Page 1
RFP NO. 16-11 – ADDENDUM #2
1
CHARLES COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Department of Fiscal and Administrative Services
Purchasing Division
Telephone: 301-645-0656
August 17, 2015
RFP NO. 16-11
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SOFTWARE SYSTEM
ADDENDUM NUMBER TWO
TO: All Proposers
Please be advised of the following modification(s) & information related to Request for Proposals to
16-11. These modifications, comments, and attachments are hereby made a part of the solicitation
documents to the same extent as if bound therein. The due date for questions has passed and the due
date for proposals remain the same.
I. Changes, Additions, Modifications, and Attachments to the RFP
A. Changes –
1. APPENDIX 2 – PGM Workflow Chart
Delete the strikethrough text below, and replace with the following italicized text:
RFP 16-11 – APPENDIX 2 – PGM Workflow Chart – 150715.pdf
RFP 16-11 – APPENDIX 2 – PGM Workflow Chart – 150817.pdf
2. APPENDIX 5 – Breakdown of Case Types/Permit, Planning, Code Enforcement Types,
Etc.
Delete the existing text, and replace with the following italicized text:
Due to the size and number of documents, the following specifications and requirements
are published separately, and are available with the other solicitation documents
contained in the solicitation listing on the Charles County Bid Board:
RFP 16-11 – APPENDIX 5 – Breakdown of Case Types – 150817.pdf
Solicitation documents are available for download from the Charles County Bid Board
via the County’s web site by the following steps: 1. Go to http://www.charlescountymd.gov.
Page 2
RFP NO. 16-11 – ADDENDUM #2
2
2. Under the Business Opportunities section, click on “Procurement Opportunities”.
3. On the Purchase Page locate the Department Links to the left of the page and click on
the “Bid Board option.
4. Click on “All Solicitations” option and locate the project from the list.
B. Additions –
APPENDIX 1 – Requirements Matrix
Add the following italicized text to page 36 of the Requirements Matrix document:
17.16 List and describe all standard Cashiering reports.
C. Modifications - NONE
D. Attachment –
Attachment A – Pre-Proposal Meeting Sign In Sheets
II. Pre-Proposal Meeting Notes
DATE: July 30, 2015
TIME: 2:00 PM
ATTENDEES: See “Attachment A”
A. Introduction
Good afternoon, and welcome to the pre-proposal meeting for RFP 16-11, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT SOFTWARE SYSTEM.
My name is Yaffa Seiden, Senior Procurement Specialist for Charles County Government.
With me today is Mr. Peter Aluotto, Director for Planning and Growth Management and Ms.
Evelyn Jacobson, Chief of Information Technology, Mr. Fred Shroyer, Chief of Purchasing
along with several other key staff members.
This pre-proposal meeting includes in-person and telephone conference call participants.
The conference call will be recorded; however, no transcription shall be created or made
available. The meeting minutes and attendance roster will be published in an upcoming
addendum.
The conference call system will inform you when a change has been made with a moment of
music and then the system change will be accepted.
If callers wish to mute their line, please press *6. To unmute your line, press *6 again.
The meeting will begin with each Charles County Government employee clearly stating their
name and position title and spelling it when needed.
Now companies in attendance will begin with a roll call in alphabetical order. Each attendee
will clearly state their name and spell it when needed.
Page 3
RFP NO. 16-11 – ADDENDUM #2
3
The intent of this project is to provide a Community Development Software System to serve
as a core business application. This system will support County processes and have a public
facing portal.
The meeting will be conducted in two parts.
o I will first review selected portions of the Request for Proposals. Items not reviewed
should not be construed as being less important than those reviewed. No information
will be presented that is not already contained within the RFP.
o The meeting will then be turned over Mr. Peter Aluotto, Director for Planning and
Growth Management who will discuss technical aspects of the project.
All participants (in person and by phone) shall HOLD all questions until the end of the
procurement and technical highlights.
The question and answer period will begin after Mr. Aluotto concludes the technical
highlights.
No information obtained from any source other than the Solicitation documents found on the
County Bid Board, or Mr. Aluotto and Ms. Jacobson, other key staff members (during this
meeting) or myself may be considered to be accurate.
B. Procurement Discussion
All solicitation documents may be found on the County Bid Board.
Ensure all required forms and any other information required is complete and in your
proposal package.
A complete proposal package is explained on page I-2. Incomplete proposal packages may
be rejected.
Submit two (2) unbound Original Proposal packages, so identified, and ten (10) bound
copies of the Technical Proposal packages.
Proposal Submission Requirements:
All proposals shall be valid and irrevocable for a minimum of one hundred eight (180) days.
Proposals must be responsive to the scope, specifications, and all other criteria specified in
the solicitation.
The proposed Total Price shall include all work as stipulated in the solicitation. There shall
be NO hidden costs associated with you proposed solution.
The proposal must be signed by an officer authorized to make a binding commitment for the
firm proposing.
Solicitation schedule remains the same as published in the Solicitation document.
There is an aspirational 25% MBE goal for this solicitation.
The project term is explained on page I-7 in Part I, Section 2.2 Term of Contract.
Insurance requirements are located on pages I-20 and I-21 of the RFP.
Questions concerning the RFP should be directed to me in writing via the contact
information on Page I-4.
This RFP is subject to the County’s Small Local Business Enterprise Program. If your firm is
a Charles County registered SLBE and you want to take advantage of the SLBE preference,
please complete the SLBE program forms located on page I-32 through I-34 of the
solicitation. All Charles County small businesses are encouraged to apply.
The protest policy is on page I-8.
Page 4
RFP NO. 16-11 – ADDENDUM #2
4
The County may reject any and all proposals for any reason it deems necessary, and may
waive any irregularities and/or informalities, and make award in any manner that is in the
best interest of the County.
By submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation, the proposer certifies that their firm
is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise ineligible for participation in government
procurement by the federal government, the State of Maryland, or any other state, county, or
municipal government.
Award will be based on a combination of the proposer’s experience and qualifications, as
well as fee proposed and as determined to be in the best interest of the County.
I will now turn the meeting over to Mr. Aluotto, who will discuss technical aspects of the
project, and answer any technical questions.
C. Technical Discussion
My name is Peter Aluotto and I am the Director of Planning and Growth Management for Charles
County. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank you all for joining us today as we embark on a new
era in development services processing. With me today are: Frank Ward, Steven Ball, John Mudd
and Evelyn Jacobson.
Frank is our Chief of Codes, Permits and Inspection Services. His Division is responsible for the
review, approval and inspection of site engineering (horizontal) and the review, approval and
inspection of building construction. He is also responsible for our overall code enforcement
program.
Steve is our Planning Director. His section shepherds the review and approval of development
projects through our Planning Commission, Board of Appeals and any of a number of outside
review agencies with a stake in our process.
John is a Program Manager for Resource and Infrastructure Management. His section is responsible
for compliance with our Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance or APFO as it is called. APFO
accounts for the one unique requirements of our request for proposal, namely, school capacity.
Evelyn is the Chief of IT in our Fiscal and Administrative Services Division. Her Division is
responsible for the County’s hardware, software, licensing and computer interface with the
enterprise accounting system and tax records. She will be a critical point of contact for system
specifications, installation, testing and training.
Why we are doing this?
As you know from your existing clients, ours is the department most responsible for putting taxable
value on the ground. Everything you see in our built environment is reviewed, approved, and
inspected by us. Clearly, ours is a customer service business. It is also very labor intensive,
document intensive, time consuming and, in our case, somewhat inefficient. It is hard to give good
customer service under these circumstances.
Our current community development applications have long since passed their useful economic life.
This fact did not escape the notice of our auditors when they examined our department operations
last year. After much thoughtful consideration, it was decided that additional customization of the
existing system would be insufficient to carry us forward over the next 10-20 year planning horizon.
Hence, we decided to start fresh with a brand new core business application.
In Part III, Special Provisions you have already read our wish list of features and benefits desired
of the successful proposer, so I won’t repeat them here. Instead, let me just say that we’d like a
system that does everything but post a sign on the property.
Page 5
RFP NO. 16-11 – ADDENDUM #2
5
I will conclude with the following thoughts: Our organization chart and our work flow diagrams, as
they exist today, are included in the Appendices of the document. These have been provided for
your convenience and to help you understand how our process works. This does not mean that
either one has been optimized for best effect on customer service.
If, based upon your experience with comparably sized clients, you can recommend a better way to
skin the cat consistent with Maryland laws; we’d certainly like to hear about it. With that, I will
close and open it up for questions.
D. Pre-Proposal Meeting Questions & Responses
Question 1
Question: What are the number of back office users you would require and also the number of
mobile office users?
Response: The number of back office users is 52; see Appendix 6 – Count of Users By
Department. The County currently has 4 mobile users, and we anticipate as many as 15.
Question 2
Question: Based on those number of users, is the preference to have the County host the solution
versus a cloud based solution?
Response: The County wants to host the solution.
Question 3
Question: Does the County have a preferred electronic plan review system that you are interested
in?
Response: The County does not have a preferred electronic plan review product system. We are
looking for: something that is integrated that accommodates all the various processes that we
have; is simple to use; and has an installed user base that we can see and contact. We are flexible
about the product.
Question 4
Question: Does the County have central cashiering using New World Systems (NWS)? Does your
NWS support web service integration?
Response: Yes, the County has central cashiering using NWS. No, our NWS does not support web
service integration.
Question 5
Question: This is a republished bid, is there a particular reason it is being republished? What you
didn’t look at last time that you are looking for this time? From the County’s point of view, could
you please highlight some of the changes?
Response: The reason this is being republished was answered in Addendum #1, Question 1. We are
looking for the requirements in this RFP, which includes several changes from the previously
issued RFP. Some of the changes include: the cost proposal form, the number of licenses,
eliminated 2 special customizations, added a whole section about cash receipting, elaborated on
the integration to our existing systems, and so much more. The Planning Division process has been
clarified to explain the work flow and integration to other departments. This is not an all-inclusive
list of changes.
Page 6
RFP NO. 16-11 – ADDENDUM #2
6
Question 6
Question: We know you are looking at replacing your school allocation application, is it a goal for
the new system to link into the old system/legacy? Is the County looking at the structure, like one
project or may it go over into another such as across school districts?
Response: The specifications in Appendix 4- School Allocation System were provided to give
proposers an idea of the way our current system was designed and get a feeling for what we have.
As far as how the proposed solution is set it up, filed, etc. we do not have a preference. Think of a
school allocation as a commodity. We need to be able to create them, issue them, grant them, track
them, etc. They have a life cycle to them that may need to be extended. It should be project driven.
If it can do more, that’s great; however, more is not required.
Question 7
Question: On page I-11, it indicates that the Maryland property ID numbers are stored inside of
your GEO property monitoring in New World Systems is it also at some point going to reside
inside of GIS? How often is that information provided to you all?
Response: It doesn’t right now however we are working towards that. We receive one (1) big
complete file once a year and then four (4) partial files throughout the year. Additionally, we
manually update property records on an as needed basis.
Question 8
Question: Appendix 5, could you give an annual average of the total number of those records that
you are processing?
Response: The annual average of the total number of records that are processed was answered in
Addendum #1, Question 2.
Question 9
Question: Are you running Arc Server? 10.X or higher?
Response: Yes, the County is running Arc Server. Yes, it is version 10.X or higher.
III. Written Questions Received & Responses
Question 10
Question: Is the County looking for an on-premise solution?
Response: Yes.
Question 11
Question: Would the County consider a comprehensive 100% cloud-based solution designed
specifically for the public sector that cannot be hosted in the County’s facilities?
Response: No. Previously answered in Addendum #1, Question 4.
Question 12
Question: If yes to question above, how will both “cloud” and “on-premise” solutions be graded
and evaluated against the other.
Response: Question not applicable since answer to Question above was no.
Page 7
RFP NO. 16-11 – ADDENDUM #2
7
Question 13
Question: Of the internal user counts listed in RFP Appendix 6, please identify how many of those
are field/mobile users? If none, please identify desired number of field/mobile users.
Response: Previously answered in this addendum, Question 1.
Question 14
Question: How many of the internal user counts listed in Appendix 6 are GIS users? If none, please
identify desired number of GIS users.
Response: Many of the users listed currently utilize GIS for a variety of reasons; the County
currently has approximately 30 GIS user licenses. However we cannot anticipate the desired
number of GIS users until we understand how the proposed system operates.
Question 15
Question: Please confirm Appendix 5 includes all the case types/permit, planning, code
enforcement types created each year in the County’s current system. If not, please identify by count
any other record types created each year.
Response: See Appendix 5 – RFP 16-11 APPENDIX 5 – Breakdown of Case Types – 150817.pdf
for an updated list of case types/permit, planning, code enforcement types.
Question 16
Question: Please list out the details of unique record types anticipated in the new system:
Department or
App Group
Application
Type
Unique Number of
Application Type
Requirements and
Feed Documented? Comments
Permit (example)
Code enforcement
(example)
Response: The County is unable to list out the details of unique record types anticipated because
we are unable to determine what a unique record type is and what is not a unique record type in
the proposer’s proposed solution.
Question 17
Question: Please list out the details of unique workflows anticipated in the new system.
Department or
App Group
Workflow/
Process Type
Number of
Workflow/
Process
Complexity (Low/
medium/high)
Are they
documented? Comments
Response: The amount of workflows required depends upon the functionality that the system
provides. See Appendix 2 – PGM Workflow Chart.
Page 8
RFP NO. 16-11 – ADDENDUM #2
8
Question 18
Question: Does the County have any specific reports (defined format) that must exist at the time of
go-live? If so, how many reports does the County desire? (The definition of a report is any
document emitted by the system including letters, citations, permits, statistical reports, etc.)
Response: See Appendix 7 – PGM Reports/Queries for the list of County specific reports.
Question 19
Question: As part of the training protocol, does the County want to be trained in report writing and
development; and if so, what percentage of reports does the County wish the vendor to write as part
of the implementation? (For example, vendor writes 20 reports, the County is trained to write 30
reports.)
Response: Yes, the County wants to be trained in report writing and development. In response to the
percentage of reports that the vendor must develop, this depends on the standard reports that the
vendor currently has available. We anticipate that the selected solution will have many of the required
reports as part of the standard package. In Appendix I, Requirements Matrix, we have requested a
listing of all standard reports for the following sections: General Reporting Capabilities, Security,
Permitting, Inspections, Plan Review, Project Planning, Mobility/In Field Use, Contractor and License
Management, Code Enforcement, Public Portal, Workflows, Auditing and Electronic Plan Review.
Question 20
Question: For all reports/queries listed in RFP Appendix 7, please estimate the number of those
reports based on High, Medium, or Low complexity for scoping purposes.
Complexity Description Number
High
Reports that require complex queries, joins, multiple sources, etc.
Examples include statistical and analytical reports, schedules,
management summaries and agendas.
Medium
Reports that require some calculations and summaries. Examples
include forms and transaction reports (receipts, permits, inspection
tickets, journal logs). Many reports fall under this category.
Low
Reports that require a simple pull from a limited number of database
fields and presentation on a document. Examples include letters and
notices.
Response: The County wants to be trained in report writing and development. In response to the
percentage of reports that the vendor must develop, this depends on the standard reports that the
vendor currently has available. We anticipate that the selected solution will have many of the
required reports as part of the standard package. In Appendix 1 - Requirements Matrix, we have
requested a listing of all standard reports included.
Question 21
Question: Please complete the following table with all systems data that must be converted into the
new system.
System Name Vendor DB Type # of Base Records # of data fields
Response: Charles County IT staff will work with the selected vendor to produce appropriate upload
files.
Page 9
RFP NO. 16-11 – ADDENDUM #2
9
System Name Vendor DB Type # of Base Records # of data fields
Permitting New World Systems
(NWS) DB2
150,000
(approximately) 75
Permitting NWS DB2 1,600,000
(approximately) varies
Electrical
Licenses CCG DB2 3,600 40
Contractors CCG DB2 80 15
Question 22
Question: Will the County require a periodic Address, Parcel, and Owner (APO) load into the new,
selected system? If yes, please complete the table below.
System Name Vendor DB Type # of Parcel Records
Response: Please see RFP Part I, Section 3.7 – Integration Approach.
Question 23
Question: Does the County have resources to put the legacy data into a prescribed format, and then
participate in the conversion process in the new system?
Response: Yes.
Question 24
Question: What Esri version does the County currently use?
Response: ArcGIS 10.2.
Question 25
Question: Please list/clarify all interfaces required to or from the new, selected system; please
include as much detail as possible.
Interface Name One-Way or Two-Way Frequency
(Batch, real-time)
Description
Response: Please see RFP Part I, Section 3.7 – Integration Approach.
Question 26
Question: Will there be a dedicated Project Manager(s), and if so, will the Project Manager(s) be
from the County or outside consultant? To whom will the Project Manager(s) report? How many
dedicated County staff will be assigned to the duration of this system implementation and in what
roles?
Response: There will be a dedicated Project Manager from the County. A dedicated team,
consisting of County Planning and Growth Management staff and Information Technology staff
will be assigned to the project. The County staff assigned to the duration of this system
implementation and their roles shall be based upon the accepted proposed solution.
Page 10
RFP NO. 16-11 – ADDENDUM #2
10
Question 27
Question: Please clarify whether the selected vendor will train all of the system users in each area,
or if the County desires a “Train-the-Trainer” approach?
Response: The County desires a proposed solution that includes details about available training
options as described in Part I, Section 3.9 Training.
Question 28
Question: Please state the County’s desired implementation timeframe (project start to go-live).
Response: The County desires that the proposer includes in the proposed solution the time frames
as described in Part I, Section 3.12 Project Plan.
Question 29
Question: Is it important for the selected solution’s web portal to offer multiple languages to its
citizens?
Response: As long as system is ADA compliant, English should be acceptable language.
Question 30
Question: Is it important for the selected solution to be 508c compliant?
Response: The selected solution should be ADA compliant, at a minimum meeting priority one
checkpoint of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.
Question 31
Question: What business processes or record types will be enabled for electronic plan review? (i.e.
Simple Residential Permits, Commercial Permits, etc.)
Response: The goal is for all record types that require submission of a site plan or building plan to
be enabled for electronic plan review.
Question 32
Question: Does the County plan to roll out electronic document/plan review functionality for all
record types at once or phasing in record types over a specified timeframe?
Response: The project plan shall include electronic document/plan review in the proposed project
plan as described in Part I, Section 3.12 Project Plan.
Question 33
Question: If bidding vendor is not proposing an SLBE firm as part of its team, is the Official Letter
of SLBE Intent form still required as part of the proposal submission?
Response: No, the Official Letter of SLBE Intent form is not required if the proposer is not
intending to use a SLBE firm.
Question 34
Question: Some of the diagrams on the right side of the Appendix 2 are illegible. Can the County
please provide a readable copy of the diagrams?
Response: The document with the diagrams has been reformatted, and loaded to the County Bid
Board. Please see Part I of this Addendum for instructions to the County Bid Board.
Page 11
RFP NO. 16-11 – ADDENDUM #2
11
Question 35
Question: Page III-2 of RFP indicates that there are six (6) web based applications to supplement
the NWS supplied software and those applications will need to be replaced by the new system.
Among the data collected by the six applications, only electric license data is listed in the data
migration table on RFP page III-4. Will other data such as banner licenses need to be converted?
Response: No.
Question 36
Question: Appendix 1 – Requirements Matrix, Item 2.5: Ability to integrate with MS Office. Will
the County use Microsoft Outlook calendar in addition to GroupWise?
Response: The County’s enterprise mail system is GroupWise. We do not currently use Microsoft
Outlook for mail or calendaring.
Page 12
RFP NO. 16-11 – ADDENDUM #2
12
ATTACHMENT A
Page 13
RFP NO. 16-11 – ADDENDUM #2
13
PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING SIGN IN SHEETS
Page 14
RFP NO. 16-11 – ADDENDUM #2
14