Questions for City of Toledo from Nebulogic.pdf

Questions for City of Toledo

1. Given that the Q&A will be released after September 18th, 2026, would the City consider extending the proposal due date by at least two weeks to allow vendors additional time to prepare a comprehensive response? The Bid Due Date has been extended to 9/29/2026, closing at 1:30pm EST

2. Has the City conducted any vendor demonstrations or market research prior to issuing this RFP? If so, which vendors participated? Market research performed prior to RFP.

3. What software solution(s) is the City currently using for Fire Prevention Inspection, permitting, and licensing, and what are the primary challenges or pain points the City would like the new solution to address? Challenges are addressed in the RFP Introduction.

4. On Page 3, under Background Information, the section is marked "N/A." Can the City name the software applications and manual processes the new system will replace?Please see the Scope of Work.

5. Can the City provide approximate volumes for the following: number of premises, annual Fire Department inspections, annual third-party ITM reports, active operational permits, annual invoices, and annual fire watches?

Premises: approximately 8,200 Annual Fire Department inspections:approximately 5,500 Annual third-party ITM reports: approximately 6,000 Active operational permits: approximately 1,050 Annual fire watches:approximately greater or less than 50.

6. How many internal City users are expected, by role (administrators, supervisors, inspectors, billing staff)? Approximately how many external users (property owners, contractors) does the City expect?

Internal: approximately 50 External: unknown

7. Can the City share the current contract value/budget or approximate annual cost of its existing solution, including software licensing, implementation, support, and maintenance, if available? No

8. On Page 8, under section "Deliverables", sub-section “Production Go-Live and Transition” It is written that the stated goal of being "...deployment of the configured system into the production environment…" - What is the anticipated contract award date, project kickoff date, implementation timeline, and target go-live date that vendors should consider when developing their implementation approach? Project kickoff date Jan 1st , 2027. Implementation timeline approximately 90 days.

9. On Page 4, under section titled “Premise and Contact Management”, what is the authoritative source for premise and address data (for example, Lucas County parcel data or a City GIS address layer)? Should the system sync with that source on an ongoing basis?

The system sync with a City GIS address layer.

10. Does the City require offline capability for field inspections? Which mobile devices and operating systems do inspectors currently use? Offline capability for iPads prefered.

11. Does the City prefer a native mobile application for field staff, or would a mobile-responsive web application also be acceptable?

12. On Page 16, under Criterion #13 Total Cost to Own, references "required hardware and software acquisition." Does the City expect bidders to supply field hardware such as tablets, or will the City provide devices? City provides devices.

13. On Page 4, under Third-Party Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance (ITM) Compliance Management, references "...third-party ITM report review services performed by qualified personnel." Does the City expect these review services to be performed by bidders? Will the City accept a proposals in which these review services are performed by a subcontracted partner, provided the software vendor remains the single point of contractual accountability? The City will accept a proposals in which these review services are performed by a subcontracted partner.

14. Does the City currently use a third-party ITM reporting service? If so, which one, and does that contract have an end date? Yes, Yes.

15. On Page 4, under Third-Party Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance (ITM) Compliance Management, references "...third-party ITM report review services performed by qualified personnel." Please detail qualifications or certifications (if any) that the City expects of the reviewers? What review turnaround time does the City expect? The RFP intentionally requires the vendor to propose these rather than prescribing credentials.

16. Which ITM system types are in scope (for example, sprinklers, fire alarms, standpipes, fire pumps, kitchen hood suppression, backflow)? Systems include, but are not limited to, fire alarm systems, automatic sprinkler systems, standpipe systems, fire pumps, commercial kitchen fire suppression systems, private fire service mains, emergency and standby power systems, smoke control systems, and other City-designated fire and life safety systems.

17. On Page 5, under section titled “Billing and Payment Collection”, does the City have an existing payment processor or merchant services contract that the system must use, or should the vendor propose one? Yes, the City has an existing payment processor. The RFP does not identify a mandatory payment processor. The City is requesting that Vendor describe the payment-processing solution included with their proposal, including all associated processing, transaction, convenience, service, or other fees.

18. Does the City require integration with its financial or ERP system for revenue posting and reconciliation? If so, which system? No.

19. Can the City share its current Fire Prevention fee schedule? Yes, this can be found on-line under Toledo Municipal Code 1511.05 Plan Review, permit, inspection, and testing fees.

20. On Page 6, under section titled “Collection and Recovery Services”, are enhanced collection services (telephone outreach, mailed correspondence) required for award, or should they be priced as optional? Optional.

21. On Page 6, under Permit Management, which permit types are in scope? Are construction permits or fire plan review included, or only operational permits? Can the

City provide approximate annual volumes for the respective permits and/or fire plan review and operational permits? Operational permits, see question #5.

22. Does the Fire Prevention Bureau need to integrate with the City's building permitting system? If so, which system does the City use? No

23. On Page 7, under the section titled “Fire Watch Management”, who must be notified when a fire watch is initiated or closed (for example, dispatch, companies, property owners)? Is integration with the City's CAD system required?

24. On Page 7, under the section titled “Mapping and Preplanning”, what GIS platform does the City use? Should preplans be accessible to responding crews through CAD, mobile data terminals, or another system? ArcGIS Web Application, available through CAD and Inspection software.

25. On Page 7, under the section titled “Mapping and Preplanning”, Does the City require two-way synchronization between the proposed solution and GIS platform, or is one-way consumption of parcel/address/location information sufficient? N/A

26. Does the City have existing preplan data to be migrated? If so, in what format?Yes, PDF.

27. Does the City require integration with its fire records management system or NERIS reporting? If so, which RMS is in use? No.

28. On Page 9, under section “Final System Acceptance”, references "Integration with OnBase document storage system, determined by individual departmental request." Is OnBase integration required for go-live, or optional to be scoped later? Which OnBase version does the City use, and are its APIs available? No.

29. On Page 9, under the section titled “Data Migration”, can the City identify the source systems, data formats, approximate record counts, and years of history to be migrated?Are attachments such as photos and PDF reports included? Approximate record counts: 22,000, 6 years of history, attachments included (both Photo and PDF).

30. Will the City provide cleansed and validated legacy data for migration, or should vendors include data cleansing/preparation as part of their proposed scope and fee? Vendors include data cleansing/preparation as part of their proposed scope and fee.

31. For each required integration, does the City currently have access to supported APIs, web services, integration documentation, or vendor-supported connectors, and will the City coordinate access to the relevant third-party systems and vendors? Yes.

32. Are there any future features, modules, or system enhancements that you would like to consider as part of the RFP response? Not at this time.

33. Does the City currently use any artificial intelligence or automation tools in its processes (e.g., automated routing, document classification, chatbots)? If so, can the City describe how they are used today? No.

34. If AI-assisted capabilities are considered, which use cases are of greatest interest to the City, such as automated code-compliance checks, plan/document analysis, application completeness validation, workflow recommendations, inspection assistance, document classification, or AI-powered search? Yes, all would be considered after evaluation and authorization of City IT.

35. What is the City's current average (and target) turnaround time for inspection approval, from submittal to final sign-off, and does this vary significantly by permit or inspection type?

The City has not established a single average or target “inspection approval” turnaround time applicable to all Fire Prevention inspection types. Workflows and required follow-up vary based on inspection type, findings, violations, corrective actions, and reinspections.

36. Can the City provide a high-level overview of the current fire prevention inspection workflow, including the typical review stages, departments/agencies involved, number of review cycles, and how comments are currently consolidated and communicated to parties? No.

37. On Page 4, under the section titled “Scope of Work”, it states “The system shall be accessible through standard web browsers and shall provide mobile functionality appropriate for field inspections and other Fire Prevention Bureau operations. The system shall support role-based access for City personnel and appropriate access for property owners, responsible parties, contractors, and other authorized external users.” Does the City require a public-facing online portal for citizens, property owners to submit applications, pay fees, and track status? Not at this time.

38. Could the City share the budget allocated for this project? No

39. Does the City have specific Recovery Time Objective (RTO) and Recovery Point Objective (RPO) requirements for the proposed solution? If not, should vendors propose appropriate RTO/RPO targets as part of their solution? Propose appropriate RTO/RPO targets as part of their solution.

40. What backup frequency and data-retention requirements does the City expect for production data, documents, and system configurations, and are there specific requirements for long-term archival or restoration of historical records? Vendors should describe their proposed backup, data-retention, archival, and restoration capabilities and practices as part of their proposal.

41. Does the City have any specific requirements or restrictions regarding the solution's hosting environment, such as Microsoft Azure, AWS, or another cloud platform? If the City has a preferred cloud environment, are there any specific requirements for region, data residency, network connectivity, or government-specific cloud compliance?The City does not have specific requirements or restrictions and is open to all proposed solutions at this time.

42. How many environments does the City expect the selected vendor to provide (e.g., Development, Test/QA, UAT, Training, and Production), and should non-production environments remain available throughout the contract term? Vendors should describe the environments included in their proposed implementation and ongoing service and identify any additional costs associated with non-production environments.

43. On Page 7, under the section titled “Requirements” sub-section “Fire Watch Management”, states “The proposed system shall provide integrated fire watch management capabilities for the initiation, notification, documentation” - Does the City require the solution to provide email and/or SMS notifications for application status, review comments, approvals, inspections, renewals, and other workflow events? If so, does the City have an existing email/SMS service that must be integrated, or should vendors include the required notification service as part of the proposed solution? The system shall support electronic notifications and communications as described in the Scope of Work.

44. On Page 11, under the section titled “Compensation”, it references "a quote for the services based upon hours worked." Since the solution is a hosted subscription, may proposers submit subscription pricing for software and hosting instead of hourly pricing for implementation services? Yes

45. On Page 10, under section titled “Letter of Transmittal”, it references professionals "who have experience providing financial, performance, and management services." Will experience implementing fire prevention and government permitting software satisfy this requirement? Yes.

46. The RFP's Selection Process section says review is "based upon ten criteria" but then lists thirteen (13) with factors totaling 140 points. Request the City to clarify the points that will be allocated for each proposal evaluation. The evaluation criteria and assigned values allocated to each are accurate as described. The language stating “based upon ten criteria” is a typo and should read thirteen criteria.”

47. On Page 11, under the section titled “Quality Assurance”, it references "an error rate (to be agreed upon at time of contract execution)." Can the City clarify how this applies to a software solution? Does it apply mainly to data migration and ITM review services?

Applies to mainly to data migration and ITM review services.

48. On Page 14, under the section titled “Local Preference”, it references Toledo Municipal Code section 187.34. Is registration or a physical business location within the City of Toledo a mandatory eligibility requirement to submit a proposal or perform work under this RFP, or is location addressed only as a scored factor under Criterion #2 (Location)?

Please confirm whether out-of-state or out-of-city vendors are eligible to bid. Yes, out-of-state or out-of-city vendors are eligible to bid.

49. On Page 9, under Section E (Submission)/Required Documents, the RFP lists Letter of Transmittal, Project Paperwork, and the City of Toledo Professional Services Agreement as documents that "must be submitted with each bid." On Page 11, it separately states that "Independent Contractor PERS forms; and additional Insurance as Required" will be required "prior to awarding the contract." Can the City confirm which specific documents (Vendor Registration Form, Business Tax Registration Form, Child Support Affidavit, W-9, Insurance Certificate, EEO Compliance, Debarment Certification, Living Wage Affidavit, Bureau of Workers Compensation Certificate) must accompany the initial proposal submission in PlanetBids, versus which may be submitted after selection but prior to contract award?All forms are required prior to award and not providing with bid submittal, if selected, will prolong the contractual process, but will not effect preliminary responsiveness.

50. On Page 4, under Third-Party Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance (ITM) Compliance Management, references "third-party ITM report review services performed by qualified personnel," including review for "completeness, identified deficiencies, applicable system information, and other City-established review criteria." Would the City accept an automated review solution that performs completeness and deficiency checks against City-established criteria, or does the City require every submitted report to undergo review by City-approved, qualified personnel directly, with automation used only as a supporting tool?City would accept an automated review solution that performs completeness and deficiency checks against City-established criteria.