Date: August 24, 2012 VIA INTERNET POSTING ......Release of final addendum (if any): September 7,...

Michael Pacholok Acting Director

Purchasing & Materials Management Division City Hall 100 Queen Street West 18th Floor, West Tower Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2

Date: August 24, 2012 VIA INTERNET POSTING

20 Pages

ADDENDUM NO. 1 Request for Proposal No. 3405-12-3117

Re: Asset Management Solution (AMS)

REVISED Closing Date: September 17, 2012 at 12:00 O’clock Noon (Local Time)

Please refer to the above Request for Proposal (RFP) in your possession and be advised of the following: Please find the Proponents Meeting slideshow attached. Questions and answers to follow. Q.1) Can we ask for an extension on the closing date? A.1) Please see the revised Schedule of Events

Schedule of Events

The timeline of key events is scheduled as follows:

EVENT DATE & TIME RFP issue date: August 14, 2012 Proponents Meeting (Question and Answer session)

August 20, 2012

Deadline for written questions: September 5, 2012 Release of final addendum (if any): September 7, 2012 Closing date: September 17, 2012 Evaluation expected to be completed: October 15, 2012 Selection of Preferred Proponent: November 1, 2012

All other terms and conditions remain the same. Please attach this addendum to your Request for Proposal document and be governed accordingly. NOTE: Bidders are reminded to acknowledge receipt of addenda on Proposal Submission Form in the Request for Proposal.

As such, bidders are required to acknowledge all addenda in the space(s) provided on the Request for Proposal Form or your quotation will not be considered. Should you have any questions regarding this addendum, contact Nadia Barone at 416-397-4811 or at [email protected]. Yours truly Edward Chin, Supervisor Purchasing, Goods and Services

Request for Proposal 3405Request for Proposal 3405--1212--31173117A M S l i (AMS)A M S l i (AMS)Asset Management Solution (AMS)Asset Management Solution (AMS)

Proponents MeetingAugust 20, 2012

Room 314 Metro Hall 55 John StreetRoom 314, Metro Hall 55 John Street

Closing Date: 12:00 PM, September 10, 2012

• Introductions

• Purpose of this Meeting

• Project Overview

• Key RFP Sections

Q ti & A• Questions & Answers

RFP No: 3405-12-3117 August 20, 2012 Page 1

N di B P h i d M t i l M t• Nadia Barone, Purchasing and Materials Management

• Bruce Chochinov , Manager, Information Services, Parks, Forestry & Recreation Division

• Stratis Gogosis Business Analyst Parks Forestry & Recreation• Stratis Gogosis, Business Analyst, Parks, Forestry & Recreation Division

• Howard Goshulak, Senior Project Manager, Parks, Forestry & Recreation Division

• Daniel Mclaughlin, Project Manager, Capital Construction, Parks, Forestry & Recreation Division

• Beth Rogalewicz, Contract Management Office

• Don Solomon, Knowles Canada (Fairness Consultant)


• To give an overview of key areas of the RFP and toTo give an overview of key areas of the RFP and to answer questions

• To provide an overview of the AMS project

• Please hold questions until the end of the presentation• Questions will be recorded and responded to in an

Addendum (All verbal responses to questions are unofficial)

• You may submit written questions after this presentation• You may submit written questions after this presentation to the contact on this RFP, Nadia Barone, prior to the deadline August 29, 2012 - 11:59 PM EDT


RFP PurposeRFP Purpose Enterprise solution that other Divisions can also use (andRFP PurposeRFP Purpose Divisions can also use (and

pay for additional license and professional services

costs, as required)

• Acquire an Asset Management Solution (AMS) that supports financial planning and project tracking for Statesupports financial planning and project tracking for State of Good Repair (SOGR), land acquisition, and new construction / replacement of facilities

• Procure Professional services to implement solution for one Division (Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division)

* The City wants to acquire and implement an enterprise Solution with little or no customization. The Solution may consist of multiple software products / modules


multiple software products / modules.

BackgroundBackground• Currently, Parks, Forestry and Recreation (PF&R) has multiple asset

management systems that track and manage its assets and capital projectsH PF&R h

BackgroundBackground

• However, PF&R has:• No consolidated view of all of its assets; • A very labour-intensive and time-consuming manual process in the

preparation of the annual Capital Budget Submissionpreparation of the annual Capital Budget Submission• PF&R’s system(s):

• Do not manage the end-to-end lifecycle of its physical assets;• Have limited forecasting functions, and g• Are not integrated with the City’s capital funding and work management

systems• The new Asset Management Solution (AMS) will result in improved decision

making through (1) better planning and prioritized spending for the renewal ofmaking through (1) better planning and prioritized spending for the renewal of physical assets using lifecycle planning principles, (2) assessment of the performance of an asset against a pre-determined standard, and (3) evaluating projects on a number of criteria to ensure that funds are spent appropriatelyprojects on a number of criteria to ensure that funds are spent appropriately


AMS Core FunctionalityAMS Core Functionality• AMS must be an enterprise solution supporting multiple organization units.

• AMS must be fully integrated with the following major functionality:

AMS Core FunctionalityAMS Core Functionality

• manage information about physical assets, including Geographic Information System (GIS) or spatial data;

• manage creation of capital projects, plans and budgets for physical assets;

• plan and prioritize the renewal of physical assets using lifecycle planning principles;

• manage the capital expenditures associated with physical assets;

• manage and track project milestones and financial status;

• manage and track compliance issues and their appropriate action;g p pp p ;

• manage mobile field data collection, inspections and assessments, including component condition, performance and compliance assessments


• The system must interface with:

• the City’s current and future capital planning and budget systems;

• the City’s Geospatial Data Repository;y y

• the Division’s (future) work management system

• The system must manage a diverse inventory of assets including buildings sports complexes trails bridges playground equipmentbuildings, sports complexes, trails, bridges, playground equipment, equipment and trees.

• The system must support the City's logical asset data model, a network model where each asset may have multiple parent and childnetwork model where each asset may have multiple parent and child assets allowing infinite relationships.

• The system must allow for asset spatial data. These objects may be point, line, area, or shape features.point, line, area, or shape features.


Implementation ServicesImplementation Services• PF&R estimates about 200 AMS users

Implementation ServicesImplementation Services

• In consultation with PF&R, the Vendor will define a phased rollout schedule for the Solution

• Vendor will provide the mechanism to manually and automatically p y ybulk transfer upload and download data capability.

• The Vendor will work with the City in data migration, and specifically data mapping of solution with other external systemsp y pp g y

• Vendor will provide training material and conduct train-the-trainer sessions


Stage 1 Pass / Fail

Two-envelop Bid System (Proposal – 80% and Pricing – 20%)

Stage 1 - Pass / Fail

• Consists of a review to determine compliance with mandatory requirements to advance to Stage 2

F il i k l d i l ti f th d tFailure in acknowledging or completing any of the mandatory requirements will result in automatic disqualification.

Stage 2 - 80%

• Proponents must achieve a minimum threshold of 65% in three sub-stages (Functional; Technical Requirements and Non-Functional Requirements) to advance to the next

• There is no minimum threshold for the Implementation Requirements, and the scores will be summed with the other sub-stages.

• Proponents must achieve an overall threshold of 750 points out 1,000

August 20, 2012 Page 9

points (75%) on the combined scores to advance to Stage 3

RFP No: 3405-12-3117

• Stage 2B is the evaluation of a Live Demonstration for the remaining proponents who have passed Stage 2A.

• The purpose is to demonstrate the AMS's ability to meet requirements and help confirm the ability of the Proponent’s Solution and resources

• The points awarded to Stage 2A may be adjusted based on the results of Stage 2B.

Stage 3 – 20%

• The sum of all scores within Stage 2A will be calculated and if the minimum thresholds are met then the Proponents sealed pricing envelope will be opened for price evaluation.

• The lowest cost Proposal receives 20 points and the remaining Proposals are assigned points based on a formula

August 20, 2012 Page 10RFP No: 3405-12-3117

• AMS has multiple sets of requirements• F 1 - Mandatory RequirementsF.1 Mandatory Requirements• F.2 - Functional Requirements• F.3 - Technical Requirements• F 4 Non Functional Requirements• F.4 - Non- Functional Requirements• F.6 - PF&R Implementation Requirements

• AMS has two types of requirements:D i bl• Desirable

• Mandatory

Failure in acknowledging or completing any of the MandatoryFailure in acknowledging or completing any of the Mandatory requirements will result in automatic disqualification


• Proponents should respond to the Functional Requirements via a letter code. Associated point values that will be attributed to each response are:

Letter Code

Response Points

B Functionality available through base product, Out-of-the-Box 5

p p

C Functionality available through base product, with Configuration required

4

A Functionality available through an optional/add-on component/module of the base product, with Configuration required

3

T Functionality available through a third party software product, with Customization and/or Configuration required

1

Z Functionality available through Customization 1R Functionality not available until the next release of the base product 0N Functionality not available 0

• Proponents who respond with a “N” (representing “Functionality not available” ) for a mandatory requirement will result in automatic di lifi ti

August 20, 2012 Page 12

disqualification

RFP No: 3405-12-3117

• Proponents are encouraged to provide additional information, so that the City can understand the extent to which their Solution matches their response

• Proponents should provide an estimate of the expected level ofProponents should provide an estimate of the expected level of effort and costs associated with the Configuration and/or Customization necessary to meet a given Requirement

• Failure to include this cost information will result in the City a u e o c ude s cos o a o esu e C yassuming that the Proponent has built such costs into its base price


• Some of the Technical and ALL of the Non-functional Requirements are Mandatory

• Proponents who do not respond “Y” to each Mandatory Requirement will NOT be considered for further evaluationq

• Proponents are encouraged to comprehensively describe how they will satisfy the stated the Requirements

• Responses that fully address all elements will be scored higher• Responses that fully address all elements will be scored higher

• Where a Proponent’s response to a Technical Requirement involves some level of Configuration and/or Customization, Proponents should provide an estimate of the expected level of effort and costsshould provide an estimate of the expected level of effort and costs

• AMS should conform to the City's existing technology standards, and should be capable of operating within the City's existing information technology infrastructure (defined in Appendix F 5)information technology infrastructure (defined in Appendix F.5)


Proponents must complete the following forms:• Appendix D1a, D1b, D1c and D1d – AMS Functionality (License Fees ) Annual

Maintenance & Support Services for End Users, Power Users, Administrators and Servers.

• Appendix D2a - List and Cost of AMS Customizations, and D2b - List of AMS ConfigurationsConfigurations

• Appendix D3 - AMS Professional Services Costs• Appendix D4 - List and Cost of AMS Reference Hardware.• Appendix D5 - Optional On-Site Technical Support.

These forms are for informational purposes, and are inputs into two other forms: • Appendix D6 - Proponent Total Cost which presents Price Details and the Total Cost of

the Proponent's AMSthe Proponent s AMS• Appendix D7 - Evaluation of Proponent Costs which presents Price Details and

calculates the Proponent's AMS Costs for Evaluation Purposes based on two Scenarios across five years. These Costs will be used in the Cost Evaluation Stage.

• Proponents are not to modify or enter any information into these two forms.


Event DateRFP issue date: August 14, 2012Proponents Meeting (Question and

August 20 2012Answer session)

August 20, 2012

Deadline for written questions: August 29, 2012Release of final addendum (if any): August 31, 2012Closing date: September 10 2012 12:00 NoonClosing date: September 10, 2012, 12:00 NoonEvaluation expected to be completed:

October 15, 2012

Selection of Preferred Proponent: November 1, 2012


• Questions – Ask questions before the Deadline for written questions (Project process or the RFP document)(Project, process or the RFP document)

• Exceptions – Make any exceptions prior to the Deadline for written questions. Propose alternatives rather than just statements of exception If the City wished to accept the proposed change theexception. If the City wished to accept the proposed change, the City will issue an Addendum.

• The City prefers that Proponents use all forms provided in Appendices D and FAppendices D and F

Q tiQ tiQuestionsQuestions


Date: August 24, 2012 VIA INTERNET POSTING ......Release of final addendum (if any): September 7,...

Documents

Transcript of Date: August 24, 2012 VIA INTERNET POSTING ......Release of final addendum (if any): September 7,...