Request for Proposal for Permit Tracking Software

RFP#: KCIT 14-1

This RFP was awarded to Paladin Data Systems Corporation by the Board of County Commissioners on July 19, 2016 by Resolution 2016-093. Thank you to all who responded.

Kittitas County issued a Request‐For‐Proposal (RFP) to provide a comprehensive, fully integrated, permit tracking system.

Nine (9) vendors submitted qualified responses by the due date. No submittals were received after the due date. No submittals were received that did not meet the requirements of the RFP. The vendors who submitted qualified responses were (in alphabetical order):

  1. CitiView
  2. CRW Systems, TRAKiT
  3. Decade Software, EnvisionConnect
  4. MaintStar
  5. Online Solutions, Citizenserve
  6. Paladin Data, SMARTGov
  7. Sages Networks, SagesGov
  8. TP Systems, Accela
  9. Tyler Technologies, EnerGov

Kittitas County completed a review of the 9 responses to RFP KCIT 14-1 and asked the vendors who received the top 3 average scores to present a demonstration of their proposed software:

  1. CitiView
  2. Paladin Data, SMARTGov
  3. TP Systems, Accela

Documents

The purpose of this sealed Request for Proposal is to invite prospective vendors to submit a bid to supply permit tracking software to Kittitas County. This RFP provides vendors with the overall scope of products and services desired, specific software functionality, technology foundation as well as desired vendor qualifications.

Key events and dates (RFP section 12)

RFP issue date 09/02/2014
Deadline for vendor submission of written questions 09/16/2014
County response to written vendor questions due 09/23/2014
Proposal due 09/30/2014 by 5:00 PM

Questions/answers/addenda (RFP section 5)

No. Section No. Reference Subject Clarification Sought Clarification Response Date
23 17 Users Please confirm the number of full time inspectors/mobile users (employees for whom conducting work in the field is their primary job function). This definition sometimes excludes supervisors and managers who occasionally conduct field work, but it is not their primary job function. Please provide a number for each of the three divisions (Community Development Services, Public Health, and Public Works). The request is for 30 editor (fully functional) licenses, including mobile. If mobile is a separate cost, include separately as an option. If other licenses are available, include separately as an option. 9/23/2014
22 17 Cost Does the Agency prefer a SaaS (hosted) or internally-hosted environment? No preference has been stated. The vendor may propose either or both options. 9/23/2014
21 10 Demonstrations and Presentations Has the Agency received any demos or proposals from a software vendor that potentially meets the RFP needs? The Permit Tracking Software Committee responsible for evaluating the RFP responses and making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners has not received any demos or proposals for permit tracking software. 9/23/2014
20 16 Requirement #75 Does the Agency's GIS publish ESRI Web Services sufficient to validate and geocode an address on a transactional basis? Yes. 9/23/2014
19 16 Requirement #75 Does the Agency's GIS publish ESRI Web Services sufficient to create and maintain points on layers dedicated to environmental health? Yes. 9/23/2014
18 16 Requirement #72 For Public Health, will the Agency please provide sample inspection checklists and reports for each of the Programs? This content will be provided to the winning bidder. If you wish to make a public records request, please visit http://co.kittitas.wa.us/request/. 9/23/2014
17 2 Legacy System Please identify any potential electronic data sources beyond those sited on Page 2 (Tyler, MS Office, and PDFs), to be converted to the proposed system? Will the Agency allow advance review of the data to be converted in order to assess data quality? No sources other than those specified are anticipated. This content will be provided to the winning bidder. If you wish to make a public records request, please visit http://co.kittitas.wa.us/request/. 9/23/2014
16 16 Requirement #37 Converting historical inspection data adds risk and cost to the implementation project. Will the agency consider a recommendation to convert only the next inspection date, with the detail remaining in the legacy system or some other archive? Alternatives may be offered in the executive summary but not in the forms. 9/23/2014
15 16 Requirement #37 Converting historical financial transactions adds risk and cost to the implementation project. Will the agency consider a recommendation to convert only the balance due on each active account, with the detail remaining in the legacy system or some other archive? Alternatives may be offered in the executive summary but not in the forms. 9/23/2014
14 16 Requirement #73 Does the agency have an existing relationship with a firm responsible for processing credit card transactions? If so, what is the name of the entity? The county does not have a credit card services provider. Assume this is a new service. 9/23/2014
13 16 Requirement #57 Requirement 57 states "Application integrates with Cayenta or QuickBooks." Is this a one-way interface to reconcile the day's transactions to the County's GL? Please expand upon level of integration. Yes, this refers to a one-way export from the application into the financial software. 9/23/2014
12 16 Requirement #74 Requirement 74 states "Application has the ability to interface with the County's document imaging system, Laserfiche, and others." Please expand upon the level of integration and how many interfaces. This question is to determine if the proposed application has the ability, and if so, to what extent. No additional details are available. 9/23/2014
11 16 Requirement #76 Requirement 76 states "Application has the ability to interface with unassociated 3rd party applications." There is potential risk to a project of this nature to have open-ended interfaces to unknown applications. Can the county please provide the types of applications and interfaces? This question is to determine if the proposed application has the ability, and if so, to what extent. No additional details are available. 9/23/2014
10 8 Response Content Can a submission include an appendix with additional beneficial decision-making documentation if no appropriate area was designated in the response format? This content should be included in the executive summary. See 8.1.b. 9/23/2014
9 17 Users Please confirm that the 30 named users are all entering data into the system. Prior quotes to the county had been at 15 users. Are any of the 30 users perhaps read only users (view data only; no data entry)? If some the 30 users are "read only" users; could their needs perhaps be satisfied by automated reports sent to them (no read only license required)? The request is for 30 editor (fully functional) licenses. If 'read only' license are available, include costs separately as an option. 9/23/2014
8 17 Users The form calls for 30 named users but doesn't reference mobile users. We are assuming you wish mobile users to be quoted as an option (please confirm). If so, how many mobile users (inspectors) would you like quoted? The request is for 30 editor (fully functional) licenses, including mobile. If mobile is a separate cost, include separately as an option. 9/23/2014
7 16 Requirement #73 Who is the County's current credit card services/payment provider? Is the County open to changing to a provider that is natively integrated to the vendor's solution? The county does not have a credit card services provider. Assume this is a new service. 9/23/2014
6 16 Requirement #73 The functional requirements in Form 1 ask about availability of a Citizen Access Portal. Does the County wish that to be quoted as optional or as part of the recommended solution? The Citizen Access Portal should be included in the proposed solution. 9/23/2014
5 17 Fixed Price The County's cost sheet request "fixed price" for the solution. However, there is not sufficient business process information contained within the RFP to accurately estimate configuration requirements. Does the County wish fixed price for License costs and best faith estimates on Services? Provide fixed cost for licenses and best faith estimates on services. Include detail where applicable. 9/23/2014
4 17 Cost Does the County have a preference between hosting the solution on premise versus hosting the solution off premise with the vendor in a SaaS model? No preference has been stated. The vendor may propose either or both options. 9/23/2014
3 16 Requirement #82 Requirement #82 asks "Does your system allow multiple agencies to create their own branded applications/forms/reports etc. separated from other agencies?" Are you referring to just Kittitas County's ability to customize forms or are you expecting other municipalities within the County to utilize the system; all requiring custom forms? The county will need to brand permits, reports, websites, and other output with branding of the department responsible for the items. This does not refer to outside agencies. 9/23/2014
2 16 Requirement #34 Can you explain what you mean by unlink in the following requirement? "Application has the ability to link and unlink individual records/permits/applications outside the application."

Also, please provide a business case scenario that explains the need for the above requirement relative to "outside the application"
Linking refers to hyper-linking to a third-party application or network store, such as the county's Intranet, GIS mapping application, or records management software.

Business example: the county has records in its records management software that provide additional information for the permit, or historical permits; the user would be able to link to the files, or unlink them.
9/23/2014
1 16 Form 1 Vendor Response Implementation and Support contains questions 15-27, then the next section "General System Requirements" begins with question 30 - is this just a numbering error or are questions 28 and 29 missing from the RFP document? The vendor response questions were miss-numbered; there are no questions 28 and 29. 9/4/2014