RP035_24 Ad2 Combined.pdf

August 16, 2024

Addendum #2

RP035-24

Provision and Implementation of a Taxpayer Interactive Website Portal on an Annual Contract

Please see the below summation of questions and answers for the above solicitation.

Questions:

Q1. What is the name of the company that is managing/own or using the CAMA program with

Gwinnett company?

A1. Aumentum Technologies.

Q2. What is the name of the CAMA program?

A2. Aumentum/Proval.

Q3. Where did the County’s CAMA program come from?

A3. Please see A2.

Q4. Does Gwinnett's CAMA program that is in place now have integration capabilities for other programs to integrate with the software?

A4. Yes.

Q5. Is the County looking for integration solutions for this CAMA program, or migrate to a new

CAMA solution that is more efficient with better integrations and solutions to the issues to resolve future issues?

A5. The Request for Proposal is for a solution that works with the County’s current CAMA system.

Q6. What is/are the biggest issue(s) the County has with the CAMA software now?

A6. This is not a discussion about CAMA but about a portal allowing employees and citizens alike to exchange and workflow information. The objectives listed that do not currently exist and which are a hindrance:

• Allow users to complete smart forms and submit all reporting forms online.

• Provide taxpayers access to appraisal history and property comparisons before submitting an appeal – meaning they do not have to stop the form-filling process to do research, and the research now is challenging to use. (Any user can test the current state via Property Information Search on the County’s website.)

• Should accommodate batch filing of appeals by tax representatives.

• Support ad-hoc and customizable dashboard and analytics reports in real-time.

RP035-24 Addendum #2 Page 2

• Specific needs of Real and Personal Property sections o Personal Property:

The ability to have linked accounts for businesses with multiple locations.

The view Notice of Assessments should include a link to the account(s).

o Real Property:

Conservation use valuation assessment (CUVA) - the ability to display the special use value in addition to the full appraisal value and assessed value.

Sales Questionnaire – to provide information about purchase and sale details.

Q7. Does the County’s CAMA program have cyber securities and securities protection in place to prevent data information leaks or hacking?

A7. Yes.

Q8. What securities are used to protect the CAMA software the County has now?

A8. N/A.

Q9. Is the County looking for Cybersecurity protection to protect the information for the old/New

CAMA program solution?

A9. The Request for Proposal is for a workspace/portal/way to interchange information with the public, not a CAMA system.

Q10. Does the County want the CAMA solution to be a Cloud solution, Hybrid solution, on premise (campus) solution?

A10. Please see A9.

Q11. Is the purpose of this project to replace the existing “Property Information Search” portal located at: https://gwinnettassessor.manatron.com/IWantTo/PropertyGISSearch.aspx, or is the County looking to keep the existing portal and add an additional tool that allows for the online viewing/filing of information?

A11. Long term, the goal is to replace the existing “Property Information Search”, though the County also expects some time frame of an overlap of possibly the legacy and new services being available.

Q12. Regarding the requirement “Utilize browser extensions and works with plug-ins to accurately display content in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese and Korean, at the minimum”: Does the County expect the proposed solution to provide a list of supported browser extensions and/or links within the product to download specific browser extensions? Some of the languages listed are traditionally displayed either top-to-bottom or right-to-left (or both). Does the County expect the proposed solution to detect when a user is displaying a top-to-bottom or right-to-left language and auto realign the UI to match?

A12. Ideally the solution should utilize browser extensions and suggest links to download extensions when appropriate. An auto realignment of the UI should not be necessary.

https://gwinnettassessor.manatron.com/IWantTo/PropertyGISSearch.aspx

RP035-24 Addendum #2 Page 3

Q13. Regarding the requirement “Should accommodate batch filing of appeals by tax representatives”: What information will be included in the batch upload from tax representatives? Does the County expect the result of this action to be a single filing containing 100 parcels, or 100 individual filings (one for each parcel)?

A13. Information to be included in a batch upload would be all potential information that could be provided in Georgia appeal form PT-311-A. While the information may be collected from a tax representative in a single batch, the appeal filings will need to be individual (one for each parcel).

Q14. How does the County expect the proposed solution to integrate with the existing CAMA solution? Are APIs supported, or will a custom integration be necessary?

A14. A custom integration should be anticipated. API's are not fully supported.

Q15. The RFP says: “The Tax Assessors’ Office is interested in solutions that will enhance the

TAO website to provide a user-friendly customer service experience for Gwinnett County customers.” Does the Tax Assessors’ Office (TAO) expect to partner with the selected vendor to inform/establish what that user-friendly experience looks/feels like?

A15. The County considers itself partners with each of the County’s vendors. However, the respondent is expected to demonstrate their understanding of best use cases and best practices and how they bring value to both the County and citizens at the outset. The County will have an active partnership ongoing.

Q16. Does the TAO expect the selected vendor to assist in identifying the various system end-users and to provide user insights, to include specific needs and motivations, in order to establish the best user experience?

A16. Yes.

Q17. Does the TAO expect to have the opportunity to inform desired steps and details of new workflows that support the needs of internal TAO users?

A17. The County expects an existing and working product, not custom software. The County understands there may always be some level of customization for various data hooks and flows, but that is the nature of customization the County would expect.

Q18. Does the TAO expect that the vendor will provide a level of customization that implements the desired steps and details of TAO-specific workflows?

A18. Yes.

Q19. Does the TAO expect the selected vendor to track user satisfaction metrics so that TAO can identify needed capabilities/services that further support Gwinnett County customers?

A19. This is not a requirement, but the option could have added value.

Q20. Does the TAO expect that the solution will meet Section 508 Accessibility Requirements standards to ensure access by all Gwinnett County customers, including those with disabilities?

A20. Please see A19.

Q21. How much data needs to be transferred over to the new solution if the vendor is not using the old CAMA system?

A21. This Request for Proposal focuses on a solution for the County’s current CAMA system.

RP035-24 Addendum #2 Page 4

Q22. If the old CAMA system is outdated, and cannot use a sandbox solution that has website integration with the software, is the County willing to be interested in a Custom Solution that might require more manpower, that might cost more, to meet the County’s needs for short-term solutions that would prevent long-term difficulty?

A22. No.

Q23. Is this RP035-24 connected with RP007-24 Provision of Technical Services for Website Redesign and Implementation? Will our company’s response to this RFP dictate the decision response from RP007-24 since both are dealing with the web design of the Gwinnett County website?

A23. No.

Q24. Does the County want this taxpayer software to be available to the public on the Gwinnett County Website or should this be accessed with a profile account setup or a single sign-on setup with Login requirements?

A24. The County is open to multiple solutions, but any authentication would be handled via the vendor’s solution.

Q25. Does the County want to keep track of clients going into and out of the system?

A25. Yes.

Q26. Please confirm if Exhibit A Security Requirements for Purchases is included within the solicitation document.

A26. Yes. Exhibit A Security Requirements for Purchases starts on RP035-24 Inv page 62.

Q27. How or does the County’s existing contact/call center integrate into their interactive portal?

A27. Contact/call center does not integrate into an interactive portal, nor is this a feature the

County is seeking at this time.

Q28. What version of SAP is currently in place today?

A28. N/A; this solution will not interface with SAP.

Q29. Does the County currently leverage SAP’s native workflow feature, workflow QM, and ability to support signatures? If not, why?

A29. Please see A28.

Q30: Would the County be interested in a chatbot assisting the citizen’s experience on their website?

A30: Yes.

Q31: Would the County be interested in a visual IVR experience for their citizens (i.e., guiding the caller through the application process)?

A31: No.

Q32: Would the County be interested in tracking the customer’s journey throughout their entire process?

A32: Yes.

RP035-24 Addendum #2 Page 5

Q33: How many citizens call in but have to be redirected to the County’s website to complete/submit a form?

A33: A specific metric is not available, but the County currently process around 20,000 appeals per year.

Q34: Will the County accept responses via email?

A34: No. Please refer to RP035-24 Inv page 1 and RP035-24 Addendum #1 for further details on what needs to be submitted with a response, and by which date and time responses must be physically received in the Purchasing office.

Attachments:

1. Pre-Proposal Conference Sign-in Sheet

Thank you, Casey Beauston Purchasing Associate II

This addendum should be signed in the space provided below and returned with your proposal. Failure to do so may result in your proposal being deemed non-responsive.

Company Name

Authorized Representative

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

RP035-24 Provision and Implementation of a Taxpayer Interactive Website Portal on an Annual Contract

Representative Name Company Name Phone # E-Mail Address

(DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVES SIGN-IN AT BOTTOM)

1.

Daniel Pedraza Adobe pedraza@adobe.com

2.

Mel Evans Confianz Global dba

StackBench melissa@confianzit.com

3.

Matthew Harrison Manmade Creative matt@manmadecreative.com

4.

Nicholas Smith Genesys Nicholas.J.Smith@genesys.com

5.

Peter Broomfield Manmade Creative peter.broomfield@manmadecreative.com

6.

Noor Awad Sur Consulting, LLC noor@surconsultinggroup.com

7.

Aslyn Bonds JA&E Veterans

Staffing veterans1415@gmail.com

8.

Gio Giordano Tyler Technologies Gio.Giordano@tylertech.com

9.

David Barnett Gar Associates dbarnett@gar-associates.com

10.

11.

12.

13.

Department Representative Name

Department

Department Representative Name

Department

Casey Beauston DOFS Greg Smith DOFS

Alexander Alcock TAO Tim Taylor ITS

Stewart Oliver TAO Meredith Atha TAO mailto:pedraza@adobe.com mailto:melissa@confianzit.com mailto:matt@manmadecreative.com mailto:Nicholas.J.Smith@genesys.com mailto:peter.broomfield@manmadecreative.com mailto:noor@surconsultinggroup.com mailto:veterans1415@gmail.com mailto:Gio.Giordano@tylertech.com mailto:dbarnett@gar-associates.com