Questions and Answers_CRM RFP.pdf

City of Philadelphia RFP Questions and Answers

Opportunity #:21260730122703

Question #

RFP

Section Reference Question Department Response

1 1.1 Background and General Scope of Work

What approvals or case-management processes exist today?

Case management processes we have include collecting resident information, case note documentation, uploading completed applications, and updating outcomes for Federal, State, and City benefits.

2 1.1 Background and General Scope of Work

Which processes require automation versus manual review?

Within our current system, the only processes that are automated are emails triggered by certain contact criteria and scheduled reports pulled from saved searches. We would like to obtain a solution which allows more automation in system and not automated processes we have to setup using code or another system. One specific automation desired would be the ability to set profile matching criteria so that, during a bulk upload, contact records can be automatically updated, and close matches that don't meet all criteria can be manually reviewed in

Opportunity Name: Customer Relationship Management/Outreach Replacement

3 1.1 Background and General Scope of Work

What are the top reports staff depend on today?

1. Follow up report

2. Survey response report

3. Online forms custom question report

4. Online activity report

5. Contact history report

6. Email performance report

7. Activists codes report

8. Canvassing report

9. MiniVan Activity report

10. Counts and crosstabs - using targeted groups (zipcodes and council districts), and survey questions

11. Notes report

12. Address and phone histroy report These reports require custom field elements for creation.

4 1.1 Background and General Scope of Work

Are there existing identity-management systems for SSO?

Yes, these policies are set by the central City of Philadelphia Office of Information Technology.

5 1.1 Background and General Scope of Work

If case management is expected at go-live, what types of resident cases or assistance processes are currently managed by CEO?

The Department manages application support for Federal, State, and City benefit programs as well as referrals to other departments and organizations.

6 1.1 Background and General Scope of Work

Are there existing SMS vendors that must remain in place?

Yes, the Department currently use two texting platfroms.

One is a P2P texting platform called Peerly. The Department also has an A2P texting platform, called Twilio. The A2P platfrom works alongside two other partners, Spokephone and MMS for user interface, 7 1.1 Background and General Scope of Work

Which limitations or challenges within the current environment are driving the decision to seek a replacement solution?

CEO's current platfrom is provided by the City's IT department. There are limited customization options within this platform which limits its ability to meet all of CEO's specific needs. Top challenges include: mini outages/all day system outages with no warning, changes in features with no warning which causes changes in reporting, limitation in reporting especially as it relates to historical data beyond 3 months, limitations in customizing resident profiles and custom fields, limitations in survey questions and online form functions. These items will need to be addressed in the existing environment as a

8 1.1 Background and General Scope of Work

Is the primary objective to modernize outreach and engagement activities, improve resident service delivery/case management capabilities, or both?

The Department would like to achieve both of these objectives, but also obtain a solution that allows us to better analyze the data we collect while partnering with other city departments and organizations.

9 1.1 Background and General Scope of Work

What does successful user adoption look like after 30, 60, and 90 days?

After 30 days we would like user training completed for all relevant staff. After 60 days we would like to have resolved any issues we identified within the first 30 days and retrain if needed. By 90 days we would like to have sucessfully implemented this new system internally with appropiate training materials available for all staff and a clear plan for ongoing technical support.

10 1.1 Background and General Scope of Work

Which external systems currently consume NGP VAN or CEO data through APIs, and what information is exchanged with each?

The Department has API integrations with our texting platforms, Peerly and Spokephone/Twilio/MMS. Data that is exchanged using the API keys are survey responses

11 1.1 Background and General Scope of Work

Please confirm whether the City or the Office of Community Empowerment and Opportunity currently holds licenses or enterprise agreements for any commercial CRM, case management, mapping, telephony, or

Aquiring a new CRM for CEO is approved from our OIT department. Any existing provider would be considered for integration, not to build upon.

12 1.1 Background and General Scope of Work

Does CEO currently use Microsoft 365, Outlook, Teams, Entra ID, Power BI, SharePoint, or other Microsoft services that the

Yes, CEO currently uses all listed services in the Microsoft 365 suite.

13 1.1 Background and General Scope of Work

Are any third-party survey tools currently in use?

The Department currently use Micrsoft Forms and ArcGIS Survey123.

14 2 RFP

Requirements and Conditions

Are there any requirements or restrictions related to where vendor personnel may perform project work, including remote, offshore-based delivery resources?

No there are no restrictions. The Department is open to communicating with the selected vendor using Zoom or Teams for communication. The Department would need timezone information prior to setting meetings.

15 2.15 Contract Terms and Requirements

Beyond the stated three months of user-change tracking, does the City require longer audit retention for administrative, security, The City General Provisions, Section 6.4, requires a retention period of five years.

16 2.15 Contract Terms and Requirements

What types of resident or case documents are expected to be stored, and are there known retention or confidentiality classifications for these documents?

The Department's current system does not allow image/document upload. However, we desire the ability to upload images, PDFs, or documents representing application support. These may contain personally identifiable information. See Appendix K for Confidentiality

17 2.4.2 Warranty For solutions relying on a configurable business application, is the manufacturer's

Please refer to the RFP for questions regarding warranty requirements and standards.

18 2.4.3 Training What technical skill level should training assume?

The training should assume each member is a beginner in using the new solution or at beginner level.

19 2.4.3 Training Will there be a train-the-trainer model? Yes, we would like the applicant team to train administrative and management staff and provide any training materials used such as presentations, guides, and/or videos. We will use these materials and train our internal and external outreach staff members.

20 2.4.3 Training Are there multilingual training requirements? No, all trainings and materials can be in English.

21 2.4.4 Software

Source Code Section 2.4.4 requires City ownership of custom source code and third-party escrow for proprietary software. Please confirm how these provisions are intended to apply to a commercially licensed, multi-tenant

These provisions should be covered in the vendors SOC report.

22 3.1.5 Proposals Binding

The RFP references AI capabilities. Can the City provide additional detail regarding anticipated AI use cases and how AI-related

AI is a functionality that is new to the Department. We would like the proposed applicant to provide us with some use cases that may fit the workflow of our mission.

23 3.2 Implementation Plan, Statement of Work, Project Schedule and Milestone Payment Schedule

What systems must integrate at launch? And what integrations will be in phased rollout?

Especially items listed for special consideration.

These are our day-one required integrations: Peerly (P2P texting), Spokephone/Twilio/MMS (A2P texting) and Salesforce. We would like to keep the possibly open to integration with addtional platforms and CRMs if we needed to in the future.

For items CEO is giving special consideration, we are expecting to prioritize those solutions in vendor selection.

Features for special consideration should be launched

24 3.2 Implementation Plan, Statement of Work, Project Schedule and Milestone Payment Schedule

Does CEO have a required production go-live date or target implementation duration, and what specific business, technical, migration, training, performance, and UAT criteria will constitute Final Acceptance, which triggers the warranty and maintenance periods?

Target implementation/go-live date is 6-9 months into the first year's Period of Performance.

25 3.3 Proposal Contents

Will mobile users work primarily from City-managed devices, personally owned devices, or a combination?

In the field, including canvass mapping, staff use a combination of city managed devices and personally owned devices - phones, tablets, and computers. We currently plan to continue the use of these divices and seek a solution compatible with many operating systems.

26 3.3 Proposal Contents

Does the city currently have an event management solution in place? If so, would the proposed solution need to integrate with that solution

Currently, the Department uses event management features within NgpVAN for event schedulng and participant tracking as well as Microsoft Outlook calendars. The Department's other CRM, Salesforce, has its own event tracking features in place, ideally the proposed solution to integrate to streamline event

27 3.3 Proposal Contents

Is there a desire for there to be permission level like managers can see certain things?

Yes the Department would like to have tiered permissions.

See more detail in the RFP Appendix A.

28 3.3 Proposal Contents

How many are administrators versus occasional users?

The Department anticipates having up to 5 administrators with full permissions, 10 additional local administrators, and 50-100 users where their level of access can be customized my the adminstrators.

29 3.3 Proposal Contents

Approximately how many external volunteers may participate in canvassing or phone banking, and what level of resident information should they be permitted to access?

The Department can have up to 100 staff members who participate in canvassing, phone banking, and CRM data entry. There should be a permission level that can only view/update contacts and contact information that we have identified for them (ie. only a certain list, a certain project, or certain pieces of contact information).

30 3.3 Proposal Contents

Will community partners require direct system access, or will CEO staff maintain partner information and referral activity internally?

A combination of both. Department staff will maintain partner information and referral activity internally. There may be instances where we give a partner or staff from a partner org/department temporary access to the system, with some level of system restrictions.

31 3.3 Proposal Contents

Which resident data elements are considered sensitive and require field-level or role-specific restrictions?

Data elements included in the notes section, and custom fields that the Department created such as household size, household income, housing status. Previous phone numbers and address history are also restricted elements.

32 3.3 Proposal Contents

Appendix A requires an integrated mobile application supporting door-to-door canvassing. Please confirm the expected number of concurrent field users, the device types and operating systems in use, whether

The expected number of users can be up to 100 at one given time, dependent on weather conditions and the city project they are currently supporting. The city utilizes a combination of city issued and personal devices. Our Department also utilizes hotspots for network connection, 33 3.3 Proposal Contents

Does the City anticipate expanding the selected platform beyond the Office of Community Empowerment and Opportunity to support additional departments or resident-facing programs in the future?

This solution is designed for use by the Office of Community Empowerment and Opportunity. However, the system should have the capability to expand as needed in the future, potentially including a resident-facing data entry or login feature. This is not expected at go-live or in

34 3.3 Proposal Contents

The RFP references both free and multiple user accounts. What functional access does CEO expect a "free" user account to have?

Currently the Department would like a free user or volunteer to access administrator selected contact information, contact history from other users, responses to any questions we asked previously, and any notes we include on a residents' profile. "Free"/mobile users would have access only to their assigned workflow.

35 3.3 Proposal Contents

What identity provider does the City expect internal users to use, and are Microsoft Entra ID/City credentials currently the standard authentication mechanism?

City employees are expected to use their city credentials including email address and a Microsoft authenticator for current system access. For volunteer/partner access, they will not have city credentials, so the system should be capable of utilizing personal emails and two-factor

36 3.3 Proposal Contents

Should access primarily follow organizational role, outreach project/campaign, geography, resident population, team membership, record

The Department would like access to focus on a combination of these dimensions. However, access level should be able to be changed and assigned manually.

37 3.3 Proposal Contents

Approximately how many users will create their own reports and dashboards versus consume

Ability to create reports and dashboards will follow assigned user persmissions - at minimum administrators.

38 3.3 Proposal Contents

Apart from the integrations identified in the RFP, are there City applications, databases, data warehouses, identity services, GIS

Yes, we would like the option for the solution to integrate with ArcGIS, Databridge, and other city-run SQL databases like Microsoft Azure.

39 3.3 Proposal

What constitutes a unique resident/client record for CEO, and which fields are considered authoritative for identifying and de-duplicating an individual?

Where possible, the Department relies primarily on the combination of first, last name and birth date to authoritatively identify clients as unique and de-duplicated in real time. For some outreach campaigns where date of birth is unavailable we use the combination of name and contact information (eg address or phone number). For this reason. it will be important for the platform to facilitate a "possible duplicate review" process after initial data

40 3.3 Proposal Contents

How does CEO currently determine household relationships, and should household-level information be maintained independently from individual resident records?

CEO determines household relationships by asking clients (presumed "heads of household") for household size and household status, and household member names. We would like household information to remain on resident records, linked as parent-child data objects.

41 3.3 Proposal Contents

Approximately how many active outreach programs, campaigns, or projects are managed concurrently, and should each maintain independent lists, users, forms, scripts, permissions, and reporting?

At this moment, we have three different outreach programs/teams, with 11 total campaigns and 5 ongoing projects.

Each ongoing project has its own scripts, permissions and reporting requirements. Most projects allow the program teams resident lists to overlap, but not all. It has been problematic in the past when there are limits to custom fields or other featuers, so RFP responses should explicitly identify which fields or features have limits.

42 3.3 Proposal Contents

Does CEO require turf creation based solely on resident/address points, or should geographic boundaries such as ZIP codes, census tracts, neighborhoods, wards, or other City geographies also be supported?

Yes, CEO uses all geographic boundaries such as address, zip codes, census tracts, neighborhoods and wards/divisions for trurf creation. We would also like to include supporting the difference between a commerical building vs residential home, city vacanies, parks or

43 3.3 Proposal Contents

What information is expected in a standard walk packet, and are there different walk-packet formats for different programs or outreach teams?

In a walk packet we include resident contact information (name, phone, email address), contact history, survey response history, and the script for external staff to follow when speaking with the resident.

44 3.3 Proposal

What standardized outcomes are currently captured for door-to-door outreach, such as contacted, unavailable, refused, moved, inaccessible, or follow-up required?

Below areall of the current canvassing statuses available to us for door to door outreach:

- Comeback

- Commercial

- Day sleeper

- Deceased

- Inaccesible

- Left message

- Moved

- No such address

- Non address

- Not home

- Other language

- Refused

- Spanish

- Vacant

45 3.3 Proposal Contents

Approximately how many active forms, surveys, scripts, and questionnaires exist today, and how frequently are they created or modified?

The Department has 267 active survey questions, 29 scripts, and 139 sign up forms/surveys. These are all modified and updated on an as needed basis because most items are deactivated once the project or campaign is complete. It has been problematic in the past when there are limits to custom fields or other featuers, so RFP responses should explicitely identify which fields or

46 3.3 Proposal Contents

When a resident answers the same question multiple times, should CEO retain every historical response or maintain a current value

The Department would like to retain each historical response. We offer various types of support to city residents, and would like to see any changes in resources

47 3.3 Proposal Contents

Approximately how many events are created annually, and what are the typical event capacities, registration volumes, and

We have an estimated 150-180 events per year.

Dependent on the event type, we typically see up to 60 participants registering for the event and 20-30 of those

48 3.3 Proposal Contents

Should event attendance automatically become part of the resident's broader interaction/contact history?

Yes, event participation should remain included on a resident profile along with all interactions and contact history between the resident and the outreach staff member. We also track how residents register for an even

49 3.3 Proposal

What information must be returned to CEO to consider a referral completed, such as acceptance, service provided, disposition, outcome, or resident confirmation?

The Department currently records referrals. However, without integrations with application portals, referral outcomes are only possible through follow up with resident and confirmation. This means, referral statuses should be able to be updated manually by the case

50 3.3 Proposal Contents

For virtual events, which platform is preferred for automated registration and attendance synchronization: Microsoft Teams, Zoom, or

The platfrom we have now allows for zoom integrations.

Ideally we would like a solution that would allow for both, however between the two Microsoft Teams is the priority

51 3.3 Proposal Contents

The RFP gives special consideration to CRM-to-CRM integration. Are there specific City or

Yes, Salesforce is the CRM we use internally for select staff members.

52 3.3 Proposal Contents

Will the City/NGP VAN provide complete structured exports and associated data dictionaries, or should the Applicant include extraction and transformation services within

The Department is open to either method available to meet RFP needs. We are able to include a data dictionary of all exports but within budget we are open to applicant including this as a fixed price alongisde data migration.

53 3.3 Proposal Contents

Is there any cloud solutions for data migration?

I.e. AWS, or Azure

Yes the city has the capability to use the identified cloud solutions.

54 3.3 Proposal Contents

Are document attachments, images or files stored in the current system? Will those be migrated?

The Department's current system doesn't allow for uploading doucment attachments or images. We are seeking a solution that has this feature attached to a

55 3.3 Proposal Contents

Does CEO expect all available historical data to be migrated, or is there a defined historical period that must reside operationally in the new platform?

The Department has data within the system we can not migrate to a new solution due to data privacy and overall incomplete or inconsistent information. As far as viewing the data within a historical period, we will more than likely retain all relevant data from the last 5 years.

For data The Department can migrate into a new system, we can provide data dictionaries to our proposed vendor.

56 3.3 Proposal Contents

For reporting across pre- and post-implementation periods, does CEO expect migrated historical transactions at their original

The Department would like our historical data at the original level so we can utilize this information for future outreach.

57 3.3 Proposal Contents

Please describe the City's current outbound calling operations, including approximate monthly call volume, whether the City currently holds or expects the Applicant to provide telephony service and phone numbers, and whether automated outbound dialing and pre-

The Department has an estimated call volumne of 60,000 calls outbound. We would need to ensure we go through our Law department to ensure any automated and calls/pre recorded messaging stays within our policy and regualtory requirement. For any additonal information regarding feature expectations, please refer to Appendix

58 3.3 Proposal

What are the approximate monthly or annual outbound and inbound SMS/text volumes?

Over an annual period, the Department typically sends an estimated 684,000 SMS/MMS messages combined.

59 3.3 Proposal Contents

What approximate volume of bulk emails does CEO send monthly or annually, and are there current deliverability, unsubscribe, suppression-

Our Department typically sends around 150,000 emails annually. Yes, there are current performance metrics we track including all listed items and email click rates.

60 3.3 Proposal Contents

Does CEO expect the proposed platform to provide native telephony/dialing capability, or may phone banking use an integrated third-party calling platform while the CRM manages the lists, scripts, resident context, and

The Department will give special consideration to proposed platfrom that provide telephone/dialing servcies built into the system. We are open to solutions that do not have this capability but still manage lists, scripts, contact information and outcomes.

61 3.3 Proposal Contents

For mapping, is the Department using any of the City's current mapping systems

A majority of mapping features are within the platform, however the Department also uses City systems like

62 3.3 Proposal Contents

Are GIS, mapping, or location-based datasets required?

Yes, GIS, mapping and location-based datasets are required for reporting to our partners.

63 3.3 Proposal Contents

Does CEO require GPS/location capture during canvassing, or is map-based navigation and address sequencing sufficient?

The Department uses map-based navaigation and address sequencing, but if possible we would like to include GPS/location for more accuracy.

64 3.3 Proposal Contents

Will the City consider partial bids or proposals for only specific portions of the scope of work?

The Department is seeking a vendor to provide, at minimum, all services identified as required in Appendix A. Applicants may propose use of subcontractors to meet required and additional services

65 3.3 Proposal Contents

Are all requirements included in Appendix A considered mandatory for initial deployment, or are some requirements considered preferred or future-state capabilities?

The first section of Appendix A is considered mandatory.

Features listed for special consideration will be prioritized in vendor selection. Vendors should specify in RFP response if there are any manditory features that are not met or any features for special consideration that are available. All features should be included in go-live

66 3.3 Proposal Contents

For canvassing, phone banking, and turf-cutting requirements, would the City consider alternative workflows that achieve the same

Yes, CEO is open to different workflows ensuring we are able to still communicate with residents via door to door canvassing, phone banking, texting, emailing, or

67 3.3 Proposal Contents

The RFP references statuses such as new, in progress, and completed. Does CEO expect one overall resident status, or separate

The Department would like separate statuses for each outreach, case, referral, or service.

68 3.3 Proposal

Must canvassing continue when users have no cellular or Wi-Fi connectivity, with records synchronized when connectivity is restored?

Yes, the mobile app should save data locally, which can sync when connection is restored. There should be a manual sync button so that sync can be initiated as needed. When there is connection, the app should sync

69 3.3.1 Volume 1 - Qualifications of Applicants

Will the Department consider applicants that may not have the minimum years of experience in identified areas for Technical Qualifications?

As oulined in Section 3.3.1 Volume 1 - Qualifications of Applicants, Section 2: Technical Qualifications(c ), Applicants must demonstarte adequate experience in the identified areas. The City prefers a minimum of 5 years of

70 3.3.1 Volume 1 - Qualifications of Applicants

If we do not have audited financials, will we be eliminated? Or, are financial statements signed by our CPA or tax returns sufficient?

Applicants are required to provide documentation as outlined in RFP Section 3.3 Proposal Contents. Volume 1, Section 3: Financial Qualifications describes documentation that applicants shall provide for financial capacity. The City is the sole judge of whether the Applicant’s submissions meet the information requirements provided below and are sufficient to

71 3.3.2 Volume 2 - Technical Approach and Cost Proposal

Can you provide additional details regarding the event management requirements?

Please refer to Appendix D event section for event management requirements.

72 3.3.2 Volume 2 - Technical Approach and Cost Proposal

Estimated effort per task, including hours, is requested. Is this a firm requirement?

Applicants must submit a cost proposal that conforms to the requirements provided in Appendix C, Cost Proposal Requirements

73 3.3.2 Volume 2 - Technical Approach and Cost Proposal

The eContract Philly opportunity record lists a contract amount range of $0 to $118,000.

Please confirm whether this range represents the total contract value inclusive of software licensing, implementation, training, warranty, and all five years of maintenance and support, or whether it reflects a single fiscal year or a subset of those components.

This range represents the funding available for the anticipated performance period of November 5, 2026 – June 30, 2027. The range includes all costs for this period including software licensing, implementation, training, warranty, maintenance, support, and any other services required under this RFP.

The city will evaluate affordability in part based on what 74 Appendix K Which public-facing forms will require accessibility testing?

All of our Department's public facing forms will require accessibility testing.

75 Appendix K Are accessibility audits expected before Please refer to our RFP for accessibility audit

76 Appendix K Are multilingual public forms required Yes. The Department would like to prioritize Spanish, Mandarian, Chinese, and Creole lanugages for public forms. Within the new solution we are open to expanding this list of languages. We can provide tranlations as long as we are able to embed them and public form users can easily access their preferred translation from the page.

77 Appendix K Would a mobile-accessible web application be acceptable in place of a native custom mobile

Yes, as long as outreach staff can access the application on a tablet or phone.

78 Appendix K Appendix K establishes the City's security and accessibility standards. Please confirm whether the City will accept a platform provider's existing SOC 2 Type II or FedRAMP attestations as evidence of conformance for a vendor-hosted multi-tenant cloud service, or whether independent Applicant-level assessment against NIST 800-53 Rev 4 will be

All vendors are required to provide an updated SOC type 1 or type 2 on an annual basis. This supports continuous monitoring of our vendors, or third-party partners.

Depending on the services provided, the SOC report should be tailored to address the risks the City is inheriting based on this audit. Additionally, we may require other audits depending on services, such as penetration tests, FedRAMP, HIPAA, CJIS, CMMC, NIST 171, NIST

Q&A