RFP_2200_GTG3007_ATT_17_v1.pdf

SOLICITATION ADDENDUM

AUSTIN FINANCIAL SERVICES – CENTRAL PROCUREMENT

Revised 10/01/2024

Solicitation: RFP 2200 GTG3007 Addendum No: 7 Date: 8/31/2026

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

1. Clarifications:

1.1. Appendix C – Functional Requirements V1 published with the solicitation has been deleted and replaced with the following, Appendix C – Functional Requirements V2.

1.2. Section Appendix C – Functional Requirements (Tab: Treatment Operations) is updated as follows:

ID #17 | Analytics and Reporting | Predictive Analytics | System shall accommodate Austin Water’s predictive maintenance scoring matrix (ITG system) with dashboard alignment to plant operations goals.

Is deleted and replaced with:

ID #17 | Analytics and Reporting | Predictive Analytics | System shall accommodate predictive maintenance with alignment to plant operations goals.

2. Questions:

Q1 Question: For inventory-tracked assets (meters, MTUs, valves, parts), which system owns: Asset master records?

o Inventory quantities?

o Installation history?

o Serialized inventory tracking?

Q1 Answer: For the majority of inventory-tracked assets, GIS owns asset master records, while inventory tracking and installation history is owned by the Enterprise Asset Management (EAM)/ Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS). Meter asset and inventory information is maintained across multiple systems. The authoritative source for specific meter data elements and the future-state system of record will be further defined during discovery and implementation.

Q2 Question: Which application serves as the authoritative source for asset location and GIS attributes?

Q2 Answer: As clarified in Addendum No. 5, Question 37, for horizontal infrastructure, the City’s Esri GIS platform will remain the authoritative system of record for spatial asset data, including asset location and GIS-managed attributes. The EAM will manage related operational, maintenance, inspection, condition, and work-management information while integrating and synchronizing with GIS.

Detailed data ownership, attribute stewardship, synchronization rules, and conflict-resolution responsibilities between GIS and the EAM will be validated collaboratively during discovery and solution design.

Q3 Question: What system is the system of record for meter assets?

Q3 Answer: Meter asset information is currently maintained across multiple systems. The authoritative source for specific meter data elements and the future-state system of record will be further defined during discovery and implementation. For additional guidance review Addendum 6, Question 35.

Revised 10/01/2024

Q4 Question: Which system owns meter exchange history and meter lifecycle management?

Q4 Answer: The EAM/CMMS should own meter exchange history and meter lifecycle management. This information is integrated into other systems such as CC&B.

Q5 Question: Can you define the "ITG system for predictive maintenance" that Austin Water uses? (This is referenced in Appendix C - Functional Requirements, Treatment Operations tab, ID #17) Q5 Answer: Austin Water has updated this requirement from the Functional Requirements (Appendix C - Functional Requirements, Treatment Operations tab, ID #17). Please refer to clarifications above in section 1.

Q6 Question: Scope of Work (SOW) Section 5.1's Minimal Milestones table includes "Sprint / Release Demonstrations and Acceptance" as a listed milestone. For Offerors proposing a phased/waterfall (non- Agile) implementation methodology, does a functional walkthrough or demonstration at appropriate points in the schedule satisfy this milestone, or is a sprint-based demonstration cadence specifically required?

Q6 Answer: Austin Water has not prescribed a specific implementation methodology. Offerors may propose the implementation methodology they believe best meets the requirements of the Solicitation.

For Offerors proposing a phased, waterfall, hybrid, or other non-Agile methodology, functional walkthroughs or demonstrations conducted at appropriate points in the implementation schedule may satisfy the Sprint / Release Demonstrations and Acceptance milestone, provided the proposed approach meets the applicable acceptance criteria identified in SOW Section 5.1.

Offerors should clearly describe their proposed demonstration, review, and acceptance approach in Appendix F – Implementation Plan Workbook.

Q7 Question: The Pricing Submittal Form lists onboarding training for 1,000 users, power-user training for 30, and system-administrator training for 10. Could you confirm the split of field versus office users and the preferred training model (train-the-trainer versus vendor-led)?

Q7 Answer: Austin Water does not currently have a defined breakdown of field versus office users for the training quantities identified in the Pricing Submittal Form.

As addressed in Addendum No. 3, Question 18, Austin Water is open to multiple training delivery approaches. Offerors should propose the training methodology they recommend based on their experience implementing comparable enterprise asset management solutions and supporting similar user populations

Q8 Question: (Ref. Addendum 3 Q22; Appendix D – Technical Requirements General Technology req. 20) Addendum 3 directs Offerors to assume migration in accordance with the City's records retention requirements, and Appendix D identifies Austin City Code §2-11-11 and the Texas Local Government Records Act as the governing authorities, but the applicable retention schedule is not included in the solicitation. Please provide the retention schedule, or the retention period in years by record series, for the record types listed in Addendum 3 Q22.

Q8 Answer: Please refer to Addendum 6, Questions 59 and 70.

Q9 Question: Are all third-party systems available through REST APIs, or will legacy interfaces need to be supported?

Q9 Answer: Please refer to Addendum No 3, Question 3 and Addendum Number 5, question 33 for additional details.

Q10 Question: Regarding Boomi and Oracle Integration Cloud responsibilities, Addendum No. 4 states that Austin Water utilizes Boomi as its preferred enterprise integration platform and that Offerors should assume Boomi will be used for system integrations unless otherwise approved by the City.

Please clarify whether Oracle Integration Cloud may be used as the Oracle-native integration and orchestration layer between components of the proposed solution, while Boomi serves as the City’s enterprise integration gateway for interfaces with Austin Water boundary systems.

Alternatively, does Austin Water require all integrations, including integrations between components of the proposed solution, to be developed, deployed, monitored, and supported through Boomi?

Please also clarify whether Austin Water will provide the required Boomi licenses, environments, platform administration, development access, and technical resources, or whether the Offeror should include any Boomi licensing, environment, platform, or implementation costs in its proposal.

Q10 Answer: As clarified in Addendum No. 4, Question 17, Boomi is the City’s preferred enterprise integration platform. Offerors should assume Boomi will be used for integrations between the proposed EAM solution and City boundary systems unless otherwise approved by the City.

Oracle Integration Cloud or another integration/orchestration capability may be proposed only for vendor-managed components of the proposed solution where appropriate. Any such approach must be clearly identified and justified in the Proposal, including associated architecture, licensing, support, and administration requirements, and will be subject to City review and approval.

For proposal purposes, the City will provide the required Boomi licenses, environments, platform administration, development access, and City Boomi technical resources. The City’s Enterprise Data Services team will support development and management of the Boomi integrations. The selected Contractor is expected to provide the necessary solution-side technical expertise, interface requirements, specifications, configuration, testing, and troubleshooting support necessary to successfully implement the end-to-end integrations.

Q11 Question: Ref. Appendix D, Tab F, Interface 2) Interface 2 requires two-way integration with "Maximo, used by other City of Austin departments."

Please provide the product edition and version in use and which departments operate it. We note the Pricing Submittal Form, line 1.4, already identifies Maximo as "(cloud)"; please confirm whether that denotes a City-managed cloud tenancy or an IBM/vendor-managed SaaS subscription. We also note that the Interface 2 row shows "B" in the Real-Time/Batch column while the One-Way/Two-Way column is blank, although the narrative states "two way”. please confirm the intended direction and latency. Finally, if an Offeror proposes the same platform already operated by other City departments, would this interface be satisfied by a shared or federated deployment, and how should that approach be reflected on the Pricing Submittal Form?

Q11 Answer: Austin Water currently supports an integration between Infor Public Sector (IPS) and Maximo Application Suite v9 to facilitate cross-collaboration with the Transportation Public Works department. The integration is two-way, sending street cut information (resulting from work performed by Austin Water) to Transportation Public Works for street repair. Completion information is returned to the originating work order in IPS. Refer to Addendum 6, Question 71 and Addendum 7, Question 12 for additional integration details.

The Maximo Application Suite (MAS) environment is hosted by IBM, and the City is not providing further environment details or existing licensing information at this time. The indication of “cloud” on the Pricing Submittal Form reflects this hosted arrangement.

At this stage, the City is not prepared to determine whether a shared or federated deployment model would satisfy Interface 2. That decision will be made during discovery and implementation planning if the selected vendor proposes the same platform. Offerors should propose the solution and integration approach that reflects their experience, industry best practices, and the most effective implementation strategy. Pricing should correspond directly to the approach proposed.

Q12 Question: Financial systems, Chart of Accounts, procurement, and project-cost integration, Addendum No. 3 states that Austin Water does not utilize a single centralized ERP and that financial and related functions are supported through Citywide applications including AIMS, eCAPRIS, and eCOMBS.

Please clarify:

o Which application is the authoritative source for the Chart of Accounts, general-ledger account strings, cost centers, funds, departments, projects, and capital-program codes;

o Which application manages purchase requisitions, purchase orders, receiving, accounts payable, invoices, vendor information, and contracts;

o Which application manages capital-project budgeting and funding;

o Which financial, procurement, and project-cost information must be exchanged with the proposed

EAM solution;

o Whether the EAM solution is expected to create purchase requisitions or purchase orders, or only exchange information with the City’s financial and procurement systems;

o Whether contractor invoicing, internal chargebacks, invoice matching, and financial reconciliation must be performed within the EAM solution; and o Whether the required financial-system interfaces must be included in the base implementation scope, despite not being separately listed in Appendix D, Section F.

For each required interface, please identify, where available, the expected direction, frequency, major business data objects, and system of record.

Q12 Answer: Austin Water uses AIMS/CGI Advantage as the authoritative financial system for accounting transactions, including Chart of Accounts information, general ledger, budgeting/funding, purchasing, receiving, accounts payable, vendor information, and contracts. eCOMBS is used by non-financial departments primarily for viewing and monitoring financial and budget information.

Austin Water currently manages inventory in IPS and HxGN EAM rather than Advantage. The future EAM solution is expected to support inventory procurement and receiving processes and exchange applicable purchase order, receipt, inventory usage/issue, cost-recovery, contract, and financial coding information with Advantage. Advantage (AIMS) will remain the financial system of record.

The proposed EAM should support creation or initiation of purchase-order, requisition, and receipt transactions necessary to support warehouse and maintenance operations, with the applicable financial transactions exchanged with and recorded in Advantage. Financial accounting, invoice payment, and financial reconciliation will remain within the City’s financial systems.

Offerors should include the integration capabilities necessary to satisfy the applicable financial, procurement, inventory, and project-cost requirements identified throughout the Solicitation. Current warehouse cost information is exported to Advantage on a nightly basis; however, the City’s objective is to increase automation and reduce duplicate data entry. Final interface direction, frequency, data objects, system-of-record assignments, and detailed specifications will be validated with the selected Contractor during implementation. Please refer to Addendum 6, Q81 for additional related guidance.

Q13 Question: Maximo departments and interface scope, Appendix D – Technical Requirements requires a two-way integration between Austin Water’s proposed Asset Management System and Maximo, which is used by other City of Austin departments, to exchange work assignments and completion information.

Please clarify:

• Which City of Austin departments or business units use Maximo for the applicable cross-department work;

• The principal business scenarios requiring collaboration between Austin Water and those departments;

• Whether the interface is limited to work assignment, status, and completion information or must also include labor, materials, equipment, costs, comments, attachments, asset information, and invoicing or chargeback data;

o Which system will be the system of record for the exchanged work;

o Whether updates may be initiated from either system;

o Approximate annual transaction volumes; and o Whether any historical Maximo records must be migrated into or made accessible from the proposed EAM solution.

Q13 Answer: Austin Water currently supports an integration between Infor Public Sector (IPS) and Maximo Application Suite v9 to facilitate cross-collaboration with the Transportation Public Works (TPW) department. When a street cut is required during the completion of Austin Water work, details of the cut type(s) (sidewalk, street, curb, etc.) and dimensions are entered into the IPS work orders. Once the work order is completed, the street cut details are transmitted to Maximo, along with the originating work order number and address. A corresponding parent work order is created in Maximo, along with child work orders for each cut on the originating work order, for TPW to complete street repairs. When all parent/child work orders are completed or the parent/child work orders are cancelled, completion/cancellation dates and associated comments are returned to IPS. No additional work order information is required to be transmitted to or from Maximo. Work orders are batched and sent to Maximo nightly, while completion/cancellation information is returned to IPS in near real-time. Approximately 5-10 transactions are processed per day. Only the street cut details and completion logs should be migrated from IPS to the new EAM/CMMS to maintain backlog awareness. There is no requirement to migrate Maximo records or make them available within the new system.

Q14 Question: CC&B product and interface scope, Addendum No. 3 states that Austin Water interfaces with the Customer Care and Billing system maintained by Austin Energy. Appendix D – Technical Requirements identifies exchanges involving asset data, meter and register information, meter readings, field activities, and service-request creation.

Please identify where available:

• The CC&B product name, current version, and hosting model;

• Supported APIs, web services, adapters, or other integration mechanisms;

• Whether CC&B is used only for billing and payment or also manages service points, premises, meters, registers, meter readings, field activities, and customer-service processes;

• The authoritative system for meter, register, premise, service-point, customer-account, and field-activity information;

• Whether field-activity status and completion information must be returned to CC&B;

• Whether work orders or service requests may originate in either system; and

• Approximate interface transaction volumes and expected processing frequency.

Q14 Answer: Austin Energy currently utilizes Oracle Customer Care & Billing v 2.9 hosted on-premise. The integration between CC&B and IPS leverages SOAP APIs, though the current CC&B version introduced the capability to leverage REST APIs. In addition to billing & payments, CC&B is the system of record for customer records, service points, premises, and meter readings. Asset and inventory data are managed across both systems. Service requests may originate in either system, with Field Activity and Service Request mappings to be further clarified during discovery and implementation. For every SR initiated from CC&B, completion information, meter read, and any associated meter or register exchange information must be returned to CC&B. The FA extract and update processes run every two minutes, processing between 35-50 records per day (each). The inventory process runs every 60 minutes, processing between 15-50 records per day. The authoritative source for specific meter data elements and the future-state system of record will be further defined during discovery and implementation.

Q15 Question: Can you tell us what data needs to be sent back to GraniteNet?

Q15 Answer: Inspections are currently generated in Infor Public Sector (IPS) and sent to GraniteNet for completion. The current integration also supports generating on-the-fly inspections within Granite Net and passing them back to IPS. Full details of the inspection data that is returned from Granite Net to the EAM/CMMS, along with transaction frequency and volumes, will be validated during discovery with the selected vendor.

Q16 Question: GraniteNet inspection responsibilities and historical data Appendix D – Technical Requirements identifies a two-way integration between the proposed Asset Management System and GraniteNet Cloud. The RFP also identifies approximately 1.9 million inspections as part of the potential historical migration volume.

Please clarify:

• Which inspection types and asset classes are currently managed in GraniteNet;

• Whether GraniteNet will remain the system of record for those inspections following implementation of the new EAM solution;

• Whether inspection work orders or assignments will be created in the EAM solution and transmitted to GraniteNet for execution;

• Whether historical GraniteNet inspection records, videos, photographs, and documents must be migrated into the proposed EAM solution or may remain in GraniteNet and be accessed through integration.

Q16 Answer: GraniteNet is the enterprise database of record for Sewer Main and Sewer Manhole data collected as part of the NASSCO inspection process, including a select number of custom fields associated with MACP and PACP inspections. Inspections should be created within the Asset Management System and passed to GraniteNet; however, the system should also accept on-the-fly inspections generated within GraniteNet. Offerors should propose an integration solution that aligns with best practices according to their system’s capabilities. GraniteNet will remain the database of record for videos, photographs, and attached documents. Therefore, these items will not be migrated or housed in the Asset Management System.

Q17 Question: Regarding Appendix C – Functional Requirements, can the City provide the expected volumes for field service activities, including scheduled work orders, emergency work orders, inspections, and service requests that will be dispatched through the proposed Field Service solution?

Q17 Answer: Please refer to Addendum No. 1, Question 8 for current annual volumes of work orders, service requests, and inspections. The City has not established a separate volume estimate for the subset of activities that will be dispatched through the proposed Field Service solution. More detailed field-service volumes, dispatch patterns, and workload characteristics will be evaluated with the selected contractor during discovery and analysis.

Q18 Question: Regarding General Questions, can the City provide the expected daily dispatch volume, average work orders per technician per day, and any anticipated future growth over the next five years?

Q18 Answer: Austin Water is not providing detailed daily dispatch volumes, average work orders per technician, or five-year growth projections as part of this Solicitation. More detailed operational volumes and workload patterns will be evaluated and shared with the selected contractor, as applicable, during discovery and analysis.

Offerors should propose a solution capable of scaling to support Austin Water’s enterprise-wide operations and anticipated growth throughout the term of the solution.

Q19 Question: (Ref. Appendix E - Security/Privacy Overlay Requirements; Tex. Gov't Code Ch. 2054 Subch.

R) Is TX-RAMP certification required for the proposed cloud solution? If so, at what point is it required — proposal, award, or go-live — is provisional status acceptable, and does certification held by the underlying cloud platform or software manufacturer satisfy the requirement for an implementation-partner Prime?

Q19 Answer: TX-RAMP certification is not required for proposed cloud solutions. Offerors should include all relevant certifications in their proposals, as additional certifications beyond the requirements may be rated higher during evaluation.

Q20 Question: (Ref. §10.3.2; Appendix E - Security/Privacy Overlay Requirements) The Appendix E control identifiers follow the NIST SP 800-53 numbering convention, but the catalog revision is not stated. Please confirm the security categorization baseline and source catalog revision being applied. Will the City also provide a pre-populated indication of which controls it intends to retain under the Control Owner (City / Vendor / Hybrid) column, so that responsibility assignments are consistent across Offerors?

Q20 Answer: The City is applying the NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5 security control catalog. The City will not provide a pre-populated designation of Control Owner (City / Vendor / Hybrid). Offerors should indicate ownership based on their solution’s capabilities. These responses will be used to support evaluation and ranking of proposals.

Q21 Question: (Ref. §10.3.2, §8.1) Will the City accept current SOC 2 Type II, ISO/IEC 27001, FedRAMP, or HITRUST attestations as evidence of control implementation? If so, may reports be referenced rather than embedded, and will they be treated as confidential and exempt from §8.1 public inspection?

Q21 Answer: Yes, while references to reports may be available for public inspection, the attestations themselves would be exempt.

Q22 Question: (Ref. Appendix D – Technical Requirements, General Technology req. 24) We note and will meet the requirement that data centers reside in the contiguous United States. Please additionally confirm whether the City requires or prohibits any specific tenancy or hosting arrangement — multi-tenant public cloud, dedicated single-tenant, or government-community cloud — and whether support and administrative personnel access to City data must be restricted to U.S. persons physically located in the United States, including for OEM escalation.

Q22 Answer: There is not a requirement for a specific tenancy or hosting arrangement if the data handling controls are met. Support personnel are permitted to have residency outside the United States; however, any data exchanged must continue to reside in the United States. Any support contracts would include language for the availability and response times of support personnel, regardless of physical location.

Q23 Question: (Ref. Appendix E - Security/Privacy Overlay Requirements; Standard Terms §3) Please confirm expectations for recurring third-party penetration testing frequency, the City's right to conduct independent security assessments of the hosted environment, any security-incident reporting obligations in addition to the four-hour Data Breach notice requirement in the Standard Terms, and vulnerability remediation service levels.

Q23 Answer: The City reserves the right to inspect/audit as needed but does not prescribe a frequency.

There is no current policy or security requirement for frequency of inspections or audits except when City of Austin IT Security determines significant changes to functionality and/or architecture have been implemented.

Q24 Question: (Ref. Appendix D – Technical Requirements, General Technology req. 21) Requirement 21 requires compliance with "WCAG 2.1 accessibility standards across all user facing interfaces." WCAG 2.1 defines three conformance levels. Please confirm the required level (A, AA, or AAA); whether "all user facing interfaces" includes the mobile application, external customer and contractor portals, and administrative interfaces; and whether a current VPAT / Accessibility Conformance Report must be submitted with the proposal or may be provided at award.

Q24 Answer: The City of Austin strives to meet Level AA of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.1), aligning with both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Austin City Manager’s Office accessibility commitment. This requirement is intended to ensure compliance with the U.S.

Department of Justice’s final rule (28 CFR § 35.200), effective June 24, 2024, which mandates that all state and local government websites and mobile apps meet Level A and AA success criteria of WCAG 2.1 by April 26, 2027 (entities over 50,000 population).

“All user-facing interfaces” encompasses:

* Mobile applications

* Public-facing websites

* External portals for customers, contractors, vendors, etc.

* Internal/administrative interfaces accessed by City users or management

A current VPAT or conformance report is not required to be submitted with the proposal, though offerors should provide documentation or information that demonstrates the solution’s ability to meet the City’s WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility requirement.

Specific compliance documentation will be collected during the contracting process, upon award.

Acceptable documentation may include:

• Completed Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates (VPATs) or Accessibility Conformance Reports (ACRs)

• Other documents or forms requested by the department in procurement solicitations that provide credible evidence of the vendor’s capability or ability to produce accessible digital products and services, which may include, but are not limited to, internal accessibility policy documents, contractual warranties for accessibility, accessibility testing documents, or examples of prior work results.

• A URL to a web page that explains how to request completed ACRs or VPATs for any products under contract

Q25 Question: (Ref. SOW §3.1, §3.2.7) Please confirm the number and type of environments the City expects (Development, Test/SIT, Training, UAT, Staging, Production, Disaster Recovery), whether all are included in the base subscription price under line 1.1.1, and whether non-production environments must be full-size copies of production Q25 Answer:

Please refer to:

• Appendix D - Technical Requirements:

o GIS – ID 48 o General Technology – ID 14

• Appendix C - Functional Requirement:

o System Administration – ID 25 o System Administration – ID 26.

Offerors should propose the solution architecture and number/type of environments that best accommodate these requirements and align with industry best practices. At this stage of the solicitation, the City is not prescribing a fixed number of environments (e.g., Development, Test/SIT, Training, UAT, Staging, Production, Disaster Recovery). Instead, we expect Offerors to describe the environments typically included in their platform subscription, identify any optional or add-on environments, and explain how their proposed architecture meets Austin Water’s functional, technical, and continuity requirements.

With respect to subscription pricing under line item 1.1.1, base pricing should include a solution that is capable of meeting the functional and technical requirements which, in this case, includes any necessary costs associated with non-prod environments. Non-production environments are not required to be full-size copies of production unless technically necessary to meet the functional or integration requirements identified in the RFP. Offerors should clearly describe sizing assumptions for all proposed environments and any implications for testing, integration, or data refresh processes.

Q26 Question: (Ref. Appendix D – Technical Requirements, General Technology req. 19) Requirement 19 states the system “shall meet MAC1 RTO ≤ 2 hours and RPO - zero data loss." Please clarify what standard or City policy defines "MAC1" and whether that definition is available to Offerors; whether "RPO – zero data loss" is intended as a literal contractual zero-data-loss commitment or as a recovery objective consistent with commercially available SaaS commitments; whether the two-hour RTO applies to production only or also to non-production environments; and whether a partial response on this requirement affects responsiveness or is scored within the Technical Architecture and Integration factor.

Q26 Answer: MAC1 refers to internal Austin Water IT standard for redundancy planning - Mission Assurance Category I (MAC I): Systems handling information that is determined to be vital to the operational readiness or mission effectiveness of Austin Water's ability to produce water, treat water, deliver water, or maintain pipelines. The consequences of loss of integrity or availability of a MAC I system are unacceptable and could include the immediate and sustained loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the water production system for the City of Austin. Mission Assurance Category I systems require the most stringent protection measures. Contingencies for these systems are hard to implement and/or do not exist.

RTO/RPO Expectations:

• The two-hour RTO applies only to Production environments.

• “RPO – zero data loss” reflects Austin Water’s recovery objective for systems in this category. It is not itself a final contractual obligation; rather, it is part of our evaluation of whether a proposed platform is capable of supporting this level of data protection for a MAC I system.

Contractual Commitments:

Contractual obligations related to RTO and RPO will be finalized during contract negotiations. At the RFP stage, Austin Water is evaluating the capabilities of the proposed solution and the vendor’s ability to meet these objectives based on platform characteristics, architecture, and available service levels.

Scoring and Responsiveness:

A partial response to this requirement does not render a proposal non-responsive. However, completeness and the degree to which the proposed solution aligns with MAC I expectations will be evaluated within the Technical Architecture and Integration factor. Offerors are encouraged to describe how their platform meets (or can be configured to meet) the stated RTO/RPO objectives.

Q27 Question: Disaster recovery and zero-data-loss requirement the technical requirements reference a

Recovery Time Objective of two hours or less, a Recovery Point Objective of zero data loss, geo-redundant storage, and disaster-recovery testing before go-live or final acceptance.

Please clarify whether “zero data loss” requires a contractual RPO of zero under all infrastructure, regional, and disaster scenarios, or whether the published recovery commitments and architecture of the proposed SaaS providers will be accepted.

For vendor-managed SaaS products, may the disaster-recovery testing requirement be satisfied through a combination of:

• SaaS-provider disaster-recovery certifications;

• Independent audit or assurance reports;

• Documented recovery-test results; and

• Tabletop testing of Austin Water-specific continuity and recovery procedures, rather than requiring the Offeror to initiate a dedicated regional failover of the SaaS platform?

Q27 Answer: At the RFP stage, the “zero data loss” requirement is intended to evaluate whether the proposed SaaS platform’s architecture, service tiers, and data-protection capabilities can support a zero data loss recovery objective for this class of critical systems. This does not establish a contractual RPO of zero for all infrastructure, regional, or disaster scenarios. Final contractual obligations related to RPO and disaster-recovery performance will be determined during contract negotiations and will take into account the SaaS provider’s published service commitments, available continuity features, and the City’s risk-management requirements.

At the RFP stage, Austin Water is not requiring all Offerors to execute a dedicated regional failover of their SaaS platform. However, the City does expect Offerors to demonstrate that the proposed platform can achieve the stated RTO/RPO objectives and maintain integration continuity after a failover. During contract negotiations and implementation planning, Austin Water may require targeted, practical validation of disaster-recovery behavior for critical integrations or authentication pathways where provider-supplied evidence is insufficient. This validation may include limited or component-level failover testing when it is necessary to ensure the platform can meet the Recovery Time and Recovery Point Objectives.

Q28 Question: Regarding Appendix D – Technical Requirements, can the City provide the expected daily transaction volumes for integrations between the proposed EAM solution and external systems, including average and peak API/message volumes?

Q28 Answer:

System Interface / Process Run / Poll Frequency Avg. Daily Messages

Aclara MDM Read Rate Events Daily, 6:55–7:05 AM ~50

Aclara MDM MTU Low Battery Alarms Daily, 4:00–5:00 AM ~6

CC&B Field Activity Update Every 2 minutes, 24/7 ~35–50

CC&B Field Activity Extract Every 2 minutes, 24/7 ~35–50

CC&B Meter Inventory Every 60 minutes, 24/7 ~15–50

Motorola CSR PremierOne / 311 311 Service Requests Every 3 minutes, 24/7 ~3–5

AMANDA Sewer/Water Service Line Daily at 4:00 AM ~5–10

AMANDA Right-of-Way Permit Every 5 minutes, 24/7 ~15

Salesforce Business Unit SR Creation Every 2 minutes, 24/7 ~5–10

Maximo Street Cut Work Orders Outbound daily at 8:00 PM ~5–10

Q29 Question: Appendix D – Technical Requirements sets disaster-recovery objectives of RTO of 2 hours or less and RPO of zero data loss (MAC-1), and performance targets of 500 or more concurrent users at 3-second response or better. Are these targets applied uniformly across all modules and integrations, or are they scoped to core transaction paths?

Q29 Answer: Targets are scoped to core transaction paths.

Q30 Question: Are there specific cybersecurity frameworks (NIST, CIS, ISO 27001, etc.) that must be met beyond the requirements listed in Appendix E?

Q30 Answer: No, all cybersecurity requirements are included in Appendix E - Security/Privacy Overlay Requirements.

Q31 Question: (Ref. Appendix E - Security/Privacy Overlay Requirements, "MOD Impact" tab) Every control in the Appendix E MOD Impact tab carries an Importance Rating of 99, which the tab defines as "mandatory," while the Vendor Support pick-list permits Meets Out-of-Box, Meets Partial, Meets w/ Customization, and Does Not Meet. Please confirm whether a response of "Meets Partial" or "Does Not Meet" on any single 99-rated control renders an Offer non-responsive or ineligible for award, or whether such responses are scored within the overall evaluation; whether compensating controls documented in the Vendor Comments column will be accepted as satisfying a mandatory control; and whether the Privacy overlay tab's 24 controls, which also all carry Importance Rating 99, carry the same consequence as the MOD Impact tab's 105, or whether the overlay applies only where the system is determined to process personally identifiable information.

Q31 Answer: A response of “Meets Partial” or “Does Not Meet” to a control rated 99 would not automatically make an Offer non-responsive or ineligible for award. Those responses would be considered as part of the overall evaluation.

Offerors may identify compensating controls in the Vendor Comments column. The City will evaluate whether those controls adequately address the intent of the requirement; however, a compensating control does not automatically mean the requirement is fully met.

The same applies to the Privacy overlay controls.

Q32 Question: In the Solicitation Instructions, Section 10.9 lists “Local Business Preference”, Section10.10 lists “Small Business Preference” – our question is that both have the following statement “ ______ responding to this solicitation and their subcontractors” – does this imply that the Local or Small Businesses must be the prime?

Q32 Answer:

This was previously addressed in Addendum No. 4, Questions 6, 7, and 8. A Local or Small Business does not have to be the Prime.

For Local Business Preference, points may be based on a qualifying Prime or subcontractor. A non-local Prime may receive Local Business Preference points through a qualifying local subcontractor.

For Small Business Preference, a non-Small Business Prime may receive preference points through qualifying certified Small Business subcontractors. Please refer to Section 10.10 in the Solicitation Instructions.

Q33 Question: In the Solicitation Instructions (Ref. §10.9, §10.11) The §10.11 table shows a single "Local Points" column, while "Small Points" is split into Prime and Sub sub-columns and captioned "highest of either Prime or Sub." Please confirm whether Local Business Preference points are available only to a local Prime, or whether they may also be earned through a local subcontractor. If subcontractor participation qualifies, what minimum percentage of contract value must flow to the local subcontractor Q33 Answer: This was previously addressed in Addendum No. 4, Questions 1, 3, 6, and 7. Local Business Preference points may be considered for a qualifying Prime and/or subcontractor. A non-local Prime may receive Local Business Preference points based on a qualifying local subcontractor.

There is no minimum participation threshold or percentage of hours required for a local subcontractor for purposes of the Local Business Preference.

3. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN THE SAME.

ACKNOWLEDGED BY:

Offeror Name Offeror Authorized Signature Date

RETURN ONE COPY OF THIS ADDENDUM WITH YOUR RESPONSE PRIOR TO THE SOLICITATION CLOSING

DATE. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER.

Solicitation: RFP 2200 GTG3007 Addendum No: 7 Date: 8/31/2026