RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_16_v1.pdf

SOLICITATION ADDENDUM

AUSTIN FINANCIAL SERVICES – CENTRAL PROCUREMENT

Revised 10/01/2024

Solicitation: RFP 2200 GTG3007 Addendum No: 6 Date: 8/20/2026

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

1. Clarifications:

1.1. Section 10.2.1 Appendix – Functional Requirements Matrix of the Solicitation Instructions is updated as follows:

10.2.1 Appendix C – Functional Requirements Matrix.

The bullet stating:

• Address all requirements included in the matrix, including those designated as High

(H) and Low (L), is deleted and replaced with:

• Address all requirements included in the matrix, regardless of priority designation, including High

(H), Medium (M), and Low (L).

1.2. Section 10.3.1 Appendix D – Technical Requirements Matrix of the Solicitation Instructions is updated as follows:

10.3.1 Appendix D – Technical Requirements Matrix.

The bullet stating:

• Address all requirements included in the matrix, including those designated as High

(H) and Low (L), is deleted and replaced with:

• Address all requirements included in the matrix, regardless of priority designation, including High

(H), Medium (M), and Low (L).

2. Extension: The Solicitation due date is hereby extended until Thursday, September 10th, 2026, at 2:00 PM Central Time.

3. Authorized Contact: The secondary authorized Contact has been changed from Julia Herrera to:

Authorized Contact: Patricia Sustaita

Procurement Specialist IV

(512) 978-1708 patricia.sustaita@austintexas.gov

4. Questions:

Q1 Question: Has Austin Water had a demo of any software to meet these requirements over the last 18 months? If so, from who?

Q1 Answer: Previously Addressed in addendum 2, Q16. Prior to issuance of this solicitation, Austin Water conducted market research activities, including informational demonstrations from participating vendors.

The City is not disclosing the number or identity of vendors that participated. Any pre-solicitation engagement was for informational and planning purposes only and does not confer any competitive advantage, preference, or evaluation credit.

Revised 10/01/2024

Q2 Question: Did a consultant or other vendor assist in preparing this solicitation? If so, who provided the assistance, and are they eligible to participate in this procurement as an Offeror or subcontractor?

Q2 Answer: Yes, a contracted business analyst resource has contributed to writing the solicitation materials. This contractor, sourced through Luna Data Solutions via the Citywide DIR Staffing Master Agreement, is one resource on a team FTEs who have led requirements gathering and analysis sessions to document user stories, use cases, and functional/technical requirements. The contractor is not affiliated with any specific vendor platform and is not eligible to participate in this procurement as an Offeror.

However, the sourcing agency, Luna Data Solutions is not precluded from participating as a subcontractor.

Q3 Question: Did a consultant perform Austin Water’s strategic plan? If so, who?

Q3 Answer: Yes, Austin Water engaged with Blue Sky Partners to assist with creation of Austin Water’s current Strategic Plan. You can read more about this creation process, which involved significant effort to gather input from community and staff stakeholders, here: AW_Strategic-Plan_Digital_12.12.2025.pdf

Q4 Question: An existing citywide master agreement may cover solutions within the scope of this solicitation. Please clarify whether an Offeror whose proposed solution is covered by such an agreement should respond under the existing agreement or submit a response through the standard solicitation process.

Q4 Answer: Offerors seeking consideration for award under this solicitation must submit a response in accordance with the solicitation requirements and established submission process. The existence of a current City agreement that may include products or services within the scope of this solicitation does not replace the requirement to respond to this RFP.

Q5 Question: Does the City anticipate conducting product demonstrations, presentations, or best-and final-offer discussions after the initial proposal evaluations?

Q5 Answer: As provided in Sections 6.6 and 6.7 of the Solicitation Instructions, following initial evaluations, the City may enter into discussions with one or more Offerors submitting the highest-rated proposals and may request proposal revisions. The City may also require one or more Offerors submitting the highest-rated proposals to participate in interviews and/or presentations. The City has not committed to conducting these activities and reserves the right to evaluate proposals without clarifications or discussions.

Q6 Question: (Ref . §8.3, §11) What evidence of financial responsibility will the City require, and at what stage — audited financial statements, Dun & Bradstreet report, letter of credit, performance bond, or payment bond? If a performance bond is required, please state the required percentage and whether it applies to the full 60-month term or annually. May an OEM or parent-company guarantee be offered in lieu of or to supplement an Offeror's own financial statements?

Q6 Answer: No financial responsibility documentation is required to be submitted with the initial Proposal beyond the information expressly required in Section 10 of the Solicitation Instructions. The City will evaluate Offeror responsibility in accordance with Section 6.3 and may request additional financial information as necessary to determine financial responsibility or creditworthiness. Such information may include annual reports, audited financial statements and reports, bank letters of credit, or other credit instruments, as provided in Standard Terms and Conditions Section 1.8.

https://austin.widen.net/view/pdf/yq5kpczw2b/AW_Strategic-Plan_Digital_12.12.2025.pdf?t.download=true

The Solicitation does not require a performance bond and therefore does not establish a performance-bond percentage or term. The separate payment-bond provision in the Standard Terms and Conditions applies only in the circumstances described for further subcontracting.

An OEM or parent-company guarantee is not required as part of the Proposal. If offered, it may be considered as supplemental information; however, the City reserves the right to request financial information directly from the Offeror as necessary to determine responsibility.

Q7 Question: (Solicitation Instructions Ref. §10.5, §8.3) Will submitting exceptions to the Standard Terms and Conditions, or entries on the Exceptions and Assumptions Matrix, reduce an Offeror's evaluation score under any §11.1 factor, or are exceptions evaluated separately without point impact?

Q7 Answer: Exceptions are not identified as a separate scored evaluation factor under Section 11.1 of the Solicitation Instructions. However, in accordance with Sections 4.3, 8.3, and 10.5, the City may consider the nature and extent of any exceptions, assumptions, qualifications, or deviations in evaluating a Proposal.

Offerors are encouraged to clearly identify all exceptions and submit their most favorable terms.

As clarified in Addendum No. 5, Question 59, Offerors shall identify applicable exceptions, assumptions, dependencies, exclusions, and deviations in the required proposal components and ensure that the Proposal is complete, accurate, and internally consistent. The City will evaluate the Proposal as a whole.

Q8 Question: Does the $1,000 per calendar day liquidated damages provision in the Standard Terms and Conditions Section 1.40 apply only upon missing the final Go-Live/Final Acceptance date, or could a delay to an individual interim milestone (e.g., Testing Complete, Training Complete) independently trigger liquidated damages?

Q8 Answer: The Standard Terms and Conditions Section 1.40 is not limited solely to the final Go-Live or Final Acceptance date. By its terms, the provision applies when, due to no fault of the City, delivery of material or performance of a service is delayed beyond the time specified in the Contract. Accordingly, an interim milestone could be subject to liquidated damages if that milestone is expressly established as a contractual delivery or performance deadline. Milestone dates and the approved project schedule will be established in accordance with the Contract and implementation planning requirements.

Q9 Question: The Subcontracting Utilization Plan instructs Offerors to request an availability list for proposed subcontracting opportunities. However, Austin Small and Minority Business Resources advised that this solicitation does not include minority participation requirements and that Offerors may use subcontractors registered to do business with the City of Austin. Please confirm that the “Good Faith Efforts” described in the Subcontracting Utilization Plan are not required for this solicitation.

Q9 Answer: This solicitation was assigned zero MBE/WBE goals. When ASMBR does not assign MBE/WBE goals, the ASMBR MBE/WBE Procurement Program does not apply to the solicitation or resulting contract.

Accordingly, the MBE/WBE Good Faith Efforts requirements do not apply. Offerors must still identify proposed subcontractors as required by the solicitation in Attachment 3 – Offer and Certifications.

Q10 Question: In the Solicitation Instructions (Ref. §10.10, §10.11) Does the City's Small Business Preference accept existing federal or other-jurisdiction small business certifications as qualifying — for example SBA/DSBS veteran-owned or service-disabled veteran-owned small business status, state Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise certification, or another recognized small-business certification — or does it require a separate City of Austin / SMBR small business certification? If a City certification is required, what is the processing time, and may an Offeror receive the preference with an application pending at proposal submission?

Q10 Answer: This question was previously addressed in Addendum No. 4, Questions 2 and 5. Addendum No. 5, Question 56 further clarifies that out-of-state certifications are not recognized for the City’s Small Business Procurement Program.

Q11 Question: In the Solicitation Instructions (Ref. §10.10, §10.11; Tex. Gov't Code §2161.061 et seq.) Separate from the Small Business Preference, does the City provide any preference, evaluation credit, or participation goal for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Businesses or Historically Underutilized Businesses on this solicitation? If so, please identify the applicable form and the certification the City recognizes.

Q11 Answer: No. This solicitation does not provide a separate preference, evaluation credit, or participation goal for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Businesses or Historically Underutilized Businesses. The solicitation only provides preference points for Local Business and Small Business status.

Q12 Question: In the Solicitation Instructions (Ref. §10.9) Please define the geographic boundary and duration-of-presence requirements for "Local Business" status and confirm whether a project office established in the Austin area for this engagement would qualify.

Q12 Answer: This question was previously addressed in Addendum No. 4, Question 7. The Solicitation does not establish a separate minimum duration-of-presence requirement. A project-specific or temporary office would not, by itself, establish Local Business eligibility unless that location is the firm’s headquarters.

Q13 Question: In the Solicitation Instructions (Ref. §10.1.1, §10.7) Will the City accept a proposal submitted by a joint venture, teaming arrangement, or mentor-protégé relationship in which two firms share prime responsibility? If so, please confirm the documentation required at proposal, whether both entities' qualifications and references are evaluated jointly under §10.1.2, and how Local and Small Business Preference eligibility is determined for a joint venture.

Q13 Answer: The entity submitting the proposal must be registered with the City as a vendor and must meet all vendor eligibility requirements. The submitting entity will be considered the Offeror. If two companies intend to submit jointly, one must be designated as the Offeror unless they establish a single legal entity under a registered name.

Q14 Question: (Ref. Solicitation Instructions §10.8, §11.1) Please confirm the basis for the price comparison — the "Total Extended Price for Categories 1 through 3," Categories 1 and 2 only, or a City-calculated total cost of ownership across the 36-month initial term plus both 12-month options — and confirm the pro-ration method used to distribute the 8 available price points.

Q14 Answer: The City will evaluate price based on the Total Extended Price for Categories 1 through 3, as reflected in the Pricing Submittal Form. The available eight (8) points for price will be prorated based on the evaluated pricing submitted by responsive Offerors, with the lowest evaluated price receiving the maximum eight (8) points and other Offerors receiving proportionately fewer points.

Q15 Question: (Ref. Solicitation Instructions §10.2.1, §10.3.1, §11.1) Appendix C designates each requirement as High, Medium, or Low priority. Appendix D's priority column header offers only High and Low, while Appendix D's Notes reference High, Medium, and Low. Please confirm whether Appendix D contains any Medium-priority requirements, and whether requirements will be weighted by priority within the Functional Capabilities (29 points) and Technical Architecture and Integration (15 points) factors or scored equally.

Q15 Answer: Appendix D – tab E. General Technology has 2 Medium-priority requirements. There is no predetermined weighting assigned to specific types of requirements. Scoring will be at the discretion of a panel of evaluators who will review the Offeror’s provided details for how each requirement will be satisfied.

Q16 Question: (Ref. §10.2.1 as amended by Addendum 1) Will a requirement satisfied through native Configuration score higher than the same requirement satisfied through Customization, a Future Product Release, or Third-Party Integration? If so, please describe the relative weighting.

Q16 Answer: As addressed in the solicitation instructions:

A response of Yes (Y) in the Meets Requirement column does not require the requirement to be satisfied solely through Configuration or Business Rule Automation. A requirement may also be satisfied through Customization, a Future Product Release, or Integration with a 3rd Party Product, as indicated in the applicable columns.

There is no predetermined weighting assigned to specific types of requirements responses. Scoring will be at the discretion of a panel of evaluators who will review the Offeror’s provided details for how each requirement will be satisfied.

Q17 Question: (Ref. Cover Sheet Summary; SOW §3) Please confirm that an Offeror need not be the software manufacturer, and that a certified implementation partner and authorized reseller of a commercially available EAM platform may propose as Prime, holding the software subscription, implementation, and support obligations.

Q17 Answer: Confirmed, that is correct.

Q18 Question: (Ref. §10.1.2.1, §10.1.2.2) For the "Water/Wastewater Utility Experience," "Number of Similar Implementations Completed," and "Number of Active Customers Using Proposed Solution" criteria, may an Offeror count implementations delivered by a proposed subcontractor or teaming partner, and the installed base of the proposed software product? For the 3–5 reference projects, may subcontractor-led or OEM-provided references be submitted with each party's role clearly identified?

Q18 Answer: Yes, as long as the relationship of the Offeror/subcontractor/teaming partner for each project is communicated clearly and accurately, subcontractor-led implementations may be submitted for reference.

Q19 Question: (Ref. §10.1.2.2) Must reference projects have been completed within a stated look back period, or do in-flight and ongoing managed-service engagements qualify? Will the City contact references directly during evaluation?

Q19 Answer: The Solicitation does not establish a specific look-back period for Reference Projects.

Offerors shall provide 3–5 references for projects that are similar in size, scope, complexity, and industry relevance, as required by Section 10.1.2.2. Completed, in-flight, or ongoing engagements may be submitted for consideration, provided the Offeror supplies the requested reference information and clearly identifies the project’s current status, including completed and ongoing activities.

The City may contact references provided in the Proposal as part of the evaluation process at its discretion.

Q20 Question: (Ref. SOW §2; Pricing Submittal Form Category 2) Category 2 provides annual lines for Years 2 through 5 against a 36-month initial term plus two 12-month options. Please confirm that Year 1 software subscription and maintenance belong in Category 1 line 1.1.1, and that Years 2–5 correspond to the balance of the initial term plus both option years.

Q20 Answer: Correct.

Q21 Question: (Ref. Pricing Submittal Form Category 2; Terms and Condition §1.1) May Offerors include annual escalation in the Year 2–5 line items, or must those years be firm-fixed for the full 60 months? If escalation is permitted, is there a cap?

Q21 Answer: Offerors may include annual escalation. It is suggested to use the Consumer Price Index as a limit to inflationary price increases. The Offeror should provide their best responses for accurate evaluation. As stated in Addendum 1, Q5: If additional explanation of the proposed pricing methodology is necessary, it should be included as a separate attachment with the proposal. Vendors may propose pricing for subsequent years that includes escalations; however, once awarded, the vendor will be held to the prices submitted in their proposal. Prices cannot be changed after award, as doing so could have influenced the outcome of the evaluation and award process.

Q22 Question: (Ref. SOW §5.1–5.3; Standard Terms and Conditions §1.41; Appendix "Implementation Timeline") We will plan to the ten (10) business-day deliverable review period confirmed in Addendum 3 Q27. The Standard Terms include 20% retainage until completion of all work, while Appendix F includes a "Payment Milestone, if applicable" column. Please confirm whether implementation services will be paid against deliverable-based milestones tied to the SOW §5.1 deliverables and that milestone structure, and whether the 20% retainage applies to implementation services only or also to software subscription, maintenance/support, pass-through OEM charges, travel, and other non-labor items.

Q22 Answer: Scope of Work (SOW) Sections 5.1 through 5.3 establish required project milestones and acceptance procedures. They do not establish a mandatory payment schedule tied individually to each milestone. Offerors should identify any proposed payment milestones, as applicable, in Appendix F – Implementation Plan Workbook. The final payment schedule and applicable payment milestones will be established in the resulting Contract based on the accepted proposal and contract terms.

As addressed in Addendum No. 3, Question 27, Offerors may use approximately ten (10) business days for City deliverable review for project-planning purposes. SOW Section 5.2 further provides for a ten (10) business-day review period, unless otherwise mutually agreed in writing.

The Standard Terms and Conditions Section 1.41 applies as written and requires twenty percent (20%) retainage until completion of all work required by the Contract. The Solicitation does not presently establish separate retainage exclusions for software subscriptions, maintenance/support, OEM or pass-through charges, travel, or other non-labor items. Any exception to this requirement should be identified in accordance with Section 10.5 of the Solicitation Instructions.

Q23 Question: The solicitation identifies Infor Public Sector (horizontal/linear assets) and Hexagon EAM (vertical/plant assets) as the platforms to be replaced, while Appendix D – Technical Requirements lists "Maximo (existing EAM)" as a batch interface to retain. Could you clarify the complete current asset-management footprint and confirm whether Maximo is in scope for replacement, is a system to integrate with, or is being retired under a separate effort?

Q23 Answer: Austin Water currently utilizes Infor Public Sector and Hexagon EAM for management of utility assets, work records, and supporting resources/inventory. The City has adopted Maximo as its Enterprise

Asset Management solution across other City departments with no plans to retire or replace Maximo.

Integration with Maximo is required in the scope of this project to facilitate cross-collaboration between Austin Water and Transportation Public Works.

Q24 Question: Several enterprise systems in the interface matrix (Salesforce, CC&B, Motorola CSR/311, and the ESRI GIS) are tagged "Replace" rather than "Interface." In our experience, water utilities generally intend these platforms to remain the system of record, with billing in CC&B, spatial data in ESRI, and customer intake in the CRM, while the new EAM exchanges data rather than subsuming them. Could you confirm the intent behind the "Replace" designation for each, and which system should remain authoritative for customer, billing, and spatial data?

Q24 Answer: All interfaces listed in Appendix D – Technical Requirements are tagged as I – Interface in Column F. There is no intention of replacing or retiring external systems listed. CC&B is the system of record for customer and billing data, while GIS will remain system of record for spatial data.

Q25 Question: The capability model notes that SCADA and AIMS/Advantage are "not current or likely future integrations." Can you confirm that SCADA/historian and process-control data are out of scope for this phase and indicate whether any condition-monitoring feeds are expected at go-live?

Q25 Answer: Yes. SCADA/historian and process-control system integrations are not currently included as required integrations for this implementation. Austin Water does not anticipate requiring condition-monitoring feeds from these systems at initial go-live. Austin Water may utilize read-only SCADA data to support applicable asset management or analytical use cases; however, a direct SCADA integration is not being added to the base implementation integration scope through this clarification. Offerors should base their proposed integration scope on the required system interfaces identified in Appendix D – Technical Requirements, Systems – Interfaces. Any future SCADA, historian, process-control, or condition-monitoring integrations would be evaluated separately based on future business needs.

Q26 Question: Please verify the asset categories/groups that are to have our proposed software implemented.

Q26 Answer: The proposed solution is intended to support Austin Water's enterprise asset portfolio, including vertical facilities, horizontal infrastructure, fleet, treatment plants, lift stations, pump stations, and other operational assets. Offerors should refer to Appendix A – Business Capability Model & Austin Water Strategic Vision and Appendix B – Business Use Cases for additional information regarding Austin Water's asset management and operational environment.

Q27 Question: Are the permitting workflows a requirement for the implementation?

Q27 Answer: Yes. Permitting capabilities are included in the Solicitation requirements. Offerors should refer to Appendix B – Business Use Cases, Appendix C – Functional Requirements, and Appendix D – Technical Requirements, Systems – Interfaces for the applicable permitting requirements, including integration with AMANDA, the City’s current permit management solution. The issuance of permits is not a requirement of this solicitation. Detailed permitting workflows, interface specifications and business rules will be validated collaboratively with the selected Contractor during implementation planning.

Q28 Question: Does Austin Water utilize Wach’s for valve data?

Q28 Answer: Austin Water does not currently utilize Wachs for valve data.

Q29 Question: Is there an incumbent EAM/CMMS vendor currently supporting Austin Water, that would require turnover? Is there an existing contractor the new contract awardee would have to work with to ensure proper turnover of existing work, documentation or processes?

Q29 Answer: Austin Water does not currently have an incumbent contractor that will require a formal transition or turnover to the selected Offeror. The selected Offeror should expect to work directly with Austin Water staff and applicable City resources during implementation and transition from the existing systems. Any necessary coordination with existing vendors or other City contractors will be identified during discovery and implementation.

Q30 Question: What asset management systems are currently in use, and which systems will be retired?

Q30 Answer: Austin Water currently uses Infor Public Sector (IPS) for horizontal asset management and HxGN EAM for vertical asset management.

These legacy EAM/CMMS platforms are intended to be replaced by the selected enterprise solution. As clarified in Addendum No. 3, Question 29, Austin Water’s objective is to transition operations to the selected solution and decommission the legacy systems following successful implementation and stabilization.

Q31 Question: Will customer service users require direct access to Maximo or interact only through integrated systems such as Salesforce or CC&B?

Q31 Answer: Customer service requests may be submitted to Austin Water through a variety of sources, including Salesforce, CC&B, Motorola CSR (311), and through Austin Water’s Customer Service Contact Center by phone or email. Austin Water is seeking an EAM that supports a portal where customers (internal and external) can submit requests and view updates or closure information for previously submitted requests.

Q32 Question: Does Austin distinguish between capital assets and inventory items? If so, where is each maintained?

Q32 Answer: Austin Water distinguishes between maintainable assets/equipment and inventory items/parts. Assets and equipment are maintained as asset records within the applicable asset management system, while inventory items and parts are maintained within the inventory management functionality and associated storerooms.

The proposed EAM solution is expected to support both asset lifecycle management and inventory management as described in Appendix C – Functional Requirements and Appendix B – Business Use Cases.

Q33 Question: Are asset records created first in GIS, the CMMS, or another system?

Q33 Answer: Most horizontal assets are created first in GIS with some exceptions. Meter assets records are created first in CC&B, Water and Wastewater Service Lines are created in the CMMS via integration with Amanda (based on approved permits), and some other assets are created directly in CMMS either individually or through csv import (i.e. MTUs and Registers). Horizontal asset records sync regularly with GIS. Vertical assets are created in Hexagon EAM manually or via import and separately created in GIS with no automated sync between the two systems.

Q34 Question: Is the future CMMS expected to be the primary Service Request intake system, or will requests continue to originate in systems such as:

• Salesforce

• CC&B

• Austin 311

• MyATX

Q34 Answer: Service Request intake will continue via multiple sources, including the systems listed above.

In addition, Service Requests may be initiated within the asset management system by Austin Water’s Customer Service Contact Center for phone or email reports. Austin Water is seeking an EAM which will also support a portal for customers (internal and external) to submit service requests and view updates or closure information for previously submitted requests.

Q35 Question: Which application currently owns customer records?

Q35 Answer: CC&B currently owns customer records.

Q36 Question: For each functional area (Asset Management, Work Management, Inventory, Procurement, Customer Service, GIS, Meter Operations, Inspection Management, Contractor Management, and Reporting), please indicate whether Austin expects the proposed solution to:

• Replace the current application,

• Remain integrated with an existing application, or

• Coexist with another authoritative system.

Q36 Answer: Austin Water is seeking to consolidate its two disparate CMMS/EAM systems into a unified solution. The system should remain integrated with all existing applications listed in Appendix D – Technical Requirements, F. Systems - Interfaces.

Q37 Question: What Permitting system does Austin Water use?

Q37 Answer: The City uses a single permitting system for all departments. The system currently in place is AMANDA; however, a bid was recently awarded to replace AMANDA with Clariti. The project is expected to begin in January 2027 and take 3 to 4 years to complete.

Q38 Question: The industry is steadily shifting from time-based preventive maintenance toward risk- and condition-based strategies, which depend on a defined criticality framework and consistent failure coding. Does Austin Water have an asset criticality model in place today, or is establishing one part of this initiative?

Q38 Answer: Austin Water currently has an asset criticality and risk framework in place, including standardized Condition, Criticality, and Risk scores. These capabilities are currently supported through the existing EAM environment and are used as inputs to asset management and maintenance decision-making.

Risk Mitigation is an area that has not yet been fully realized and may be further developed as part of the future-state approach.

Austin Water expects the proposed solution to support and maintain these existing asset condition, criticality, and risk management capabilities while allowing the framework to be enhanced as asset management practices mature. The solution should also support timely access to asset and work management data to enable Austin Water to perform additional risk, condition, and asset-management analysis using enterprise reporting and analytical capabilities.

Q39 Question: The capability model references digital twin / 3D modeling, BIM on mobile, and ML based predictive maintenance. In our experience these deliver value only once the asset register, hierarchy, and failure-history data are mature. Could you indicate which of these are must-have at go-live versus future-state aspirations, so the roadmap can be phased appropriately?

Q39 Answer: Please refer to Addendum No. 5, Question 12, and Addendum No. 3, Questions 8 and 10.

Austin Water has not prescribed Digital Twin/3D modeling, BIM, or ML-based predictive maintenance as capabilities that must all be operational at initial go-live.

Offerors should propose the implementation roadmap and sequencing that best satisfies the Solicitation requirements and associated dependencies. Each production release must include the capabilities and integrations necessary to support the business processes included in that deployment wave.

Q40 Question: What type of Inventory are you tracking?

Q40 Answer: Austin Water tracks inventory used to support maintenance and operational activities, including maintenance and repair parts, materials, supplies, tools, safety equipment, and other operational items. Inventory may be maintained across storerooms, warehouses, vehicles, and other designated inventory locations.

Inventory requirements vary by operational area and may include additional controls such as lot tracking, expiration dates, warranty information, regulatory or compliance documentation, and other item-specific attributes as applicable. Offerors should refer to Appendix B – Business Use Cases and Appendix C

– Functional Requirements for the detailed inventory management capabilities required of the proposed solution.

Q41 Question: Will you require AI functionality to be enabled as part of this deployment?

Q41 Answer: No. AI functionality is not required to be enabled as part of the initial deployment. Offerors may identify available AI, machine learning, predictive analytics, or related capabilities as part of their proposed solution. Any future use or enablement of AI functionality will be evaluated by the City in accordance with applicable City policies, security, privacy, data governance, and business requirements.

Please refer to Addendum 3, Question 8 for additional clarification.

Q42 Question: Approximately how many assets, work orders, and preventive maintenance schedules will be migrated?

Q42 Answer: This was addressed in Addendum No. 1, Question 7. The estimated migration volumes are approximately 2,609,800 assets, 1,543,000 work orders, and 1,700 preventive maintenance schedules across IPS and HxGN EAM.

Q43 Question: Outside of any migration approximately how many devices / assets and locations will this project cover? (example 15 remote sites, 300 vehicles, 200 radios etc.)

Q43 Answer: Austin Water does not currently have a definitive count of physical devices, assets, and locations by individual asset type for purposes of this Solicitation. Offerors should refer to the asset, location, and related record volumes previously provided in the Solicitation and Addenda as the best available estimates for solution sizing and implementation planning. Please check Addendum 1, Question No. 7.

Q44 Question: Can Austin Water provide estimated counts for named assets, functional locations, Linear assets, equipment records, and inventory items?

Q44 Answer: Please refer to Addendum 1, Question 7 and Addendum 2, Questions 12 and 13 for estimated counts.

Q45 Question: Of the approximately 2,609,800 total asset records referenced in Addendum No. 1, Q7, can you provide a breakdown by asset type/class (e.g., pipe, valve, pump, facility, vehicle)?

Q45 Answer: This question was addressed in Addendum No. 4, Question 15. Austin Water is not providing a detailed breakdown of asset types and associated asset counts as part of this Solicitation. Offerors should identify any assumptions regarding asset classifications, volumes, or implementation considerations in their Proposal.

Q46 Question: EAM programs of this scale, roughly 1,500 users across 20 divisions, succeed or fail On change management and SME availability as much as on technology. Appendix A - Business Capability Model & Austin Water Strategic Vision implies a phased delivery of approximately 17 months. Could you share the expected availability of Austin Water SMEs and product owners, and whether a phased go-live by asset class or division is preferred over a single cutover?

Q46 Answer: Please refer to the City's prior responses regarding implementation methodology, deployment planning, and City resource participation. Austin Water has not established fixed weekly availability for SMEs or product owners. Austin Water anticipates assigning dedicated resources to support the implementation; however, most City SMEs and business resources should not be assumed to be dedicated full-time to the project. Detailed staffing, availability, and resource commitments will be established collaboratively with the selected Contractor during project initiation and discovery.

Austin Water has not prescribed a single enterprise cutover or a required basis for phased deployment.

Offerors should propose the deployment approach that best supports the requirements identified in the Solicitation while minimizing operational risk and disruption. A phased approach may be proposed by division, business process, functional capability, asset class, legacy system, user population, or an appropriate combination based on the Offeror's implementation methodology and identified dependencies.

Offerors should clearly identify the anticipated City resource requirements by implementation phase and the rationale, dependencies, resource requirements, and stabilization approach associated with the proposed deployment strategy.

Q47 Question: Please confirm the minimum and maximum number of production deployment waves the City expects and the preferred basis for sequencing, such as:

• Legacy system

• Business unit

• Asset class

• Functional capability

• Geographic area

• User population

Q47 Answer: Austin Water has not prescribed a minimum or maximum number of production deployment waves or a single required sequencing approach. As clarified in Addendum No. 3, Question 12 and Addendum No. 5, Question 10, Offerors should propose an appropriate deployment strategy and sequencing by business unit, functional capability, legacy system, asset class, geography, user population, or a combination thereof, based on dependencies, risk, organizational readiness, and implementation best practices.

Q48 Question: Please provide the expected weekly time commitment and availability by project phase for the following City roles. This is important for us to understand how much effort we need to put as a vendor.

• City Project Manager

• Functional SMEs

• Data owners and data stewards

• Integration and application owners

• Testers and UAT leads

• OCM leads and change champions

• Deliverable approvers

Q48 Answer: This was addressed in Addendum No. 3, Question 15, and Addendum No. 5, Question 17.

Austin Water has not established fixed weekly time commitments by City role. City resources are generally expected to participate part-time, with involvement varying by project phase and activity.

The City will provide a dedicated City Project Manager as identified in the Scope of Work. Offerors should identify their anticipated City resource needs by role and project phase in Appendix F – Implementation Plan Workbook. Final assignments, availability, and time commitments will be established during project initiation and implementation planning.

Q49 Question: When was Austin Waters strategic plan performed and delivered?

Q49 Answer: Austin Water’s strategic plan was performed and delivered in 2025.

Q50 Question: Can you provide an organizational chart or reporting structure for the divisions/business areas identified in Scope of Work Section 1.3?

Q50 Answer: Austin Water is not providing a separate organizational chart as part of this Solicitation.

Please refer to Appendix A - Business Capability Model & Austin Water Strategic Vision, for information regarding the business areas and capabilities within the scope of the implementation.

Organizational roles, stakeholders and reporting relationships relevant to the project will be further identified during implementation planning.

Q51 Question: Regarding Appendix C – Functional Requirements, can the City provide the anticipated number of concurrent field technicians, dispatchers, supervisors, and back-office users expected to utilize the Field Service solution?

Can Austin Water provide a breakdown of the approximately 1,500 users by role (administrators, planners, supervisors, dispatchers, technicians, warehouse staff, engineers, customer service, executives, read-only users)?

Regarding field-service and mobile-user sizing, the City has identified approximately 1,500 potential users and indicated that approximately 50 percent may require mobile capabilities.

To support accurate mobile and field-service architecture, licensing, scheduling, routing, and implementation estimates, please provide planning-level estimates, where available, for:

a. Field technicians;

b. Crews and average crew size;

c. Dispatchers and schedulers;

d. Field supervisors;

e. Contractors who will receive or execute assigned work;

f. Mobile inventory users;

g. Number of operating shifts;

h. Geographic service territories or dispatch areas;

i. Average and peak daily work orders, inspections, appointments, and emergency assignments; and

j. Approximate maximum concurrent mobile users.

Where detailed estimates are not available, may Offerors document reasonable licensing assumptions separately for mobile EAM execution and advanced field-service scheduling and optimization?

Approximately how many external contractors will require licensed access?

Can you provide the approximate number of users by division/business area (rather than by role, which was addressed in Addendum No. 2, Q15)?

Q51 Answer: Please refer to the City's prior responses regarding the approximately 1,500 potential users, anticipated mobile usage, and user licensing assumptions, as well as Appendix B – Business Use Cases and Appendix C – Functional Requirements for the field, mobile, scheduling, dispatch, inventory, inspection, and work management capabilities required of the proposed solution.

Austin Water does not currently have validated planning-level counts for each of the individual user categories and operational volumes identified in the question, including field technicians, crews and crew sizes, dispatchers/schedulers, field supervisors, contractors, mobile inventory users, maximum concurrent mobile users, or average and peak daily field-service transactions.

Austin Water operates across multiple shifts and service areas throughout its service territory; however, detailed shift and dispatch-area counts are not being prescribed for solution sizing. Offerors should design their proposed mobile and field-service approach to support the operational requirements and Business Use Cases identified in the Solicitation.

Where detailed counts are not available, Offerors may develop and clearly document reasonable planning and licensing assumptions. Offerors may separately identify assumptions and licensing requirements for mobile EAM execution and advanced field-service scheduling, routing, and optimization where their proposed solution differentiates between these capabilities. Any assumptions, dependencies, limitations, or licensing thresholds should be clearly identified in the proposal.

Q52 Question: Is organizational change management expected to include communications, stakeholder management, and training development, or only end-user training?

Q52 Answer: Organizational Change Management is expected to extend beyond end-user training and should include appropriate communications, stakeholder engagement and management, organizational readiness, adoption support, and change-related activities necessary to support successful implementation of the proposed solution.

Training and Knowledge Transfer are also required components of the implementation and should include development and delivery of training appropriate to the applicable user roles. Offerors should propose an OCM and training approach appropriate for an enterprise implementation of this scale and identify the respective responsibilities of the Contractor and Austin Water.

Q53 Question: (Ref. Pricing Submittal Form lines 1.5.1–1.5.3) The three training line items each use a unit of measure of "EA." Please confirm whether the quantities represent persons trained, classes or sessions delivered, or training days. Given Addendum 3 Q18, please also confirm whether line 1.5.3

(quantity 1,000) assumes Contractor-delivered end-user training or Contractor-developed materials delivered by City trainers.

Q53 Answer: For Pricing Submittal Form lines 1.5.1 through 1.5.3, the unit of measure "EA" represents the estimated number of persons to be trained, not the number of classes, sessions, or training days. The quantities are provided for pricing and planning purposes.

Regarding end-user training, please refer to Addendum No. 3, Question 18. Austin Water is open to multiple training delivery approaches, including Contractor-led training, train-the-trainer, blended delivery, or another methodology recommended by the Offeror. The quantity of 1,000 does not prescribe that all end-user training must be delivered directly by the Contractor. Offerors should price and describe their proposed training methodology, including development of training materials, delivery approach, knowledge transfer, and any assumptions regarding City-delivered training.

Q54 Question: Approximately how many external contractors will require licensed access?

Q54 Answer: Please refer to Addendum No. 2, Questions 14 and 15 regarding anticipated user counts and licensing assumptions. Austin Water has not finalized a separate estimated count of external contractors requiring licensed access. Offerors should account for the external contractor access requirements identified throughout the Solicitation and recommend an appropriate licensing approach based on their proposed solution, including any assumptions regarding contractor, portal, limited-access, concurrent, or other applicable license types.

Q55 Question: Are kiosk/shared-device scenarios anticipated for field crews?

Q55 Answer: Yes. Austin Water anticipates a mix of dedicated and shared-device scenarios. In most cases, devices are assigned to individual users; however, shared devices are used in some treatment facilities, and some mobile devices may also be shared among field or operational staff.

Offerors should account for both individual and shared-device use cases in their proposed solution, including appropriate user authentication, security, licensing, and session management.

Q56 Question: Regarding portal user experiences and functional scope, Addendum No.1 identifies three user experiences:

1. Internal City Users;

2. External Customers; and

3. External Contractors.

Appendix D – Technical Requirements also references a Staff Portal, Contractor Portal, and Facilities Portal for internal building-maintenance requests.

Please confirm:

• Whether an external customer or public portal is required in addition to the internal Facilities Portal;

• Which portal must support work-request submission, status tracking, document upload, and customer communication;

• Which portal must support contractor work assignments, estimates, proposals, work updates, document submission, invoicing, and payment-status visibility;

• Whether external customers and contractors will use City-managed identities, social identities, invitation-based access, or another authentication model;

• Whether all portal capabilities are required for the initial production release or may be delivered in subsequent phases; and

• Approximate numbers of external customers, contractors, vendors, and facilities requestors who may require portal access.

Q56 Answer: Please refer to Addendum No. 1, Question 6, Appendix B – Business Use Cases, and Appendix C – Functional Requirements for the required portal user experiences and functional capabilities. As previously clarified, Austin Water requires support for Internal City Users, External Customers, and External Contractors; however, these experiences are not required to be delivered through separate technical portal applications.

The Facilities Portal requirements support internal City employees submitting and tracking facilities-related requests and associated communications. This internal Facilities experience does not replace the External Customer user experience identified in the Solicitation. The applicable Business Use Cases and Functional Requirements define the required work-request, status, document, communication, and contractor-facing capabilities.

Internal City users are expected to utilize the City's enterprise identity and SSO environment. The specific authentication and identity-management approach for external customers and contractors has not been prescribed. Offerors should propose an appropriate secure approach for external access and clearly identify any assumptions, dependencies, licensing, or City services required.

Austin Water has not prescribed that all portal capabilities must be delivered in the initial production release. Offerors should propose an appropriate implementation and deployment sequence consistent with the requirements and business processes included within each deployment wave.

Austin Water has not established validated counts of external customers, contractors, vendors, or Facilities requestors requiring portal access. Offerors should identify their proposed licensing approach and any assumptions regarding external, portal, limited-access, or other applicable user types.

Q57 Question: The solicitation cites approximately 60 GB / 120M records in Infor Public Sector and 25 GB / 55M records in Hexagon EAM. To size the migration accurately, could you share (a) the split of active versus historical records, (b) the volume and storage location of attachments, images, PDFs, and CAD files, and (c) whether full history must be migrated into the new system or can be archived and made accessible read-only?

Q57 Answer: Please refer to the prior Addenda responses regarding legacy data volumes, migration, records retention and attachment volumes.

HxGN EAM currently has approximately 13,300 open work orders, and IPS has approximately 11,500 open work orders. A comprehensive active-versus-historical breakdown for all database records is not available.

Updated attachment analysis identifies approximately 9.1 million files totaling 4.7 TB across the existing environments.

Applicable asset records are subject to the City's records-retention requirements of the life of the asset plus 10 years. Approximately 99% of assets are either active or remain within the applicable retention period and should be assumed to require migration.

The City is not establishing an age-based cutoff for historical data. Offerors may propose a tiered migration or archival approach, subject to City review and approval and applicable records-retention, accessibility and reporting requirements. Final migration volumes and disposition will be determined during discovery and migration planning.

Q58 Question: Across EAM replacements, data quality in the legacy asset hierarchy, rather than the migration mechanics, is usually the largest schedule risk, and many utilities use the project as an opportunity to rationalize asset naming, hierarchy, and criticality.