HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/23/2010, B2 - FOXPRO APPLICATION REPLACEMENT council Mc°°~°M 2-23-10
j acEnaa Report 1=N,.h. 131-2,
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I SP O
FROM: Bill Statler, Director of Finance& Information Technology
Rachel Messner, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: FOXPRO APPLICATION REPLACEMENT
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the replacement of FoxPro applications and
authorize the City Manager to award the contract if within the project budget of$1,150,000.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
As reported to the Council in October 2009, the City has been well-served over the past 25 years
from high-quality integrated applications developed and maintained at a very low cost in
contracting with a local programmer. However, as discussed at that time, it is necessary to begin
replacing these applications at this time with one or more "packaged" systems due to a lack of
continuing support for them. While this will require an unplanned resource commitment to do
so, this replacement is necessary in delivering mission-critical, day-to-day services to our
community in an efficient, reliable and cost effective manner.
In moving forward with this project, we recommend that the Council approve the RFP for the
replacement of FoxPro applications and authorize the City Manager to award the contract if
within the project budget. In a separate but related item as part of the Mid-Year Budget Review,
which the Council is also considering on February 23, we also recommend that the Council
approve a project budget for this replacement of$1,150,000, allocated as follows among funds:
General Fund 862,500
Water Fund 138,000
Sewer Fund 92,000
Transit Fund 34,500
Parking Fund 23,000
Total $1,150,000
As discussed in greater detail below, this is based on "order of magnitude" cost estimates from
finalist vendors that range from $451,000 to $1.8 million (compared with initial estimates of
$500,000 to $1.5 million) and is at the mid-point of these cost estimates.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City currently uses 34 applications written and customized in Microsoft Visual FoxPro.
These applications were created over the past 25 years by an outside, one-person consulting firm
FoxPro Application Replacement Page 2
(Bonnie McKee), who maintained and modified them as necessary. These applications are the
user interface software for a wide range of mission-critical applications throughout the
organization, including land use inventory, geographic information system (GIS), payroll
timecards and work orders. The applications automate City business processes and are accessed
by all departments. Most of the applications are front ends/user portals to Microsoft Structured
Query Language(SQL) databases.
The City has benefitted significantly over the past 25 years from high-quality, low-cost software
in contracting with Ms. McKee for the development and support of these integrated applications.
However, we are now facing two distinct challenges in supporting these applications:
1. Obsolescent Software. Microsoft has stated that it will no longer support Visual FoxPro nor
will it release any further versions. The City has very limited ability to support and maintain
these custom Visual FoxPro applications since this is a disappearing programming language
and the code libraries that power the City's applications have been customized by Ms.
McKee, who recently passed away. Support for both Visual FoxPro and ESRI's Map Objects
(which powers the maps in the City's applications) is scheduled to end within the next few
years. The specific version of Map Objects currently used by the City has been end-of-life
for several years. For this reason, the four-year Capital Improvement Plan (CII') in the 2009-
11 Financial Plan showed converting these applications to Microsoft's current ".NET'
framework in 2011-13 at an estimated cost of$370,000.
2. No Viable Support for Existing Visual FoxPro Applications. The obsolescence of the
software language has been compounded by the sudden death of Ms. McKee last year. In our
efforts to find replacement contract programmers, it became clear that due to the outdated
software and lack of programming documentation, it will not be possible to contract with
programmers both willing and capable of maintaining the City's current applications.
In short, the challenge facing the City has shifted from converting these applications to more
current software to the more difficult and resource-intensive task of replacing them entirely. In
accordance with our Information Technology (IT) Acquisition and Support.Policy, in replacing
these applications we are moving away from using locally developed systems to selecting
industry-standard "packaged systems."
Replacement Strategy
Provided in Attachment 1 is the Project Plan that was presented to the Council on October 20,
2009, which provides additional background information on why it is important to replace these
applications and on the City's IT Acquisition and Support Policy in supporting the "packaged
system" approach. It also includes a detailed listing of the applications; outlines key tasks and
due dates; and discusses the challenges we will face in replacing these applications. The goal is
to complete the selection process by April 2010; and complete application installation by
September 2010.
Completed Steps
The project is on generally on track with the timeframe set forth in the project plan. We have:
� ? -z
FoxPro Application Replacement Page 3
1. Completed an inventory of all current FoxPro applications.
2. Compiled application descriptions and identified the managing departments.
3. Finalized a high level assessment of the City's other IT needs, including processes that are
automated with software other than FoxPro that could be improved but that don't work well
and processes that are not currently automated. This will help assure that we make good
decisions in meeting our short-term needs as well as for the long-term.
4. Completed the "Request for Qualifications" (RFQ) process with vendors identified as
industry leaders in their fields. We received packages from 20 vendors, many who indicated
that they can meet most (if not all) of our FoxPro application replacement needs.
5. Formed two evaluation teams with members from the affected departments who thoroughly
assessed the RFQ submittals, analyzed vendor qualifications and performed background
checks with similar agencies that use their software to narrow the list of 20 firms to the top
vendors in each group that could best meet the City's software replacement needs. The
GIS/Permitting/Work Orders group chose six finalists and the Timecards/Overtime/Staffing
group selected three finalists.
GISIPermitting/Work Orders Timecards/Overtime/Staffing
• Accela • Kronos
• CitizenServe • Sungard
• Cityworks (Azteca) • Telestaff
• EnerGov
• Infor(Hansen)
• Sungard
Key criteria in selecting finalists included the ability to meet most, if not all, of our
replacement needs and operate in our current technology environment (such as Microsoft
SQL Server database: the only exception to this is Telestaff, which specializes in Fire staff
scheduling and time reporting). Additionally, all of the finalist vendors confirmed their
ability to meet the software installation timeframe of April-August 2010.
6. Both evaluation teams conducted detailed "City to Vendors" pre-proposal
briefings/demonstrations of the City's current FoxPro applications with finalists as a group to
ensure they have a full understanding of the City's application needs. All finalists attended
the briefings with the exception of Sungard and CitizenServe in the GIS/Permitting/Work
Orders group.
7.. Held detailed "Vendor to City" demonstrations/briefings with all finalists to evaluate their
software products and proposed solutions. These briefings addressed:
ti
FoxPro Application Replacement Page 4
a. Overview of the firm's experience and its capabilities.
b. How the software will meet the City's needs, as detailed in the RFQ and the "City to
Vendors" briefing; and areas the vendor will either not be able to address or where
significant modifications would be required.
c. Proposed approach to the conversion/installation and tentative schedule
d. Services or data to be provided by the City
8. Based on the results of the demonstrations, the finalist vendors provided "order of
magnitude" cost estimates.
RFP and Proposal Evaluation Process
Given the extensive RFQ and backgrounding process that preceded the proposed issuance of the
RFP on February 24, 2010, we propose a streamlined RFP that focuses on terms and conditions,
installation schedule and price, with references to detailed documentation generated from group
and one-on-one briefings in describing the workscope.
As set forth in the RFP for each application group, proposals will be evaluated by a review team
committee composed of representatives from all of the affected departments based on the
following criteria:
1. Understanding of the work required by the City.
2. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal.
3. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully
performing the work required by the City.
4. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services.
5. Proposed approach in completing the work and ability to implement the replacement in a
timely manner.
6. References.
7. Background and related experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this project.
8. Proposed compensation.
As reflected above, contract award will not be based solely on price, but on a combination of
factors as determined to be in the best interest of the City. After evaluating the proposals and
discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected contractor, the City reserves
the right to further negotiate the proposed work and/or method and amount of compensation.
Project Schedule
The following summarizes the anticipated project schedule:
1. Issue RFP to selected vendors 2/24/10
2. Receive proposals 3/15/10
3. Evaluate proposals/conduct interviews 3/26/10
4. Award contract(s) 3/31/10
5. Convert databases/complete replacement application installation 8/31/10
6. Conduct staff training 9/30/10
3a -�
FoxPro Application Replacement Page 5
CONCURRENCES
The IT Steering Committee and Budget Review Team concurs with this recommendation.
Additionally, all City departments have been extensively involved in the Visual FoxPro
application inventory, IT needs assessment, RFQ process and vendor demonstrations.
FISCAL IMPACT
As reflected in the 2009-13 CIP (Appendix B, page 3-420), simply upgrading to a".NET" system
was estimated to cost approximately $370,000. Accordingly, replacing all FoxPro applications
will cost significantly more. Initial rough estimates ranged from $500,000 to $1.5 million. Based
on "order of magnitude" cost estimates from the finalist vendors ranging from $451,000 to $1.8
million, we recommend a project budget of $1,150,000, which is the mid-point of these cost
estimates.
The vendor cost estimates include:
1. Base software
2. Software modifications
3. Installation/system integration
4. Data conversion
5. Training
6. Annual license fees/ongoing contract support costs
7. Other initial one-time and ongoing cost estimates as appropriate, such as technology
infrastructure improvements needed to support the applications or added City staff resources
that might be required for system support or database administration
As summarized in the table below, estimates for the GIS/Permitting/Work Orders group ranged
from $267,000 to $1,665,000; the Timecards/Overtime/Staffing group ranged from $104,000 to
$123,000; and SQL server software and upgrades to accommodate the applications are estimated
at $62,000. As noted above, this results in combined cost range of $451,000 to $1.8 million,
compared with our initial cost estimates of$500,000 to $1.5 million.
- -- --
49115 ermrtting=Work Orders,(Note l) '_ Tim ecards-Oderdme-Staffing(Note Z)
Accela $807,000 Kronos $104,000
EnerGov $1,665,000 Sungard/Telestaff $123,000
Infor (Version 7) $919,000 SQL_ServerU ades'Oge3
Infor (Version 8) $1,300,000 SQL Licenses $32,000
Sungard $268,000 Servers (2 at $15,000 each) $30,000
The following summarizes key assumptions associated with these cost estimates:
1. GIS/Permitting/Work Orders Group. While we received an estimate from Azteca, it only
includes replacement of a few applications (specifically work orders and service requests),
whereas the other estimates are for replacement of all applications in this group. CitizenServe
provides a hosted software solution that is rented to customers and accessed via the Internet.
Ba -s
i�
FoxPro Application Replacement Page 6
As such, the up-front costs are much lower than those of the other vendors, with much higher
ongoing annual cost than the other vendors. For this reason, to provide the best "apples-to-
apples" comparison with the other proposals, we have not included their cost proposals in the
chart above. Lastly, Infor presented estimates based on two different versions of their
software—the older, nearly obsolete Version 7 and the newer, updated Version 8. While
both estimates are included above for comparison purposes, it is unlikely that we would
recommend implementing the Version 7 option.
2. Timecards/Overtime/Staffing group. Sungard and Telestaff are grouped together because
each one can only provide one component of our needs:Sungard has a timecards program but
not a staffing program; and Telestaff has a staffing program but not a timecards program.
Accordingly, we would need to purchase both systems to have a complete application.
3. SQL Server Upgrade& The City's current SQL licenses only cover single processor systems
and do not allow for an unlimited number of virtual copies. The vendor licenses allow for an
unlimited number of virtual server copies on the same physical server. Having licenses for
both processors will allow the City's SQL virtual servers to take full advantage of our virtual
server software. Additionally, our initial assessment is that two added servers at an estimated
cost of$15,000 each would be needed to accommodate the application software from both
groups.
4. Annual Maintenance and Licensing Fees. These ongoing costs the first year after
installation range from $30,000 to $150,000 in the GIS/Permitting/Work Orders group, and
$6,000 to $17,000 in the Timecards/Overtime/Staffing group.
As detailed in the CIP request included with the Mid-Year Budget Review (which the Council
will also be considering on February 23, 2010 in conjunction with this item), we recommend
funding the replacement as follows:
Pro'ect Fundi n by Source
General Fund 75% 862,500
Water Fund 12% 138,000
Sewer Fund 8% 92,000
Transit Fund 3% 34,500
Parking Fund 1 2%1 23,000
Total I 100/6 1 $19150,000
These were determined via a weighted average of three factors: computer workstations, GIS
usage and full-time equivalent employees. This was based on the average of allocation factors
used in the 2007-09 and 2009-11 Cost Allocation Plans.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Appropriate a different amount. Given the range of the estimates, the Council could
reasonably select a higher or lower amount for the project budget. However, at the mid-point
FoxPro Application Replacement Page 7
of the range of cost estimates we received from the finalist vendors, we believe that
$1,150,000 is a reasonable project budget at this time.
2. Wait until we receive and evaluate proposals before appropriating funds. We could
wait to establish a project budget until we have evaluated the proposals and prepared an
award recommendation, and return to the Council at that time for both budget adoption and
contract award. This has the benefit of waiting until we have a more refined cost based on a
detailed evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the vendor proposals. However, there
are two downsides to this approach that we believe outweigh this benefit:
• We believe it is important to formally recognize a cost for this project and reflect it in our
financial planning and management. Doing otherwise could lead to a misleading picture
of the City's fiscal situation if no costs for this replacement are assumed in our budgeting
and financial planning. Stated simply, we are now in a much better position to reasonably
assess what the replacement costs will be than we were in October 2009, and as such we
should adopt a formal project budget at this time.
• Proposal evaluation and the City's position in vendor negotiations will be significantly
enhanced if there is a clearly established project budget.
In summary, it is the City's longstanding practice to adopt budgets for all City programs and
projects as early as possible in the financial planning and purchasing process. We believe
that the City has been well-served by this approach and it should be used in this case as well.
3. Allocate costs differently between funds. We believe that it is reasonable to allocate a"fair
share" of the project cost to the enterprise funds. The proposed allocation methodology is
consistent with the City's established cost allocation plan methodology, and as such, we do
not recommend apportioning costs differently.
4. Debt finance the replacement cost. The annual General Fund cost if the replacement was
debt financed over five years (the longest term we would recommend for software), the
annual cost would be about $210,000. While debt financing could be used, which would
mitigate the fiscal impact in 2009-11, we do not recommend doing so for three reasons:
• It would make balancing the budget that much more difficult in future years. We believe
it makes more sense to use our reserves today in mitigating higher costs tomorrow.
• The interest cost would add about $115,000 (12%) to the total project cost.
• Under our Budget and Fiscal Policies, debt financing should generally be used when the
life of the asset to be financed is 10 years or longer (page B-19 of the 2009-11 Financial
Plan).
5. Defer or re-phase the project. Given the lack of viable alternatives, it will not be possible
to support and maintain these applications if the project is defered (which is one of the
reasons why it is so important to complete their replacement quickly). Several programs,
FoxPro Application Replacement Page 8
such as building permits, are already experiencing decreased productivity due to the inability
to make programming changes to the applications. The City can no longer wait several years
to address these applications due to the lack of support and maintenance resources.
6. Change the scope of the project. There are no significant opportunities for changing the
scope of the project: the applications need to be replaced; and data conversion, software
implementation, system integration and user training are all required elements of this project.
7. Do not replace these applications. Given the importance of these FoxPro applications in
supporting a wide range of mission-critical applications throughout the organization, the
ability of these programs to increase productivity and improve customer service and the lack
of viable alternatives to replacing them with a packaged system, we do not recommend this
option.
ATTACHMENTS
1. FoxPro Application Replacement Project Plan
2. RFP for FoxPro Application Replacement: GIS-Permitting-Work Orders
3. RFP for FoxPro Application Replacement: Timecards-Staffing-Overtime
s
T:\FoxPm Application Replacement\Council Meetings\CAR 2-23-1 O.doc
lttachrnent®
Project Plan
FOXPRO APPLICATION REPLACEMENT
October 1, 2009
PURPOSE
Respond to the lack of reliable, continuing support for the City's customized Visual FoxPro applications
by replacing them with one or more packaged systems that will meet a variety of user needs, allow
integration among programs and retain historical data.
OBJECTIVES AND DELIVERABLES
By March 31, 2010
1. Complete application inventory, identify replacement priorities and determine application groups
("clusters") as appropriate.
2. Select vendor(s) and begin replacing existing Visual FoxPro applications with appropriate packaged
systems in accordance with the City's Information Technology(IT) Acquisition and Support Policy.
3. Allocate appropriate resources to acquire and support the replacement.applications..
4. Develop training strategy for all City staff who use these applications.
In the Interim
Given the lack of vendor resources, it will be very difficult to support and maintain these applications in
the interim (which is one of the reasons why it is so important to complete their replacement quickly).
In-house IT staff has some ability to make minor programming changes. For this reason, any changes to
these programs until they are replaced will need to be limited to those that are essential for mission-
critical functions and within the capacity of existing staff.
BACKGROUND
The City currently uses 35 applications written and customized in Microsoft Visual FoxPro. These
applications were created over the past 20 years by an outside, one-person consulting firm (Bonnie
McKee), who maintained and modified them as necessary. These applications are the user interface
software for a wide range of mission-critical applications throughout the organization, including land
use inventory, geographic information system (GIS), payroll timecards, and work orders. The
applications automate City business processes and are accessed by all departments. Most of the
applications are front ends/user portals to Microsoft Structured Query Language (SQL) databases.
There are two distinct challenges facing the City in supporting these applications:
1. Obsolescent Software. Microsoft has stated that it will no longer support Visual FoxPro nor will it
release any further versions. The City has very limited ability to support and maintain these custom
Visual FoxPro applications since this is a disappearing programming language and the code libraries
that power the City's applications have been customized by Ms. McKee, who recently passed away.
Support for both Visual FoxPro and ESRI's Map Objects (which powers the maps in the City's
applications) is scheduled to end within the next few years. The specific version of Map Objects
currently used by the City has been end-of-life for several years. For this reason, the four-year
I Atte.. O ent.L
FoxPro Application Replacement Project Plan Page 2
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)in the 2009-11 Financial Plan showed converting these applications
to Microsoft's current ".NET" framework in 2011-13 at an estimated cost of$370,000.
2. No Vable Support for Existing Visual FoxPro Applications. The obsolescence of the software
language has been compounded by the recent and sudden death of Ms. McKee. In our efforts to find
replacement contract programmers, it has become clear that due to the outdated software and lack of
programming documentation, it will not be possible to contract with programmers both willing and
capable of maintaining the City's current applications.
In short, the challenge facing the City has shifted from converting these applications to more current
software to the more difficult and resource-intensive task of replacing them entirely.
IT Acquisition and Support Policy
In 2001, the City contracted with the Gartner Group for a five-year IT Strategic Plan. At that time,
Gartner advised against using locally-developed, customized software for mission-critical applications;
and the recommendations of the IT Strategic Plan regarding system acquisition and support were
subsequently adopted as part of the City's IT Acquisition and Support Policy. However, for many years
prior to the IT Strategic Plan, the City was already contracting with Ms. McKee for design, development
and maintenance of customized Visual FoxPro applications. While this approach was not consistent
with the IT Acquisitions and Support Policy, the City was well-served for many years by these custom,
integrated applications provided at a low cost that did an excellent job of meeting City needs.
However, because the consultant is no longer available, and successors have been unable to support
these applications, we now recommend using the packaged system approach in accordance with the IT
Acquisition and Support Policy. This policy outlines three perspectives when acquiring IT systems:
1. Risk assessment
2. Locally-developed versus packaged systems features: advantages and disadvantages
3. Decision-making strategies:decentralized versus centralized
Low Risk High Risk
Strate Selection: Risk.4ssessment
Not Mission-Critical C 1%lission Criticality ' Highly Mission-Critical
Familiar Technology C Technical Complezih' ' ?le« Technology
Single Department C Organizational Complexity a Organization-Wide
Small, Simple Data Base C Application Size Extremely Large and Complex
_Local Development Pa It e System Ac uisition.
All of the factors except for technical complexity place most of the City's Visual FoxPro applications in
the"packaged system" category.
Attacha hent
FoxPro Application Replacement Project Plan Page 3
Acquisition and Development Stratgp&es
Local Developnlent Package Systeir Acquisition
■ Application fully customized to meet local ■ Package provides pre-defined functionality;
requirements. changes should be limited to formatting issues.
■ Relatively lower cost. ■ Relatively higher cost.
■ Ability to meet City programming and data base ■ Selection criteria can include its ability to meet
requirements- City data base standards.
■ Design limited to local knowledge. ■ Design reflects thinking of a number of agencies.
a Support limited to small, local organizations— N Support provided by the vendor as pan of the
often a single person. package,with assistance by user groups.
■ Changes in requirements can be identified and ■ User groups and vendor can jointly develop
implemented locally. modifications over time as needed to meet
changing requirements.
■ There are inherent risks in new development ■ Ability to select system that is already
efforts: operational, and conduct reference and
• Incorrect or incomplete design. background checks before acquiring.
• Faulty programming.
• Incomplete or faulty testing.
■ Tendency to "pave the cow path"by ■ Tendency to re-look-at business policies,
programming to current City business policies, practices and procedures for improvement as part
practices and procedures. of the acquisition and implementation process.
Again, each of these features supports using packaged systems in replacing our existing Visual FoxPro
applications..
Decision-_Makin Strafe
Department Decision
• Application is not part of strategic system Application is part of a strategic system initiative.
initiative.
• Application can be supported on current City- • :application requires introduction of new
standard computers. operating systems and technology; or requires system upgrades to
networks without upgrades or deterioration in support the new application or maintain system
system performance. performance.
• All application users are in one department. • Application users are in more than one
department.
• All information is generated and entered by one • Information is generated and entered by more
department. than one department.
• The application is not required for the operation • The application is required for the operation of
of other applications, systems or work outside of other applications. systems or work outside of the
the department. department.
• Interfaces to existing or proposed applications • Application may need to integrate with
and systems are well defined and requirements applications in other departments beyond well-
can be met. defined standards.
`/�
I
�
FoxPro Application Replacement Project Plan Attachment Page 4
Based on the factors above, it makes sense to replace these applications with one or more packaged
systems rather than continuing to use individual customized programs; and for the selection process and
subsequent implementation to be highly coordinated, with oversight by the IT Steering Committee
(ITSC).
CURRENT SITUATION
The following chart lists each Visual FoxPro application currently in use by all City departments. It
identifies the department responsible for managing the application as well as other departments that use
and depend on the application to do business:
Departments That Use the Application
Managing Public CommParks& City Human Finance
Application Department Police Fire Works Utilities Dev Rec Admin Atty Res &IT
Planning
Applications Comm Dev x x x x
Unreinforced Comm Dev x x x
Masonry
Planning Comm Dev x
Library
Building Comm Dev x x x x x
Permits
Plan Review Comm Dev x x x x x x x
Violation Comm Dev x x x x x x
Tracking
Land Use Comm Dev x x x x x x x x x x
Land Use Comm Dev x x x
Maintenance
Planning Job Comm Dev x x
Tickets
Building
Damage Comm Dev x x x x x X
Assessment
Fixed Assets Finance&IT x
Timecard Finance&IT x x x x x x x x x x
Fire Calendar Fire x
Fire Fire x
Prevention
Weed Fire x
Abatement
Fire Hose Fire x
Tracking(?)
Overtime& Fire x
Staffing
Attachm it
Fox-Pro Application Replacement Project Plan Page 5
Departments That Use the Application
Managing Public Comm Parks& City Human Finance
Application Department Police Fire Works Utilities Dev Rec Admin Arty Res &rr
Plan File public Works x x x x
Management
Bid Lists Public Works x
Encroachment Public Works x x x x
GIS Service Public Works x x x x x x x x x x
Requests
Parks Service Public Works x
Requests
Streets
Service Public Works x
Requests
Building
Maint Service Public Works x
Requests
General
Service Public Works x x x x x x x x x x
Requests
Traffic Model
TAZ Output Public Works x
Processor
Payment
Vouchers/Pur Public Works x x x x x
chase Orders
GeoData Public Works x x x x x x x x x x
Overtime Public Works x
CIP Project
Management public Works z
Trees Service Public Works x
Request
Keytrack Public Works x
Industrial
Waste Permit Utilities x
Tracking
Utilities Work Utilities/
Order Comm Dev x x x x
Water Utilities x x x
Conservation
*Excludes FoxPro applications no longer in use or not in need of replacement
�
p��pyyppqqent /
FoxPro Application Replacement Project Plan Attach Y —� Page 6
PROJECT STRATEGY AND SCOPE
Project Strategy
1. Complete inventory of all r1sual FoxPro applications. Meet with representatives from each
department to determine which applications are managed and used by them and for what purpose.
Also determine departments' application needs and desired functionality. Identify application groups
and replacement priorities.
2. Complete high-level assessment of other IT needs. Gather information from department contacts on
three other areas:
a. Processes automated with software other than Visual FoxPro that work well.
b. Processes automated with software other than Visual FoxPro that don't work well.
c. Processes not currently automated that should be.
While these other unmet needs may not be addressed in this process, they are important to consider
in evaluating vendors.
3. Select vendors. Prepare and issue Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to identified vendors in order to
assess their qualifications in meeting City application needs. Based on responses, prepare and issue
Request for Proposals (RFP) to most qualified vendors based on application groups. Proposals will
be evaluated by appropriate review teams using several criteria in assessing which systems best meet
the City's needs, including responsiveness to the RFP; results of demonstrations and reference
checks; implementation strategies and schedule; system cost for both acquisition and ongoing
support; and ongoing system support needs by in-house staff.
There will be one RFQ issued to identified vendors. However, based on the vendor responses to the
RFQ, as well as the designation of application groups, it may be necessary to develop multiple RFPs
to meet the wide variety of application needs and functionality.
4. Develop maintenance plan. Determine the amount of staffing and financial resources necessary to
maintain and support the new applications.
5. Implement system. Develop and implement replacement systems based on identified priorities and
application groups.
6. Train users. Develop and implement comprehensive strategy to coordinate the training of all City
employees on the replacement applications.
Project Scope
The City currently uses 35 custom applications written in Visual FoxPro. Many of these are mission-
critical applications,that affect every department and must be replaced with systems that will meet our
short-term needs as well as address long-term functionality and integration issues. Under the City's IT
Acquisitions and Support Policy, packaged systems should be used in making this replacement. It
would be preferable to move to an organization-wide, over-arching software application solution.
6a -/�
FoxPro Application Replacement Project Plan Attcict A�ieng ` Page 7
However, given the market place, it is more likely that existing applications will be replaced by several
vendors, with applications clustered by similar groupings (such as permits, land-based/GIS applications
and work orders).
Many of the Visual FoxPro applications, such as work orders and building permits, are mission-critical
to departmental operations. Other applications, such as land use inventory and timecards, are also
mission-critical and affect organization-wide operations. As noted above, initial replacement plans
focused solely on converting these applications to a more current software program, such as ".NET."
Accordingly, as part of the four-year CIP, the 2009-11 Financial Plan showed converting these
applications in 2011-13 at an estimated cost of$370,000. However, the City can no longer wait several
years to address these applications due to the lack of support and maintenance resources.
In the present situation, three broader concerns emerge:
1. How do we support these applications in the near-term?
2. What should be our longer-term strategy?
3. How do we get there from here?
KEY PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS
1. We will be able to adequately support these applications with in-house resources until they are
replaced.
2. We will be able to quickly select a packaged system for each application group at a reasonable cost.
3. These solutions will meet our short and long-term needs; maintain the current level of operational
efficiency; allow program integration; and retain historical data.
PROJECT CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS
Project Constraints
1. Urgency to replace applications within a short time frame while keeping long-term needs in mind.
2. Commitment of significant financial and staffing resources in a challenging fiscal environment.
3. Need for stakeholder support and buy-in for the project.
4. Standardization of custom applications.
5. Integration of applications and prevention of overlap.
6. Highly unlikely that there will be one vendor with an acceptable universal solution.
7. Training users on new applications.
8. Ongoing support and maintenance of new programs.
Project Limitations
1. Under the proposed packaged system approach, replacement applications will not be customized.
However, City staff have become accustomed to using applications customized exactly to their
specifications and that can be quickly modified at a low cost. It is highly unlikely that any packaged
program will be able to deliver the exact functionality that users have become accustomed to. On the
other hand, the benefit of the packaged systems is the greater assurance of their viability as ongoing
application support is not dependent on one individual.
Ba _1s
1 1
FoxPro Application Replacement Project Plan Page 8
2. It will be difficult to balance the need to make good long-term decisions with the need to also act
quickly in selecting and implemeting replacement applications.
PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND TEAM
Sponsor: Director of Finance & Information Technology
Oversight: IT Steering Committee (ITSC)
Project Manager: IT Manager
Team: Department Heads (from departments managing applications); Application Administrators;
Finance& IT Administrative Analyst; IT staff
STAKEHOLDERS
Stakeholders include all City employees and the community at large that benefits from the cost-effective
services performed and information provided by these applications.
PROJECT TASKS AND SCHEDULE
A. Initial Project Planning
1. Identify department contacts for all applications. Admin Analyst 8/28/09
2. Complete application inventory and identify"what and Application Administrators 9/24/09
why" for each.
3. Determine application groups, assess priorities, identify top Application Administrators; 9/28/09
vendors for each application and review project plan. ITSC
4. Present project plan to Council. Director of Finance⁢ IT 10/20/09
Manager; Admin Analyst
B.Vendor Identification and Q
uahfications; ,. • .:
1. Prepare draft RFQ. IT Manager; Admin Analyst 9/28/09
2. Review and approve RFQ. ITSC; Application 10/5/09
Adrrtinistrators; IT Staff
3. SendRFQto selected vendors. Admin Analyst 10/12/09
4. Conduct pre-qualification teleconference(s). ITSC; Application 10/20/09
Administrators; IT Staff,
Admin Analyst
5. Submit qualifications package. Vendors 11/2/09
6. Evaluate submittals; conduct finalist interviews as needed; ITSC; Application 11/23/09
participate in vendor demonstrations and/or city visits as Administrators; IT Staff;
necessary; finalize application groups and selected vendors. I Admin Analyst
C.Vendor Selection
1. Prepare draft RFP(s) for selected vendors. Admin Analyst; IT Manager 12/8/09
2. Review draft RFP(s). ITSC; Application 12/18/09
Administrators; IT Staff
3. Approve RFP(s) and appropriate funds. Council 1/5/10
4. Send RFP(s)to selected vendors. Admin Analyst 1/6/10
5. Submit proposals. Vendors 2/8/10 /
�� -Aa
AttachmAent
FoxPro Application Replacement Project Plan Page 9
6. Evaluate proposals and conduct interviews as necessary; ITSC; Application 3/26/10
prepare recommendation to City Manager. Administrators; IT Staff;
Admin Analyst
7. Award contract(s). City Manager 3/31/10
D.Implementation*
1. Prepare detailed project implementation schedule. IT Manager; Admin Analyst 4/15/10
Application Administrators;
Vendor(s)
2. Convert databases, complete installation and modify Application.Administrators; IT 8/15/10
departmental procedures as needed to implement Staff;Vendor(s)
applications.
E.Training*
1. Identify training needs and develop strategy. Application Administrators; IT 4/15/10
Staff; Admin Analyst
Vendor(s)
2. Finalize training schedule and delivery. Application Administrators; IT 5/15/10
Staff; Admin Analyst
Vendor(s)
3. Conduct staff training. Vendor(s) 8/15/10
F.Project Wrap-Up
1. Troubleshoot and complete all aspects of project Application Administrators; IT 9/30/10
implementation. Staff
2. Present report on lessons learned to ITSC. IT Manager; Application 10/30/10
Administrators; IT Staff,
Admin Analyst
* Each identified application group may have its own implementation and training time schedule. However,
they will all follow the same process.
PROJECT RESOURCES
It is too early to identify the financial resources necessary for this project; however, significant staff
resources will be required. As reflected in the 2011-13 CIP, simply upgrading to a ".NET" system was
estimated to cost approximately $370,000. Accordingly, replacing all Visual FoxPro applications is
likely to cost significantly more. Based on the experiences of other organizations, rough estimates range
from $500,000 to $1.5 million. However, we will not have a clearer idea of likely costs until completion
of the RFQ process.
city of
` san tins OBISp0 Attachment—L
990 Palm Street ■ San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Notice Requesting Proposals for
GIS-PERMITTING-WORK ORDER SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting proposals to provide the City with replacement "packaged
systems" for those that have been locally developed in Visual FoxPro pursuant to Specification No.
91003-A. All proposals must be received electronically via email by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, March 15,
2010, addressed to rmessner(a,slocity.org.
Proposals received after said date and time will not be considered. Proposals shall be submitted using the
forms provided in the specification package.
Specification packages and additional information may be obtained for free on the City's Web site at
www.slocity.org/finance/bids.asp or by contacting Rachel Messner at rmessnerAslocity.org.
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services,programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. n /
�n �1
I
S ecification No. 91003-A
TABLE OF •
A. Description of Work 1
B. General Terms and Conditions 2
Proposal Requirements
Contract Award and Execution
Contract Performance
C. Special Terms and Conditions 7
Proposal Content
Proposal Evaluation and Selection
Proposal Review and Award Schedule
Alternative Proposals
Accuracy of Specifications
D. Agreement 10
E. Insurance Requirements 12
F. Proposal Submittal Forms 14
Proposal Submittal Summary
Detail Proposal Submittal
Statement of Past Contract Disqualifications
8rl- -6
tett %ftnent a
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
PURPOSE
The City of San Luis Obispo("City") is requesting proposals from qualified vendors to replace its locally
developed Visual FoxPro applications with"packaged systems." Many of these applications are mission-
critical and affect every department, so they must be replaced with systems that will meet City staff
short-term needs as well as address long-term functionality and integration issues.
BACKGROUND
Request for Qualifications. The City's software replacement needs were previously outlined in the
request for qualifications (RFQ) and subsequent vendor qualification submittals. Key criteria in
selecting finalists during the RFQ process included the ability to meet most, if not all, of the City's
replacement needs and operate in the current technology environment. Additionally, all of the finalist
vendors confirmed their ability to meet the software installation timeframe of April-August 2010.
City-to-Vendor Briefings. These pre-proposal briefings/demonstrations of the City's current FoxPro
applications were conducted with the finalist vendors in two groups—GIS/Permitting/Work Orders and
Timecards/Overtime/Staffing. Detailed information on the functionality of each FoxPro application, as
well as needs requirements for the replacement software was distributed at each of these meetings.
Vendor-to-City Briefings. Finally, individual "Vendor-to-City" demonstrationsibriefings were
conducted by the finalists for City staff. These briefings addressed:
1. Overview of the firm's experience-and its capabilities.
2. How the software will meet the City's needs, as detailed in the RFQ and the "City to Vendors"
briefing; and areas the vendor will either not be able to address or where significant modifications
would be required.
3. Proposed approach to the conversion/installation and tentative schedule
4. Services or data to be provided by the City
Given the extensive RFQ and backgrounding process that preceded this step, the RFP process has been
streamlined to focus on agreement terms and conditions, any exceptions, installation schedule and price,
with references to the detailed documentation from group and one-on-one briefings.
WORKSCOPE
Stated simply, the workscope is the combined documentation resulting from the RFQ, City-to-Vendor
briefings and Vendor-to-City briefings.
Section B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal shall meet
all of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) specifications package. By
virtue of its proposal submittal, the proposer acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all
provisions of the RFP specifications.
2. Proposal Submittal. All proposals must be received electronically via email by 3:00 p.m. on
Monday, March 15,2010, addressed to rmessner(dWocitv.org. Each proposal must be submitted.
on the form(s) provided in the specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals
or supplemental materials.No FAX submittals will be accepted.
3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing:
a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating.
b. Scope of coverage and limits.
C. Deductibles and self-insured retention.
The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the proposer's insurance
coverage during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are
not required until contract award. The City's insurance requirements are detailed in Section E.
4. Proposal Quotes and Unit Price Extensions. The extensions of unit prices for the quantities
indicated and the lump sum prices quoted by the proposer must be entered in figures in the
spaces provided on the Proposal Submittal Form(s). Any lump sum bid shall be stated in figures..
The Proposal Submittal Form(s)must be totally completed. If the unit price and the total amount
stated by any proposer for any item are not in agreement, the unit price alone will be considered
as representing the proposer's intention and the proposal total will be corrected to conform to the
specified unit price.
5. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A proposer may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice
prior to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the
Director of Finance for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the
proposer unopened. No proposal received after the time specified or at any place other than that
stated in the "Notice Requesting Proposals" will be considered. All proposals will be opened and
declared publicly. Proposers or their representatives are invited to be present at the opening of
the proposals.
6. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed
to make or file, or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal
when specifically requested; however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub-
proposal to a proposer submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such
proposer, is not thereby disqualified from submitting a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to
other proposers submitting proposals.
-2- U 0?, '02 l
� ` hmen5�
7. Cooperative Purchasing. During the term of the contract; the successful proposer will extend
all terms and conditions to any other local governmental agencies upon their request. These
agencies will issue their own purchase orders, will directly receive goods or services at their
place of business and will be directly billed by the successful proposer.
8. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a
written response from the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged,
but will be permitted. However, any such oral communication shall not be binding on the City.
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
9. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period
of 60 days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive
non-substantial irregularities in any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one
part of a proposal and accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualified by
specific limitations. See the "special terms and conditions" in Section C of these specifications
for proposal evaluation and contract award criteria.
10. Competency and Responsibility of Proposer. The City reserves full discretion to determine
the competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of proposers. Proposers
will provide, in a timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a
decision.
11. Contract Requirement. The proposer to whom award is made (Contractor) shall execute a
written contract with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been
sent by mail to it at the address given in its proposal. The contract shall be made in the form
adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications.
12. Insurance Requirements. The Contractor shall provide proof of insurance in the form,
coverages and amounts specified in Section E of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar
days after notice of contract award as a precondition to contract execution.
13. Business Tax. The Contractor must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business tax certificate
before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business tax
program may be obtained by calling(805) 781-7134.
CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
-14. Ability to Perform. The Contractor warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through
subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, labor,materials, and licenses necessary to cant'out
and complete the work hereunder in compliance with any and all federal, state, county, city, and
special district laws, ordinances, and regulations.
15. Laws to be Observed. The Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe and
comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo
ordinances,regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work.
16. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the
Contractor is required to pay.
-3- 5,;2_�L��
Attachment a
17. Permits and Licenses. The Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges
and fees, and give all notices necessary.
18. Safety Provisions. The Contractor shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to
safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
19. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Contractor's operations create a condition
hazardous to the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City,
furnish, erect and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other
devices and take such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage
or injury to the public and employees.
20. Preservation of City Property. The Contractor shall provide and install suitable safeguards,
approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured
or damaged resulting from the Contractor's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the
Contractor's expense. The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when
the Contractor began work.
21. Immigration Act of 1986. The Contractor warrants on behalf of itself and all subcontractors
engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United
States pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws
shall be employed in the performance of the work hereunder.
22. Contractor Non-Discrimination. In the performance of this work, the Contractor agrees that it
will not engage in, nor permit such subcontractors as it may employ, to engage in discrimination
in employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual
orientation,or religion of such persons.
23. Work Delays. Should the Contractor be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done
hereunder by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes,
fire, earthquake, or any other Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or
labor due to federal government restrictions arising out of defense or war programs,then the time
of completion may, at the City's sole option, be extended for such periods as may be agreed upon
by the City and the Contractor. In the event that there is insufficient time to grant such
extensions prior to the completion date of the contract, the City may, at the time of acceptance of
the work, waive liquidated damages that may have accrued for failure to complete on time, due to
any of the above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such delay, and making a finding as
to the causes of same.
24. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice
and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment or services provided by the
Contractor(Net 30).
25. Inspection. The Contractor shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to
ascertain that the services of the Contractor are being performed in accordance with the
requirements and intentions of this contract. All work done and all materials furnished, if any,
shall be subject to the City's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not
relieve Contractor of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements.
-4-
Ba-�3
26. Audit. The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written
materials used by Contractor in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any
payment to Contractor.
27. Interests of Contractor. The Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall
not acquire any interest—direct, indirect or otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or
degree with the performance of the work hereunder. The Contractor further covenants that, in
the performance of this work, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be
employed. The Contractor certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in
performing this work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in
the performance of the work hereunder, the Contractor shall at all times be deemed an
independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City.
28. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect
and hold the City and its agents, officers and employees harmless from and against any and
all claims asserted or liability established for damages or injuries to any person or property,
including injury to the Contractor's employees, agents or officers that arise from or are
connected with or are caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of the
Contractor, and its agents, officers or employees, in performing the work or services herein,
and all expenses of investigating and defending against same; provided, however, that the
Contractor's duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liability
arising from the established sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its agents,
officers or employees.
29. Contract Assignment. The Contractor shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of
the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual
or business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City.
30. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Contractor is not
faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Contractor
in writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Contractor a 10 (ten)
calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Contractor has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days
specified in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate
the contract immediately by written notice to the Contractor to said effect. Thereafter, neither
party shall have any further duties, obligations, responsibilities, or rights under the contract
except, however, any and all obligations of the Contractor's surety shall remain in full force and
effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the termination
thereof..
In said event, the Contractor shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed
from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Notice of
Termination, minus any offset from such payment representing the City's damages from such
breach. "Reasonable value" includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last
milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by the Contractor as may be set forth in
the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods performed
or provided by the Contractor shall be based solely on the City's assessment of the value of the
work-in-progress in completing the overall workscope.
Attu, t'n eo ant
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed
abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to permit a
full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Contractor be entitled to
receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal.
Section C
SPECIAL • •
1. Proposal Content. Your proposal must include the following information:
Submittal Forms
a. Proposal submittal summary
b. Detail proposal submittal form
C. Statement of past contract disqualifications
d. Certificate of insurance
Note: For ease of electronic preparation, proposers may prepare their own submittal
forms as long as they contain the same information in a similar format.
Work Program
e. Description of your approach to completing the work.
f. Description of proposed modifications in meeting the City's application needs.
g. As needed, description of any proposed exceptions to the City's term and conditions
and/or City application needs that cannot be met by your proposed solution.
h. Tentative schedule by phase and task for completing the work.
i. Services or data to be provided by the City, including description of required changes in
the City's infrastructure and/or operating system/application software to implement your
proposed solution.
j. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision.
Compensation
k. Proposed compensation and payment schedule tied to accomplishing key tasks.
Proposal Length and Copies
1. Proposals should not exceed 35 pages, including attachments and supplemental
materials.
in. The minimum font size is 11 point,with minimum left and right margins of one-inch, and
top and bottom margins of 0.7 inches.
Proposal Submittal
n. Proposals must be submitted by Monday, March 15, by 3:00 PM in the format
described in the RFP specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals or
supplemental materials.
o. Proposal documents must be emailed to rmessner Aslocity.org as either a PDF
(preferred)or Word document.
2. Proposal Evaluation and Selection. Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee based
on the following criteria:
a. Understanding of the work required by the City.
b. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal.
7 a�-
AMC-Innt
C. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully
performing the work required by the City.
d. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services.
e. Proposed approach in completing the work and ability to implement the replacement in a
timely manner.
f References..
g. Background and related experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this
proj ect.
h. Proposed compensation.
As reflected above, contract award will not be based solely on price, but on a combination of
factors as determined to be in the best interest of the City. After evaluating the proposals and
discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected contractor, the City reserves
the right to further negotiate the proposed work and/or method and amount of compensation.
3. Proposal Review and Award Schedule. The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule
for proposal review, contract award and completion of work`.
a. Issue RFP 2/24/10
b. Receive proposals 3/15/10
C. Evaluate proposals/conduct interviews 3/26/10
d. Award contract(s) 3/31/10
e. Convert databases/install replacement applications 8/31/10
f. Conduct staff training 9/30/10
4. Alternative Proposals. The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals) that it
believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the
proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the
alternatives, and discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the
other(s). If an alternative proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be
expanded proportionately by the number of alternatives submitted.
5. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be
accurate and to contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Proposers
are cautioned to undertake an independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as
City does not guaranty the accuracy of its interpretation of test results contained in the
specifications package. In preparing its proposal, the proposer and all subcontractors named in
its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors resulting from any
misstatements or omissions in the plans and specifications that could easily have been
ascertained by examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession.
Although the effect of ambiguities or defects in the plans and specifications will be as
determined by law, any patent ambiguity or defect shall give rise to a duty of proposer to inquire
prior to proposal submittal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any such ambiguity or defect to be
construed against the proposer. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered patent if it is of such
a nature that the proposer, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part, knew or
should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure of the
proposer or subcontractors to notify City in writing of specification or plan defects or
ambiguities prior to proposal submittal shall waive any right to assert said defects or ambiguities
subsequent to submittal of the proposal.
-8-
�� 7
To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be
liable for costs incurred by the successful proposer to achieve the project's objective or standard
beyond the amounts provided there for in the proposal.
In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or
alleged ambiguity or defect in the plans and/or specifications, or any other matter whatsoever,
Contractor shall immediately notify the City in writing, and the Contractor and all subcontractors
shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the ambiguity or defect is major,
material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order, time extension, or
additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore described
written notice within one(1) working day of contractor's becoming aware of the facts giving rise
to the dispute shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or
ambiguity in the plans or specifications concerning the dispute.
-9- 5Z2 -i
Section D
' FORMOF -
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo onday, date,_year] by and
between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and
CONTRALTO ],hereinafter referred to as Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2010, City requested proposals for Visual FoxPro replacement software per
Specification No.91003-A.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for said
project.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter
contained,the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered,as
first written above,until acceptance or completion of said project.
2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 91003-A and Contractor's
proposal dated[d e],are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing replacement software as specified in this Agreement,
City will pay and Contractor shall receive therefor compensation in a total sum not to exceed[$ .001.
4. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements
hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City,Contractor agrees with City to do everything required by
this Agreement and the said specification.
5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement
shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Manager of the City.
6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically
incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral
-10- 80, -�
o
agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of
any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the parties
hereto.
7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage
prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Contractor Name
Address
8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that each
individual executing this agreement on behalf of each parry is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute
Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year
first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By:
City Clerk City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
By:
City Attorney
( _ , C!-i:l'.L�.�7�aa17 Yl tri lltlll
Section E
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of
the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall beat least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage(occurrence form CG 0001).
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code
1 (any auto).
3. Workers'Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability
Insurance.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property
damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used,
either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general
aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared
to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such
deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and
volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related
investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be
endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as
respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products
and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the
Contractor; or automobiles owned leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage
shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers,
official, employees, agents or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary
insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any
insurance or self=insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or
volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or
suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be
suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty
-12- ��'31
'Fi��tltlL
(30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the
City.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of
no less than A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing
required coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability coverage
are also required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that
insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City
before work commences.
Subcontractors. Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall furnish
separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be
subject to all of the requirements stated herein.
-13-
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM
The undersigned declares that she or he has carefully examined Specification No. 91003-A, which is
hereby made a part of this proposal; is thoroughly familiar with its contents; is authorized to represent.the
proposing firm; and agrees to perform the specified work for the following cost quoted in full:
PROPOSAL TEEM: GIS-Permitting-Work Orders Software Solutions
Software
Modifications
Data Conversion
Installation
Training
Other Costs
TOTAL
Bundling Discount(If Applicable)
Other(If Applicable)
TOTAL $
❑ Certificate of insurance attached; insurance company's A.M. Best rating:
Firm Name and Address
Contact Name
Phone Email
Authorized Representative
Name
Title Date
'33
zr � ihu��U�` a
DETAIL PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM
The City is requesting proposals for replacement of the following Visual FoxPro applications. Please
enter cost estimates for each application. Indicate if bundling the applications makes the total cost less
than the sum of replacing individual applications.
.` Data -
Application Software Modi$cstlon Conversion Imtaliadon ' Tratuing. Other " Total Coat
Land Use/Maintenance
Planning Applications
Planning Library
Plan Review
Planning Job Tickets
Building Permits
Unreinforced Masonry
Building Damage
Assessment
Violation Tracking
Traffic Model TAZ Output
Processor
Fixed Assets
Keytrsck
Public Works Development
Review(Encroachment)
Plan File Management
Service Requests
GeoData
Utilities Work Orders
Industrial Waste Permit
Tracking
Water Conservation
TOTAL
Bundling Discount(if applicable: provide supplemental detail as appropriate)
Other(provide supplemental detail)
TOTAL(Must agree with amount stated in the Proposal Summary) $
*Describe in supplemental attachment
IN
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The proposer shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in
it, has ever been disqualified, removed or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal,
state or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other
reason, including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or
product quality,and if so to explain the circumstances.
Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare?
Yes ❑ No ❑
■ If yes, explain the circumstances.
Executed on at under penalty
of perjury of the laws of the State of California,that the foregoing is true and correct.
-16- -3 S
a
PROPOSERS LIST
Organization-wide Software Application Solutions—SPECIFICATION NO. 91003-A
Accela, Inc. Azteca Systems, Inc.
Peter Ramos Billy Lang
2633 Camino Ramon, Suite 12.0 11075 South State Street, Suite 24
San Ramon, CA 94583 Sandy, UT 84070
(925) 659-3247 (970)471-5666
(925)659-3201 (801)4334303
CitizenServe EnerGov Solutions, LLC
Rafael Cantu Chuck Newbery
1730 E. Warner Road, Suite 10-107 2160 Satellite Blvd., Suite 300
Tempe, AZ 85138 Duluth, GA 30097
(800) 325-9818 x706 (888)355-1093 0102
(800) 325-9818 (678)474-1002
Infor Sungard
Carl Temple Terry Wayland
11092 Sun Center Drive 3 West Broad Street, Suite 1
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Bethlehem,PA 18018
(800) 821-9316 (610) 691-3616
(916) 921-6620 (610) 861-9323
&2 -3L
I
City of Attachment
San lues OBISPO
990 Palm Street ■ San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Notice Requesting Proposals for
TIMECARDS-OVERTIME-STAFFING SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting proposals to provide the City with replacement "packaged
systems" for those that have been locally developed in Visual FoxPro pursuant to Specification No.
91003-B. All proposals must be received electronically via email by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, March 15,
2010, addressed to rmessner(7a,slocity.org.
Proposals received after said date and time will not be considered. Proposals shall be submitted using the
forms provided in the specification package.
Specification packages and additional information may be obtained for free on the City's Web site at
www.slocity.org/financefbids.asi)or by contacting Rachel Messner at rmessnerna,slocitv.ore.
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services,programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. 3�'�
Attachment 3
S ecification No. 91003-B
TABLE OF •
A. Description of Work 1
B. General Terms and Conditions 2
Proposal Requirements
Contract Award and Execution
Contract Performance
C. Special Terms and Conditions 7
Proposal Content
Proposal Evaluation and Selection
Proposal Review and Award Schedule
Alternative Proposals
Accuracy of Specifications
D. Agreement 10
E. Insurance Requirements 12
F. Proposal Submittal Forms 14
Proposal Submittal Summary
Detail Proposal Submittal
Statement of Past Contract Disqualifications
i5c-2—
Attacumaient 3
Section A
DESCRIPTION
s • • WORK
PURPOSE
The City of San Luis Obispo ("City") is requesting proposals from qualified vendors to replace its locally
developed Visual FoxPro applications with"packaged systems." Many of these applications are mission-
critical and affect every department, so they must be replaced with systems that will meet City staff
short-tern needs as well as address long-term functionality and integration issues.
BACKGROUND
Request for Qualifications. The City's software replacement needs were previously outlined in the
request for qualifications (RFQ) and subsequent vendor qualification submittals. Key criteria in
selecting finalists during the RFQ process included the ability to meet most, if not all, of the City's
replacement needs and operate in the current technology environment. Additionally, all of the finalist
vendors confirmed their ability to meet the software installation timeframe of April-August 2010.
City-to-Vendor Briefings. These pre-proposal briefings/demonstrations of the City's current FoxPro
applications were conducted with the finalist vendors in two groups—GIS/Permitting/Work Orders and
Timecards/Overtime/Staffing. Detailed information on the functionality of each FoxPro application, as
well as needs requirements for the replacement software was distributed at each of these meetings.
Vendor-to-City Briefings. Finally, individual "Vendor-to-City" demonstrations/briefings were
conducted by the finalists for City staff. These briefings addressed:
1. Overview of the firm's experience and its capabilities.
2. How the software will meet the City's needs, as detailed in the RFQ and the "City to Vendors"
briefing; and areas the vendor will either not be able to address or where significant modifications
would be required.
3. Proposed approach to the conversion/installation and tentative schedule.
4. Services or data to be provided by the City
Given the extensive RFQ and backgrounding process that preceded this step, the RFP process has been
streamlined to focus on agreement terms and conditions, any exceptions, installation schedule and price,
with references to the detailed documentation from group and one-on-one briefings.
WORKSCOPE
Stated simply, the workscope is the combined documentation resulting from the RFQ, City-to-Vendor
briefings and Vendor-to-City briefings.
- Aha'chmentGENERAL TERMS 3
Section B
AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal shall meet
all of the terms, and conditions of the.Request for Proposals (RFP) specifications package. By
virtue of its proposal submittal, the proposer acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all
provisions of the RFP specifications.
2. Proposal Submittal. All proposals must be received electronically via email by 3:00 p.m. on
Monday, March 15,2010, addressed to rmessner ,slocity.org. Each proposal must be submitted
on the form(s) provided in the specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals
or supplemental materials. No FAX submittals will be accepted..
3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing:
a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating.
b. Scope of coverage and limits.
C. Deductibles and self-insured retention.
The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the proposer's insurance
coverage during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are
not required until contract award. The City's insurance requirements are detailed in Section E.
4. Proposal Quotes and Unit Price Extensions. The extensions of unit prices for the quantities
indicated and the lump sum prices quoted by the proposer must be entered in figures in the
spaces provided on the Proposal Submittal Form(s). Any lump sum bid shall be stated in figures.
The Proposal Submittal Form(s) must be totally completed. If the unit price and the total amount
stated by any proposer for any item are not in agreement, the unit price alone will be considered
as representing the proposer's intention and the proposal total will be corrected to conform to the
specified unit price.
5. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A proposer may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice
prior to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the
Director of Finance for its withdrawal; in which event the proposal will be returned to the
proposer unopened.. No proposal received after the time specified or at any place other than that
stated in the "Notice Requesting Proposals" will be considered. All proposals will be opened and
declared publicly. Proposers or their representatives are invited to be present at the opening of
the proposals.
6. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed
to make or file, or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal
when specifically requested; however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub-
proposal to a proposer submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such
proposer, is not thereby disqualified from submitting a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to
other proposers submitting proposals.
Jam` �7v
-2-
ME 'invent 3
7. Cooperative Purchasing. During the term of the contract, the successful proposer will extend
all terms and conditions to any other local governmental agencies upon their request. These
agencies will issue their own purchase orders, will directly receive goods or services at their
place of business and will be directly billed by the successful proposer.
8. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a
written response from the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged,
but will be permitted. However, any such oral communication shall not be binding on the City.
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
9. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period
of 60 days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive
non-substantial irregularities in any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one
part of a proposal and accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualified by
specific limitations. See the `-`special terms and conditions" in Section C of these specifications
for proposal evaluation and contract award criteria.
10. Competency and Responsibility of Proposer. The City reserves full discretion to determine
the competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of proposers. Proposers
will provide, in a timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a
decision.
11. Contract Requirement. The proposer to whom award is made (Contractor) shall execute a
written contract with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been
sent by mail to it at the address given in its proposal. The contract shall be made in the form
adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications.
12. Insurance Requirements. The Contractor shall provide proof of insurance in the form,
coverages and amounts specified in Section E of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar
days after notice of contract award as a precondition to contract execution.
13. Business Tax. The Contractor must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business tax certificate
before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business tax
program may be obtained by calling(805) 781-7134.
CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
14. Ability to Perform. The Contractor warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through
subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, labor,materials, and licenses necessary to carry out
and complete the work hereunder in compliance with any and all federal, state, county, city, and
special district laws, ordinances, and regulations.
15. Laws to be Observed. The Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe and
comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo
ordinances,regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work.
16. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the
Contractor is required to pay.
-3-
ent
17. Permits and Licenses. The Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges
and fees, and give all notices necessary.
18. Safety Provisions. The Contractor shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to
safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
19. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Contractor's operations create a condition
hazardous to the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City,
furnish; erect and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other
devices and take such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage
or injury to the public and employees.
20. Preservation of City Property. The Contractor shall provide and install suitable safeguards,
approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured
or damaged resulting from the Contractor's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the
Contractor's expense. The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when
the Contractor began work.
21. Immigration Act of 1986. The Contractor warrants on behalf of itself and all subcontractors
engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United
States pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws
shall be employed in the performance of the work hereunder.
22. Contractor Non-Discrimination. In the performance of this work, the Contractor agrees that it
will not engage in, nor permit such subcontractors as it may employ, to engage in discrimination
in employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual
orientation, or religion of such persons.
23. Work Delays. Should the Contractor be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done
hereunder by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes,
fire, earthquake, or any other Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or
labor due to federal government restrictions arising out of defense or war programs, then the time
of completion may, at the City's sole option, be extended for such periods as may be agreed upon
by the City and the Contractor. In the event that there is insufficient time to grant such
extensions prior to the completion date of the contract,the City may, at the time of acceptance of
the work, waive liquidated damages that may have accrued for failure to complete on time, due to
any of the above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such delay, and making a finding as
to the causes of same.
24. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice
and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment or services provided by the
Contractor(Net 30).
25. Inspection. The Contractor shall famish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to
ascertain that the services of the Contractor are being performed in accordance with the
requirements and intentions of this contract. All work done and all materials furnished, if any,
shall be subject to the City's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not
relieve Contractor of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements.
4_
Af r�h7ent��
26. Audit. The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written
materials used by Contractor in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any
payment to Contractor.
27. Interests of Contractor. The Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall
not acquire any interest—direct, indirect or otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or
degree with the performance of the work hereunder. The Contractor further covenants that, in
the performance of this work, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be
employed. The Contractor certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in
performing this work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in
the performance of the work hereunder, the Contractor shall at all times be deemed an
independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City.
28. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect
and hold the City and its agents, officers and employees harmless from and against any and
all claims asserted or liability established for damages or injuries to any person or property,
including injury to the Contractor's employees, agents or officers that arise from or are
connected with or are caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of the
Contractor, and its agents, officers or employees, in performing the work or services herein,
and all expenses of investigating and defending against same; provided, however, that the
Contractor's duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liability
arising from the established sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its agents,
officers or employees.
29. Contract Assignment. The Contractor shall not assign,transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of
the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual
or business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City.
30. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Contractor is not
faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Contractor
in writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Contractor a 10 (ten)
calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Contractor has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days
specified in the notice,such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate
the contract immediately by written notice to the Contractor to said effect. Thereafter, neither
party shall have any further duties, obligations, responsibilities, or rights under the contract
except, however, any and all obligations of the Contractor's surety shall remain in full force and
effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the termination
thereof.
In said event, the Contractor shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed
from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Notice of
Termination, minus any offset from such payment representing the City's damages from such
breach. "Reasonable value" includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last
milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by the Contractor as may be set forth in
the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods performed
or provided by the Contractor shall be based solely on the City's assessment of the value of the
work-in-progress in completing the overall workscope.
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed
abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to permit a
full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Contractor be entitled to
receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal.
ria-LIY
-6-
Section C
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Proposal Content. Your proposal must include the following information:
Submittal Forms
a. Proposal submittal summary
b. Detail proposal submittal form
C. Statement of past contract disqualifications
d. Certificate of insurance
Note: For ease of electronic preparation, proposers may prepare their own submittal
forms as long as they contain the same information in a similar format.
Work Program
e. Description of your approach to completing the work.
f. Description of proposed modifications in meeting the City's application needs.
g. As needed, description of any proposed exceptions to the City's term and conditions
and/or City application needs that cannot be met by your proposed solution.
h. Tentative schedule by phase and task for completing the work.
i. Services or data to be provided by the City, including description of required changes in
the City's infrastructure and/or operating system/application software to implement your
proposed solution.
j. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision.
Compensation
k. Proposed compensation and payment schedule tied to accomplishing key tasks.
Proposal Length and Copies
1. Proposals should not exceed 35 pages, including attachments and supplemental
materials.
In. The minimum font size is 11 point,with minimum left and right margins of one-inch,and
top and bottom margins of 0.7 inches.
Proposal Submittal
n. Proposals must be submitted by Monday, March 15, by 3:00 PM in the format
described in the RFP specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals or
supplemental materials.
o. Proposal documents must be emailed to rmessneraslocity.org as either a PDF
(preferred)or Word document.
2. Proposal Evaluation and Selection. Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee based
on the following criteria:
a. Understanding of the work required by the City.
b. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal.
-7-
C. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully
performing the work required by the City.
d. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services.
e. Proposed approach in completing the work and ability to implement the replacement in a
timely manner.
f. References.
g. Background and related experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this
project.
h. Proposed compensation.
As reflected above, contract award will not be based solely on price, but on a combination of
factors as determined to be in the best interest of the City. After evaluating the proposals and
discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected contractor, the City reserves
the right to further negotiate the proposed work and/or method and amount of compensation.
3. Proposal Review and Award Schedule. The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule
for proposal review, contract award and completion of work:
a. Issue RFP 2/24/10
b. Receive proposals 3/15/10
C. Evaluate proposals/conduct interviews 3/26/10
d. Award contract(s) 3/31/10
e. Convert databases/install replacement applications 8/31/10
f. Conduct staff training 9/30/10
4. Alternative Proposals. The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals) that it
believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the
proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the
alternatives, and discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the
other(s). If an alternative proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be
expanded proportionately by the number of alternatives submitted.
5. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be
accurate and to contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Proposers
are cautioned to undertake an independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as
City does not guaranty the accuracy of its interpretation of test results contained in the
specifications package. In preparing its proposal, the proposer and all subcontractors named in
its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors resulting from any
misstatements or omissions in the plans and specifications that could easily have been
ascertained by examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession.
Although the effect of ambiguities or defects in the plans and specifications will be as
determined by law, any patent ambiguity or defect shall give rise to a duty of proposer to inquire
prior to proposal submittal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any such ambiguity or defect to be
construed against the proposer. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered patent if it is of such
a nature that the proposer, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part, knew or
should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure of the
proposer or subcontractors to notify City in writing of specification or plan defects or
ambiguities prior to proposal submittal shall waive any right to assert said defects or ambiguities
subsequent to submittal of the proposal.
P� -I;CV
-8-
Arr � Ment 3
To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be
liable for costs incurred by the successful proposer to achieve the project's objective or standard
beyond the amounts provided there for in the proposal.
In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or
alleged ambiguity or defect in the plans and/or specifications, or any other matter whatsoever,
Contractor shall immediately notify the City in writing, and the Contractor and all subcontractors
shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the ambiguity or defect is major,
material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order, time extension, or
additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore described
written notice within one (1) working day of contractor's becoming aware of the facts giving rise
to the dispute shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or
ambiguity in the plans or specifications concerning the dispute.
-9-
L,� np'!�a d',mspit
Section D
O . OF AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo onday,date,] by and
between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and
Cf ONTRACTOR],hereinafter referred to as Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2010, City requested proposals for Visual FoxPro replacement software per
Specification No. 91003-B.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for said
project.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter
contained,the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered,as
first written above,until acceptance or completion of said project.
2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 91003-B and Contractor's
proposal dated[date],are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement..
3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing replacement software as specified in this Agreement,
City will pay and Contractor shall receive therefor compensation in a total sum not to exceed[$ .001.
4. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements
hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City,Contractor agrees with City to do everything required by
this Agreement and the said specification.
5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement
shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Manager of the City.
6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically
incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral
-10-
agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of
any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the parties
hereto.
7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage
prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Contractor Name
Address
8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that each
individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute
Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year
first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By:
City Clerk City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
By:
City Attorney
Section E
INSURANCE
REQUIREMENTS
The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of
the work hereunder by the Contractor; its agents,representatives, employees or subcontractors.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage(occurrence form CG 0001).
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code
1 (any auto).
3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability
Insurance.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property
damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used,
either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general
aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self=insured retentions must be declared
to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such
deductibles or self--insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and
volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related
investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be
endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1. The City, its officers, officials, employees; agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as
respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products
and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the
Contractor; or automobiles owned leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage
shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers,
official, employees, agents or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary
insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or
volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or
suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be
suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty
L? o
-12-
(30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the
City.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of
no less than ANU.
Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing
required coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability coverage
are also required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that
insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City
before work commences.
Subcontractors. Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall furnish
separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be
subject to all of the requirements stated herein.
-13-
' r
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM
The undersigned declares that she or he has carefully examined Specification No. 91003-B, which is
hereby made a part of this proposal; is thoroughly familiar with its contents; is authorized to represent the
proposing firm; and agrees to perform the specified work for the following cost quoted in full:
PROPOSAL TEEM: Timecards-Overtime-Staffing Software Solutions
Software
Modifications
Data Conversion
Installation
Training
Other Costs
TOTAL
Bundling Discount (If Applicable)
Other(If Applicable)
TOTAL s
❑ Certificate of insurance attached; insurance company's A.M. Best rating:
Firm Name and Address
Contact Name
Phone Email
Authorized Representative
Name
Title Date
-14-
DETAIL PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM
The City is requesting proposals for replacement of the following Visual FoxPro applications. Please
enter cost estimates for each application. Indicate if bundling the applications makes the total cost less
than the sum of replacing individual applications.
Data - - -
Application Software Modification. Conversion 'Instnlla8on Training Other • TOW Cwt
Timecards
Overtime/Staffing(Fire&
Police)
Fire Calendar
TOTAL
Bundling Discount(if applicable: provide supplemental detail as appropriate)
Other(provide supplemental detail)
TOTAL(Must agree with amount stated in the Proposal Summary) $
*Describe in supplemental attachment
8a -S3
-]5-
srrr
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
' u - 77 ,..
The proposer shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in
it, has ever been disqualified, removed or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal,
state or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other
reason, including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or
product quality, and if so to explain the circumstances.
■ Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare?
Yes ❑ No Ll
■ If yes, explain the circumstances.
Executed on at under penalty
of perjury of the laws of the State of California,that the foregoing is true and correct.
-16-
PROPOSERS LIST
Organization-wide Software Application Solutions—SPECIFICATION NO.91003-B
Kronos Sungard
John Saccoccio Terry Wayland
18400 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 600 3 West Broad Street, Suite 1
Irvine, CA 92612 Bethlehem, PA 18018
(949)255-6223 (610) 691-3616
(949) 255-6223 (610) 861-9323
Telestaff
Celeste Patzold
50 Corporate Park
Irvine, CA 92606
(800) 850-7374 x1277
(714) 703-3077
?CL sem