Financial Information Systems Software, Addendum 1

Agency: Hall County
State: Georgia
Type of Government: State & Local
Category:
  • 70 - General Purpose Information Technology Equipment (including software).
  • D - Automatic Data Processing and Telecommunication Services
  • R - Professional, Administrative and Management Support Services
Posted: Oct 28, 2020
Due: Nov 2, 2020
Solicitation No: 41-010
Publication URL: To access bid details, please log in.
Bid Number: 41-010
Bid Title: Financial Information Systems Software, Addendum 1
Category: Bids & Proposals
Status: Open

Description:
REQUEST ADDENDUM 1

October 28, 2020

RFQ/P #41-010, Financial Information System Software, Addendum 1

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM BY INSERTING ITS NUMBER IN THE BID FORM; FAILURE TO DO SO MAY SUBJECT BONA FIDE BIDDER TO DISQUALIFICATION.

THIS ADDENDUM FORMS A PART OF THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS; IT MODIFIES THEM AS FOLLOWS:

1. A mandatory pre-bid conference was held on October 21, 2020, at 10:00am in the Hall County Government Center at 2875 Browns Bridge Road, Gainesville, GA 30504. The option to attend via a virtual link was available to any firm wishing to attend remotely in observance of Covid-19 safety protocols. The following individuals and firms were in attendance for this conference. Only those firms listed below will be eligible for bid submission acceptance:

Hall County Personnel:
Tim Sims, Purchasing Manager
Chuck Pinney, Purchasing Supervisor
Dena Bosten, Director of Financial Services
Natalie Booth, Assistant Director of Financial Services
Daniel Sexton, MIS Systems Administrator
Toby Cato, MIS

Vendors/Firms:
Alert IT Solutions, Inc, Woodridge, IL
AVAAP, Edison, NJ
BS&A Software, Bath, MI
Central Square, Lake Mary, FL
ClearGov, Maynard, MA
Creoal Consulting, LLC, Newtown, PA
Edmunds GovTech, Northfield, NJ
GovSense, LLC, Alpharetta, GA
Graviton Consulting, Inc, Sacramento, CA
Infor Inc, Gainesville, GA
Intellitime, Inc, Santa Ana, CA
Mind Katalyst, LLC, Atlanta, GA
Oracle America, Inc, North Fort Myers, FL
RE Partners Consulting, Brooklyn, NY
RPI Consultants, Baltimore, MD
Sparkrock, Chicago, IL
Springbrook Software, Portland, OR
Tyler Technologies, Duluth, GA
Vigilant Technologies, LLC, Troy, MI

2. The following items were discussed during the pre-bid conference or questions were submitted electronically prior to or after the conference:

Q1: Item 24 on page 11 mentions the need for permitting and code enforcement, but those revenue modules are not included on page 8, section 4, as one of the targeted financial activities. However, they are identified as potential interfaces on page 13. Is it the County’s intent to replace the current permitting/code enforcement and planning/zoning solution or interface those modules with the new financial system?
A1: It is not the County’s intent to replace the current permitting/code enforcement and planning/zoning solution but to continue or allow the interface of those modules with the new financial system. We would, however, like to see if the proposed solution could accommodate those functions in the future if and when those modules are brought under one umbrella.

Q2: The County’s website indicates that the project budget allocation is $1.2M, presumably for both software and implementation services. This budget amount is set to begin in FY22, July 1, 2021. Subsequent years are budgeted for $192K each. Can you tell if these budget numbers are accurate and is it a firm budget?
A2: The County has approved a budget of $1.2M for this project utilizing SPLOST VIII funding. Of that $1.2M, the County only had $125K budgeted for FY21 with the remaining $1.075M budgeted for FY22, starting on July 1, 2021. The final budget will be dictated by the actual SPLOST VIII collections.

Q3: Since the County is asking for an interface for Kronos for time and attendance, is it safe to assume the County is happy with Kronos and plans to retain the application?
A3: Yes, Hall County’s Fire Services presently utilizes Kronos for scheduling and as an interface with ADP for time and attendance purposes. It is the County’s intent to retain this application.

Q4: What is the total number of individuals presently utilizing the Accela application for planning, land use, permitting, and inspections functions?
A4: We presently have 100+ active users of Accela along with an additional 25 with view-only access. In addition to utilizing Accela for planning, land use, permitting, and inspections functions, the system is also used by Engineering for storm water management and development/construction monitoring, by Code Enforcement to manage their cases, and by Road Maintenance to manage their work orders for road work.

Q5: Can the County provide more description on the requested interfaces? For each interface, please provide the preferred integration method (data import/export via flat file, web services, API, etc.), expected frequency (real-time, daily, weekly, etc.), and direction (one-way inbound, one-way outbound, bi-directional). For the JMS and CJIS interfaces, can the County provide more clarity on the intended purpose and use-case? What information should be exchanged between these systems and the FISS? (CJIS is an organization, not a specific platform for interface.)
A5: The County will provide information related to the specific interface questions and details with the vendor who ultimately receives the award of this contract.

Q6: How are you currently using OnBase today? Do you use this tool across HR/Payroll and FISS documents?
A6: OnBase is used as an automated workflow and approval tool that is integrated with Ephesoft. It is used for our Accounts Payable process and utilized across other functions including HR and Payroll as a storage and document retrieval system. It is a requirement of MIS to remove OnBase and Ephesoft out of the equation.

Q7: On page 11, point 16, you have indicated a project tracking requirement. Can you provide some examples of what you need to track projects? How many projects do you track in a year? Do they cross fiscal years?
A7: Currently, the County has a project management module that we can assign project codes to that track the expenditures for the project length instead of by fiscal year. This expenditure tracking does cross fiscal years and is an accumulation of all expenditures for the entire length of the project. An example of this would be construction projects, new buildings, sewer lines and other Capital related items that would not be able to be completed within one fiscal year. We also use this function to track Grants that cross fiscal years as well under the same premise.

Q8: How do you currently forecast budgets today?
A8: The County’s forecasting is based on historical trend analysis and projected needs. We also utilize ProFormas to help forecast subsequent budget years.

Q9: Under section Project Planning, page 14, how does the county intend to staff this project? Will you designate a Project Manager? How many Subject Matter Experts will be assigned?
A9: The County does plan on having a Project Manager (possibly one from MIS and one from Financial Services) as a team. There could be up to twenty (20) subject matter experts assigned.

Q10: You indicated 24/7 support on product. Please provide examples of support needed outside of the regular working hours.
A10: We require 24x7x365 support to assist with any issues that may arise from use of the system. The County expects issues to be addressed in a timely manner to minimize down time, especially during our busy audit and budget seasons.

Q11: We provide our own Software License Agreements. Our suggestion is to attach this in our proposal response. Will that be an issue?
A11: Vendors should provide a copy of any specific Software License Agreements they are requesting to be utilized as part of the project award.

Q12: Is the County willing to extend the deadlines listed in this RFQ/P?
A12: No, it is the County’s intent to proceed with the schedule as outlined on page 7, Section 2, Proposal Schedule.

Q13: Item 5, Workload Evaluation on page 19 states, “Provide a comprehensive list of contracts currently in place. Include name, physical address, and type of project, plus the name, title…” This request requires giving out our client list for potential public consumption. Client lists are very closely guarded in the consulting space. I understand the County’s need to ensure that a partner can deliver the services provided, however, that is covered under the request for resumes and named resources. If a client list is deemed required, what are your steps to hold this as exempt from public disclosure and will a client and contract list without phone and contact details be deemed non-compliant?
A13: This information is required for us to be able to know if the vendor has the ability to perform and provide the product as specified. We will allow you to provide us just a contact list without phone numbers however, please note that you are withholding those due to keeping their confidentiality in place. If you are one of the chosen firms, the County may ask for contact numbers to verify your firm as a reference at a later date.

Q14: On page 2 of the RFP, it states that our submittal must have a signature in its “original form”. Our staff is all working from home due to Covid-19 and it will be very difficult to get “live” signatures from all parties, have the document notarized, and ship all twelve copies by October 29th if this addendum is not released until October 28th. May we use DocuSign for Signatures?
A14: It is acceptable to use DocuSign for signatures. The County will waive that detail during this COVID-19 period.

Q15: In the first paragraph on page 2, it states that a 100% Payment and Performance Bond may be required. Could you identify what would be the criteria for requiring those bonds?
A15: The County’s Attorney is presently evaluating the necessity for requiring Payment and Performance Bonds for a project of this type.

Q16: Item 24 under Section 5.B., page 11 states that the vendor is to provide pricing for all modules listed separately (including but not limited to human resources, permitting, payroll, licensing, code enforcement, payroll, and billing). Does the County intend to replace these Human Resources and Com Dev applications?
A16: The County is looking for a solution that we can build upon as the County grows and as our other Divisions look for other solution needs in the future. We would like to have the ability to add to the modules that we fully use at this time. We will only contract for the modules that we will be utilizing at the onset of this contract, however, we would like to see the cost of each module your system has available.

Q17: Will the County be willing to execute separate contract/agreements for each individual module?
A17: No, it is the County’s intent to sign a single contract for all provided products and services.

Q18: Does the County utilize ADP functions for just payroll or does it include taxes as well?
A18: The County utilizes ADP for both payroll and taxes.

Q19: If a vendor can only provide one portion of the requested solution, are they able to partner with additional firms to provide a complete solution?
A19: Yes, vendors may partner to provide a complete solution; however, one vendor must be identified as the Primary Vendor taking responsibility for the project. All other participating vendors must be listed as Subcontractors to the Primary Vendor.

Q20: Will you identify how many users will be accessing these modules?
A20: The Core Account users will consist of approximately 225 individuals

Q21: How many users will need access to time & attendance capabilities?
A21: We have approximately 2,000 users requiring access to time & attendance capabilities but generally only have 30-50 employees access this function at any one time.

Q22: How many users would be responsible for inputting information for the operating budget?
A22: Approximately 30-50 users will be inputting information, based on departmental contacts for budgets.

Q23: How many users would be responsible for inputting information for the capital budget?
A23: Approximately 30-50 users will be inputting information, based on departmental contacts for budgets.

Q24: How many users would be responsible for inputting information with regards to personnel planning (salaries)?
A24: Approximately 30-50 users will be inputting information, based on departmental contacts for budget requests for salaries, but operational inputting would be limited to approximately four (4) people in HR and four (4) people in Financial Services.

Q25: How many users would be responsible for inputting information with regards to Fire scheduling?
A25: Approximately 375-400 users, which includes all staff members. Some users have administrative access to this module.

Q26: Does the County prefer to host a back-up and recovery server on-site or have it on the cloud?
A26: The county would prefer to have no on-site equipment but would like to utilize the cloud for back-up and recovery information storage.

Q27: What is the County’s plans concerning replacing existing modules with new product versus integrating and interfacing the present modules with new services?
A27: Due to the County’s investment in existing systems, it would prefer to maintain existing modules where possible and utilize integration services. A clear exception to this statement that corresponds to our response to Question 6 above is that the new system should include a built-in Accounts Payable workflow process that does not require the use of OnBase or Ephesoft. Vendors may provide price quotations for alternate services, including replacing modules, if they feel it will provide a more efficient solution that may be provided in a cost-effective manner.

Q28: Would these alternate solutions include providing a quote for a full ERP system?
A28: The County would like vendors to propose their recommended solution(s) based upon the specifications of this bid. Those solutions would include a full ERP system if the vendor so desires.

Q29: Has the County performed a Gap Analysis of the present versus requested new system and would that information be made available to participants to this bid?
A29: The County has not performed a Gap Analysis for this project.

Q30: Would you be interested in receiving optional pricing for the full ERP suite as an appendix for additional information purposes only?
A30: Yes, you may add that pricing as an option as an appendix for informational purposes if you so desire.

Q31: Will a public bid opening be held on Monday, November 2, 2020, at 3:00pm?
A31: Due to safety protocols implemented in response to the COVID-19 Virus, public bid openings will not be held until further notice. Proposals will be opened by County personnel and the responding company’s name, address, and the name of the signatory will be documented as legal acceptance of the proposals. No pricing information will be documented or discussed during these openings. This bid had a mandatory pre-bid conference attendance requirement for eligibility to provide a response so only those firms identified in Item 1 above will be eligible. All other proposals will be rejected.

All other terms and conditions remain the same.

Hall County Board of Commissioners

Chuck Pinney, Purchasing Supervisor


Publication Date/Time:
10/28/2020 12:00 PM
Publication Information:
Request for Qualifications/Proposal
Closing Date/Time:
Open Until Contracted
Bid Opening Information:
3:00PM, November 2, 2020
Contact Person:
Chuck Pinney, Purchasing Supervisor, 770-535-8270

Daily notification on new contract opportunities

With GovernmentContracts, you can:

  • Find more opportunities and win more business
  • Receive daily alerts for all new bid opportunities
  • Get contract opportunities matched to your business
ONE WEEK FREE TRIAL

See also

SSI, Harris County Carver Middle School City of Hamilton Listing Summary ADVERTISEMENT FOR

Georgia Local Government Access

Bid Due: 2/03/2022

Event Details Offerors' Conference Documents Event Details Event ID Event Type Event Status

State Government of Georgia

Bid Due: 3/15/2021

City of Stockbridge Tree Surgeon Services Stockbridge Apply Listing Summary The purpose of

Georgia Local Government Access

Bid Due: 3/11/2021

Event Details Offerors' Conference Documents Event Details Event ID Event Type Event Status

State Government of Georgia

Bid Due: 3/09/2021

* Disclaimer: Information regarding bids, requests for proposals (RFPs), or requests for qualifications (RFQs) is provided on this website only as a convenience and does not constitute official public notice. Persons wishing to respond to or inquire about bids, RFPs, or RFQs should contact the appropriate government department.