RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_13_v1.pdf

SOLICITATION ADDENDUM

AUSTIN FINANCIAL SERVICES – CENTRAL PROCUREMENT

Revised 10/01/2024

Solicitation: RFP 2200 GTG3007 Addendum No: 3 Date: 7/24/2026

This addendum is to incorporate the following changes to the above referenced solicitation:

1. Questions:

Q1 Question: Does Austin Water require vendors to register with the Texas Department of Information Resources (DIR) for this solicitation?

Q1 Answer: No. Austin Water does not require vendors to be registered with Texas Department of Information Resources (DIR) to be eligible for this solicitation.

Q2 Question: Is the current vendor eligible to propose?

Q2 Answer: The solicitation does not restrict the incumbent (current) vendor from submitting a proposal.

Q3 Question: Please provide a current-state architecture diagram of your Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) solution and its integrated systems.

Q3 Answer: Austin Water is not providing a separate current state architecture diagram as part of this solicitation. The existing EAM environments, boundary systems, and required interfaces are identified throughout the Scope of Work and in Appendix D – Technical Requirements, Systems – Interfaces. Austin Water currently operates HxGN EAM and Infor Public Sector (IPS). The majority of Austin Water’s existing external system integrations are currently associated with IPS; HxGN EAM does not currently maintain the same integration footprint. Existing integrations utilize a combination of middleware, APIs/web services, and, in limited cases, file-based exchanges. Austin Water is currently using Boomi as the middleware, with API-based integrations, particularly RESTful web services, as the preferred integration method.

The selected Contractor will be expected to validate the current-state architecture, systems, interfaces, data flows, integration dependencies, and security requirements during discovery and use that information to develop the detailed future state solution and integration architecture.

Q4 Question: What is Austin Water's Enterprise Resource Planning system, and is it shared with the City or Austin Energy?

Q4 Answer: Austin Water does not have a central ERP since components of an ERP solution are accommodated by several disparate Citywide applications. For example, the City’s financial systems (AIMS, eCapris, and eCombs), human capital management system (Workday), customer relationship management (Salesforce).

Q5 Question: What is your GIS?

Q5 Answer: Austin Water utilizes the Esri ArcGIS platform as its enterprise Geographic Information System (GIS) environment, including ArcGIS Enterprise, ArcGIS Pro, and ArcGIS Online to support water and wastewater asset management, planning, engineering, maintenance, and field operations. The City is also in the process of implementing Esri Utility Network as part of its ongoing GIS modernization efforts.

The selected Offeror will be expected to integrate the proposed Enterprise Asset Management solution with the City's existing Esri GIS environment in accordance with the functional and technical requirements identified throughout the solicitation. Offerors should describe their experience integrating with the Esri ArcGIS platform and identify any assumptions, standard connectors, supported integration methods, or recommendations associated with their proposed solution.

Q6 Question: Does Austin Water share any technical stack with Austin Energy?

Q6 Answer: We do not operate in a shared technical environment, but Austin Water does interface with the billing system (CCB) that Austin Energy maintains.

Austin Water and Austin Energy do not operate within a shared technical environment. However, Austin Water interfaces with the Customer Care and Billing system (CC&B), which is maintained by Austin Energy.

Any relevant integration requirements are identified in the solicitation and will be further validated during implementation.

Q7 Question: Please clarify the intent of Category 2 - Annual Pricing within the Pricing Submittal Form. Is “Annual Maintenance and Support” meant to include pricing for Managed Services, or is it exclusively pertaining to Software Maintenance Fees?

Q7 Answer: Annual Maintenance and Support” is intended to capture recurring software maintenance and support costs associated with the proposed solution, including vendor provided product support, updates, patches, and upgrades, as applicable. Managed Services are not required to be included within this line item unless they are part of the Offeror’s standard maintenance and support offering. If an Offeror proposes separate Managed Services, the scope, assumptions, and associated pricing should be clearly identified in a separate supporting document while still completing the Pricing Submittal Form as provided.

Q8 Question: Appendix A - Business Capability Model & Austin Water Strategic Vision – Predictive Maintenance / AI: The Business Capability Model references predictive maintenance, predictive analytics, AI/ML, and GenAI capabilities. For proposal evaluation purposes, can the City clarify whether these capabilities are expected to be delivered as part of the core asset management solution at go-live, or whether integrated enterprise analytics and operational platforms are acceptable when providing the overall solution?

Q8 Answer: Austin Water does not require predictive maintenance, predictive analytics, machine learning (ML), artificial intelligence (AI), or generative AI (GenAI) capabilities to be delivered solely through the core Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) application. The City will evaluate the proposed solution based on its ability to satisfy the applicable business, functional, technical, security, integration, reporting, and support requirements identified throughout the solicitation.

Offerors may propose a solution consisting of native EAM capabilities, integrated enterprise analytics or operational platforms, third-party products, configurable business rules, optimization engines, AI/ML technologies, GenAI capabilities, or an appropriate combination of these approaches. Solutions should support appropriate human oversight and decision-making where applicable.

Offerors should clearly identify:

• Which capabilities are included within the core solution at go-live.

• Which capabilities rely on integrated modules, enterprise platforms, or third-party products.

• Any additional licensing, implementation, infrastructure, data, or ongoing support requirements.

• Any capabilities proposed for a future implementation phase or future product release.

• How data will be exchanged, governed, secured, monitored, and supported across the proposed solution.

Integrated modules required to satisfy the City's requirements are acceptable. If the proposed solution is offered as a bundled or enterprise subscription that includes the required functionality, Offerors should complete the Pricing Submittal Form. Please refer to Addendum No. 1., question 5. Any modules, user licensing, storage, or other costs not included in the bundled offering should be identified separately using the applicable pricing line items.

Austin Water's objective is to procure a comprehensive, integrated solution that delivers the required business capabilities regardless of whether those capabilities are provided through native functionality, integrated products, or third-party technologies.

Q9 Question: Regarding Appendix B - Business Use Cases – Routing & Scheduling: Several use cases reference routing optimization, technician scheduling, and workload balancing. Can the City clarify whether these requirements are intended to describe the desired business outcome, or whether a specific optimization methodology or scheduling engine is expected as part of the proposed solution?

Q9 Answer: The Business Use Cases are intended to describe Austin Water's desired business outcomes and operational objectives rather than prescribe a specific routing optimization methodology, scheduling engine, algorithm, or technical implementation.

Austin Water is not prescribing or preferring a particular approach. Offerors should propose the solution that best satisfies the applicable functional and technical requirements using their standard product capabilities and implementation methodology, and clearly identify any assumptions, dependencies, licensing requirements, limitations, and additional costs associated with their proposed approach.

Q10 Question: Regarding Appendix A - Business Capability Model & Austin Water Strategic Vision – Visualization: The capability model includes 3D visualization and Building Information Modeling (BIM) integration. Can the City clarify the intended business use of these capabilities (e.g., viewing asset information, capital project coordination, engineering design review, or maintenance execution) so vendors can propose the most appropriate approach?

Q10 Answer: The City anticipates using 3D visualization and BIM integration to support multiple business functions, including viewing asset information and spatial relationships, coordinating capital projects, reviewing engineering and design information, and supporting maintenance planning and execution.

The City is not prescribing a specific technology or implementation approach. Offerors should propose the approach that best satisfies the applicable functional, technical, integration, security, and usability requirements. It must accept industry standard file types, not software/vendor specific file types.

Offerors should clearly identify whether these capabilities are provided natively, through configuration, integration with existing or proposed platforms, or through third party products, and disclose any associated licensing, data, data architecture infrastructure, implementation, and support requirements.

Q11 Question: Regarding Appendix C - Functional Requirements – Mobile Field Operations: The mobile requirements include field execution, data capture, mapping, inspections, and asset updates. For evaluation purposes, will solutions be assessed based on their ability to complete these workflows regardless of connectivity, or are there specific mobile architecture or synchronization methods the City expects vendors to demonstrate?

Q11 Answer: The City is primarily interested in the ability of the proposed solution to support field operations reliably and efficiently, regardless of the underlying mobile architecture or synchronization methodology. Offerors will be evaluated based on their ability to support the business processes and functional requirements identified throughout the solicitation, rather than a specific mobile technology approach.

Austin Water currently utilizes both online and offline mobile solutions across its existing systems. Mobile users are generally equipped with City-issued tablets that support both Wi-Fi and cellular (5G/LTE) connectivity. Solutions that operate using continuous connectivity, offline synchronization, or a hybrid approach are all acceptable.

While either approach is acceptable, the City recognizes the operational value of offline capabilities for field personnel working in areas with limited or intermittent connectivity. Offerors should describe their proposed mobile architecture, synchronization approach, offline capabilities (if applicable), conflict resolution methodology, and any assumptions, limitations, or dependencies associated with their solution.

Q12 Question: Does Austin Water have a preferred implementation sequencing strategy for the approximately 1,500 users and participating business areas—for example, phased by business unit, asset class, functional capability, geographic area, or legacy system (IPS versus Hexagon EAM)? If not, should the Contractor propose the recommended deployment waves and associated sequencing?

Q12 Answer: Austin Water has not prescribed a specific implementation sequencing strategy (e.g., by business area, asset class, functional capability, geographic area, or legacy system). Offerors should propose their recommended deployment approach based on their implementation methodology and experience with organizations of similar size and complexity. The proposed implementation plan should include the recommended deployment waves, sequencing approach, and rationale. The final implementation sequencing and deployment plan will be validated and approved by Austin Water during implementation planning.

Q13 Question: Are there any mandated target dates, regulatory commitments, legacy system retirement dates, budget-cycle dependencies, or other business deadlines that must be considered when developing the implementation schedule and go-live sequencing?

Q13 Answer: Austin Water has not identified any additional mandated implementation milestones or business deadlines beyond those provided in the solicitation documents and prior Addenda. Offerors should develop their proposed implementation approach, deployment sequence, and project schedule based on the complete Scope of Work and appendices included in the solicitation. Offerors should clearly identify any assumptions, dependencies, risks, or prerequisites associated with their proposed schedule.

Q14 Question: The RFP requires enterprise-wide requirements gathering even where implementation may be phased. Please clarify the expected level of requirements validation and future-state design that must be completed across all stakeholder groups before configuration/build begins. Is Austin Water open to completing enterprise-level design progressively, provided cross-wave dependencies and enterprise standards are established upfront?

Q14 Answer: Austin Water expects enterprise-wide requirements validation and future-state solution design to establish the overall implementation approach and enterprise standards. The City recognizes that implementation may be delivered in deployment waves and is open to detailed design, configuration, and build activities progressing by deployment wave, provided enterprise-wide standards and cross-wave dependencies have been established and maintained. Offerors should describe their proposed methodology for balancing enterprise-level planning with phased implementation.

Q15 Question: Please provide the anticipated availability and expected time commitment of Austin Water personnel participating in the implementation, including the City Project Manager, business process owners, functional SMEs, technical SMEs, data owners, integration owners, testers, trainers, change champions, and decision-makers. Will these resources be dedicated or participating on a part-time basis alongside their operational responsibilities?

Q15 Answer: Austin Water has not finalized specific resource assignments or time commitments for implementation roles. City resources are generally expected to participate on a part-time basis while continuing to support operational responsibilities, although the level of participation may vary throughout the project.

Offerors should identify their anticipated Austin Water resource needs in Appendix F – Implementation Plan Workbook, Austin Water Resource Needs. Final City resource assignments, availability, and time commitments will be confirmed during project initiation and implementation planning.

Q16 Question: For Organizational Change Management, does Austin Water expect the Contractor to primarily provide strategy, assessments, templates, coaching, and recommendations, as described in Scope of Work Section 3.2.4, with the City executing communications and change activities; or is the Contractor expected to provide dedicated resources to develop and execute communications, stakeholder engagement, change champion activities, readiness tracking, and adoption interventions throughout the implementation?

Q16 Answer: Austin Water anticipates a collaborative Organizational Change Management (OCM) approach between the Contractor and the City. The Contractor is expected to provide OCM expertise, methodology, and supporting resources throughout the implementation while working collaboratively with City stakeholders responsible for business leadership, communications, and organizational engagement.

Offerors should describe their proposed OCM approach, including the recommended division of responsibilities between the Contractor and the City. Please refer to Appendix F – Implementation Plan Workbook, Training & OCM.

Q17 Question: Does Austin Water currently have an established OCM organization, communications team, learning organization, or change champion network that will support this program? If so, please describe the anticipated roles and responsibilities of these City resources versus those expected from the Contractor.

Q17 Answer: Austin Water has established internal communications, training, and learning resources that are expected to support the implementation. The City also anticipates designating business SMEs and a change champion network to support organizational adoption; however, the final organizational structure, roles, and responsibilities have not yet been finalized.

The selected vendor should describe its proposed Organizational Change Management approach and identify the recommended division of responsibilities between the vendor and Austin Water. Final roles, responsibilities, and resource assignments will be established during project initiation and implementation planning.

Q18 Question: For the approximately 1,500 licensed users, please clarify the expected training delivery model. Does Austin Water prefer direct Contractor-led end-user training, a train-the-trainer model, a blended approach, or another model? Please also identify anticipated user groups, work shifts, geographic locations, maximum practical class sizes, and requirements for in-person versus virtual training.

Q18 Answer: Austin Water is open to multiple training delivery approaches and expects Offerors to recommend the methodology they believe will best support a successful implementation, knowledge transfer, and long-term user adoption.

The City anticipates that system and application administrator training will be delivered directly by the Contractor or solution provider. For end users, Austin Water is receptive to a train-the-trainer approach, a blended delivery model, or another methodology recommended by the Offeror.

Austin Water has an established enterprise application training program and experience delivering instructor-led and virtual training. Based on that experience, instructor-led, hands-on training has proven to be the most effective approach for many operational and field-based user groups.

Offerors should describe their proposed training methodology, including assumptions regarding delivery methods, user groups, class sizes, training materials, knowledge transfer, and any recommendations for balancing in-person and virtual instruction.

Q19 Question: Please clarify whether Austin Water's objective is to establish standardized enterprise business processes across the current IPS and Hexagon EAM user communities wherever practical, or whether significant business-unit-specific process variations are expected to remain in the future-state solution.

Q19 Answer: Austin Water recognizes that its current IPS and Hexagon EAM user communities support different business functions and operational responsibilities. As a result, certain business-unit-specific processes and workflows are expected to remain where operational, regulatory, or business requirements warrant.

However, where practical, the City's objective is to establish standardized enterprise business processes, data standards, and governance across the organization. Offerors are encouraged to recommend industry best practices and identify opportunities to simplify, standardize, and harmonize business processes while preserving functionality necessary to support unique operational requirements.

Offerors should describe their methodology for evaluating current-state business processes, identifying opportunities for enterprise standardization, and recommending future-state processes that balance operational consistency with the legitimate business needs of individual departments and operational areas.

Q20 Question: Austin Water currently operates two major legacy EAM platforms and interfaces with more than a dozen third-party systems. Please confirm which integrations are required for the initial production release, which may be delivered in subsequent phases, and whether any existing integrations will be retired or replaced through business process changes.

Q20 Answer: The required system interfaces are identified in Appendix D – Technical Requirements, Systems - Interfaces tab. Austin Water currently anticipates retaining the identified boundary systems and does not have plans currently to retire or replace them as part of this solicitation.

The integrations designated as High priority should be included in the proposed implementation approach and sequencing. Offerors should recommend the appropriate deployment phase for each interface based on business-process dependencies, operational readiness, data requirements, testing needs, and the proposed release strategy. Each production release must include the integration necessary to support the business capabilities included in that deployment wave.

Q21 Question: For each in-scope integration, please clarify the anticipated responsibilities of Austin Water, the Contractor, incumbent vendors, middleware teams, and third-party application owners for interface specifications, API availability, development, testing, troubleshooting, security approvals, and production deployment Q21 Answer: Final roles and responsibilities for each integration will be established during implementation planning. Austin Water anticipates a collaborative approach in which the selected Contractor works with City resources and applicable third-party system owners to validate interface requirements, define technical specifications, develop, test, and deploy the required integrations.

Offerors should identify any assumptions regarding Austin Water, third-party vendors, and other stakeholder responsibilities necessary to support their proposed implementation approach.

Q22 Question: Please clarify the expected scope of historical data conversion from IPS, Hexagon EAM, and other legacy sources, including the number of years of history, closed work orders, service requests, attachments/documents, asset history, inventory transactions, labor history, meter readings, audit information, and other transactional records expected in the new production environment.

Q22 Answer: Austin Water's objective is to migrate as much historical data as practical to support ongoing business operations, regulatory compliance, reporting, analytics, and long-term asset management. Offerors should assume that all active operational and master data, along with historical transactional data, will be migrated in accordance with the City's records retention requirements.

Historical data is expected to include, at a minimum, assets, work orders, service requests, preventive maintenance, labor, inventory, inspections, meter readings, documents and attachments, and other related business records necessary to support ongoing operations and historical reporting.

Offerors should describe any assumptions, limitations, or recommendations regarding the proposed data conversion approach.

Q23 Question: Does Austin Water anticipate providing dedicated business resources to cleanse, deduplicate, enrich, map, and approve legacy data, with the Contractor responsible for migration tooling and execution; or is the Contractor expected to perform significant business data remediation activities?

Q23 Answer: Austin Water anticipates a collaborative approach to data preparation and migration. The City expects to provide business SMEs and data stewards to validate business rules, approve data mappings, and make business decisions regarding legacy data. The Contractor is expected to provide the methodology, tools, expertise, and recommendations necessary to support data profiling, cleansing, mapping, validation, and migration. Offerors should describe their proposed approach for sharing data preparation and migration responsibilities, including any assumptions regarding City resource participation.

Q24 Question: Please clarify Austin Water's expectations regarding the number and duration of formal testing cycles, including System Integration Testing, data conversion testing, performance testing, security testing, mobile testing, UAT, regression testing, and dress rehearsals. Does the City have an anticipated number of UAT participants and dedicated business testers?

Q24 Answer: Austin Water has not prescribed a fixed number or duration for formal testing cycles and has not finalized the number of UAT participants or dedicated business testers.

Offerors should describe their proposed testing methodology and identify the recommended testing cycles, required City participation, assumptions, dependencies, and resource requirements in Appendix F

– Implementation Plan Workbook, Testing & UAT.

Final testing schedules, participant assignments, and acceptance criteria will be established during implementation planning.

Final testing cycles, schedules, participant assignments, and acceptance criteria will be established collaboratively during implementation planning

Q25 Question: For a phased implementation, should each deployment wave undergo a separate formal UAT, cutover, production go-live, and 90-day post-implementation support period as referenced in Scope of Work Section 3.2.8? If so, may the 90-day support periods for different waves overlap?

Q25 Answer: Austin Water recognizes that a phased implementation may include multiple deployment waves but has not prescribed a specific approach for User Acceptance Testing (UAT), cutover, production deployment, or post-implementation support. Offerors should recommend their proposed implementation methodology, including any assumptions regarding deployment waves and post-implementation support. In developing their proposed approach, Offerors should consider that Austin Water resources are expected to balance project participation with ongoing operational responsibilities. Final deployment activities and schedules will be established during implementation planning.

Q26 Question: Please identify any operational blackout periods, seasonal constraints, peak-demand periods, regulatory reporting cycles, fiscal-year activities, planned outages, or other restrictions during which major testing, training, cutover, or go-live activities should not occur.

Q26 Answer: Austin Water has not identified fixed blackout periods for this solicitation. Offerors should identify any assumptions regarding scheduling constraints and describe how their proposed implementation approach will accommodate ongoing operations and business continuity.

Specific scheduling constraints and blackout periods will be identified collaboratively during implementation planning and incorporated into the approved project schedule.

Q27 Question: Please clarify the expected review and approval turnaround time for key Contractor deliverables, including requirements, future state designs, architecture, integrations, data mappings, test plans/scripts, OCM plans, training plans, and deployment plans. May the Contractor assume a defined review period for example, five or ten business days—with consolidated City feedback?

Q27 Answer: Austin Water anticipates that most Contractor deliverables will be reviewed within approximately ten (10) business days, although the actual review period may vary depending on the complexity of the deliverable and the number of stakeholders required for review. Offerors should develop their proposed project schedule using a ten (10) business-day review period for planning purposes. Final review timelines, approval processes, and project governance will be established during project initiation with the selected Contractor.

Q28 Question: Please clarify whether Austin Water expects functional configuration, integration development, data migration development, reporting, mobile configuration, OCM, and training preparation to proceed as parallel workstreams following approval of the relevant design components, or whether formal completion and approval of the full requirements/design phase is required before downstream build activities begin.

Q28 Answer: Austin Water anticipates that implementation activities may be performed using multiple parallel workstreams where appropriate. The City does not expect all enterprise requirements and detailed design activities to be fully completed across every business area before downstream implementation activities begin. Offerors should propose their recommended implementation methodology, including how parallel workstreams will be coordinated while maintaining enterprise standards and addressing cross-workstream dependencies.

Q29 Question: Does Austin Water anticipate requiring business operations to continue concurrently in IPS and/or Hexagon EAM for a defined period after initial Maximo production deployment? If so, please clarify the expected coexistence duration and whether data synchronization between legacy and new platforms will be required during that period.

Q29 Answer: Austin Water's objective is to minimize the duration of any parallel operation between the legacy systems and the selected Enterprise Asset Management solution. The City does not anticipate maintaining long-term production operations in both environments following production deployment.

Offerors should propose their recommended cutover and deployment strategy, including any assumptions regarding temporary coexistence, data synchronization, and transition activities necessary to support a successful implementation. Austin Water's objective is to fully transition business operations to the selected solution and decommission the legacy systems following successful implementation and stabilization.

Q30 Question: How many field service users does Austin Water intend to have using the mobile solution?

Q30 Answer: Austin Water currently has a limited deployment of mobile capabilities within its existing Enterprise Asset Management solutions. The City anticipates significantly expanding the use of mobile capabilities across field operations as part of the new Enterprise Asset Management solution. For planning purposes, Offerors may assume that approximately 50% of users will require mobile capabilities.

Offerors should describe how their proposed mobile solution supports scalable deployment across the City's field operations

Q31 Question: Are there pain points with the current application?

Q31 Answer: Yes. Austin Water has identified pain points with the current applications, including fragmented processes across multiple systems, limited integration and automation, inconsistent user experiences, data and reporting challenges, and limitations in mobile and field capabilities. The solicitation requirements and Appendix B - Business Use Cases reflect the City’s desired improvements and future state capabilities.

2. 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.

Solicitation: RFP 2200 GTG3007 Addendum No: 3 Date: 7/24/2026