RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_11_v1.pdf
PDF 275 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) Solutions
- Solicitation number
- RFP 2200 GTG3007
- Issued by
- Texas
About this file
Solicitation Addendum Summary
This is Solicitation Addendum No. 1 for RFP 2200 GTG3007, issued by the City of Austin Financial Services - Central Procurement on July 17, 2026, regarding an Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) Solutions procurement for the Austin Water Department. The addendum provides clarifications and updates to the original solicitation, including revised guidance for completing the Functional Requirements Matrix (Appendix C) and Technical Requirements Matrix (Appendix D), both of which require offerors to indicate whether requirements are met through product configuration (C), automation (A), both (B), or neither (N), and to specify if customization, future releases, or third-party integrations are necessary. The City's objective is to procure a single integrated EAM solution; solutions utilizing a single integrated platform are preferred. The addendum addresses 12 questions and answers covering contract award timelines, portal requirements, data migration scope (approximately 183 million total records including 2.6 million assets, 1.5 million work orders, 1.3 million service requests, 4.6 million attachments, and 8 million labor entries), annual volume estimates (60,000 work orders with 20% year-over-year growth projected for the EAM system; 40,000 service requests, 60,000 work orders, and 70,000 inspections annually for IPS), and data quality expectations. The proposal submission deadline is August 18, 2026 at 2:00 PM CT; a mandatory pre-offer conference was held on July 13, 2026 at 12:00 PM CT via Microsoft Teams with 50+ attendees representing the City and numerous vendor and consulting firms.
The addendum specifies that the Pricing Submittal Form has been updated to accommodate Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) and enterprise subscription pricing models, allowing bundled pricing to be entered under core functionality without requiring allocation across individual modules; additional modules, file storage, and user licenses should be entered on appropriate line items using City-provided estimated quantities. Historical asset and maintenance records must remain searchable and reportable post-migration, with the City expecting data assessment, cleansing, validation, and reconciliation as part of the implementation methodology. The current production environment includes HxGN EAM and Infor Public Sector (IPS) running on supported Microsoft SQL Server databases. Offerors must acknowledge receipt of the addendum by returning a signed copy with their proposal prior to the solicitation closing date; failure to do so may result in rejection of the offer. All other terms and conditions of the original solicitation remain unchanged.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_6_v1.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_2_v2.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_2_v1.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_9_v1.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_6_v3.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_4_v1.pdf | ||
| RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_7_v1.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_14_v1.pdf | ||
| RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_15_v1.pdf | ||
| IFB_6100_CLMC971_PLANS_1_v1.pdf | ||
| RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_3_v1.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_13_v1.pdf | ||
| RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_5_v1.pdf | ||
| RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_10_v1.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_16_v1.pdf | ||
| RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_17_v1.pdf | ||
| RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_7_v2.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_1_v1.pdf | ||
| RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_1_v9.pdf | ||
| RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_12_v1.pdf | ||
| IFB_6100_CLMC971_PLANS_2_v1.pdf | ||
| RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_8_v1.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 22
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
SOLICITATION ADDENDUM
AUSTIN FINANCIAL SERVICES – CENTRAL PROCUREMENT
Revised 10/01/2024
Solicitation: RFP 2200 GTG3007 Addendum No: 1 Date: 7/17/2026
This addendum is to incorporate the following changes to the above referenced solicitation:
1. Clarifications:
1.1. Section 10.2.1 Appendix – Functional Requirements Matrix of the Solicitation Instructions is updated as follows:
10.2.1 Appendix C – Functional Requirements Matrix.
For each requirement, Offerors shall complete and submit the Requirements Matrix with their proposal response including the following responsive information:
• Meets Requirement (Y/N) - Use this column to indicate whether the proposed solution satisfies the stated functional requirement.
• Product Configuration, Business Rule Automation, Both, or None (C, A, B, N) - Use this column to indicate how the proposed solution satisfies the requirement:
C = The requirement is satisfied through the application's standard, native functionality and may require only standard application configuration using low-code or no-code administrative tools. This includes features that are available out of the box as well as those requiring only routine configuration by a trained application analyst or system administrator.
A = The requirement is satisfied using the application's native business rule or workflow automation capabilities without requiring custom programming.
B = The requirement is satisfied through a combination of both Configuration and Business Rule Automation.
N = The requirement is not satisfied through Configuration or Business Rule Automation.
• Customization (Y/N) - Use this column to indicate that the requirement is satisfied through custom-developed functionality or scripting requiring software development knowledge. Examples include SQL, Python, Java, JavaScript, VB Script, C#, APIs, plugins, or other custom-developed components beyond standard application configuration. Provide additional details under the Explanation/Comments column.
• Future Release (Y/N) - Use this column to indicate that the requirement will be satisfied in a future product release. Provide the anticipated product version and expected release date, if available, under the Explanation/Comments column.
• Integration / 3rd Party Product (Y/N) - Use this column to indicate that the requirement is satisfied through integration with a third-party application, product, or service. Identify the proposed third-party product under the Explanation/Comments column.
• Explanation / Comments - Use this column to provide any additional information necessary to explain the proposed solution, including configuration approach, customization details, future release information, third-party products, assumptions, limitations, or any other information that will assist Austin Water in evaluating the response.
• Address all requirements included in the matrix, including those designated as High
(H) and Low (L),
• A response of Yes (Y) in the Meets Requirement column does not require the requirement to be satisfied solely through Configuration or Business Rule Automation. A requirement may also be satisfied through Customization, a Future Product Release, or Integration with a 3rd Party Product, as indicated in the applicable columns.
• If Meets Requirement = No (N), the Offeror should explain why the requirement cannot be met in the Explanation/Comments column.
• Blanks in any column will be interpreted as No as referenced in SOW sections 3.1, 3.2.5, 3.2.7, 3.2.8, and 5.1.
1.2. Section 10.3.1 Appendix D – Technical Requirements Matrix of the Solicitation Instructions is updated as follows:
10.3.1 Appendix D – Technical Requirements Matrix
For each requirement, Offerors shall complete and submit the Requirements Matrix with their proposal response including the following responsive information:
• Meets Requirement (Y/N) - Use this column to indicate whether the proposed solution satisfies the stated functional requirement.
• Product Configuration, Business Rule Automation, Both, or None (C, A, B, N) - Use this column to indicate how the proposed solution satisfies the requirement:
C = The requirement is satisfied through the application's standard, native functionality and may require only standard application configuration using low-code or no-code administrative tools. This includes features that are available out of the box as well as those requiring only routine configuration by a trained application analyst or system administrator.
A = The requirement is satisfied using the application's native business rule or workflow automation capabilities without requiring custom programming.
B = The requirement is satisfied through a combination of both Configuration and Business Rule Automation.
N = The requirement is not satisfied through Configuration or Business Rule Automation.
• Customization (Y/N) - Use this column to indicate that the requirement is satisfied through custom-developed functionality or scripting requiring software development knowledge. Examples include SQL, Python, Java, JavaScript, VB Script, C#, APIs, plugins, or other custom-developed components beyond standard application configuration. Provide additional details under the Explanation/Comments column.
• Future Release (Y/N) - Use this column to indicate that the requirement will be satisfied in a future product release. Provide the anticipated product version and expected release date, if available, under the Explanation/Comments column.
• Integration / 3rd Party Product (Y/N) - Use this column to indicate that the requirement is satisfied through integration with a third-party application, product, or service. Identify the proposed third-party product under the Explanation/Comments column.
• Explanation / Comments - Use this column to provide any additional information necessary to explain the proposed solution, including configuration approach, customization details, future release information, third-party products, assumptions, limitations, or any other information that will assist Austin Water in evaluating the response.
• Address all requirements included in the matrix, including those designated as High
(H) and Low (L),
• A response of Yes (Y) in the Meets Requirement column does not require the requirement to be satisfied solely through Configuration or Business Rule Automation. A requirement may also be satisfied through Customization, a Future Product Release, or Integration with a 3rd Party Product, as indicated in the applicable columns.
• If Meets Requirement = No (N), the Offeror should explain why the requirement cannot be met in the Explanation/Comments column.
• Blanks in any column will be interpreted as No as referenced in SOW sections 3.1, 3.2.5, 3.2.7, 3.2.8, and 5.1.
For Section F, Systems – Interfaces, Offerors shall complete only the vendor response columns for each external system listed in the table.
• Indicate Yes/No (Y/N) for Vendor Experience, Standard Connector, Custom Integration Required, and Preferred Integration Partner.
• Provide additional details, as needed, in the Explanation/Comments column.
• Address all interface requirements.
as referenced in SOW sections 3.1, 3.2.5, 3.2.7, 3.2.8, and 5.1.
1.3. The Pricing Submittal Form published with the solicitation has been deleted and replaced with the following, labeled Pricing Submittal Form V1.
1.4. Appendix C – Functional Requirements published with the solicitation has been deleted and replaced with the following, Appendix C – Functional Requirements V1.
1.5. Appendix D – Technical Requirements published with the solicitation has been deleted and replaced with the following, Appendix D – Functional Requirements V1.
2. Questions:
Q1 Question: When will the answers be released (resulting from Q&A)? To whom should questions be directed to?
Q1 Answer: Questions will be addressed on a rolling basis as they are received, and responses will be published through an addendum up until the deadline for submitting questions.
Please submit questions only to the Authorized Contacts listed in the Solicitation Cover Sheet. Refer to the Solicitation cover sheet for additional information.
Q2 Question: What is the City of Austin’s anticipated timeline for vendor award? Targeted project start date? Targeted project go-live?
Q2 Answer: The City has not established firm dates for contract award, project commencement, or go-live. The schedule will depend on completion of the solicitation evaluation, applicable approvals, contract negotiations and execution, and implementation planning with the selected vendor.
The City anticipates beginning the project as soon as reasonably practicable following contract execution.
Any dates or timelines communicated during the solicitation are estimates only and are subject to change.
Q3 Question: The Scope of Work states that you have Infor ISP and HxGN EAM. It also comments about the desirability of a single integrated application. Is the "Single Integrated Application" a requirement of this solicitation?
Q3 Answer: The City's objective is to procure a single integrated Enterprise Asset Management solution.
Solutions utilizing a single integrated platform are preferred and should satisfy the functional and technical requirements identified throughout the solicitation.
Q4 Question: Do you consider configuring an out-of-the-box feature, such as workflow approval, the equivalent to "coding"?
Q4 Answer: No. Configuration performed through the application's native administrative, low-code, or no-code tools is considered Configuration. Functionality requiring custom-developed code, scripting, APIs, SQL, or similar software development activities is considered Product Customization.
Q5 Question: May offerors modify the rows, columns, or estimated quantities in the pricing sheet to reflect their proposed pricing structure? If pricing is bundled rather than broken out by module, may offerors enter “Included” in the applicable unit-price fields and provide additional comments or pricing assumptions? For user-based pricing, should offerors retain the estimated quantities provided by the City and enter a unit price per user?
Q5 Answer: Offerors should complete the pricing sheet in the format provided and should not add, delete, or materially modify rows, columns, formulas, or estimated quantities. If additional explanation of the proposed pricing methodology is necessary, it should be included as a separate attachment with the proposal. However, it should not replace the required pricing information in the Pricing Submittal Form.
The City has updated the Pricing Submittal Form to better accommodate Software as a Service (SaaS) and enterprise subscription pricing models.
If your proposed solution includes the core functionality identified in the solicitation as part of a bundled or enterprise offering, enter the total bundled software license or subscription price under Item 1.1.1 – Core Functionality. The City does not require Offerors to allocate bundled pricing across the individual functional modules listed in Items 1.1.2 through 1.1.9.
If additional software modules are required to satisfy the City's functional requirements and are not included in the bundled offering, enter the applicable pricing under the appropriate module line item in Items 1.1.2 through 1.1.9. Use the estimated quantities provided by the City. If an additional required module is not specifically identified, use Item 1.2.1 – Additional Module(s).
If your pricing model includes a base number of users and additional user licenses are purchased separately, or if user licensing is priced separately from the core subscription, enter the applicable pricing under Item 1.2.3 – Additional User Licenses. Use the estimated quantities provided by the City.
If your proposed solution requires file storage beyond the base offering, enter the applicable pricing under Item 1.2.2 – Additional File Storage. Use the estimated quantities provided by the City
Q6 Question: For Appendix D: Technical Requirements – Portals – Can the City of Austin please provide a more robust explanation for the three distinct web portals that are required for the project? Can this functionality be covered as one portal but with security group restricting information access by user groups?
Q6 Answer: The City requires support for three distinct user experiences: (1) Internal City Users, (2) External Customers, (3) External Contractors. The City does not require these experiences to be delivered through three separate technical portal applications. A single portal solution utilizing role-based security, permissions, and user segmentation is acceptable provided it satisfies all functional, security, and usability requirements identified in the solicitation.
Q7 Question: Can the City confirm the approximate number of records to be migrated by data type?
Q7 Answer:
IPS EAM TOTAL
Assets 2,600,000 9,800 2,609,800
Work Orders 1,200,000 343,000 1,543,000
Service Requests 1,300,000 2,200 1,302,200
PM Schedules
1,700 1,700
Inspections 1,900,000
1,900,000
Inventory Records 2,600,000 Transaction records
157,000 transaction records
2,757,000
Labor Entries 6,000,000 2,050,000 8,050,000
Equipment Entries
9,800 Positions
9,800
Material Entries 13,500 Part records
39,000 Part records
52,500
Notes
273,000 Comments on records
273,000
Documents See below Attachments row
See below Attachments row
Photos See below
See below
Attachments Includes Photos And Documents
4,600,000 22,000 Photos and Docs
4,622,000
IPS EAM TOTAL
Total Potential Records Total Db Records When Checked In October
~120,000,000 ~63,000,000 ~183,000,000
Q8 Question 8: Can the City confirm the approximate annual volume of:
• service requests
• work orders (including planned, reactive, corrective, and preventive maintenance)?
Q8 Answer: For Enterprise Asset Management (EAM), the City averages 60,000 work orders per year with an average year over year growth of 20%. By 2028, we estimate the significant growth as new projects come on board. Growth projections are planned estimates only and are not contractual guarantees.
For IPS, there are approximately 40,000 service requests, 60,000 work orders, and 70,000 inspections per year.
Q9 Question: Should historical maintenance and asset data be searchable and reportable in the new system, and should migrated records remain active/editable or be migrated as read-only/reference records?
Q9 Answer: Historical asset and maintenance records are expected to remain searchable and reportable following migration. There are scenarios where editing historical work records is necessary. Offerors should describe how historical records will be maintained and identify any limitations associated with editing historical data. Offerors should identify any assumptions or constraints associated with migrating historical data.
Q10 Question: What is the quality of the data required? Which system or format is it stored in?
Q10 Answer: The City has performed ongoing data governance activities; however, Offerors should expect varying levels of data quality typical of long-lived enterprise systems. Data assessment, cleansing recommendations, validation, and reconciliation should be included as part of the proposed implementation methodology.
Current production systems include HxGN EAM and Infor Public Sector (IPS), both running on supported versions of Microsoft SQL Server databases. Additional supporting systems and integrations are identified throughout the Scope of Work.
Q11 Question: Does each record have unique IDs that match attachments?
Q11 Answer: The City maintains unique identifiers for core business records and their associated attachments where supported by the source systems. Offerors should anticipate validation activities during discovery to confirm relationships and identify any exceptions.
Q12 Question: Are there any physical files that the proposer is responsible for migrating?
Q12 Answer: The City does not currently require the migration of physical paper records as part of the base scope.
3. Additional Information: Please see attached attendance sheet from the Pre-Offer Meeting.
4. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN THE SAME.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY:
Offeror Name Offeror Authorized Signature Date
RETURN ONE COPY OF THIS ADDENDUM WITH YOUR RESPONSE PRIOR TO THE SOLICITATION CLOSING
DATE. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER.
Revised 6/5/2017
AUSTIN FINANCIAL SERVICES – PRE OFFER CONFERENCE MEETING
ATTENDANCE SHEET
Solicitation Description: RFP 2200 GTG3007 – Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) Solutions Meeting Date: Monday, July 13th, 2026, 12:00 PM CT
Purchasing Office Point of Contact: genesis.torres-gonzalez@austintexas.gov julia.herrera@austintexas.gov Place/Room: Microsoft Teams
Name Company/Agency/Dept. Phone Email Address
Genesis Torres - Gonzalez City of Austin 512-974-2884
Genesis.Torres- Gonzalez@austintexas.gov
Julia Herrera City of Austin 512-972-6149
Julia.Herrera@austintexas.go v
Christopher Bradford City of Austin Christopher.Bradford@austin texas.gov
Jimmy Lofgran City of Austin Jimmy.Lofgran@austintexas.
gov
Julia Robbins City of Austin Julia.Robbins@austintexas.g ov
Tawhid Ami City of Austin Tawhid.Ami@austintexas.gov
Alysha Driskell City of Austin Alysha.Driskell@austintexas.
gov
Abigail Ketchum Timmons Group Abigail.Ketchum@timmons.c om
Andrew Clark Colliers Engineering & Design andrew.clark@collierseng.co m
Anupam Sachdev ZLink Corp asachdev@zlinkcorp.com
ATTENDANCE SHEET
Solicitation Description: RFP 2200 GTG3007 – Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) Solutions Meeting Date: Monday, July 13th, 2026, 12:00 PM CT
Armish Kaleem ZPro Solutions armish.kaleem@zprosolution s.com
Barrett Lavery Apptricity blavery@Apptricity.com
Ben Gonzalez
PTG
ben.gonzalez@ptg.com
Bonnie Damstra
ABJAYON
bonnie.damstra@abjayon.com
Brandon Donahue brandon.donahue@ptg.com
Buckley, Lea M Octave lea.buckley@octave.com
Craig Parker Loblolly Consulting cparker@loblollyconsulting.co
Dave Marshall The Arcanum Group david.marshall@thearcanumgro up.com
David Greenbaum Guidehouse david.greenbaum@guidehouse.
com
David Hargadon NextGen Asset Management dhargadon@nexgenam.com
Donahue, Brandon ex- Brandon.Donahue@austintexas .gov
Dulce Sanchez 21 Tech
Dulce.Sanchez@21tech.com
ATTENDANCE SHEET
Solicitation Description: RFP 2200 GTG3007 – Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) Solutions Meeting Date: Monday, July 13th, 2026, 12:00 PM CT
Ed Singer Hanson Professional Services esinger@hanson-inc.com
Jason Lovitt ServiceNow jason.lovitt@servicenow.com
Jeanne Ruthloff KCI Technologies
Jeanne.Ruthloff@kci.com
Jenny Ainsworth GuideHouse jainsworth@guidehouse.com
Jessica Nelson Zlink Corp jnelson@zlinkcorp.com
Jignesh Sevak GuideHouse jsevak@guidehouse.com
Jill Zehler Infor
Jill.Zehler@infor.com
Julee Clark Epic Group LLC julee@epicgroupllc.com
Khristine Partisala 21 Tech khristine.partisala@21tech.com
Kristin Smith Red Clay Consulting kristin.smith@redclay.com
Kushal Desai ZPro Solutions kushal.desai@zprosolutions.co m
Kyle C Hudson Ernst & Young
Kyle.Christensen1@ey.com
Louie Scola Guidehouse lscola@guidehouse.com
ATTENDANCE SHEET
Solicitation Description: RFP 2200 GTG3007 – Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) Solutions Meeting Date: Monday, July 13th, 2026, 12:00 PM CT
Lynne Powers Red Clay Consulting lynne.powers@redclay.com
Mark Alvarado Mentor APM mark.alvarado@mentorapm.co
Mark Congdon
NV5
Mark.Congdon@nv5.com
Megan Delk megan.delk@ptg.com
Michael Schneider
IFS
michael.schneider@ifs.com
Mike Beasley TRM Group mike.beasley@trmgroup.com
Mikey Middlestedt Red Clay Consulting mikey.middlestedt@redclay.co
Robert Shugart Guide House robert.shugart@guidehouse.co
Shankar, Sujit Nuvolo sujit.shankar@nuvolo.com
Temple, Zachary (SI
BSW S NAM GOV C)
Brightly Software zach.temple@brightlysoftware.
com
Trish Gosch TRM Group trish.gosch@trmgroup.com
William Sims Infor william.sims@infor.com
Brent Wilson Woolpert Brent.Wilson@woolpert.com
ATTENDANCE SHEET
Solicitation Description: RFP 2200 GTG3007 – Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) Solutions Meeting Date: Monday, July 13th, 2026, 12:00 PM CT
Aziza El Alaoui Communication Logic, LLC
Soufiane Raddam Communication Logic, LLC
Lisa Turner Interloc Solutions
Tin Scott
Michael Runyon
Zach Bartlett Interloc Solutions
Patty Wipler Trimble
Aaron Kennet
Aruna Perumal
Chaitanya
Chris Gills
Lenin N
Lucas (360S2G)
ATTENDANCE SHEET
Solicitation Description: RFP 2200 GTG3007 – Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) Solutions Meeting Date: Monday, July 13th, 2026, 12:00 PM CT
Nabeel
Renee Lottes
Stephen
Vasan
| RFP 2200 GTG3007 - Addendum 1 - PENDING AW REVIEW |
| Solicitation: RFP 2200 GTG3007 Addendum No: 1 Date: 7/17/2026 |
| RFP 2200 GTG3007 - Pre-Offer Attendance Sheet |
| Austin Financial Services – Pre Offer Conference Meeting |
| Attendance Sheet |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .