RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_15_v1.pdf

SOLICITATION ADDENDUM

AUSTIN FINANCIAL SERVICES – CENTRAL PROCUREMENT

Revised 10/01/2024

Solicitation: RFP 2200 GTG3007 Addendum No: 5 Date: 8/10/2026

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

1. Questions:

Q1 Question: What City’s top three success criteria for the successful implementation of the new Enterprise Asset Management solution?

Q1 Answer: Austin Water's top three success criteria for the successful implementation of the new Enterprise Asset Management solution are:

1. Successfully replacing and consolidating the City's existing Enterprise Asset Management platforms into a modern, integrated solution that satisfies the functional, technical, security, and business requirements identified throughout the Solicitation.

2. Improving operational efficiency through standardized business processes, enhanced mobile capabilities, streamlined field operations, configurable business process automation, and improved data quality and reporting.

3. Measurable business adoption and outcomes demonstrated through effective training, change management, user adoption, and improvement in the operational metrics identified in Appendix A - Business Capability Model & Austin Water Strategic Vision.

Q2 Question: If budget and timeline were not constraints, what would success look like five years from now?

Q2 Answer: Success for Austin Water is the successful implementation of a modern, integrated Enterprise Asset Management solution that supports the business capabilities identified throughout the Solicitation.

The City envisions a solution that enables standardized business processes, improved data quality, enhanced data-driven decision making, expanded mobile capabilities, streamlined field operations, configurable business process automation, effective lifecycle asset management, and scalable integration with enterprise systems while minimizing customizations and leveraging industry best practices.

Ultimately, Austin Water's vision is to provide end users with an intuitive, accessible, and efficient solution that improves productivity, reduces manual effort, and enables timely access to the information needed to support daily operations and informed business decisions. The Enterprise Asset Management solution would be an integral part of Austin Water’s long-term planning process.

Offerors should describe how their proposed solution and implementation approach will support Austin Water's long-term operational objectives, organizational growth, and continuous improvement beyond the initial implementation.

Q3 Question: Within the Technical Solution evaluation criteria, are there specific functional capabilities that City considers mission-critical for this implementation?

Q3 Answer: Austin Water has not identified a specific subset of functional capabilities as mission-critical for evaluation purposes. The proposed solution will be evaluated based on its ability to satisfy the functional, technical, security, integration, and business requirements identified throughout the Solicitation.

Offerors should propose a solution that addresses the complete scope of the Solicitation and recommend an implementation approach that appropriately sequences capabilities based on business priorities, operational readiness, dependencies, and industry best practices.

Q4 Question: What factors, beyond the published evaluation criteria, will most strongly differentiate a best-value proposal during the final evaluation and vendor selection process?

Q4 Answer: Austin Water will evaluate proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria and process identified in the Solicitation. Offerors should submit complete, responsive proposals that clearly demonstrate how their proposed solution satisfies the functional, technical, security, implementation, and business requirements identified throughout the Solicitation.

Q5 Question: Are there initiatives beyond EAM that this platform is expected to support in future phases?

Q5 Answer: Austin Water's primary objective for this solicitation is to replace and consolidate its existing Enterprise Asset Management platforms and associated business capabilities. While the selected solution may support future business initiatives and additional capabilities over time, Austin Water has not defined or included specific future-phase initiatives beyond the scope of this Solicitation. For more information related to the current Austin Water Strategic Plan, which provides the foundation for all initiatives the Utility undertakes, you can read more here: Strategic Initiatives | Austin Water | AustinTexas.gov.

Q6 Question: Which two business capabilities would provide the quickest operational value if delivered first?

Q6 Answer: Austin Water has not identified specific business capabilities that must be implemented first.

Offerors should recommend the implementation approach and deployment sequence that they believe will deliver the greatest operational value while minimizing risk and supporting business continuity.

Offerors should clearly describe the rationale for their proposed deployment strategy, including business priorities, dependencies, organizational readiness, technical considerations, and anticipated business value. The proposed implementation approach will be evaluated as part of the overall proposal.

Q7 Question: Would Austin Water consider identifying a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) to accelerate business value?

Q7 Answer: Austin Water has not defined a separate Minimum Viable Product (MVP) for this Solicitation.

The City's objective is to implement a fully functional Enterprise Asset Management solution that satisfies the functional, technical, security, integration, and business requirements identified throughout the Solicitation.

Offerors may recommend a phased implementation approach, such as implementing a Minimum Viable Product, that delivers business value incrementally; however, each production release must include the functional capabilities, technical capabilities, and system integrations necessary to support the business processes included within that deployment wave.

Q8 Question: Regarding implementation: Does the City have a target project start date (contract execution) in mind, and is there a preferred or mandated Go-Live date or fiscal year milestone?

Q8 Answer: This question has been addressed in Addendum No. 1, Question 2 and Addendum No. 3, Question 14. Austin Water has not established a mandatory project start date, contract execution date, go-live date, or fiscal year implementation milestone beyond the information provided in the Solicitation and previously issued addenda.

Offerors should develop their proposed implementation approach, deployment sequence, and project schedule based on the requirements of the Solicitation and should clearly identify any assumptions, dependencies, risks, or prerequisites associated with their proposed implementation schedule.

Q9 Question: Regarding implementation: Does the City prefer a phased implementation approach or a single big-bang approach?

Q9 Answer: Austin Water has not prescribed either a phased or single "big-bang" implementation approach. Offerors should propose the implementation methodology they believe best satisfies the requirements of the Solicitation while minimizing operational risk and supporting business continuity.

As described in Addendum No. 3, Questions 13, 15, and 29, Austin Water anticipates enterprise-level planning and standards to be established early in the project while allowing implementation activities to progress through deployment waves and parallel workstreams, where appropriate. The final implementation approach and deployment strategy will be established collaboratively during implementation planning.

Q10 Question: Does City prefer a single enterprise-wide deployment, or would a phased implementation by business unit, asset class, or functional area be acceptable?

Q10 Answer: This was answered in Addendum No. 3, Questions 12, 13, 14, 20, 25, 28, and 29. These questions collectively describe Austin Water's implementation philosophy, deployment sequencing, implementation planning, and legacy system transition. Austin Water has not prescribed either a single enterprise-wide “big-bang” deployment or a specific phased structure. A phased implementation by business unit, asset class, functional area, legacy system, or a combination is acceptable.

Q11 Question: Regarding implementation: Is there a target date by which the City needs the legacy IPS and Hexagon EAM systems fully decommissioned (e.g., due to vendor support end-of-life or licensing renewal dates)?

Q11 Answer: Austin Water has not established a specific date by which the legacy IPS and HxGN EAM systems must be fully decommissioned. The timing of legacy system retirement will be based on the successful implementation, validation, and operational acceptance of the selected Enterprise Asset Management solution. Contract terms for the City's existing Enterprise Asset Management platforms should not be interpreted as the target production cutover or legacy system retirement date. Offerors should propose an implementation approach that supports an efficient transition while minimizing operational risk and reducing the duration of parallel operations.

Q12 Question: Which capabilities are mandatory for Day One versus those that could be implemented in later releases?

Q12 Answer: This question has been addressed in Addendum No. 3, Question 20. Austin Water has not prescribed a fixed set of capabilities required exclusively for Day One versus later releases. Offerors should recommend an implementation approach and deployment sequence that best satisfies the requirements of the Solicitation.

As described in Addendum No. 3, Question 20, each production release must include the functional capabilities, technical capabilities, and system integrations necessary to support the business processes included within that deployment wave. Offerors should clearly identify their proposed deployment strategy, assumptions, dependencies, and sequencing in Appendix F – Implementation Plan Workbook.

Q13 Question: Will shortlisted vendors be invited to participate in scripted demonstrations, live product demonstrations, proof-of-concept activities, or solution workshops as part of the evaluation process?

Q13 Answer: The City may invite shortlisted Offerors to participate in scripted demonstrations, live product demonstrations, solution workshops, proof-of-concept activities, or other evaluation activities if the City determines such activities are necessary to support the evaluation process.

Any invited Offerors will receive additional instructions regarding the format, scope, schedule, evaluation criteria, and participation requirements. The City reserves the right to determine whether demonstrations or other evaluation activities will be conducted, and which Offerors will be invited to participate.

Q14 Question: Can City clarify the expected duration of the post-go-live stabilization period and the criteria that must be satisfied for Final System Acceptance?

Q14 Answer: Austin Water has not prescribed a fixed post-go-live stabilization period or defined specific Final System Acceptance criteria as part of this Solicitation. Offerors should describe their recommended stabilization approach, including the proposed duration, support model, success criteria, and acceptance milestones, in Appendix F – Implementation Plan Workbook. Final stabilization activities, acceptance criteria, and Final System Acceptance will be established collaboratively with the selected Contractor during implementation planning.

Q15 Question: Can the City provide a breakdown of the 1,500 licensed users by division/role (e.g., field/mobile users vs. back-office/admin users vs. read-only/reporting users)?

Q15 Answer: This question has been addressed in Addendum No. 2, Question 14. Austin Water has not prescribed a detailed breakdown of licensed users by division or role because licensing models vary among Enterprise Asset Management solutions. The City has intentionally avoided defining licensing categories that could unnecessarily constrain Offerors' proposed solutions.

For planning purposes, Offerors should assume approximately 1,500 users, approximately 15 system/application administrators, and, as stated in Addendum No. 3, Question 31, approximately 50% of users may require mobile capabilities. Offerors should propose the licensing model appropriate for their solution and complete the Pricing Submittal Form in accordance with the Solicitation and related pricing instructions.

Q16 Question: Will City IT Services provide dedicated technical resources (e.g., API/integration developers, DBAs) to support integration build and testing, or is the Contractor expected to perform all integration development independently?

Q16 Answer: The City will provide technical resources to support the integration build and testing.

Q17 Question: What level of City participation will be available during discovery workshops, business process validation, testing, User Acceptance Testing (UAT), training, and go-live activities?

Q17 Answer: This was answered in Addendum No. 3, Questions 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, and 27.

Q18 Question: How does Austin Water envision supporting the platform after implementation?

Q18 Answer: Austin Water anticipates supporting the selected Enterprise Asset Management solution through a combination of internal business, functional, and technical resources following implementation.

The City expects the implementation to include comprehensive knowledge transfer, documentation, administrator training, and transition activities to enable Austin Water personnel to effectively administer, configure, maintain, and support the solution. It is reasonable to expect support may come from several sources, including Austin Water full-time personnel, Austin Technology Services personnel, and/or external contracted services for defined areas of responsibility.

Offerors should describe their recommended post-implementation support model, including knowledge transfer, documentation, training, transition activities, and any ongoing support services available following implementation.

Q19 Question: What level of knowledge transfer to Austin Water support teams or system administrators is expected throughout the implementation?

Q19 Answer: Austin Water expects knowledge transfer to occur throughout the implementation lifecycle, not solely at project closeout. The selected Contractor should provide ongoing knowledge transfer, documentation, mentoring, and hands-on training to Austin Water business, technical, and system administration staff as the solution is designed, configured, tested, deployed, and transitioned to production.

At a minimum, the implementation should include comprehensive administrator training, technical documentation, configuration documentation, operational procedures, and transition activities necessary to enable Austin Water personnel to effectively administer, configure, maintain, support, and enhance the solution following implementation. Offerors should describe their proposed knowledge transfer approach, deliverables, assumptions, and timeline as part of their implementation methodology.

Q20 Question: Regarding the Current environment: What mobile device models are currently issued to field staff, to help inform hardware and peripheral compatibility (e.g., Bluetooth/network barcode printers) planning?

Q20 Answer: Austin Water currently utilizes Apple iPads to support mobile operations within HxGN EAM and Windows-based rugged tablets to support field operations within Infor Public Sector (IPS).

Offerors should propose a solution that supports modern mobile devices and identify any hardware, operating system, peripheral, or compatibility requirements associated with their proposed solution, including support for barcode scanners, Bluetooth peripherals, mobile printers, cameras, and GPS, as applicable.

Q21 Question: Regarding the Current environment: The Appendix D – Technical Requirements Systems- Interfaces requirement for GraniteNet references "leveraging COA's preferred middleware." Can the City identify this middleware platform by name so the proposed integration architecture can be designed to align with it?

Q21 Answer: This question has been addressed in Addendum No. 4, Question 17. 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 and should develop their proposed integration architecture accordingly.

Q22 Question: Regarding the Current environment: Can the City confirm the current versions of IPS and Hexagon EAM in production, including any customizations or modules currently in use that may not carry over as-is?

Q22 Answer: Austin Water's current production environments are:

• Infor Public Sector (IPS): v8.8.x or "Infor Public Sector Suite", deployed on premises

• HxGN EAM: Version 12.x, deployed on premises

Austin Water intends to maintain both production environments on supported releases with current builds and applicable security patches until implementation of the selected solution.

As identified throughout the Solicitation, the City does not expect to simply recreate all existing functionality as-is. Where practical, Austin Water intends to leverage the proposed solution's native capabilities and industry best practices while adjusting business processes, as appropriate, to satisfy the functional and technical requirements and minimize application customizations. Offerors should identify any assumptions, dependencies, or proposed customizations associated with their solution.

Q23 Question: Regarding Scope of Work Section 3.2.6, Would the City be able to confirm the current versions of the two legacy systems being migrated: Infor Public Sector (IPS) and Hexagon (HxGN) EAM. This would help us plan the extraction and migration approach.

Q23 Answer: Austin Water's current production environments are:

Infor Public Sector (IPS): v8.8.x or "Infor Public Sector Suite", deployed on premises HxGN EAM: Version 12.x, deployed on premises Austin Water intends to maintain both production environments on supported releases with current builds and applicable security patches until implementation of the selected solution.

As identified throughout the Solicitation, the City does not expect to simply recreate all existing functionality as-is. Where practical, Austin Water intends to leverage the proposed solution's native capabilities and industry best practices while adjusting business processes, as appropriate, to satisfy the functional and technical requirements and minimize application customizations. Offerors should identify any assumptions, dependencies, or proposed customizations associated with their solution.

Q24 Question: Regarding the Current environment: Appendix D General Technology requirements reference integrated or external Document Management System support (e.g., SharePoint, OpenText) as an example. Does the City have an existing enterprise DMS that the solution must integrate with, or is a solution's native document management capability acceptable?

Q24 Answer: Austin Water currently stores documents and attachments across multiple repositories, including Microsoft SharePoint, Nutanix Files, and the existing Enterprise Asset Management systems. The City does not require integration with a specific enterprise Document Management System, provided the proposed solution satisfies the functional, technical, security, records management, and document management requirements identified throughout the Solicitation.

Offerors may propose a native document management capability, integration with one or more existing repositories, or a combination of both, as appropriate for their solution. Offerors should clearly identify any assumptions, dependencies, licensing, migration, and implementation considerations associated with their proposed approach.

Q25 Question: Could you clarify how many environments the City expects the SaaS solution to include (e.g., production plus non-production environments such as development, test, training, and UAT)? This would help us scope and price the SaaS provisioning appropriately Q25 Answer: Austin Water expects the proposed SaaS solution to include, at a minimum, the following environments:

Production: The live operational environment used by end users to perform day-to-day business operations. This environment will support production data and is intended for normal operational use.

Test/Training: A non-production environment used for solution configuration validation, system and integration testing, user acceptance testing (UAT), regression testing, issue verification, and end-user training. This environment should closely mirror the Production environment where practical.

Development: A non-production environment used to configure, develop, prototype, and validate new functionality, integrations, workflows, reports, and system enhancements before they are promoted to the Test/Training environment.

Offerors may propose additional non-production environments, such as dedicated UAT or staging environments, if recommended as part of their standard SaaS offering or implementation methodology.

Q26 Question: For the following systems referenced across the solicitation — GraniteNet, Maximo (IBM), Microsoft Active Directory/Entra (AD/MSFT), AclaraOne, AMANDA, Salesforce (Service Cloud), Motorola CSR (311 Intake), CC&B (Customer Care & Billing), GIS – ESRI (Utility Network), Data Warehouse, SCADA, AIMS/Advantage, Digital Twin Platform, and Operations Web Map — can the City confirm which of these are in scope for this engagement?

Q26 Answer: The systems in scope for this engagement are identified throughout the Solicitation, including the Scope of Work, Functional Requirements, Technical Requirements, and associated appendices. The required system interfaces are identified in Appendix D – Technical Requirements, Systems – Interfaces.

Unless otherwise identified in the Solicitation, the systems referenced in Appendix D should be considered existing boundary systems that will continue to operate independently and integrate with the selected Enterprise Asset Management solution. Austin Water does not currently anticipate replacing these systems as part of this Solicitation.

Offerors should assume that the systems identified in Appendix D are in scope to the extent necessary to support the required business capabilities through integration. Any proposed modifications to the implementation approach, interface sequencing, or integration strategy should be clearly identified and justified in the Offeror's proposal.

Detailed interface specifications, implementation sequencing, and deployment planning will be refined collaboratively with the selected Contractor following contract award.

Q27 Question: Of the systems confirmed as in scope, can the City specify which integrations are mandatory for Day 1 Go-Live versus which can be phased in post-Go-Live?

Q27 Answer: This question has been addressed in Addendum No. 3, Question 21. The required system interfaces are identified in Appendix D – Technical Requirements, Systems – Interfaces. 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 integrations necessary to support the business capabilities included within that deployment wave.

Q28 Question: Can the City confirm whether Microsoft AD/Entra and GIS-ESRI are hosted on-premises or cloud-hosted?

Q28 Answer: Microsoft AD / Entra: Austin Water utilizes a hybrid identity environment consisting of an on-premises Microsoft Active Directory environment synchronized with Microsoft Entra ID (cloud) to support enterprise identity and authentication services. Offerors should assume integration with the City's existing identity management environment and describe any assumptions, dependencies, or technical requirements associated with their proposed solution.

GIS-ESRI: Austin Water utilizes a hybrid ESRI GIS environment consisting of ArcGIS Enterprise, ArcGIS Pro, and ArcGIS Online. Offerors should assume integration with the City's existing enterprise GIS environment and describe any assumptions, dependencies, licensing, or technical requirements associated with their proposed integration approach.

When integrating with the City's GIS environment, Austin Water's preference is for solutions that align with ESRI and industry best practices wherever feasible. This approach supports long-term scalability, maintainability, interoperability, and- consistency across the City's enterprise technology environment.

Q29 Question: For the Data Warehouse (on-prem + Azure) integration, can the City specify a defined latency SLA for "near real-time" sync, and the expected format/protocol (API, ETL, CDC)?

Q29 Answer: Austin Water expects the Data Warehouse integration to support near real-time synchronization for operational reporting, situational awareness, and emergency response. For the purposes of this Solicitation, near real-time should be interpreted as data being available within approximately one minute of the originating transaction under normal operating conditions. Timely access to operational data is critical to support emergency operations and business decision-making.

The City has not prescribed a specific integration technology or protocol. Offerors should recommend the most appropriate approach to satisfy the required performance, reliability, scalability, and security objectives. Proposed solutions may include, but are not limited to, Change Data Capture (CDC), transactional replication, event-driven architectures, APIs, ETL/ELT, or other comparable technologies.

Offerors should clearly describe their proposed integration architecture, synchronization methodology, latency expectations, assumptions, and any infrastructure or licensing dependencies.

Q30 Question: Is the "Operations Web Map" integration planned to launch alongside CMMS go-live, or is it a separate initiative on a different timeline that the CMMS solution should be designed to integrate with later?

Q30 Answer: The Operations Web Map is an existing component of Austin Water's GIS environment and is not a separate initiative. Offerors should assume that the proposed solution will integrate with the City's existing GIS environment, including the Operations Web Map, as necessary to support the business capabilities identified throughout the Solicitation.

Q31 Question: Can the City confirm data ownership/authoritative source rules across systems (e.g., CC&B authoritative for customer/meter data, CMMS authoritative for asset condition data) to prevent conflicting updates between systems?

Q31 Answer: Austin Water has not established a comprehensive enterprise system-of-record matrix as part of this Solicitation. Existing enterprise systems will generally continue to serve as the authoritative source for their respective business domains unless otherwise defined during implementation.

Detailed system ownership, authoritative data sources, synchronization rules, and data governance processes will be validated collaboratively with the selected Contractor during discovery, solution design, and implementation planning. Offerors should describe their proposed approach for managing authoritative data sources, data synchronization, and conflict resolution across integrated enterprise systems.

Existing boundary systems identified in Appendix D – Technical Requirements, Systems – Interfaces should be assumed to remain authoritative for their respective business functions unless otherwise defined during implementation.

Q32 Question: Which systems are considered systems of record?

Q32 Answer: Austin Water has not established a comprehensive enterprise system-of-record matrix as part of this Solicitation. Existing enterprise systems will generally continue to serve as the authoritative source for their respective business domains unless otherwise defined during implementation.

Detailed system ownership, authoritative data sources, synchronization rules, and data governance processes will be validated collaboratively with the selected Contractor during discovery, solution design, and implementation planning. Offerors should describe their proposed approach for managing authoritative data sources, data synchronization, and conflict resolution across integrated enterprise systems.

Existing boundary systems identified in Appendix D – Technical Requirements, Systems – Interfaces should be assumed to remain authoritative for their respective business functions unless otherwise defined during implementation.

Q33 Question: Are APIs available for all required integrations?

Q33 Answer: The required system interfaces are identified in Appendix D – Technical Requirements, Section F: Systems – Interfaces. Austin Water has not prescribed that all integrations utilize APIs. Offerors should assume that appropriate integration methods may vary by boundary system and should propose the approach that best satisfies the functional, technical, performance, security, and operational requirements of the Solicitation while aligning with the City's preferred integration architecture and industry’s best practices.

Detailed interface specifications, available integration methods, and technical implementation details will be validated collaboratively with the selected Contractor during discovery and implementation planning.

Q34 Question: Appendix D – System/Interfaces, Interface #2, lists "Maximo" as an integration target. We’d welcome confirmation of whether this refers to IBM Maximo Application Suite (cloud), and if so, which version, so we can scope the interface approach accurately.

Similarly, for Interface #10 (Data Warehouse), the current platform isn’t named in the appendix. Could you identify the data warehouse system the solution needs to synchronize with in near real time?

Q34 Answer: The City is currently on Maximo Application Suite v9 and utilizes Microsoft Azure Synapse.

Q35 Question: Regarding the Current environment: What ESRI GIS version is currently in use? Is GIS managed centrally by IT Services, or separately by Infrastructure Management for vertical vs. horizontal assets?

Q35 Answer: Austin Water currently utilizes the Esri ArcGIS platform, including ArcGIS Enterprise 11.3, ArcGIS Pro 2.3.7, and ArcGIS Online, and is in the process of implementing Esri Utility Network. Offerors should develop their proposed solution based on integration with the City's existing Esri GIS environment and the requirements identified throughout the Solicitation.

The City's GIS environment is managed centrally as an enterprise platform supporting Austin Water's operations. Offerors should assume a single enterprise GIS environment supporting both Horizontal Operations and Vertical Operations. Detailed GIS architecture, administration, interface specifications, and integration requirements will be validated collaboratively with the selected Contractor during implementation planning.

Q36 Question: Can City provide additional information regarding the existing GIS environment, including the Esri platform version, deployment architecture, and the expected level of GIS integration required by the proposed solution?

Q36 Answer: Austin Water currently utilizes the Esri ArcGIS platform, including ArcGIS Enterprise 11.3, ArcGIS Pro 2.3.7, and ArcGIS Online, and is in the process of implementing Esri Utility Network. Offerors should develop their proposed solution based on integration with the City's existing Esri GIS environment and the requirements identified throughout the Solicitation.

The City's GIS environment is managed centrally as an enterprise platform supporting Austin Water's operations. Offerors should assume a single enterprise GIS environment supporting both Horizontal Operations and Vertical Operations. Detailed GIS architecture, administration, interface specifications, and integration requirements will be validated collaboratively with the selected Contractor during implementation planning.

Q37 Question: For horizontal infrastructure assets, will the GIS platform remain the authoritative system of record, or is the proposed EAM solution expected to become the primary asset repository?

Q37 Answer: For horizontal infrastructure, the City’s GIS platform will remain the authoritative system of record for spatial asset data. The proposed EAM solution is expected to maintain and manage the related operational, maintenance, inspection, condition, and work-management information while integrating and synchronizing with GIS.

Detailed data ownership, synchronization rules, and conflict-resolution responsibilities will be validated collaboratively during discovery and solution design. This is supported by Appendix D – Technical Requirements, General GIS Requirement

Q38 Question: For the GIS – ESRI Utility Network integration, can the City confirm the expected sync mechanism to achieve the <15-minute near real-time requirement, and provide a sample data schema/layer list in advance of implementation?

Q38 Answer: Austin Water has not prescribed a specific synchronization mechanism or technical implementation approach for the GIS integration. Offerors should propose an approach that satisfies the functional, technical, performance, and operational requirements identified throughout the Solicitation while aligning with Esri and industry best practices wherever feasible.

Detailed GIS data models, feature classes, layer definitions, schemas, and interface specifications will be provided and validated collaboratively with the selected Contractor during discovery and implementation planning. Offerors should identify any assumptions, dependencies, or prerequisites associated with their proposed GIS integration approach.

Q39 Question: Are GIS edits expected to automatically create work orders?

Q39 Answer: Yes. In certain business scenarios, edits or events within the City's GIS environment are expected to automatically generate work orders. Detailed business rules and triggering conditions will be validated during discovery and implementation.

Q40 Question: The Scope of Work indicates the production IPS system is approximately 60 GB with over 120 million records, and the production Hexagon EAM is approximately 25 GB with nearly 55 million records. Has the City performed, or does it plan to perform prior to Contractor engagement, any data quality assessment or cleansing of these datasets?

Q40 Answer: Austin Water is actively performing data governance and data quality improvement activities prior to implementation and anticipates these efforts will continue throughout the project. However, the City recognizes that additional data assessment, profiling, cleansing, standardization, deduplication, enrichment, and remediation activities will likely be identified during discovery and implementation.

Offerors should describe their proposed methodology for data profiling, cleansing, validation, migration, and governance, including how responsibilities will be shared between the Contractor and Austin Water.

Q41 Question: Given the volume of records cited for IPS (120M+) and Hexagon EAM (55M+) in the SOW, how many years of historical transactional data (work orders, PM history, inventory transactions) does the City expect to migrate versus archive or leave in a read-only legacy system?

Q41 Answer: This question has been addressed in previously issued addenda regarding data migration expectations and historical data conversion. Austin Water has not established a fixed historical retention period or cutoff date for data migration. The City'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, while minimizing the need to maintain legacy production systems following implementation.

Offerors should describe their recommended historical data migration approach, including any assumptions, recommendations, limitations, or criteria for balancing migration scope, implementation complexity, system performance, and long-term business needs.

Q42 Question: Given the scale of the 85 GB / 175+ million combined records across IPS and Hexagon EAM referenced in the SOW, will City staff be made available to support data mapping, validation, and reconciliation activities, and if so, at what capacity?

Q42 Answer: Austin Water anticipates providing business Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), data stewards, and other City resources to support data mapping, validation, reconciliation, business rule decisions, and final data approval throughout the implementation. As described in previously issued addenda, most City resources are expected to participate on a part-time basis while continuing to perform their operational responsibilities.

Offerors should identify their anticipated City resource needs, estimated level of effort, and project phase requirements as part of their proposed implementation approach. Final resource assignments and availability will be established during project initiation and implementation planning.

Q43 Question: Beyond the raw GB and record counts cited in the SOW for IPS and Hexagon EAM, what volume/type of unstructured attachments (images, PDFs, CAD drawings, manuals) are associated with these datasets that will also need to be migrated?

Q43 Answer: Austin Water has not quantified the volume or types of unstructured documents and attachments associated with the legacy systems. Documents and attachments currently exist across multiple repositories, including the existing Enterprise Asset Management systems and Microsoft SharePoint.

Offerors should assume that documents, attachments, and associated metadata necessary to support the business, functional, technical, and records management requirements identified throughout the Solicitation may require migration. Offerors should describe any assumptions, recommendations, limitations, or dependencies associated with their proposed document migration approach.

Q44 Question: Would the City provide clean and assessed data for the historical and current data?

Q44 Answer: Austin Water is actively performing data governance and data quality improvement activities prior to implementation and anticipates these efforts will continue throughout the project. However, the City recognizes that additional data assessment, profiling, cleansing, standardization, deduplication, enrichment, and remediation activities will likely be identified during discovery and implementation.

Austin Water will provide available legacy data and business resources to support data mapping, validation, reconciliation, and business decisions. Offerors should describe their proposed methodology for data profiling, cleansing, validation, migration, and governance, including how responsibilities will be shared between the Contractor and Austin Water.

Q45 Question: Does the City currently use a capital planning tool (e.g., for CIP planning, budgeting, or asset investment prioritization), and if so, will the Project Management & Capital Planning module need to integrate with it?

Q45 Answer: Yes, the City uses eCapris, an internal, web-based CIP Planning tool that is administered by the Austin Financial Services department. Direct integration with eCapris is not a requirement for this implementation. Offerors should propose their solution in accordance with the functional, technical, and integration requirements identified throughout the Solicitation.

Q46 Question: What reports, dashboards, regulatory reports, KPIs, executive analytics, and operational metrics are considered most critical for the initial implementation phase?

Q46 Answer: Austin Water has not identified a prioritized list of reports, dashboards, KPIs, executive analytics, or operational metrics for the initial implementation phase. Offerors should propose a reporting and analytics approach that supports the functional, business, and technical requirements identified throughout the Solicitation, including the reporting, dashboard, KPI, and analytics capabilities described in Appendix B – Business Use Cases and Appendix C – Functional Requirements.

The specific reports, dashboards, KPIs, and implementation priorities will be validated collaboratively with the selected Contractor during implementation planning.

Q47 Question: Are there specific existing BI/reporting tools (e.g., Power BI, Tableau) that the City standardizes on, which the Analytics & Reporting module should integrate with or feed data into?

Q47 Answer: Austin Water is a Microsoft-based organization and currently utilizes Microsoft Power BI and Microsoft Azure as part of its enterprise analytics and technology environment. Offerors should describe how their proposed solution supports integration with, or delivery of data to, the City's existing reporting and analytics capabilities, including any assumptions, dependencies, or licensing requirements associated with their proposed approach.

Q48 Question: Which indicators are currently used to determine asset health?

Q48 Answer: Austin Water currently utilizes a combination of asset condition, maintenance history, inspection results, operational performance, criticality, lifecycle information, and other business and engineering data to support asset health assessments. The specific indicators and calculation methodologies may vary by asset type and business process.

Offerors should describe how their proposed solution supports configurable asset health, condition assessment, and performance indicators, including the ability to incorporate multiple data sources and business rules to support Austin Water's asset management objectives.

Q49 Question: Does City require Single Sign-On (SSO) integration, and if so, what identity management platform (e.g., Microsoft Entra ID/Azure AD, Okta, Ping, etc.) is currently in use?

Q49 Answer: Yes. The proposed solution shall support Single Sign-On (SSO) integration with the City's existing identity management environment. Austin Water currently utilizes Microsoft Entra ID (formerly Azure Active Directory) for enterprise identity and authentication. Offerors should describe any assumptions, dependencies, and technical requirements associated with their proposed SSO integration approach.

Q50 Question: Are there cybersecurity frameworks that must be followed?

Q50 Answer: Yes. Offerors shall comply with the cybersecurity, privacy, and statutory requirements identified throughout the Solicitation, including Appendix D – Technical Requirements, Appendix E – Security/Privacy Overlay Requirements, and Attachment 3 – Offer and Certifications. These requirements incorporate applicable cybersecurity standards, security controls, and certifications, including compliance with applicable Texas Government Code requirements where specified. In general, the City’s Information Security office uses the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework (CSF). Offerors should complete all required security responses and describe how their proposed solution satisfies the applicable requirements.

Q51 Question: Are there any cybersecurity, cloud hosting, disaster recovery, compliance, or data residency requirements beyond those identified in the RFP that vendors should consider in their proposals?

Q51 Answer: Austin Water has not identified any additional cybersecurity, cloud hosting, disaster recovery, compliance, or data residency requirements beyond those already contained in the solicitation.

Vendors are expected to comply with all security, privacy, statutory, and hosting requirements identified throughout the RFP and its attachments, particularly:

• Appendix D – Technical Requirements

• Appendix E – Security / Privacy Overlay Requirements

• Attachment 3 – Offer and Certifications

• City Standard Terms & Conditions

Q52 Question: Does the City currently have an established internal OCM program, framework, or standard (e.g., Prosci ADKAR) that the Contractor's approach should align with, or is the Contractor expected to introduce the full OCM methodology?

Q52 Answer: Austin Water has internal communications, training, business, and leadership resources that will help support the implementation; however, the City has not prescribed a specific Organizational Change Management framework or methodology for this project.

The selected Contractor is expected to provide a comprehensive Organizational Change Management methodology, tools, best practices, and supporting deliverables appropriate for the proposed implementation approach while collaborating with Austin Water's internal resources. Offerors should describe their proposed methodology and identify any assumptions, dependencies, or City resource requirements associated with their approach.

Q53 Question: Has the City identified internal change champions across stakeholder divisions, and is there a City communications/PMO team available to help distribute OCM communications — or is the Contractor expected to establish both?

Q53 Answer: Austin Water has internal communications, training, business, and leadership resources that will support the implementation; however, a dedicated program-specific change champion network has not been finalized. The City anticipates identifying change champions from across the participating business areas during implementation.

The selected Contractor is expected to lead the Organizational Change Management approach, including recommendations for stakeholder engagement, communications, change champion activities, readiness, and adoption, in collaboration with Austin Water. Offerors should describe their proposed Organizational Change Management methodology and identify the City resources and level of effort needed to support their approach.

Q54 Question: Are there lessons learned or known organizational resistance points from prior technology rollouts at Austin Water that can be shared to inform the OCM strategy?

Q54 Answer: Austin Water recognizes the importance of Organizational Change Management (OCM) to the success of this initiative. Rather than prescribing a specific OCM strategy, the City expects the selected Contractor to leverage industry best practices and prior implementation experience to develop and execute a comprehensive change management approach tailored to Austin Water's organizational needs.

It is expected that there will be some organizational resistance to a new solution. The current Asset Management/CMMS solutions have been in place for decades and it will require significant effort to ensure all users (many with limited application technology expertise) are able to use the new system effectively and efficiently.

Clear scope management and a solid communication plan that targets all levels of the organization will also be key to avoiding any confusion or misaligned expectations.

The proposed OCM strategy should address stakeholder engagement, communications, leadership alignment, business readiness, training, user adoption, and transition planning. The selected Contractor will be expected to collaborate closely with City stakeholders throughout implementation to identify and address organizational considerations, risks, and adoption challenges.

Q55 Question: Would embedded in-platform guidance reduce training requirements?

Q55 Answer: Generally, yes. Austin Water believes embedded, in-application guidance can be an effective supplement to initial training and ongoing user support. However, it is not expected to replace formal training, knowledge transfer, or organizational change management activities. Offerors should describe any embedded guidance, in-application help, or user adoption capabilities included with their proposed solution and how they complement the overall training approach.

Q56 Question: Will the City recognize a Small Business or MBE/WBE certification issued by an out-of-state governmental agency or recognized certifying body, or must the certification be issued by Austin SMBR or another certifying body recognized under the City’s Small Business Procurement Program?

The question relates to both the Small Business Preference, if applicable, and the MBE/WBE program. For example, a vendor currently holds an out-of-state MBE certification and is requesting clarification on whether that certification would be recognized by the City for either program, or whether certification through Austin SMBR or another recognized certifying agency is required.

Q56 Answer: Specific for the City of Austin's Small Business Procurement Program, an out of state certification will not be recognized for either program. For the local MBE/WBE ASMBR Procurement Program it recognizes only City of Austin Certification for participation on City of Austin projects.

Q57 Question: Regarding Appendix F – Implementation Plan Workbook vs. Narrative Implementation Approach (Section 10): Implementation plans appear to be required both in a structured Excel workbook and in the narrative proposal. Please confirm: (1) Whether the workbook should include fully detailed schedules (dates, dependencies, resources) (2) Or whether high-level phasing is sufficient, with detailed planning expected after award. (3) Whether narrative duplication is required or supplementary explanation only.

Q57 Answer: The Appendix F – Implementation Plan Workbook and the implementation approach described in the proposal are intended to complement one another.