RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_14_v1.pdf

SOLICITATION ADDENDUM

AUSTIN FINANCIAL SERVICES – CENTRAL PROCUREMENT

Revised 10/01/2024

Solicitation: RFP 2200 GTG3007 Addendum No: 4 Date: 8/4/2026

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

1. Extension: The solicitation due date is hereby extended until Tuesday, September 1, 2026, at 2:00 PM Central Time.

2. Questions:

Q1 Question: Regarding Local and small business award points, Section 10.11. Can you provide more detail on what the “Total Proposal Value (Aggregate)” numbers mean? Is there a minimum threshold for small and local participation?

Q1 Answer: The Total Proposed Value Aggregate is the total estimated cost that is within the project proposal. Because there is not an MBE/WBE goal assigned to the project there is not a minimum threshold for small or local participation.

Q2 Question: In order to achieve the evaluation points for Local and Small Business Preferences, responding vendors must hold the certification directly to qualify for these points, or can they subcontract with a vendor who holds certified status in one or the other?

Q2 Answer: For this preference, the respondent must complete the Small Business Preference - Procurement Program form that is within the Offer Sheet on the solicitation. The Respondent must hold a certification through the City of Austin, City of Houston, State of Texas, North Central Texas Region Certification Agency, South Central Texas Regional Certification Agency, or the US Federal Government at the time of response submission. Please refer to the “Small Business Certification (Optional)” section of the Offer Sheet.

Q3 Question: Please clarify the Evaluation Criteria requirements for Small and Local Business Preference.

Is there a percentage of hours or work required for a subcontractor, or is it only required that a sub-contractor is involved?

Q3 Answer: There is not a percentage of hours required that the subcontractor work. The point system for the evaluation is based upon the proposal from the respondent.

Q4 Question: Regarding Section 10.11 Local and Small Businesses Points in the Solicitation Instructions, can you talk about the local and small business details (expand on the total proposal value aggregate)?

Q4 Answer: The total Proposal value aggregate is the total estimated cost of work in the proposal.

Q5 Question: Is the City of Austin willing to consider self-certified SBA certified Small Business qualified as "small" for this project?

Q5 Answer: The Respondent must hold a certification through the City of Austin, City of Houston, State of Texas, North Central Texas Region Certification Agency, South Central Texas Regional Certification Agency, or the US Federal Government at the time of response submission. Please refer to the Offer Sheet under Small Business Certification (Optional). There is a link informing respondent of what certifications are recognized in the link https://www.austintexas.gov/page/small-business-program https://www.austintexas.gov/page/small-business-program

Q6 Question: Can the City confirm whether Local Business Preference points for a Prime and a Subcontractor are additive (points for both a local Prime and a local Sub), or evaluated independently without being combined into a single score?

Q6 Answer: Points can be considered separately for the prime and sub based upon the proposal.

Q7 Question: If the Prime Offeror is a Non-resident Bidder (headquartered outside Texas) but proposes to use a genuinely local (Austin MSA-headquartered) subcontractor, can the Offeror still claim the Sub-related Local Business points shown in the scoring table?

Q7 Answer: Based upon the scoring table the prime and or sub can receive points based upon the total proposal value if the prime and or sub has headquarters within the local City Area which includes Austin- Round Rock-San Marcos Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), including all areas within Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis and Williamson counties, or “Greater Austin”.

Q8 Question: If a subcontractor's Small Business or Local Business status is being claimed, what specific form or documentation should be submitted to support that claim?

Q8 Answer: To support the claim of a small business or local business status, you will need to list the Certifying Entity, Certification Name (ACRONYM), Certification Number, Certification Expiration Date.

Please refer to the Offer Sheet.

Q9 Question: Can the City confirm the current list of recognized certifications applicable to this solicitation?

Q9 Answer: Only City of Austin Certifications will be applicable to this solicitation. However, no goals have been assigned to this solicitation so there is not a requirement for the prime or sub to be certified. There is a requirement for all Offerors or subcontractors to be registered as a vendor with the City of Austin.

Q10 Question: Regarding Solicitation Instructions: Section 10 - Proposal Submittals, p. 8+. The solicitation specifies recommended page limits (e.g., Executive Summary 2–3 pages), but a comprehensive page limit for the full Technical Proposal is not clearly defined.

Please confirm:

• Whether there is an overall page limit for the Technical Proposal

• Whether appendices (e.g., diagrams, resumes, case studies) are excluded from page counts

Whether excel-based appendices are excluded from page limits.

Q10 Answer: The solicitation does not establish an overall page limit for the Technical Proposal. Offerors may include appendices such as diagrams, resumes, and case studies which are not subject to an overall page limit. However, offerors should not rely on these in place of complete responses within the required proposal components. Required Solicitation Appendices C – F, Pricing Submittal Form, Exception Form and other required documents shall be submitted in accordance with the solicitation instructions.

Q11 Question: Regarding Appendix F - Implementation Plan Workbook and Appendices C–E: The solicitation references structured appendices for requirements and implementation but does not include clear guidance on required formats beyond the provided files.

Please confirm:

• Whether vendors must create additional templates (e.g., data migration plans, integration mappings) beyond those provided

• Whether a data dictionary or schema will be provided for requirements appendices

• Whether sample populated responses are available.

Q11 Answer: Offerors are not required to create additional templates beyond those specifically required by the Solicitation. A data dictionary or database schema will not be provided as part of the Solicitation and will be addressed with the selected Contractor during implementation. Sample populated responses are not available. Offerors should complete the provided templates in accordance with the Solicitation and Addendum No. 1 clarifications.

Q12 Question: Regarding the Solicitation Cover Sheet – Appendices C, D, E, F (“Complete and return”): The Solicitation requires completion of multiple structured appendices (functional, technical, security, implementation), while Section 10 – Proposal Submittals also requests detailed narrative responses addressing similar content.

Please confirm:

• Whether Excel appendices are the primary source of truth for evaluation, or if narrative responses carry equal/greater weight.

• Whether vendors must duplicate responses (Excel and narrative) or may reference between them.

• In case of discrepancies, which format (Excel vs. narrative) will govern evaluation.

Q12 Answer: The City will evaluate the complete proposal response, including both the required appendices and the other requested information as outlined in Section 10 - Proposal submittals.

Limited cross-referencing is acceptable where appropriate; however, Offerors are expected to complete all required proposal components and should not rely solely on cross-references in lieu of providing required information. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that all proposal components are complete, accurate, and internally consistent.

Q13 Question: Regarding the Solicitation Cover Sheet, the solicitation requires completion of multiple detailed appendices, including extensive functional requirements and a full implementation plan.

Please confirm:

Whether all appendices must be completed with production-ready detail at submission or whether high-level responses are acceptable subject to refinement post-award.

Q13 Answer: Offerors shall complete all required proposal components, including the required appendices, in sufficient detail to enable the City to evaluate the proposed solution, implementation approach, project schedule, and overall capability. Proposal submissions are not expected to represent final implementation deliverables. Detailed implementation planning, configuration, and project execution activities will be refined collaboratively with the selected Contractor following contract award.

Q14 Question: Regarding Scope of Work Section 3.2.6 Data Migration Clarity on data migration:

Is the expectation that 100% of records (all 175M) migrate to the new system, or is there flexibility to archive historical data outside the new CMMS while migrating only active/recent records? What is the cutoff date or record status that defines "in scope" for migration?

Q14 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 describe any assumptions, limitations, or recommendations regarding their proposed data conversion approach.

Q15 Question: Regarding the Scope of Work Section Licensing Asset type breakdowns: Can the City of Austin provide a breakdown of asset types and associated counts?

Q15 Answer: Austin Water is not providing a detailed breakdown of asset types and associated asset counts as part of this solicitation. For context, Austin Water is a large, complex municipal utility serving approximately one million customers. The utility operates three water treatment plants, two wastewater treatment plants, and one biosolids treatment facility. It maintains an extensive infrastructure network that includes more than 3,800 miles of water mains and more than 2,900 miles of wastewater mains. Offerors should identify any assumptions regarding asset classifications, volumes, or implementation considerations as part of their proposal.

Q16 Question: Can Austin Water please confirm whether the successful proposer may utilize a combination of onshore and offshore implementation resources for project delivery?

To clarify, if permitted, any offshore resources would be used only for approved implementation, configuration, development, testing, and support activities. No Austin Water data, including production or sensitive data, would be transferred to, processed, or stored outside the United States. All Austin Water data would remain within the approved U.S.-based hosting environment, with appropriate security controls governing any authorized remote access in accordance with the contract requirements.

Q16 Answer: The City does not prohibit the use of offshore resources; however, all proposed resources must comply with the Solicitation’s security, data location, and access requirements.

City data must remain in approved U.S.-based environments, and remote access to City Confidential Information is permitted only as allowed by the Contract. Offerors should clearly identify any proposed offshore resources, their responsibilities, and any required access in their proposal.

Q17 Question: Regarding Appendix C – Functional Requirements:

• GraniteNet: Can COA provide a list of preferred middleware solutions?

• Maximo: Can COA elaborate on whether this is limited to assignment information, or if all costs and details are required?

• AclaraOne: Can COA confirm whether this is a single-directional or bi-directional integration, and what data or feedback is required for each system?

• AMANDA: Can COA elaborate and confirm that AMS will send permitting requests to AMANDA, and that AMANDA will return the permit information to AMS?

• Motorola CSR 311: Can COA confirm whether this is a single-directional or bi-directional integration, and what data or feedback is required for each system?

• CC&B: Can COA confirm whether this is a single-directional or bi-directional integration, and what data or feedback is required for each system?

• GIS: Can COA confirm whether this is a single-directional or bi-directional integration, and what data or feedback is required for each system?

• GIS: Is the expectation that GIS be fully embedded within the solution, or will the City accept a GIS integration that links out to the City's existing GIS system?

• Data Warehouse: Can COA confirm whether the expectation is to use the existing COA data warehouse or provide a data warehouse as part of the solution?

Q17 Answer: The required system interfaces are identified in Appendix D - Technical Requirements, F.

Systems – Interfaces. Offerors should develop their proposed solution based on the interface requirements identified in the Solicitation and describe any assumptions associated with their proposed integration approach.

Austin Water utilizes Boomi as the City's preferred enterprise integration platform (middleware). Offerors should assume Boomi will be used for system integrations unless otherwise approved by the City.

Where identified in Appendix D – Technical Requirements, interfaces may support one-way or bi-directional exchange of business information between systems, depending on the applicable business process. Detailed interface specifications, including data elements, message formats, directionality, synchronization requirements, and business rules, will be validated collaboratively during implementation planning.

Austin Water does not require Geographic Information System (GIS) functionality to be fully embedded within the proposed Enterprise Asset Management solution. An integration with the City's existing Esri GIS environment is acceptable, provided it satisfies the functional, technical, integration, and usability requirements identified throughout the Solicitation.

With respect to reporting and analytics, Offerors may leverage the City's existing enterprise reporting and data management capabilities or propose additional capabilities as part of their solution. Offerors should clearly identify any assumptions, infrastructure requirements, licensing, or dependencies associated with their proposed approach.

3. 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: 4 Date: 8/4/2026