UD-25-246 GIS Utility Network Migration RFP_Addendum 2.pdf

April 15, 2025

NOTICE TO BIDDERS

ADDENDUM NO. 2

The following changes and/or additions shall be made to the original Request for Proposal (RFP) for Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Utility Network Migration Specifications. Please acknowledge receipt of this addendum by signing and returning with your proposal.

As of April 15, 2025:

The following are answers to questions submitted:

Question 1: General: In order to provide a comprehensive and complete response to your RFx, vendor respectfully requests an extension to Monday, May 6, 2025. This will allow time for additional information from the clarification process to be incorporated into the response and ensure that we have appropriately and thoroughly addressed all requirements.

Answer 1: The RFP submittal date will be extended to May 7, 2025. See Addendum 1.

Question 2: Section 4. Response Requirements: Please allow a page count maximum of at least 120 pages; 60 pages is not long enough to include all the required responses.

Alternatively, please clarify whether additional requirements, i.e., responder's contractual documentation (Section 27.6) count toward the 60‐page maximum.

Answer 2: Total pages will be increased to 120. See Addendum 1. Add a new section:

Section O. Proposed Terms and Conditions (if applicable) which will serve as the information needed for Section 27.6 (Proposals must include all proposed terms and conditions, including, without limitation, written warranties, maintenance/service agreements, license agreements, lease purchase agreements and the Proposer’s standard contract language. The omission of these documents may render a proposal non‐ responsive).

Question 3: Section 4. Response Requirements, E. Experience / References: Please clarify the number of references bidders should include with their response. Does reference information count toward the total page count maximum?

Answer 3: E. Experience / References should be included in the overall proposal. The total page count has been increased to 120. See Addendum 1.

Question 4: Section 7. Basis of Award: Is a response required to this section and, if so, where within the proposal response should it be placed?

Answer 4: No response is required.

Question 5: Section 10. Legal Disclosure: Is a response required to this section and, if so, where within the proposal response should it be placed?

Answer 5: Response is required for this section and may be included in Section G. Primary Consultant Information.

Question 6: Section 12. Addendum (If applicable): Please clarify where, within the required proposal response format, the signed addenda should be included.

Answer 6: This document, Addendum 2, has been provided which includes the questions submitted and the answer to those questions. The document must be signed and submitted with the RFP. Signed Addenda should be attached at the end of the proposal submission.

Question 7: Section 17 Billing & Invoicing, 17.1: Please clarify where, in the required proposal response format, the sample invoice shall be placed.

Answer 7: Add the sample invoice to a new section under Section K:

g) Sample Invoice

Question 8: Section 27 Terms, Conditions and Exceptions, 27.6: Please clarify where any additional documentation required with the submission shall be located. Can proposers add an additional Section O for attachments and will the additional required documentation, i.e., "proposed terms and conditions" count toward the 60‐page limit.

Answer 8: A new section has been created, Section O: Proposed Terms and Conditions to accommodate for the documentation proposed terms and conditions stated in section

27.6. The company’s Terms and conditions do not need to be submitted if you do not have any exceptions to the RFP terms and conditions / sample agreement.

Question 9: Exhibit A: Scope of Work: Is a point by point response to the SOW required with the proposal response? If so, where should it be placed? If so, does it count toward the page limit?

Answer 9: The response to the Scope of Work should be placed under Section I: Work Plan/Methodology. A point by point response is not required for Section I: Work Plan/Methodology. Additionally, state in what ways and for what reasons the proposal deviates from the scope of work as presented by LBPUD. The total page count has been increased to 120 to accommodate for a point‐by‐point response but is not required.

Question 10: Exhibit A, Task 2: Are the water and wastewater databases in separate databases with their own geometric networks? Or are they combined and only water has a geometric network?

Answer 10: These are separate datasets with separate geometric networks. They are currently on the same database, but the plan is to create new database for sewer and migrate water into the existing UN database for recycled water The geometric network has been dropped for potable and sewer but can be re‐created.

Question 11: Exhibit A, Task 3: Is LBPUD requesting only recommendations on what should be done for Attribute Assistant and any existing auto‐updaters/customizations?

Or is LBPUD also expecting a firm fixed price on potential work to implement said recommendations?

Answer 11: Please provide a fixed price for the migration of attribute assistant auto‐ updaters/customization.

Question 12: Exhibit A, Task 3: How many customizations/auto‐updaters is currently in use at LBPUD? Can a list of them be provided?

Answer 12: Most of the attribute assistant auto‐updaters have been migrated to Arcade.

LBPUD would like a fixed price to migrate the From_Junction_Field and the To_Junction_Field for Gravity Mains and Water Mains.

Table Name Field Name Value Method Value Info

GravityMain UPSTREAMID FROM_JUNCTION_FIELD USERID

GravityMain DWNSTREAMID TO_JUNCTION_FIELD USERID

GravityMain USERID EXPRESSION ([UPSTREAMID]&[DWNSTREAMID])

WaterMain USERID_TO TO_JUNCTION_FIELD USERID

WaterMain USERID_FR FROM_JUNCTION_FIELD USERID

WaterMain USERID EXPRESSION ([USERID_FR]&[USERID_TO])

GASTRACEWEIGHT field gets calculated using several other fields in ArcFM. GASTRACEWIEGHT is used for the geometric network

Question 13: Exhibit A, Task 3: Is LBPUD requiring ArcGIS Enterprise content/application migration and/or implementation beyond what's needed for utility network data maintenance, if so can you please provide a list of applications/content?

Answer 13: LBPUD only requires the recommendation and implementation to migrating the three datasets (gas, potable, sewer) to the utility network. The potable data will be migrated into the existing UN server and database established for recycled water. Gas will be migrated into a new server and database, and sewer will be migrated into a new server and database. LBPUD is not requiring what is needed beyond the migration of the three datasets to the utility network.

Question 14: Exhibit A, Task 4: Is LBPUD requesting only recommendations on what should be done with the existing integrations? Or is LBPUD also expecting a firm fixed price on potential work to implement said recommendations?

Answer 14: The purpose of Exhibit A, Task 4 is to let vendors know we have integrations with other systems, and data captured during the transition period needs to be migrated to the new system. Assistance with integration with 3rd Party systems is not needed. We wanted proposers to be aware. For example, all information associated with valve exercising and hydrant inspection will be migrated to the new utility network database.

Currently, water and sewer ops are writing back to the live data out in the field. These deltas will need to be migrated to the new database.

LBPUD is requesting a firm fixed price on potential work to implement recommendations.

I don't think we will need assistance with the integration of DNV Inspection Manager. But we many need help with the instigation of DNV Synergi Hydraulics (future replacement of Synergi Pipeline) because it will be integrated with live production GIS data. Currently, both applications are dependent on ArcMap technology.

Question 15: 3.4 Electronic Submittal versus Exhibit D: RFP Checklist‐ RFP 3.4 indicates:

"Proposals shall only be submitted electronically via the City’s secure online bidding system Long Beach Buys portal"; however Exhibit D notes: that we are to submit the RFP Cover page (signed in ink) and Bonds (if applicable) in hard copy with RFP. Is a hard copy of the cover page required as indicated here? If so, does it need to be received prior to the online submission deadline?

Answer 15: The cover page must be signed and included with the proposal to be submitted electronically on Long Beach Buys. A hard copy of the cover page is not required.

Question 16: 4. Response Requirements versus Attachment II: Statement of Non‐ collusion‐ Section 4 indicates the following: RFP is valid for 90 days and the RFP cannot be withdrawn within that time while Attachment II indicates: This proposal is submitted as a firm and fixed request valid and open for six (6) months from the submission deadline.

Which is the actual required validity period, 90 days or 6 months?

Answer 16: The required validity period for submitted proposals will be 6 months.

Question 17: F. Staffing and Key Personnel‐ Will LBPUD allow offshore resources? Please note that these resources are not subcontractors.

Answer 17: Project team personnel location does not have restrictions but must comply with the requirements listed in Section 4. F. Staffing and Key Personnel.

Question 18: RFP 3.15 versus Attachment I Statement of Compliance‐ If we do not have any exceptions to the RFP terms and conditions / sample agreement, does LBPUD want us to also include a copy of our company's Terms and Conditions document?

Answer 18: No need to submit terms and conditions if you don’t have any exceptions. See Answer 8.

Question 19: K. Cost Proposal/Fee Schedule ‐ The Consultant’s fees shall be itemized in accordance with the attached spreadsheet (Attachment VIII) and include cost and billing schedule of current hourly billing rates‐ Can you clarify if you expect the project to be billed/priced as T&M not‐to‐exceed or Fixed Price.

Answer 19: The project will be billed/priced as T&M not‐to‐exceed.

Question 20: 16.3. Proposer must provide detailed fixed prices, including all costs associated with the responsibilities and related services indicated herein. Clearly specify the nature of expenses anticipated and the amount of each category for expenses.‐ Can you clarify if you expect the project to be billed/priced as T&M not‐to‐exceed or Fixed Price.

Answer 20: The project will be billed/priced as T&M not‐to‐exceed.

Question 21: Exhibit A ‐ Task A – h‐ Can you confirm that all deliverables will need to be mailed or faxed? What is the expected turnaround time for delivery once the document/deliverable is signed off on? Or does the deliverable need to be mailed/faxed prior to your official signoff? What are the expectations on how documentation is mailed?

Answer 21: Paper copies of deliverables will need to be mailed, we do not accept faxes.

Expected turnaround time for delivery once the deliverable has been approved is pending project schedule, but shall not be less than 5 business days. Deliverables are expected to be mailed complete.

Question 22: Exhibit A ‐ Task A – k‐ Can the meeting minutes be submitted electronically?

Answer 22: Yes. Meeting minutes can be submitted electronically.

Question 23: Task 2 ‐ Identification of Business Objectives, Goals, and Data Gaps – d‐ Has a data assessment been completed for Water and Sewer but not for Gas? If so, can you share who did the assessments or at least how long ago they took place? Have any actions been taken on those recommendations?

Answer 23: Gas has not gone through an assessment. The data assessment has been completed for Water and Sewer. The Data Reviewer checks were provided by Esri for our Water, Sewer, and Recycled Water. Most of the corrections have been made for Water.

Sewer is still missing some data.

Water Data:

Sewer Data:

There are 18,375 manholes. We capture two depths (ASBUILTDEPTH and ESTIMATEDDEPTH) and two elevations (ASBUILTRIMELEV and ESTIMATEDRIMELEV).

Missing info for the combined depth fields is 3126 and the missing info for the combine elevation field is 140.

Question 24: General‐ Is any travel expected? If so, can you provide the expectation and information on how you handle those expenses? e.g. do you abide by federal per diem rates?

Answer 24: Travel is not expected and will not be paid for by LBPUD.

Question 25: General‐ Do you have any rules/preferences on how you will provide information/documentation to the Consultant? (e.g. current state documentation)

Answer 25: Information will be provided to the selected Consultant as needed.

Question 26: Exhibit A: Scope of Work‐ How is attribute assistant being used today?

Answer 26: See Answer 12.

Question 27: Exhibit A: Scope of Work‐ What custom functionality do you have in your system? (Custom scripts or processes?)

Answer 27: Scripts will be modified by in‐house staff. No need to price the costs to migrate scripts.

Question 28: Exhibit A: Scope of Work‐ Are there any planned updates to the existing ArcGIS Enterprise system? Including upgrading ArcGIS Pro from 2.9

Answer 28: We are planning to upgrade our ArcGIS Enterprise System from 10.9.1 to 11.2 and upgrade to ArcGIS Pro 3.2. This would be an in‐house upgrade done before the start of the project unless the selected consultant would prefer to work in the current environment and upgrade later. No assistance is needed in upgrading.

Question 29: Exhibit A: Scope of Work‐ Is it LBPUD's intent to combine water and recycled water into one UN DB?

Answer 29: Yes. Recycled water has been migrated to the Utility Network. We are planning on migrating water into the existing utility network database we have for recycled water.

Question 30: Exhibit A: Scope of Work‐ Do LBPUD's potable reservoir datasets match the existing water geometric network schema?

Answer 30: The reservoir datasets are separate datasets and are not part of a geometric network. Some data exists in both data sets and others only exist in the reservoir dataset.

Schema data reports have been provided for all data sets (Reservoir, Gas, Potable, Sewer and Recycled).

Attachment A (ReservoirDataSchemaReport.xlsx) Attachment B (GasDataSchemaReport.xlsx) Attachment C (PotableDataSchemaReport.xlsx) Attachment D (SewerDataSchemaReport.xlsx) Attachment F (RecycledWaterDataSchemaReport.xlsx)

Question 31: Exhibit A: Scope of Work‐ What subnetworks do you want to model? (e.g., distribution, isolation, pressure)

Answer 31:

Water: Water System, Water Pressure, District Metered Area, Water Isolation, and Cathodic Protection Sewer: Capacity management, Flow Tracing, System Management, Data Management Gas: Gas System, Gas Pressure, Gas Isolation, Cathodic Protection

Question 32: Exhibit A: Scope of Work‐ Do you have data in GIS to support the subnetworks? (e.g., shutoff valves, stations)

Answer 32:

Water: Two pressure zones with isolation valves or control valves that isolate each zone.

The pressure zone is fed by a pump station. The other zone is gravity fed by two separate reservoirs.

Gas: 19 Emergency Isolation Districts with critical Valves, 50 Cathodic Protection Areas with insulators, and 6 Pressure Districts that are controlled by city gate stations or regulator stations

Question 33: Exhibit A: Scope of Work‐ Are you currently modeling manholes in GIS? Are you using any Third‐Party tools for this?

Answer 33: We are not modeling sewer manholes in GIS.

Question 34: Exhibit A: Scope of Work‐ How is your GIS supported from an IT perspective?

How will IT support this project?

Answer 34: The GIS department is part of the IT group at LBPUD, and currently, GIS data is the only data managed within our Azure environment. The GIS team has full control over creating new servers and databases. IT will provide support for this project if necessary. Additionally, we are in the process of hiring a consultant to help with upgrades and integrations within our Azure tenant.

Question 35: Exhibit A: Scope of Work‐ What 3D data do you currently have in your database?

Answer 35: No, we don’t have 3D data in our database. A 3D model was created for our recycled water pumpstation, but it is not in production.

Question 36: 'The selected proposer must provide a recommendation and justification for a phased migration versus an “all at once” approach.' is there a preference at LBPUD to do a phased migration?

Answer 36: Phase migration refers to migrating the three systems, gas, water, and sewer at separate times. The start times of each migration can stagger to shorten the overall length of the migration.

Question 37: The city asks for resumes in sections F & G, which section is correct/compliant?

Answer 37: Section F will be used to describe the organization of the team including subconsultants and key staff. The project manager and contact info. An org chart showing the team members and illustrating the relationship between LBPUD, the project manager, key staff and subconsultants with a brief description of the role and responsibilities of all key staff and subconsultants identified in the team organization.

Section G will contain brief resumes of key personnel who will provide these services demonstrating their qualifications and experience. Resumes should highlight education, experience, licenses, certifications, relevant experience, specific responsibilities for services described, and completion year for each project (one page per resume)

Question 38: What model are you currently using for your potable reservoir datasets?

Answer 38: The potable reservoir datasets were converted from plans and maps into AutoCAD. The AutoCAD files were imported into GIS.

See Attachment A (Reservoir Schema) and Attachment C (Potable Schema)

Question 39: Can you provide an extension on the current submission date?

Answer 39: Yes, the RFP submittal date will be extended to May 7, 2025.

Question 40: Is there a timeline the Department had targeted for a Go‐Live date?

Answer 40: Due to the complexity of the project and the amount of data no Go‐Live date has been set. Hopefully, the project can be completed in 24 months.

Question 41: Is offshore support acceptable to use for this project?

Answer 41: See Answer 17.

Question 42: Is the Utility planning to perform data cleanup and editing identified through preliminary quality reviews?

Answer 42: For the most part cleanup for water and sewer has been completed. Minor updates and changes will be made by LBPUD staff. Assistance may be needed if the consultant finds a large amount of data cleanup.

Question 43: Can the Utility provide additional insight and quantification related to Attribute Assistant rules that require migration?

Answer 43: See Answer 12.

Question 44: Task 6, Letter h requests the successful vendor to provide tools to auto populate fields for the feature classes. In advance of performing initial discovery workshops and assessments, can the Utility provide further insight into the functional requirements and which fields/feature classes would be targeted?

Answer 44: Disregard Task 6 letter H. LBPUD wants to ensure that data is migrated to the correct feature within the utility network.

Question 45: Task 2 ‐ Identification of Business Objectives, Goals and Data Gaps b. Identify and understand major business processes, workflows, and the GIS infrastructure and solutions‐ How many GIS environments (ex. Development, Test, Production) does LBPUD require for this project?

Answer 45: LBPUD has a test environment, which is a separate database within the existing Portal. LBPUD does not have an isolated development environment with a separate portal and domain within Azure. The gas data will have its own server and database as will sewer. These servers and databases can be used as testing during the project. LBPUD will create these servers and databases using ArcGIS Enterprise Cloud Builder for Azure.

Question 46: Task 2 ‐ Identification of Business Objectives, Goals and Data Gaps b. Identify and understand major business processes, workflows, and the GIS infrastructure and solutions‐ What cloud technology does LBPUD use?

Answer 46: LBPUD’s data is hosted in Microsoft Azure. See Answer 34 for more information.

Question 47: Task 2 ‐ Identification of Business Objectives, Goals and Data Gaps c. Identify data quality issues that must be resolved prior to migration‐ Does LBPUD require LBPUD staff to fix identified GIS data quality issues that need to be remediated, or would they prefer the consultant perform that work?

Answer 47: See Answer 42.

Question 48: Task 3 ‐ Data Model Design, Data Migration and Management: Data Model Design‐ We would like to have the following additional information to work on the data migration estimates:

o List of Feature/Object Classes for Gas o ArcFM version of the source Gas dataset o Any additional legacy source to be considered for data migration?

o Number of Pressure Zones for Gas o Will Landbase be Migrated?

o Project Timeline

Answer 48:

List of Feature/Object Classes for Gas – See Attachment B (GasSchemaReport.xlsx)

ArcFM version of the source Gas dataset – 10.8.1a

Any additional legacy source to be considered for data migration?

Number of Pressure Zones for Gas

Will Landbase be Migrated? No

Project Timeline: 24 months

Question 48: Task 3 ‐ Data Model Design, Data Migration and Management: Data Model Design‐ What does LBPUD mean by “phased migration”?

o Phased by migrating Gas, Water, and Sewer in separate migration streams?

o Phased by geographic area?

o Phased by migration iterations, i.e. Pilot, Mock, Production

Answer 48: See Answer 36.

Question 49: Task 6 – Final Utility Network Migration c. Use LBPUD’s existing ArcGIS Enterprise and Enterprise Geodatabase or implement separate servers and databases for UN‐ Will the LBPUD IT staff perform software installations and configurations, or do they prefer the Consultant to perform that work?

Answer 49: Our LBPUD IT/GIS staff will perform software installations and configurations by utilizing ArcGIS Enterprise Cloud Builder for Azure unless the consultant recommends a different approach.

Question 50: The RFP mentions that the recycled water network has already been migrated to a Utility Network. Could you please confirm whether this migration was conducted internally by Long Beach Utilities? Additionally, could you provide the timeframe during which this migration was completed?

Answer 50: A consultant was hired to migrate the recycled water system from the geometric network to the utility network. The project started in November 2023 and was completed June 2024.

Prepared By: Esme Houtepen Date: April 15, 2025

Acknowledged By: Date:

Firm of: