there data transformation rules already documented for existing GIS-to-system syncs, or is the vendor expected to reverse engineer these? Pages 24/25 and 27/28, Section 2.4 Current State Overview, 4.1 Scope of Work

• Documentation exists for existing automation tools

42. How many users does OUC have editing and administering the GIS system? Page 24, Section 2.4

• See question 25, and question 20

43. Is OUC willing to accept alternatives for the fiber UN phase that may not involve the UN but still utilize Esri technology? Page 27, Section 3.2

44. Does OUC have an change management group that can execute a provided change management plan or does OUC require the proposal to include the creation and full execution of a change management plan? Page 23, Section 2.1

• We have existing Change Management group that can coordinate with the vendor

45. How many mobile users does OUC currently have for water and electric? Page 26-27, Section 3.2

• Approximately 400 mobile users

46. How many engineers/designers does OUC currently have utilizing AutoCAD for distribution design? Page 24, Section 2.4

• Approximately 30

47. What third-party solutions are being used? (Section 2 Project Background, Page 22)

• Inframap and ARM360 are ending support. Also use Infowater and Synergi.

48. There are a number of "needs" or tasks in the Current State Overview that do not appear to be in the SOW. Please confirm if these should be included in the SOW or should not be included in the SOW. (Section 2.4 Current State Overview, Page 24)

• Items in question should be included in SOW

49. Can you please define the current functionality in the Custom built "Water Engine" mobile toolset? (Section 2.4 Current State Overview, Page 24)

• See question 32

50. The Current State Overview table states that AutoCAD is used by design staff, and stakeholders note the needs for improvement to the design application, including both performance and functionality. In addition, 3.1 Project Goals (Page 25) states that the goal is to ""Reduce or eliminate overlapping GIS/Design/CAD software functionality and processes"", but this item is not called out in the SOW. Does OUC expect the selected vendor to provide a functional and process review and offer alternative solutions, or to provide an alternate solution? Or is this goal not part of the SOW? (Section 2.4 Current State Overview 3.1 Project Goals, Page 24 - 25)

• Alternate Esri based solutions for design staff will be considered

51. How many services, web maps, web apps, and dashboards exist? (Section 3.2 Project Objectives, Page 26/27)

• Approximately 15 map services, and 18 portal applications

52. For the mobile solution which includes tracing, would this include inspection? Would this include editing and redlining? (Section 3.2 Project Objectives, Page 26/27)

• Not required to include editing or redlining.

53. There are project objectives that are not shown in the SOW (ie: mobile tool (water engine)), please confirm these should or should not be in the SOW. (Section 3.2 Project Objectives, Page 26/27)

• See question 48

54. How many custom auto updaters are in place today? (Section 4.1 Scope of Work, Page 28)

• 5 custom auto updaters

55. How many feature templates are in place today? (Section 4.1 Scope of Work, Page 28)

• 100 plus feature templates

56. What custom tools are used today? Please provide a brief description. (Section 4.1 Scope of Work, Page 28)

• None

57. Can OUC share the anticipated ADMS solution (or solutions being carefully considered) that will eventually replace the existing DMS solution? Has there been any preliminary scoping that OUC can share, and how long is that implementation expected to last? (Section 2.3 Other Strategic Initiatives, Page 23)

• ADMS currently in RFP process

58. Can OUC share more details on the mobility initiative in terms of the use cases, any technology decisions that have been made, and the implementation timeline? How does OUC see GIS fitting into the future mobility initiative? (Section 3.1 Project Goals, Page 25)

• We envision GIS leveraging Field Maps for future mobility needs

59. In terms of data cleanup and augmentation (e.g., loading substation one-lines and conversion of other non-GIS data sources), is OUC open to the selected bidder estimating the cost and schedule after a data assessment has been completed? (Section 2.4 Current State Overview, Page 25)

• Vendor to provide cost estimate in proposal.

60. Is OUC expecting the selected bidder to design, configure, and deploy new web mapping applications for outages, streetlight reporting, and planned work locations as part of this project? (Section 2.4 Current State Overview, Page 25)

• No , not at this time

61. Can OUC provide more detailed requirements that capture the level of Organizational Change Management (OCM) required from the selected bidder throughout this project?

(Section Multiple, Multiple)

• Not available at this time

62. Is OUC expecting the selected bidder to develop and deliver data governance documentation (data quality standards and standard operating procedures) as part of this project? (Section 2.4 Current State Overview, Page 25)

• yes

63. Within section 3.2 of the RFP document, the Phase 1 Water subsection states the following:

"This will include all the required integrations as well as any new integrations that may be implemented prior to the geospatial platform modernization." Can OUC share details on any new water integrations that are expected to impact the GIS Utility Network migration?

(Section 4.2.1 Phase 1 Water, Page 28)

• Help OUC either build an in-house inspection app, or recommend a third party solution

64. Within section 3.2 of the RFP document, the Phase 2 Electric subsection states the following: "This will include all the integrations captured in the business plans as well as any new integrations that may be implemented prior to the geospatial platform modernization."

Can OUC share details on any new electric integrations that are expected to impact the GIS Utility Network migration? (Section 4.2.2 Phase 2 Electric, Page 29)

• Ultimately this will be whatever ADMS solution is selected by OUC.

65. Within section 3.2 of the RFP document, the Phase 3 Fiber subsection states the following:

"This will include all the integrations captured in the business plans as well as any new integrations that may be implemented prior to the geospatial platform modernization." Can

OUC share details on any new fiber integrations that are expected to impact the GIS Utility Network migration? (Section 4.2.3 Phase 3 Fiber, Page 29)

• No existing or future integrations known at this time

66. Does OUC have different GIS editors who manage the water, electric, and fiber networks, or is there overlap between these editors in terms of these datasets? (Section 4.1 Scope of Work, Page 28)

• Overlap with water and electric editors. No overlap with Fiber.

67. Is OUC expecting the selected bidder to implement the solution within all 4 environments (Development, Test, UAT, and Production), or will OUC perform the implementation within the Production environment? (Section 3.2 Project Objectives, Page 26/27)

• The solution will be implemented in all 4 environments by the vendor.

68. Does OUC envision that all training activities will be conducted in the UAT environment, or should the selected bidder plan to implement a fifth environment specifically for training?

(Section 4.2 Project Deliverables, Page 28/29)

• Training will be conducted in the UAT environment

69. In terms of the data migration, which environment does OUC envision the selected bidder using to perform that work? Should the selected bidder expect to perform all data conversions within an OUC environment and, if so, does OUC intend for the selected bidder to set up a sixth environment? Alternatively, is OUC open to the selected bidder converting the data in a cloud environment hosted by the selected bidder? (Section 4.2 Project Deliverables, Page 28/29)

• Data migration will occur in the Development environment

70. Will OUC provide the selected bidder with remote network access to the required servers, databases, and storage repositories? If so, will this occur through a virtualization platform like Citrix or VMware, or will selected bidder team members be issued an OUC laptop?

• The selected vendor will be provided remote network access with access to an

OUC VPC.

71. How many users does OUC have editing and administering the GIS system? Page 24, Section 2.4, Current State Overview

• See question 25, and question 20

72. Other than what is listed in Section 2.4 of the RFP document, can OUC provide detailed information for any ArcMap/ArcFM add-ins, extensions, and other desktop tools and customizations that may need to be refactored, reconfigured, replaced, retired, or reimagined? (Section 2.4 Current State Overview, Page 24)

• We currently have ArcFM Session Manager and Geodatabase Manager

73. Secton 4.1 of the RFP document states that test plans should be developed and executed to meet "business needs and technical requirements such as performance and security". Can OUC share any specific requirements related to performance and security that the selected bidder should consider in the response? (Section 4.1 Scope of Work, Page 28)

• Not available

74. Is OUC willing to accept alternatives for the fiber UN phase that may not involve the UN but still utilize Esri technology? Page 27, Section 3.2, Phase 3 Fiber

• See question 43

75. Does OUC anticipate a migration to the ArcFM Editor XI solution as part of this project, or is OUC considering a replacement with another third-party editing tool? (Section 2.4 Current State Overview, Page 24)

• We do not anticipate migrating to ArcFM Editor XI or using any other third-party editing tool

76. Does OUC have a change management group that can execute a provided change management plan, or does OUC require the proposal to include the creation and full execution of a change management plan? Page 23, Section 2.1, Stakeholder Engagement

• See question 44

77. Section 4.2 of the RFP document seems to classify "scripts/tools used to convert data between the existing Geometric data models and the new Utility Network data model" as deliverables. If the selected bidder leverages proprietary software (which is not sold or licensed to clients) as a project tool to perform the data conversion, is that software still considered a deliverable that must be submitted to OUC? (Section 4.2 Project Deliverables, Page 28/29)

• No

78. Does OUC expect the bidder to execute the performance tests as part of this project? If so, will OUC provide the selected bidder with an existing performance testing tool, or is the selected bidder expected to utilize their own performance testing tool? (Section 4.1 Scope of Work, Page 28)

• The selected vendor will be responsible for providing performance tools for this purpose

79. How many mobile users does OUC currently have for water and electric? Page 26-27, Section 3.2, Phase 1 Water, Phase 2 Electric

• See question 25

80. Will OUC assign a Project Manager to work directly with the selected bidder's Project

Manager? (Section 5.2.2 Vendor’s Project Manager Responsibilities, Page 31)

81. How many engineers/designers does OUC currently have utilizing AutoCAD for distribution design? Page 24, Section 2.4, Current State Overview

• 30

82. Can OUC share the details describing their OCM team and/or governance structure?

(Section 5.2.3 Vendor’s Change Manager Responsibilities, Page 31)

83. Can OUC provide details for any custom Server Object Extensions (SOE) and Server Object

Interceptors (SOI) that may need to be refactored, reconfigured, replaced, retired, or reimagined? (Section 2.4 Current State Overview, Page 24)

• We have no SOEs or SOIs

84. In terms of travel by the selected bidder to OUC facilities, what are OUC's expectations for the selected bidder being on site during certain portions of the project? (Section Exhibit E Consulting Services Travel and Expenses Policy, Page 26)

• At minimum, expect onsite involvement at beginning of each phase, and at go-live for each phase.

85. Does OUC expect the data clean up and remediation of critical errors to be performed solely by the bidder or in coordination with the OUC team?

• See question 8

86. How does OUC feel about the current accuracy of their water data?

• Accuracy of existing water data in GIS is generally good

87. How does OUC feel about the current accuracy of their electric data?

• Accuracy of existing electric data in GIS is considered to be very good.

88. Does OUC have an expected timeline for each project phase?

• No. Total project to be completed before the end of 2027.

89. Does OUC want the utility network to be deployed on premise, on cloud, or hybrid? Is this the same for all commodities?

• On premise

90. If OUC has performed a data assessment, which commodities have undergone an assessment? Have the critical data errors been addressed and remediated?

• As part of an ADMS assessment, critical errors in electric were identified and will be remediated by OUC staff prior to the UN project.

91. Will training be required for only GIS editors, or also for field users, engineers, planners, and other stakeholders? Does OUC prefer in-person, virtual, or self-paced training formats?

(Section 5.2.3 Vendor’s Change Manager Responsibilities, Page 31)

92. Can OUC provide an estimate of the number of users (by department or role) who will be impacted by the Utility Network migration and require training or support? (Section 5.2.3 Vendor’s Change Manager Responsibilities, Page 31)

• See question 25

93. What level of organizational change management support is expected from the vendor? Will OUC provide internal resources for training and communications? (Section 5.2.3 Vendor’s Change Manager Responsibilities, Page 31)

94. OUC to provide start and end dates for Water, Electric, and Fiber phases.

• Will be negotiated with selected vendor

95. What ArcGIS Enterprise version are you running today, and what are the CPU/RAM specs of the core servers?

• ArcGIS Enterprise 10.8.1. Our server environment is virtualized and CPU/RAM can be scaled as needed.

96. Could you share a list of current integrations (who they talk to, how often they run, and what technology they use) for OMS, CCB, ARM 360, Synergi, AutoCAD/FME, geocoding services, etc.?

• See responses to related questions.

97. Will the 2027 ADMS project or any other major initiatives affect resource availability or scheduling for this migration?

• This is a Priority project for OUC and resource availability will not be an issue.

98. Will water, electric, and fiber utility migrations be sequential or overlap?

• See question 6

99. OUC to provide the layer-wise feature, Feeder, and substation counts on each utility (water, electric, fiber)?

• Water main total length = 1,930 miles

• Electric substations = 40

• Electric primary overhead = 1,357 miles

• Electric primary underground = 2,900 miles

100. What are the weekly or monthly job posting estimates for each utility?

• Electric weekly average = 50 to 60

• water weekly average = 10 to 20

101. Do the manholes and substations have internal features? Please confirm.

• Currently no, but would want to convert internal features as part of this project

102. Should we include substation one-line diagrams and transmission-line attributes in the Utility Network model?

103. Which of those interfaces need to update in real time versus on a schedule, and do you already have an integration platform, or would we propose one?

• Unable to answer question

104. What is the quality of current GIS data? Are there any GIS data quality issues, incomplete records, or errors that could affect migration and need further remediation?

• Overall quality of GIS data is very good

105. Will OUC supply clean, validated data before migration, or must the vendor handle major data cleansing? Also, what current statistics do you have on missing features, connectivity breaks, or other data-quality issues for the three networks?

• Data assessment required as part of project and major data cleanup responsibility of the vendor

106. What is the estimated volume and complexity (including backlog, duplicate records, and missing fields) for the present focused data clean-up?

• See question 105

107. Are there any mandatory milestone dates that affect other OUC projects or system retirements?

• no

108. What is the projected schedule for procurement decisions and contract execution following the proposal submission deadline?

• Vendor selection should occur by October with contract execution by January 2026.

109. Is the new ArcGIS Enterprise platform expected to run on-premises, in the cloud, or in a hybrid environment, and what dev/test/production environments and disaster-recovery setup are required?

• On-prem and will use dev and production environments. Disaster recovery is handled by the OUC server team.

110. How long is the post-go-live warranty/support window, and what acceptance criteria release each payment milestone?

• 90 day warranty period and acceptance criteria to be determined.

111. Is there a target timeline or budget to bring transmission assets and land-based layers into the Utility Network, or are they explicitly out of scope for now?

• Transmission assets are in scope. Land bases layers are out of scope.

112. Roughly how many staff will need hands-on ArcGIS Pro/Utility Network training in each phase (editors, viewers, administrators)?

113. Do you already have an internal change-management playbook, or should the vendor supply a full change-management program?

114. Are there any planned annual seasonal restrictions, blackout periods, or utility

“freeze” periods that will affect scheduling for data migrations or system cutovers?

• No

115. Do you want a single-day switchover for each network or a staged rollout that lets the old and new systems run side by side first?

• Single-day switchover

116. Approximately how many hours per week can your subject-matter experts dedicate to workshops, sprint reviews, and data validation?

• To be determined

117. Are there specific utility or corporate cybersecurity standards we must follow (for example, NERC, ISO, or CIS controls)?

118. Should travel be baked into project rates or billed separately per the RFP’s flat allowances?

• Please include your all in total cost on Attachment B- Price Schedule

119. Are there predefined targets for map load time, trace speed, or saving time, or should the vendor propose them?

• Vendor should propose

120. After Water, Electric, and Fiber, do you foresee extending the Utility Network to support distributed-energy-resource analytics, detailed outage analysis, or ADMS synchronization?

• ADMS synchronization

121. Can you indicate whether each existing interface should remain as-is, be upgraded, or be retired during the migration?

• retired

122. Is Esri Field Maps the preferred replacement for the current Water Engine/ArcReader workflows, or are other mobile apps under consideration?

• Yes, as well as consideration for other mobile apps

123. Beyond the standard IT security exhibits, are there any additional multi-factor authentication or other cybersecurity controls we must meet?

• IT security standards will be shared with the selected vendor

Note: There shall be no communication between the supplier, their employees or subcontractors concerning this RFP to anyone within OUC except the buyer of record.

Sincerely, Alfonso “Al” Segura Buyer | Strategic Sourcing Orlando Utilities Commission | Supply Chain Management

(407) 434–2974 | asegura@ouc.com | Reliable Plaza | 100 West Anderson Street | Orlando, FL 32801 mailto:asegura@ouc.com

OUC GIS System Architecture Note: This document is proprietary OUC information and is not available for public release, per 119.071 (3)(b), F.S.

P o rt al f o r A rc G

IS

\\ouc.local\shares\IT\IS\GTS\_Private\PortalDocs\Portal

OS: Windows Server 2016

4 Cores

12 GB

Ports Used

5701-5703

GISPTLPRDX01

P o rt al f o r A rc G

IS

\\ouc.local\shares\IT\IS\GTS\_Private\PortalDocs\Portal

OS: Windows Server 2016

4 Cores

12 GB

Ports Used

5701-5703

GISPTLPRDX01

R e la ti o n al D at a

St o re

File Share Path: Local Disks

OS: Windows Server 2016

4 Cores

16 GB

Ports Used

RDS:

TCDS:

29080 29081

GISRDSPRDX01

R e la ti o n al D at a

St o re

File Share Path: Local Disks

OS: Windows Server 2016

4 Cores

16 GB

Ports Used

RDS:

TCDS:

29080 29081

GISRDSPRDX01

PPP

R e la ti o n al D at a

St o re

File Share Path: Local Disks

OS: Windows Server 2016

4 Cores

16 GB

Ports Used

RDS:

TCDS:

29080 29081

GISRDSPRDX01

P

6443Ports Used

6443OS: Windows Server 2019

2 Cores

12 GB

GISAPPRDX02

OS: Windows Server 2019

2 Cores

12 GB

GISAPPRDX02

Ports Used

6443OS: Windows Server 2019

2 Cores

12 GB

GISAPPRDX02

A u to m at io n

R e p lic at io n

Ports Used

6443OS: Windows Server 2019

2 Cores

12 GB

GISAPPRDX02

A u to m at io n

R e p lic at io n D at ab as e

Se rv er

OS: Linux

Cores

GB

D at ab as e Se rv er

OS: Linux

Cores

GB

File Share Path:

Databases

GSWPRD

GSEPRD

GSLPRD

GSFPRD

D at ab as e Se rv er

OS: Linux

Cores

GB

File Share Path:

Databases

GSWPRD

GSEPRD

GSLPRD

GSFPRD

W e b A d ap to r

OS: Windows Server 2016

2 Cores

4 GB

GISWAPRDX01

W e b A d ap to r

OS: Windows Server 2016

2 Cores

4 GB

GISWAPRDX01

Ports Used 80 443W e b

A d ap to r

OS: Windows Server 2016

2 Cores

4 GB

GISWAPRDX01

Ports Used 80 443

C as ca d e

OS: Windows Server 2016

2 Cores

4 GB

GISCASPRDX01

C as ca d e

OS: Windows Server 2016

2 Cores

4 GB

GISCASPRDX01

Li ce n se

S er ve r

OS: Windows Server 2016

2 Cores

4 GB

GISLICPRDO02

Li ce n se

S er ve r

OS: Windows Server 2016

2 Cores

4 GB

GISLICPRDO02

Schneider Stoner

Pathfinder Office

InfoWater

Licenses

Li ce n se

S er ve r

OS: Windows Server 2016

2 Cores

4 GB

GISLICPRDO02

Schneider Stoner

Pathfinder Office

InfoWater

Licenses

Netscaler Load balancer

Ports Used

OS: Windows Server 2019

6 Cores

16 GB

CTXXAGISPRDO02

OS: Windows Server 2019

6 Cores

16 GB

CTXXAGISPRDO02

Ports Used

OS: Windows Server 2019

6 Cores

16 GB

CTXXAGISPRDO02

C it ri x

Se rv e r

Ports Used

OS: Windows Server 2019

6 Cores

16 GB

CTXXAGISPRDO02

C it ri x

Se rv e r

Ports Used

OS: Windows Server 2019

6 Cores

16 GB

CTXXAGISPRDP02

OS: Windows Server 2019

6 Cores

16 GB

CTXXAGISPRDP02

Ports Used

OS: Windows Server 2019

6 Cores

16 GB

CTXXAGISPRDP02

C it ri x

Se rv e r

Ports Used

OS: Windows Server 2019

6 Cores

16 GB

CTXXAGISPRDP02

C it ri x

Se rv e r

GIS Editors

GIS Viewers

Damage Assessors

Utility Field Editors

R e p lic at io n

A rc

G

IS

S e rv e r

Ports Used

OS: Windows Server 2016

4 Cores

16 GB

GISAGHSPRDX01

6443A rc

G

IS

S e rv e r

Ports Used

OS: Windows Server 2016

4 Cores

16 GB

GISAGHSPRDX01

6443A rc

G

IS

S e rv e r

Ports Used

OS: Windows Server 2016

4 Cores

16 GB

GISAGHSPRDX01

6443 A rc

G

IS

S e rv e r

Ports Used

OS: Windows Server 2016

8 Cores

32 GB

GISAGSPRDX01

6443A rc

G

IS

S e rv e r

Ports Used

OS: Windows Server 2016

8 Cores

32 GB

GISAGSPRDX01

A rc

G

IS

S e rv e r

Ports Used

OS: Windows Server 2019

8 Cores

16 GB

GISIMAGEPRDX01

6443A rc

G

IS

S e rv e r

Ports Used

OS: Windows Server 2019

8 Cores

16 GB

GISIMAGEPRDX01

6443 A rc

G

IS

S e rv e r

Ports Used

OS: Windows Server 2019

8 Cores

32 GB

GISOMSPRDX01

6443A rc

G

IS

S e rv e r

Ports Used

OS: Windows Server 2019

8 Cores

32 GB

GISOMSPRDX01

GIS Administrators

Image Services ArcFM Web FME Server

PostgreSQL 15

GISAGSPRDX01

A rm

Shared with ArcGIS Server

GISAGSPRDX01

A rm

Shared with ArcGIS Server

GISAGSPRDX01

A rm

Shared with ArcGIS Server

A rc

G

IS

M o n it o r

Version

OS: Windows Server 2019

4 Cores

12 GB

GISMONPRDX01

2023.3.1A rc

G

IS

M o n it o r

Version

OS: Windows Server 2019

4 Cores

12 GB

GISMONPRDX01

2023.3.1A rc

G

IS

M o n it o r

Version

OS: Windows Server 2019

4 Cores

12 GB

GISMONPRDX01

2023.3.1

A u to D e sk

V au lt

P o w e r P la n t

OS: Windows Server 2019

4 Cores

8 GB

GISAVDMSPRDS03

A u to D e sk

V w e r P la n t

OS: Windows Server 2019

4 Cores

8 GB

GISAVDMSPRDS03

A u to D e sk

V w e r P la n t

OS: Windows Server 2019

4 Cores

8 GB

GISAVDMSPRDS03

W e b S e rv e r

OS: Windows Server 2019

8 Cores

32 GB

GISG2CPRDX01

W e b S e rv e r

OS: Windows Server 2019

8 Cores

32 GB

GISG2CPRDX01

ArcFM Web FME Server

W e b S e rv e r

OS: Windows Server 2019

8 Cores

32 GB

GISG2CPRDX01

ArcFM Web FME Server

Last Updated June 2024

Version

19c

A u to D e sk

V

Tr an sm is si o n

S u b st at io n

OS: Windows Server 2019

4 Cores

8 GB

GISAVDMSPRDX04

A u to D e sk

V sm is si o n

S u b st at io n

OS: Windows Server 2019

4 Cores

8 GB

GISAVDMSPRDX04

A u to D e sk

V sm is si o n

S u b st at io n

OS: Windows Server 2019

4 Cores

8 GB

GISAVDMSPRDX04