RFP_1240154_Questions_and_Responses_Addendum .pdf

CITY OF ATLANTA

DEPARTMENT OF PROCUREMENT

SUITE 1900

55 TRINITY AVENUE, SW

ATLANTA, GA 30303

(404) 546-1000

Excellence in VALUE CREATION through Partnership, Collaboration, and Innovation

Rev. 8.24.23

Andre Dickens

Mayor

Jaideep Majumdar

Chief Procurement Officer

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Potential Proponents / Bidders

FROM: Dominique Coachman, Category Specialist

CC: Brandi Stanley, Category Manager

Jean-Paul Courville, Category Director

Kevin Floyd, Deputy Chief Procurement Officer

Jaideep Majumdar, Chief Procurement Officer

RE: Notice of Addendum Memo for – FP/PS/DCP/2311-1240154, Enterprise Land

Management, Permitting and Licensing

DATE: 1/24/2024

Dear Potential Proponents / Bidders:

Attached is one (1) copy of Addendum Number No. 1 which is hereby made a part of the above referenced project.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

This Addendum No. 1 form is a part of the Request for Proposals (“RFP”) and modifies the original solicitation package as noted below and is issued to incorporate the following:

• Revision: Proposal Due Date has been extended to 2/2/2024

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1985C0BB-752D-40FF-B646-76F716806049

Addendum Memo

Rev. 8.24.23

• Revision: Required Submittals has been revised to include updates on

Form 3 Tier 2 requirements.

• Revision: Responded to one hundred seventy-one (171) questions and responses.

• Revision: Uploaded Excel Document Attachment XX for response to corresponding

Contents of Proposal Section 3.2.4.2.3 requirement with respective tabs as Tab

1—Technical Requirements and Tab 2— ISS Checklist.

The Bid/Proposal due date HAS been modified and Proposals are due on 2/2/2024 and should be time stamped into the system no later than 2:00 P.M. EST.

**All other pertinent information is to remain unchanged**

All questions and inquiries concerning this project should be directed to Category Specialist, Dominique Coachman; via e-mail: dcoachman@atlantaga.gov.

Attachment(s)

Questions and Responses mailto:dcoachman@atlantaga.gov

CITY OF ATLANTA

DEPARTMENT OF PROCUREMENT

SUITE 1900

55 TRINITY AVENUE, SW

ATLANTA, GA 30303

(404) 546-1000

Excellence in VALUE CREATION through Partnership, Collaboration, and Innovation

Rev. 9.25.23

Andre Dickens

Mayor

Jaideep Majumdar

Chief Procurement Officer

Project Number & Title: RFP/PS/DCP/23411-1230154/ Enterprise Land

Management, Permitting and Licensing System

Date: 1/24/2024

The following questions and /or clarifications were requested by various proponents:

1. Question

Request for an extension of three weeks (February 19th) to respond this licensing and permitting RFP.

Response

The RFP deadline has been extended to February 2nd, 2024.

2. Question

Under the SOW document in the Background section, there is a reference to 6+ platforms currently in use. Question: Can use please identify what these 6+ platforms are?

Response The City currently operates using Accela, Apply4, EnerGov, Hansen, Oracle, ESRI, eBuilder, and other for the functions mentioned in the SOW.

3. Question

What is the City’s current ePlans platform?

The City uses both Bluebeam and Adobe for PDF review and markup, however, no integrated solutions.

4. Question

How many ePlans users licenses are required (for ePlans markup and management capabilities only – not required for viewing plans)

See below for a further breakdown of users by function. Note some will overlap per their respective duties.

Field staff: 175-200 Plan Review: 150-175 Administrative: 75-100 Read Only: 50-75 Other: 10

5. Question

How many inspectors in the various departments will require a mobile application for field work?

Response All inspectors need mobile capabilities.

6. Question

How many cashier users would the City require?

Response Cashiering capabilities will vary across departments, however, there should be 3- 5 cashiers specifically related to revenue capture. Others will be responsible for revenue capture as part of other coordination duties. See below for a further breakdown of users by function. Note some will overlap per their respective duties.

Field staff: 175-200 Plan Review: 150-175 Administrative: 75-100 Read Only: 50-75

7. Question

What reporting tool does the City currently use?

Response City departments use a variety of reporting tools ranging from Excel, Crystal, SSRS, PowerBi, Oracle, Cognos.

8. Question

Has the City seen any product demonstrations or met with any vendors related to the requirements in this RFP in within the last 18 mths and if so, which vendors?

Response This Request for Proposal (RFP) is a City developed Scope of Work and is not based on any product demonstrations. The City is seeking a qualified Vendor to meet the needs of various Departments throughout the City with an enterprise system.

9. Question

We noted on pg. 10 of the OCC Goals PDF that the SBE goal has been set at 35%. Also, in the OCC document pg 5, there is a reference in the first paragraph to: “On projects valued at five (5) million dollars or greater, the

Office of Contract Compliance shall determine on a project by-project basis whether non-discriminatory outreach efforts to enter into a joint venture shall be required - followed by: “OCC has made the determination non-discriminatory outreach efforts to enter into a joint venture are required for this solicitation.”

We also noted in the Enterprise Evaluation document under Part 3, that compliance with OCC Programs carries a relative weight of 15 points – the second highest of all nine categories included. This means that to achieve maximum points on a $5M implementation project, a vendor would need to subcontract with and assign $1.75M in services to a small

COA certified business that they may have had no previous relationship with, who may not have sufficient qualified available resources and who have never previously been exposed to the vendor’s product or the proprietary delivery methodology that the vendor offers. There are a number of business reasons - unrelated to any kind of discrimination, why a vendor would prefer to deliver a complex project of this size using their own qualified, trained, subject matter experts including:

• Understanding, Familiarity and Adherence to Vendor’s

Product and Proprietary Project Delivery Methodology

• Risk Reduction for both Client and Vendor

• Quality Assurance obligations to be met by Vendor

• Adherence to Project Schedule and Critical Path

• Cost Savings

• Client Satisfaction

• Vendor Warranty Obligations on Work Performed

Response # 9 does not identify a specific question – Statement only.

10. Question

Would the City be willing to reconsider the vendor’s obligation to enter into a joint venture with an SBE for this solicitation?

Response No. All considerations for joint venture eligibility and requirements have been met for this solicitation.

11. Question

Can the City disclose what budget range has been established for this project?

Response This is a Request for Proposal. Please submit documentations accordingly.

12. Question

Given the scope and volume of the requirements identified in the RFP, would the City consider extending the bid deadline to Feb. 29, 2024?

Response The RFP deadline has been extended to February 2nd, 2024.

13. Question

Can you confirm that the requirement for SBE participation is 35% and that the expectation is that the prime contractor will enter into a joint venture with the SBE for the contract?

Response A joint venture is required for this solicitation AND the goal for minority participation on subcontracting opportunities for this solicitation has been set at 35% SBE. The Good Faith efforts to meet the goal can be accomplished by one or both of the following options: 1. The certified SBE joint venture partner with less than 50 percent ownership interest (minority partner) may also receive subcontractor participation credit in the SBO joint venture contract opportunities. 2. Any specified scope of work can be subcontracted to any number of City of Atlanta certified SBEs totaling the

35% goal.

14. Question

Are the OSSEM users included in the 350 City Users listed in the Scope of

Work? If no, how many OSSEM users will be using the software?

Response Yes, OSSEM users are included in the SOW. See below for a further breakdown of users by function. Note some will overlap per their respective duties.

Field staff: 175-200 Plan Review: 150-175 Administrative: 75-100 Read Only: 50-75

15. Question

Will the City have any external reviewers, other than the 350 City Users, using the software and, if so, how many?

Response Ideally, the solution would allow for external review with other governemental or quasi-judicial agencies for review/comment. There could be upwards of 10 organizations or approximately 20 additional users. Discussion is ongoing with external agencies to accomplish this within the current scope of work.

16. Question

Will the City have any read-only users and, if so, how many? Are these users part of the 350 City Users specified in the Scope of Work document?

Response Yes, the City will have read-only users. See below for a further breakdown of users by function. Note some will overlap per their respective duties.

Field staff: 175-200 Plan Review: 150-175 Administrative: 75-100 Read Only: 50-75

17. Question

Will the integration with Municipal Court be one or two way? Is there an available API for integration? What data will be exchanged?

Response It is the intent of the City to integrate for data validation and/or provide read only access to other solutions deployed to more accurately respond to constituent inquiry and/or submission of compaints/issues, query data and/or application status within other governmental agencies, and allow for seamless transition for customers. Below are a sample of the integrations sought.

Conversations for non-City managed solutions are ongoing and depend on access granted.

Environmental Systems Research, Institute, Inc. (“ESRI”) - ArcGIS 10.8 & ArcGIS pro 3.1.2 - two way for address, parcel, and owner information. API available.

Municipal Court - two way to relay court records back to enforcement cases USPS - one way to share addressing information and query State and County - one way to query data necessary for permitting and licensing processing and/or signoffs on inspections or project review Enquesta - Two way to allow for data related to water meter accounts. There is an API available.

18. Question

Will the integration with Fulton/Dekalb County be one or two way? Is there an available API for integration? What data will be exchanged?

constituent inquiry and/or submission of complaints/issues, query data and/or application status within other governmental agencies, and allow for seamless transition for customers. Below are a sample of the integrations sought.

Conversations for non-City managed solutions are ongoing and depend on access granted.

Environmental Systems Research, Institute, Inc. (“ESRI”) - ArcGIS 10.8 & ArcGIS pro 3.1.2 - two way for address, parcel, and owner information. API available.

Municipal Court - two way to relay court records back to enforcement cases USPS - one way to share addressing information and query State and County - one way to query data necessary for permitting and licensing processing and/or signoffs on inspections or project review Enquesta - Two way to allow for data related to water meter accounts. There is

19. Question

Will the integration with State of Georgia be one or two way? Is there an constituent inquiry and/or submission of complaints/issues, query data and/or application status within other governmental agencies, and allow for seamless transition for customers. Below are a sample of the integrations sought.

Conversations for non-City managed solutions are ongoing and depend on access granted.

Environmental Systems Research, Institute, Inc. (“ESRI”) - ArcGIS 10.8 & ArcGIS pro 3.1.2 - two way for address, parcel, and owner information. API available.

Municipal Court - two way to relay court records back to enforcement cases USPS - one way to share addressing information and query State and County - one way to query data necessary for permitting and licensing processing and/or signoffs on inspections or project review Enquesta - Two way to allow for data related to water meter accounts. There is

20. Question

Will the integration with US Immigration Service be one or two way? Is there an available API for integration? What data will be exchanged?

constituent inquiry and/or submission of complaints/issues, query data and/or application status within other governmental agencies, and allow for seamless transition for customers. Below are a sample of the integrations sought.

Conversations for non-City managed solutions are ongoing and depend on access granted.

Environmental Systems Research, Institute, Inc. (“ESRI”) - ArcGIS 10.8 & ArcGIS pro 3.1.2 - two way for address, parcel, and owner information. API available.

Municipal Court - two way to relay court records back to enforcement cases USPS - one way to share addressing information and query State and County - one way to query data necessary for permitting and licensing processing and/or signoffs on inspections or project review Enquesta - Two way to allow for data related to water meter accounts. There is

21. Question

Will the integration with Department of Labor be one or two way? Is there an available API for integration? What data will be exchanged?

constituent inquiry and/or submission of complaints/issues, query data and/or application status within other governmental agencies, and allow for seamless transition for customers. Below are a sample of the integrations sought.

Conversations for non-City managed solutions are ongoing and depend on access granted.

Environmental Systems Research, Institute, Inc. (“ESRI”) - ArcGIS 10.8 & ArcGIS pro 3.1.2 - two way for address, parcel, and owner information. API available.

Municipal Court - two way to relay court records back to enforcement cases USPS - one way to share addressing information and query State and County - one way to query data necessary for permitting and licensing processing and/or signoffs on inspections or project review

22. Question

Will the integration with enQuesta be one or two way? Is there an available

API for integration? What data will be exchanged?

constituent inquiry and/or submission of complaints/issues, query data and/or application status within other governmental agencies, and allow for seamless transition for customers. Below are a sample of the integrations sought.

Conversations for non-City managed solutions are ongoing and depend on access granted.

Environmental Systems Research, Institute, Inc. (“ESRI”) - ArcGIS 10.8 & ArcGIS pro 3.1.2 - two way for address, parcel, and owner information. API available.

Municipal Court - two way to relay court records back to enforcement cases USPS - one way to share addressing information and query State and County - one way to query data necessary for permitting and licensing processing and/or signoffs on inspections or project review Enquesta - Two way to allow for data related to water meter accounts. There is

23. Question

Will the integration with Time Matters be one or two way? Is there an constituent inquiry and/or submission of complaints/issues, query data and/or application status within other governmental agencies, and allow for seamless transition for customers. Below are a sample of the integrations sought.

Conversations for non-City managed solutions are ongoing and depend on access granted.

Environmental Systems Research, Institute, Inc. (“ESRI”) - ArcGIS 10.8 & ArcGIS pro 3.1.2 - two way for address, parcel, and owner information. API available.

Municipal Court - two way to relay court records back to enforcement cases USPS - one way to share addressing information and query State and County - one way to query data necessary for permitting and licensing processing and/or signoffs on inspections or project review Enquesta - Two way to allow for data related to water meter accounts. There is

24, Question

What will the integration with ServiceNow provide?

constituent inquiry and/or submission of complaints/issues, query data and/or application status within other governmental agencies, and allow for seamless transition for customers. Below are a sample of the integrations sought.

Conversations for non-City managed solutions are ongoing and depend on access granted.

Environmental Systems Research, Institute, Inc. (“ESRI”) - ArcGIS 10.8 & ArcGIS pro 3.1.2 - two way for address, parcel, and owner information. API available.

Municipal Court - two way to relay court records back to enforcement cases USPS - one way to share addressing information and query State and County - one way to query data necessary for permitting and licensing processing and/or signoffs on inspections or project review Enquesta - Two way to allow for data related to water meter accounts. There is

25. Question

What will the integration with LexisNexis provide?

constituent inquiry and/or submission of complaints/issues, query data and/or application status within other governmental agencies, and allow for seamless transition for customers. Below are a sample of the integrations sought.

Conversations for non-City managed solutions are ongoing and depend on access granted.

Environmental Systems Research, Institute, Inc. (“ESRI”) - ArcGIS 10.8 & ArcGIS pro 3.1.2 - two way for address, parcel, and owner information. API available.

Municipal Court - two way to relay court records back to enforcement cases USPS - one way to share addressing information and query State and County - one way to query data necessary for permitting and licensing

26. Question

We have our own camera solution – do we still need to include integration to dPICT IMAGING AEXEON Digital Frame Grabber in our bid?

Response Please note how your solution addresses the requirement in your response.

27. Question

We have our own scheduling solution – do we still need to include integration to an External Appointment Scheduling solution in our bid?

Response Please note how your solution addresses the requirement in your response.

28. Question

Will the integration to CityWorks be one way or two way? What data will be exchanged?

constituent inquiry and/or submission of complaints/issues, query data and/or application status within other governmental agencies, and allow for seamless transition for customers. Below are a sample of the integrations sought.

Conversations for non-City managed solutions are ongoing and depend on access granted.

Environmental Systems Research, Institute, Inc. (“ESRI”) - ArcGIS 10.8 & ArcGIS pro 3.1.2 - two way for address, parcel, and owner information. API available.

Municipal Court - two way to relay court records back to enforcement cases USPS - one way to share addressing information and query State and County - one way to query data necessary for permitting and licensing processing and/or signoffs on inspections or project review Enquesta - Two way to allow for data related to water meter accounts. There is

29. Question

What is the City’s financial software? What modules will the new software be integrating with (General Ledger, Accounts Receivable, Accounts

Payable, others?)

Response The City uses Oracle as its financial software.

30. Question

What payment processors will the City be using for online payments?

Response The Departments and/or existing platforms have individual payment processors ranging from Bridgepay to PayPal proflow. Payment processors must be approved by the City's banking partner.

31. Question

Can a vendor be included in multiple bids as part of the solution but not as the prime or full solution?

Response Yes.

32. Question

How many user licenses are required, specific to electronic plan review?

Response See below for a further breakdown of users by function. Note some will overlap per their respective duties.

Field staff: 175-200 Plan Review: 150-175 Administrative: 75-100 Read Only: 50-75

33. Question

In the scope of work, page 2, table 1 - Frequent application types and usages, you list high level application types. Do you have a list of the subtypes? Or can you provide the number of subtypes that require plan review?

Response Please see the below approximate breakdown for number of application/case types. Please note these might have similar workflows.

Permits: 115 Planning: 40 Inspections: 75 Code Enforcement: 7 Licenses/Regulatory Permits: 35

34. Question

The RFP mentions that the city is replacing 6 or more systems. What are those systems?

35. Question

Has the City seen any demonstrations of any permitting/planning/land management/code enforcement/business licensing systems in the past 12 months?

• If so, can the City please provide a list of the products you have seen?

meet the needs of various Departments throughout the City with an enterprise

36. Question

Has the City received any pricing estimates from any vendor for a permitting or planning or land management or code enforcement or business licensing system in the past 12 months?

• If so, can the City please provide a list of the vendors you have received pricing from?

meet the needs of various Departments throughout the City with an enterprise

37. Question

Has anyone outside of the City staff helped with the development of this

RFP and/or the requirements list provided?

• If so, can the City please identify the parties that helped?

meet the needs of various Departments throughout the City with an enterprise

38. Question

What is the approved budget for the new solution?

39. Question

Does the City have an anticipated project timeline and/or go-live date?

Response This is a RFP for the City's immediate need for various departments. It will be the city's expectation that assessment and implementation would begin at the execution of any agreement.

40. Question

Does the city currently use an electronic plan review solution with which integration to the new enterprise land management, permitting, and licensing software solution is needed?

Response The City uses both Bluebeam and Adobe for PDF review and markup, however,

41. Question

Does the city currently use an online payment processing solution with which integration to the new enterprise land management, permitting, and licensing software solution is needed?

42. Question

What GIS is the city using with which the new enterprise land management, permitting, and licensing software solution should integrate?

Response Environmental Systems Research, Institute, Inc. (“ESRI”) - ArcGIS 10.8 & ArcGIS pro 3.1.2.

43. Question

Please confirm all integrations/interfaces needed for the new enterprise land management, permitting, and licensing software solution to connect with and provide details on the type of integration and direction of data.

constituent inquiry and/or submission of complaints/issues, query data and/or application status within other governmental agencies, and allow for seamless transition for customers. Below are a sample of the integrations sought.

Conversations for non-City managed solutions are ongoing and depend on access granted.

Environmental Systems Research, Institute, Inc. (“ESRI”) - ArcGIS 10.8 & ArcGIS pro 3.1.2 - two way for address, parcel, and owner information. API available.

Municipal Court - two way to relay court records back to enforcement cases USPS - one way to share addressing information and query State and County - one way to query data necessary for permitting and licensing processing and/or signoffs on inspections or project review Enquesta - Two way to allow for data related to water meter accounts. There is

44. Question

Scope of Work, page 7, Atlanta Fire & Rescue section: “Solution will include federal regulatory approved forms for processing from the Federal

Aviation Regulation (FAR) (part 139). Please elaborate further on this requirement.

Response The Inspections Section is responsible for enforcing the State Minimum Fire Safety Standards and the City of Atlanta Code of Ordinances 78-57; to ensure identification and mitigation of fire and life safety hazards. Airport Inspection is also responsible for ensuring compliance with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 139.

45. Question

Scope of Work, page 11, Functionality section: “Customer service kiosk with internet capabilities to allow customers to complete applications on location.” Please confirm if the city will provide the computer(s) for use at the customer service kiosk or if the proposer is expected to include the hardware.

Response The City will provide hardware necessary for customer kiosks.

46. Question

Scope of Work, page 11, Flexibility section: “Unique identifying codes for external agencies that perform business tax services to determine status and location of application.” Please elaborate further on this requirement.

Response For this specific point, the solution would be expected to generate a unique identifier for business license applications and make this available publicly so that external agencies can conduct research and/or track status.

47. Question

Can the city please provide an excel copy of Attachment X?

48. Question

Can the city please provide Attachment XX?

49. Question

Can you please break down the user count of 350 by department or user role?

Field staff: 175-200 Plan Review: 150-175 Administrative: 75-100 Read Only: 50-75

50. Question

I kindly ask that the City push the deadline of this RFP to mid February.

From a bandwidth standpoint (other city RFPs, etc.) and in order to have adequate time to digest the Q&A, it will be difficult to submit a response without an extension.

51. Question

Within the Contents of Proposals attachment, there is a response requirement for the following:

3.2.4.2.3. How the proposed solution meets the technical requirements contained in Attachment XX by completion of the Vendor Response Form

(Tab 1) and the ISS Checklist (Tab 2).

I am unable to find Attachment XX, the Vendor Response Form (Tab 1), and the ISS Checklist (Tab 2). Can you please advise?

Response Yes, It will be uploaded.

52. Question

Formally requesting an extension to the bid deadline from January 29, 2024 to a later date.

53. Question

Number 15 of the supplier PDF document states:

"Disqualification of Proponents: Any of the following may be considered as sufficient for disqualification of a Proponent and the rejection of the

Proposal:

a. Submission of more than one Proposal for the same work by an individual, firm, partnership or Corporation under the same or different name(s);"

If multiple separate implementation firms are bidding the same primary software, does this apply?

Response That is a matter that needs to be determined by the proponent.

54. Question

My company is considering priming this opportunity and we are an SBE.

Are we then required to bring in a 2nd SBE to meet the OCC goal?

Response Pursuant to the City of Atlanta SBO Code of Ordinances Section 2-1372

(c), the ability or desire of a prime contractor to perform the work of a contract with its own organization does not relieve the bidder of the responsibility to make good faith efforts to meet the goal. The prime proponent does NOT receive self-performance credit towards the participation goal for this solicitation. However, Good Faith Efforts to meet the 35% goal can be accomplished by one or both of the following options:

1. The certified SBE joint venture partner with less than 50 percent ownership interest (minority partner) may also receive subcontractor participation credit in the SBO joint venture contract opportunities. 2. Any specified scope of work can be subcontracted to any number of City of

Atlanta certified SBEs totaling the 35% goal.

55. Question

As a prime on the opportunity, can you confirm that we are required to do at least 51% of the work?

Response There is no minimum self-performance percentage required of the prime contractor for this solicitation.

56. Question

Can you please confirm that the insurance requirements need to be met by the time of contract execution, and that failure to meet the insurance requirements at the time of proposal submission will not cause the proposer to be deemed non-responsive? In other words, if we do not currently meet the City’s required insurance limits but commit to increasing our insurance limits if awarded the bid, is this acceptable?

Response Proof of insurance is not required until the bid has been awarded.

57. Question

Requirement 11 on page 4 of Appendix B states: “Contractor/Consultant must require and ensure that all subContractor/Consultants/subconsultants at all tiers to be sufficiently insured/bonded based on the scope of work performed under this agreement.” Does this mean that any subContractor/Consultants/subconsultants need to obtain insurance with the limits specified in Appendix B? Or are they covered under the insurance provided by the prime Contractor?

Response This is the prime contractor’s responsibility to ensure that the sub is ether covered by the Prime’s policy or if not, require the Sub to obtain the required coverage.

58. Question

Will the City please consider granting a one-week extension to the submission deadline to give vendors a chance to reach out to as many potential SBE’s as possible?

59. Question

Are vendors required to satisfy the 35% SBE goal in order to be deemed responsive even if the vendor is proposing a proprietary commercial off the shelf (COTS) system that is only available through the said vendor?

Response Pursuant to the City of Atlanta SBO Code of Ordinances Section 2-1372

Means to ensure that competitors make good faith efforts to meet SBE subcontracting goals for the scope of work described as part of this solicitation: the bidder must submit with its bid submission evidence demonstrating that “good faith efforts” were made to meet the goals. The

City will review documents submitted at the time of the bid, and make its determination of good faith efforts based on those submitted documents.

Additional submissions will not be permitted. To demonstrate “sufficient good faith efforts” to meet the SBE goal, a bidder / proposer shall document the steps it has taken to obtain SBE participation. Such documentation and evidence is fully describe as part of the City of Atlanta

SBO Code of Ordinances Section 2-1372 (b) (1-5).

60. Question

Will vendors that demonstrate good faith efforts to engage an SBE be deemed responsive even if no SBE is ultimately found to be a viable subcontractor?

(B) Means to ensure that competitors make good faith efforts to meet SBE contract goals: If the SBE participation submitted by the bidder does not meet the SBE contract goals, the bidder must submit with its bid submission evidence demonstrating that “good faith efforts” were made to meet the goals. The City will review documents submitted at the time of the bid, and make its determination of good faith efforts based on those submitted documents. Additional submissions will not be permitted. To demonstrate “sufficient good faith efforts” to meet the SBE goal, a bidder / proposer shall document the steps it has taken to obtain SBE participation.

Such documentation and evidence is fully describe as part of the City of

Atlanta SBO Code of Ordinances Section 2-1372 (b) (1-5).

61. Question

Will vendors that satisfy the SBE requirement receive higher scores than vendors who do not?

Response OCC does not determine the Scoring criteria for bid solicitations.

62. Question

Will vendors that satisfy only a portion of the SBE requirement (i.e., perhaps 10% instead of 35%) be deemed non-responsive?

(B) Means to ensure that competitors make good faith efforts to meet SBE contract goals: If the SBE participation submitted by the bidder does not meet the SBE contract goals, the bidder must submit with its bid submission evidence demonstrating that “good faith efforts” were made to meet the goals. The City will review documents submitted at the time of the bid, and make its determination of good faith efforts based on those submitted documents. Additional submissions will not be permitted. To demonstrate “sufficient good faith efforts” to meet the SBE goal, a bidder / proposer shall document the steps it has taken to obtain SBE participation.

Such documentation and evidence is fully describe as part of the City of

63. Question

Re: eProcurement Portal: Step 3 of Create a Response lists 4-line items

/ categories within which we assume pricing is supposed to be listed (see screenshot below). However, these line items are not consistent with the cost breakdown in Exhibit A.1 and they also don’t align with how vendors typically categorize pricing. For example, there are no line items to denote

Implementation, Support or Training. There is also no way to indicate those fees that are recurring as opposed to one-time fees. Can you please explain how pricing is supposed to be itemized and entered in these fields?

Response The response should be filled out in the document provided.

64. Question

For Required Submittal FORM 3, Financial Responsibility Review, what is the designated Tier for this project?

Response Tier 2.

65. Question

For Required Submittal FORM 3, Financial Responsibility Review, do all members of the joint venture need to fill out the form, or just the prime contractor?

66. Question

Section 1 of Required Submittal FORM 3, Financial Responsibility Review was meant to be filled out and signed by the City’s Project Team. Can we just leave this section blank when we submit the form?

Response No, the updated form 3 has been attached.

67. Question

For Required Submittal FORM 3, Financial Responsibility Review, does the Letter from Financial Institution the same language as the letter from

Chief Executive Officer/President/Chief Financial Officer, just different letterhead, company, and signature?

Response The letter should state your financial standing with that institution.

68. Question

For Required Submittal FORM 7, Prohibited Sources’ (Contractors &

Vendors) Ethics Pledge, do representatives from both the prime contractor and the DBE contractor have to sign separate copies of the form?

Response Yes both has to sign.

69. Question

Would the City consider granting an extension?

70. Question

For the frequent application types and usage, will you please identify which types have plan review?

Response Plan review is a standard for the majority of the application types listed in the application types and usage.

71. Question

What is your total number of projects with plan review for a given 12-month period? If possible, please provide two years.

Response Reference the existing operational data table. Plan review is a standard for the majority of the application types listed in the application types and usage.

72. Question

Do you have published Plan Review Service Goals and/or KPIs? If so, can you provide them or point us to them online?

Response Each City agency has individual goals/KPIs for their plan review and they can range from 30 minutes to 45 days depending on the application type and complexity.

73. Question

When your customers submit corrected sheets on subsequent review cycles does your agency require them to resubmit the entire plan set or just the corrected sheets? If yes, is this due to a system limitation? Would you allow slip sheeting if the system allowed it?

Response In current operations, revisions are submitted by review type/individual task which is not effective. Slip sheeting would better match business operations.

74. Question

How do you handle revisions to approved plans?

Response Revisions to approved plans are uploaded to the same record/application and the workflow for review is reinitiated once accepted and fees paid. However, this causes issues for data and document control.

75. Question

What is the current process for agency Plan Reviewers to communicate corrections and markups to design professionals and/or contractors, and then for design professionals and/or contractors to communicate resolution comments?

Response Comments and/or corrections are done in various ways depending on staff or agency involved. All comments are required to be in the agency's system in existing comment fields and/or by uploaded comment letters. Additionally, staff have the option to upload redlines for the customer to review. It is the intent to modernize and consolidate this process into a platform and eliminate any usage of email or other communication.

76. Question

Do you accept paper plans, and will you continue to accept paper plans? If yes, will paper plans be scanned and uploaded to the permit/plan review system? What is your current process for scanning paper plans?

Response Paper plans are very limited and are in majority of cases scanned in immediately by staff using on-site scanners. In some cases, there are paper review/approval forms routed for internal usage either internal mail or electronically. It is the intent this practice is halted.

77. Question

How do you currently handle master plans on file?

Response Since April of 2020, all documents related to master plans are digitally stored in the current application, Accela. Prior to 2020, we have onsite storage for paper plans as well as off-site for earlier approved files. For projects where master files are leveraged, the business practice is to reference and relate those specific application numbers for staff to view while processing any active applications, etc.

78. Question

Is a historical conversion of electronic plan reviews and documents required?

Response Not fully, however, there is a possibility of converting active applications with electronic reviews being conducted. The City would aim for that to be a minimal number.

79. Question

Can complementary third-party solutions like Plan Review be submitted independently or do they need to be part of a consolidated response?

Response Apart of the consolidated response.

80. Question

Question regarding the city's mandate to use 35% Small Business

Enterprises (SBE). While reviewing the Supplier Diversity Management

Systems, I found only five organizations with the NAICS code of 541511. I downloaded your catalog and am unclear if I did anything incorrectly. I plan to contact them this week, but I am worried about what will happen if none of them meet our criteria for doing business.

At Unisys, we want to ensure our work is of the highest possible standard, and we also want to keep the project on time and at the price we committed without any additional risk. So, based on what I heard on the call last week, we would be disqualified because of the lack of use of an SBE. Is this correct?

Response Disqualification will not be based upon the description above. However, pursuant to the City of Atlanta SBO Code of Ordinances Section 2-1372

(B) Means to ensure that competitors make good faith efforts to meet SBE contract goals: If the SBE participation submitted by the bidder does not meet the SBE contract goals, the bidder must submit with iys bid submission evidence demonstrating that “good faith efforts” were made to meet the goals. The City will review documents submitted at the time of the bid, and make its determination of good faith efforts based on those submitted documents. Additional submissions will not be permitted. To demonstrate “sufficient good faith efforts” to meet the SBE goal, a bidder / proposer shall document the steps it has taken to obtain SBE participation.

Such documentation and evidence is fully describe as part of the City of

81. Question

Given the importance of this project for the City of Atlanta, GA. Will the

City consider granting a two- or three-week extension for vendors to accommodate answers to vendor questions into their responses?

82. Question

Document “RFP-1240154 OCC GOALS.pdf” page 12 specifies a 35%

SBE participation goal. Does that percentage goal include the entire contract amount (software, services, and support) or just the services scope?

Response The minority participation goal percentage is based on the total project contract value.

83. Question

Document “Enterprise Land Management Permitting Licensing Part 2

Contents of Proposal.pdf “, Item “3.2.4.2.3. How the proposed solution meets the technical requirements contained in Attachment XX by completion of the Vendor Response Form (Tab 1) and the ISS

Checklist (Tab 2)” – we have downloaded all of the documents from the procurement portal. Still, all documents were only in .pdf format.

Is there an Excel document with tabs in which vendors should respond?

Response All documents requiring an excel document will be uploaded.

84. Question

Document “City of Atlanta RFP Scope Enterprise Land Management

Permitting Licensing Software.pdf” page 2, table 2, specifies that there are

350 named users anticipated. How many of those users will also need offline mobile inspection capability?

Field staff: 175-200 Plan Review: 150-175 Administrative: 75-100 Read Only: 50-75

85. Question

Document “City of Atlanta RFP Scope Enterprise Land Management

Permitting Licensing Software.pdf” page 13, Cashier Support sub-bullet. How many physical cash drawers will the City need to use with the proposed solution?

Response The City has 3 physical cash drawers.

86. Question

What is the budget allocated for this project, and what is the timeline for its implementation?

87. Question

Will there be biennial budgeting? If so, how will it be split?

a. Will a Best and Final Offer (BAFO) process exist after submission?

b. Is the City “looking for best in breed” in separate modules?

Response This is a Request for Propose. Please submit documentations accordingly.

88. Question

Have vendors performed any demonstrations before RFP? If so, by which vendors?

meet the needs of various Departments throughout the City with an enterprise

89. Question

Are there any other established platforms not mentioned in the initial list that should be considered for integration within this project?

Response None at this time.

90. Question

Can you provide information about the IVR platform the proposed system needs to integrate with, such as Selectron? Are there any specific functionalities or data exchange requirements for this integration?

Response Selectron is the current IVR platform. However, proposals may include other platforms.

91. Question

Do any specific data validation or confirmation processes need to be integrated with respective agencies or local government entities, such as

Municipal Court, Fulton/Dekalb County, State of Georgia, USPS, US

Immigration Service, and Department of Labor?

constituent inquiry and/or submission of complaints/issues, query data and/or application status within other governmental agencies, and allow for seamless transition for customers. Below are a sample of the integrations sought.

Conversations for non-City managed solutions are ongoing and depend on access granted.

Environmental Systems Research, Institute, Inc. (“ESRI”) - ArcGIS 10.8 & ArcGIS pro 3.1.2 - two way for address, parcel, and owner information. API available.

Municipal Court - two way to relay court records back to enforcement cases

USPS - one way to share addressing information and query processing and/or signoffs on inspections or project review Enquesta - Two way to allow for data related to water meter accounts. There is

92. Question

Can you provide more details on each agency or entity's data validation and confirmation requirements?

Response Each agency will validate data in various ways depending on the application and/or function. Data validation will occur internally against established datapoints as well as externally with other solutions, where possible (i.e., state licensed professionals). In most cases, the City will be validating against the procedures laid out in the code of ordinances.

93. Question

What are the critical data management needs for processing land development approvals, including tracking applications, permits, and associated documentation?

Response The City is seeking the ability to track all applications from initiation to completion including statuses, comments, documents, actions, related cases, assigned staff, dates, and so on. This would entail having common fields such as address, parcel, and/or owners.

94. Question

Are there any specific reporting or analytics requirements to monitor the progress and outcomes of land development approvals?

Response The Department of City Planning has established and/or mandated timelines for reporting timelines and outcomes of applications. At a high level, the department is seeking a user friendly way to show volume, status, and outcome of applications moving through their respective areas. Additionally, there are data fields that are in place to track specific policies and/or programs that would need to be maintained and easily accessible. Currently, this area is lacking a robust solution and is reported on in various excel and GIS formats.

95. Question

How should the solution efficiently handle permit application submissions, approvals, and renewals?

Response The City is looking for an all-inclusive platform to manage one-time and recurring permits and licenses with digital plan review and online payment capabilities.

96. Question

Can you provide details on the current system structure used for development, permitting, licensing, and inspection processes?

Response The City currently operates using Accela, Apply4, EnerGov, Hansen, Oracle, and eBuilder for these functions mentioned in the SOW.

97. Question

What specific challenges are associated with the existing system regarding customization and complexity?

Response In many cases, the system is overly customized leading to challenges with reporting, maintenance, and ability to quickly standardize business practice.

98. Question

How does the current system ensure project visibility, accountability, and hierarchy within city agencies?

Response Due to the individual systems deployed, there is not a system offering visibility, accountability, or hierarchy for projects trans versing the various processes. This leads to issues with project tracking and reporting. It is the intent of the RFP to find a solution that allows customers and staff the ability to have insight and accountability into all applications and processes and provide integration where not possible.

99. Question

Are there any shortcomings in tracking and managing projects efficiently?

Response Due to the individual systems deployed, there is not a system offering visibility, accountability, or hierarchy for projects trans versing the various processes. This leads to issues with project tracking and reporting. It is the intent of the RFP to find a solution that allows customers and staff the ability to have insight and accountability into all applications and processes and provide integration where not possible.

100. Question

How is the electronic plan review process currently integrated into the existing systems?

101. Question

What issues are faced in achieving seamless integration with the electronic plan review process?

Response The City seeks to optimize any potential electronic plan review integrations so that users can access a solution with minimal clicks and without additional logins.

Additionally, document control is of utmost importance.

102. Question

Can you elaborate on the challenges of linking address, parcel, and owner data with GIS data?

Response Platforms are not integrated with an external address, parcel, and owner data source. Therefore, any updates are manual and on an as needed basis. This can cause issues with inconsistent data and/or incorrect applications.

103. Question

What difficulties are encountered in pulling data for policy decisions and analysis due to system complexities?

Response There is not an automated solution for integrating live data into public facing dashboards which is an obstacle. Additionally, existing business practices and available technology solutions do not allow for optimal tracking of development activity. Data must be mined through to produce sound numbers which is time consuming and introduces human error.

104. Question

How do you currently track the time an application spends with staff or customers, and are there any limitations in this regard?

Response The Department of City Planning has established a time accounting program for their services. However, this is a manual data entry by staff tagged to certain application types presenting data integrity possibilities. It is the intent a solution would be able to timestamp staff actions related to applications for better tracking purposes.

105. Question

Is it currently possible to pull live data into external, public-facing dashboards, and if not, what obstacles exist?

Response There is not an automated solution for integrating live data into public facing dashboards which is an obstacle. Additionally, existing reporting mechanisms have limitations on data available.

106. Question

What specific criteria or project workflows are you unable to search for within the existing system?

Response Limitations within the reporting capabilities do not allow for certain custom fields or workflows to be reported on for business licensing tracking.

107. Question

How does the system handle inspection routing and inform customers of anticipated inspection timelines and cancellations in real time?

Response Inspection routing is handled manually by Inspections Administrative staff. For some departments, there are automated notifications upon scheduling, however, no other communications for updates or cancellations without staff intervention. It is the intent to automate and streamline the inspections routing process so that customers have immediate communications with minimal staff intervention.

108. Question

Are inspection assignments manually assigned, and are there any challenges associated with this?

Response For majority of the inspections and departments, inspections are manually assigned and/or workload managed depending on project complexity. This is time intensive for staff and impacts service timelines.

109. Question

How is document management currently handled within the city's processes?

Response The City uses both Bluebeam and Adobe for PDF review and markup, however, no integrated solutions. Documents of record are stored either within the system of record or manually transferred to the City's cloud storage solution, SharePoint.

110. Question

Are there any issues or limitations with the existing document management system?

Response The City would prefer to have a fully integrated document…