Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAddenda - RFP - 8500 GIS PLANNING & SYSTEM CONSULTANT FOR LIGHT & POWER (2)Addendum 2 Page 1 of 4 ADDENDUM NO. 2 SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS Description of RFP 8500: GIS Planning & System Consultant for Light & Power OPENING DATE: 3:00 PM (Our Clock) April 10, 2017 To all prospective bidders under the specifications and contract documents described above, the following changes/additions are hereby made and detailed in the following sections of this addendum: Exhibit 1 – Questions & Answers Please contact Pat Johnson, CPPB, Senior Buyer at (970) 221-6816 with any questions regarding this addendum. RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY A WRITTEN STATEMENT ENCLOSED WITH THE BID/QUOTE STATING THAT THIS ADDENDUM HAS BEEN RECEIVED. Financial Services Purchasing Division 215 N. Mason St. 2nd Floor PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6775 970.221.6707 fcgov.com/purchasing Addendum 2 Page 2 of 4 EXHIBIT 1 – QUESTIONS & ANSWERS Q1: Please describe expectations for the target of Task 2 procurement, RFP2. In the Esri platform, will it be Geometric Network or the Utility Network based? A1: It is LPO’s understanding that the Utility Network is not yet ready for prime time and that none of the major vendors have adopted it yet. At time of RFP2, we will evaluate the status of the Utility Network release. Q2: Will the software need to work with both the Esri Geometric Network and the Esri Utility Network? A2: It is LPO’s assumption that we will be purchasing a product that uses the traditional Geometric Network or a proprietary network and that upgrading to a product that utilizes the Utility Network will be a separate project. Q3: Will the ADMS be supplied by the same vendor as the GIS? Will GIS include graphical design? A3: It is LPO’s desire to implement each stage of the “roadmap” with future stages in mind. If possible, we would like to purchase a GIS Mapping product early on that will be fully capable of advanced ADMS type features in the future without LPO having to implement a new GIS Mapping system. Depending on the results of the “Roadmap” developed in Task 1, “graphical design” may be part of Task 2 or it may be implemented a year or two later. It is our desire to have a well-developed “Roadmap” that will clearly plan for future functionality. Q4: Are there any product or platform preferences going into Task 2? Without knowledge of the platform, project specifics, or duration, it is very difficult to provide task hours estimates or a compelling proposal for Tasks 3 and 4. A4: Please read the “Background and Objective” referencing page 3; 6th paragraph. Provide the best estimates based upon previous experience. Q5: It is our understanding that Task 1 is the only task that can be bid on that would not exclude the vendor from bidding the RFP 2 and RFP 3 that is created. Does task 4 also prohibit the vendor from bidding the RFP 2 and RFP 3? A5: Please reference page 4; 3rd paragraph: The only limitation is if your firm is writing RFP2 or RFP3, you will not be eligible to respond to the RFP(s) your firm assisted in writing. Q6: On page 10 #J what time frame are “recent” gains or losses of personnel mean? A6: The City is defining “recent” to mean within the last two years. Q7: RFP Section I. Background and Objective, last paragraph, page 4: For potential partnerships, please confirm that any vendors participating in services for Tasks 1 and 4 are not precluded from bidding on implementation from RFPs resulting from Tasks 2 and 3? The limitation is strictly for writing Task 2 and 3 RFPs and then bidding on these same RFPs as indicated in item K of Section II (pg. 8) correct? A7: Please reference A5 above. Addendum 2 Page 3 of 4 Q8: RFP Section II. Scope of Proposal, Item F. Schedule, page 7: The schedule listed in the RFP indicates a tentative Contract Start date of June 5, 2017, and tentative RFP1 and RFP2 issuance date of Fall 2017. Can the City confirm if the execution of Tasks 1, 2, and 3 is envisioned to be performed in parallel or sequentially? Also, Does the City have a desired timeframe for completion of Tasks 1 and 4? A8: The awarded Consultant for Task 1 will be leading the work necessary to draft a strategic and technology roadmap prior to the drafting of RFP2. Task 1 will provide an estimated schedule (Roadmap Plan) for all tasks. Tasks 2 & 3 could be completed together, as one RFP. Estimated dates: Task 1 complete early Fall 2017; RFP2 to be issued late 2017 with vendor award March of 2018; RFP3 to be issued in June of 2018 with vendor award September of 2018 Task 4 to be completed per the Roadmap developed as a result of RFP1. Q9: Will the GIS/ADMS and the Implementation Services efforts also be funded to through the budget? A9: Yes Q10: What are the estimated cost of each or desired not to exceed amount? A10: Budget has been funded for all four Tasks; however there is not delineation specific to each Task. Q11: Who is/will be the project manager or technical contact for LPO? A11: Project Manager and Technical Contact information will be provided to the awarded Consultant. Q12: General: What is the defect tracking software application or mechanism (i.e. spreadsheet, etc.) that LPO is planning to use during the project? A12: The consultant awarded Task 4 is expected to bring well vetted tools they have experience with to properly track defects and all other aspects of project management. LPO does not have a preselected tool set. Q13: RFP Section I. Background and Objective, 3rd paragraph, page 3: Is there going to need to be a formal QA/QC process defined and administered for data testing as part of the CAD to GIS migration? Will the CAD-GIS migration be treated as a traditional data conversion or is it to be viewed as a component of software integration testing? A13: It is LPO’s expectation that the “Roadmap” developed in Task 1 will clearly define a suggested path for each stage of the project. LPO will be relying on the experience of the Consultant awarded Task 1 and industry best practices to answer questions such as this one. LPO does not have a preconceived preference on data conversion. Addendum 2 Page 4 of 4 Q14: RFP Section II. Scope of Proposal, Item A. Task 1, page 4: What level of financial analysis is expected as part of the Strategic and Technology Plan Roadmap in support of the other three tasks? Budget ranges, cost-benefit analysis, or none of above? A14: The approach LPO is taking with this RFP1 is to ascertain how a Consulting Firm would best approach delineating the business drivers outlined in Task 1. Please provide a budget range for each subtask in RFP Section II. Scope of Proposal, Item A. Task 1, page 4. Some technologies proposed within the Roadmap Plan may require a cost-benefit analysis. However, at this stage of the selection process, we are not asking for a detailed cost-benefit analysis. Q15: RFP Section III. Proposal Submittal, Item H. Availability, question 5, page 11: The RFP asks that we “include a statement specifically as to whether or not your firm can meet our implementation timeline.” What is the City’s implementation timeline? We do not see this information provided with the RFP1. A15: Estimated dates: Task 1 complete early Fall 2017; RFP2 to be issued late 2017 with vendor award March of 2018; RFP3 to be issued in June of 2018 with vendor award September of 2018; Task 4 to be completed per the Roadmap developed as a result of RFP1. Q16: If we respond to multiple tasks, but are deemed unresponsive to one task, will our proposal for all other proposed tasks also be deemed unresponsive? A16: Each Task will be evaluated separately. However, if all responses are equal, preference will be given to vendors who respond to multiple Tasks. Q17: Will Fort Collins consider alternative approaches to the scope of tasks? A17: Consultants shall respond based on the language within RFP1. However, if your firm has an alternative approach your firm may submit a second Proposal Submittal (Section III: Page 8 through Page 12). Q18: Can Fort Collins elaborate further on the budgeted amount for all or any of the tasks? A18: Reference A10 above.