RFP #16-1154-3CS
ENTERPRISE LAND MANAGEMENT SOLUTION
COUNTY OF HENRICO, VIRGINIA
Questions & Answers
May 24, 2016
Q1.Whether companies from Outside USA can apply for this? (i.e. from India or Canada)
Proposals received from all firms will be evaluated.
Q2.Whether we need to come over there for meetings?
Yes. The County would require the firm to have the project manager and other necessary staff attendonsiteoral presentations and be available foronsite meetings as scheduled.
Q3.Can we perform the tasks (related to RFP) outside USA? (i.e. from India or Canada)
Offerors shall propose project approach as part of their proposal submission.
Q4.Can we submit the proposals via email?
Proposals may not be submitted electronically. Please refer to page 20, Section VI.A.
Q5.In the RFP document it is stated that "The County processed 29,234 Tidemark cases in 2015".
- Were those unique record types (permit, code case not tied to a permit) across the County's 30 case types?
There were 29,234 unique cases across all case types.
- Isa list of those Case Types under #11 Permits and Processes?
Please refer to the RFP Attachment J. section A. Case Types.
Q6.For Data Migration, does the Tidemark data provide a unique identifier such as Parcel ID from Vision to ensure dataintegrityand accuracy?
Yes
Q7.Please confirm the total # of county employees who will be accessing the system.
There are currently 323 active Tidemark user accounts.
Q8.Of the total # provided above, how many work primarily in a mobile or field environment (i.e. inspectors, code officers etc.)?
Approximately 70.
Q9.Please provide a complete listing of the “case types” currently managed and tracked in the County’s existing Enterprise Land Management Solution (i.e. Residential Building Permit, Commercial Building Permit, Grading Permit, Rezoning Application, Conditional Use Permit, Electrical Permit, Mechanical Permit, Plumbing Permit, Site Plan, etc.); essentially any application that has a unique workflow process or fee should be included in the list.
Please refer to the RFP Attachment J. section A. Case Types.
Q10.Please provide a listing of the “asset types” the county would like to manage within the new ELMS.
Assets today do not equal assets tomorrow. The County is looking for a system that is flexible enough to track assets as they are identified and perform maintenance as necessary.
Q11.Please provide a listing of the “work order types” the county would like to manage within the new ELMS.
Please see response to Q10.
Q12.Please provide a listing of the departments or divisions that are responsible for maintaining the assets that the county would like to manage within the new ELMS.
Refer to section II. A. on page 3 of the RFP.
Q13.Please provide a definitive listing of the legacy systems from which data will need to be brought over to the new system. Please also specify the types of records that exist in each system listed. Please also specify if attachments (i.e. pictures, documents etc.) will need to be brought over for each system listed.
Please refer to Q64.
Q14.Please provide a definitive listing of all existing county systems to which interfaces might be required as part of the new ELMS deployment.
Please refer to Q43.
Q15.On average, how many permits does the county issue in a given year?
Average permits issued from 2006 through 2015 by Case Type
Building (BLD)3,121
Electrical (ELE) 3,704
Elevator (ELV) 55
Fire (FIR) 780
Mechanical (MEC) 3,480
Miscellaneous (MIS) 19
Plumbing (PLM) 3,174
Sign (SIG) 342
Q16.On average, how many inspections does the county perform in a given year?
Average inspections performed from 2006 through 2015 by Case Type
Building (BLD) 33,717
Community Maintenance (COM) 75,755
Electrical (ELE) 13,492
Elevator (ELV) 179
Fire (FIR) 2,488
Mechanical (MEC) 10,368
Miscellaneous (MIS) 10
Plumbing (PLM) 15,942
Sign (SIG) 491
Q17.On average, how many work orders (corrective and preventative) does the county perform in a given year?
Work orders are not tracked in Tidemark. We cannot provide an estimate.
Q18.If possible, please provide a listing of the current reports utilized by the county in the existing ELMS system(s).
There are 130 registered reports in the Tidemark system. Numerous other reports exist outside the Tidemark system.
REPORT_APPLICATION / REPORT_LOCATION / REPORT_NAME / REPORT_DESCRIPTIONAdvantage System Utilities / Activities / ActivityScriptDef.rpt / Activity Script Definitions
Advantage System Utilities / Activities / ActivityScriptLinks.rpt / Activity Script Links
Advantage System Utilities / Activity Result Codes / ResultCodes / Result Codes for Activities
Advantage System Utilities / Cases / CaseTypesList.rpt / Case Type List
Advantage System Utilities / Departments / Departments.rpt / Departments report
Advantage System Utilities / Form and Reports / ReportGroups / Report Groups
Advantage System Utilities / Standard Comment / StandardComment / Standard Comment
Advantage System Utilities / Standard Comment Association / StandardCommentAssociation / Standard Comment Association
Advantage System Utilities / Standard Comment Type / StandardCommentType / Standard Comment Type
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / agreement_utl_85.rpt / Agreement Approved
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / COInspection.rpt / CO Inspection
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / COMOtherAbate.rpt / COM Abatement - Other
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / COMTrashAbate.rpt / COM Abatement - Trash
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / COMGrassAbate.rpt / COM Abatement- Grass
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / CertOcc-Perm.rpt / Certificate of Occupancy - Permanent
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / CertOcc-Ren.rpt / Certificate of Occupancy - Renewal of Temporary
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / CertOcc-Temp.rpt / Certificate of Occupancy - Temporary
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / CertOcc-PermRe.rpt / Certificate of Occupancy-Permanent Reprint
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / CertOcc-RenRe.rpt / Certificate of Occupancy-Renew Temp Reprint
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / CertOcc-TempRe.rpt / Certificate of Occupancy-Temporary Reprint
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / ELVPermit-Part.rpt / ELV Permit - Partial
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / ELVPermit-PartRe.rpt / ELV Permit Partial - Reprint
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / LetterCompletion.rpt / Letter of Completion
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / POD_AppSummaryReport.rpt / POD Application Summary Report
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / BLDAnnualPmtRep.rpt / Permit - Annual Reprint
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / BLDAnnualPermit.rpt / Permit - BLD Annual
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / ELVPermit.rpt / Permit - Elevator
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / ELVPermitReprint.rpt / Permit - Elevator Reprint
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / FIRPermit.rpt / Permit - Fire
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / FirePermitReprint.rpt / Permit - Fire Reprint
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / MECPermit.rpt / Permit - Mechanical
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / MISPermit.rpt / Permit - Miscellaneous
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / BLDPermit-Part.rpt / Permit - Partial Building
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / ELEPermit-Part.rpt / Permit - Partial Electrical
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / MECPermit-Part.rpt / Permit - Partial Mechanical
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / PLMPermit-Part.rpt / Permit - Partial Plumbing
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / PLMPermit.rpt / Permit - Plumbing
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / SIGPermit.rpt / Permit - Sign
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / SIGPermitReprint.rpt / Permit - Sign Reprint
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / FIRPermitReprint.rpt / Permit Fire - Reprint
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / BLDPer-FFReprint.rpt / Permit- Footing Foundation Reprint
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / BLDPermit.rpt / Permit-Building
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / ELEPermit.rpt / Permit-Electrical
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / BLDPermit-FF.rpt / Permit-Footing Foundation
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / BLDPermit-SS.rpt / Permit-Structural Steel
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / BLDPer-SSReprint.rpt / Permit-Structural Steel Reprint
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / Dev_Label_85.rpt / Planning POD Label
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / AppLabel.rpt / Print Application Label
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / TidemarkLabel-Activity.rpt / Print label from activity
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / BLDPermitReprint.rpt / Reprint Building Permit - multiple copies
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / ELEPermitReprint.rpt / Reprint Electrical Permit
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / MECPermitReprint.rpt / Reprint Mechanical Permit
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / MISPermitReprint.rpt / Reprint Miscellaneous Permit
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / BLDPer-PartRe.rpt / Reprint Partial Building Permit
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / ELEPer-PartRe.rpt / Reprint Partial Electrical Permit
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / MECPer-PartRe.rpt / Reprint Partial Mechanical Permit
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / PLMPer-PartRe.rpt / Reprint Partial Plumbing Permit
Tidemark Advantage / Activities Print / PLMPermitReprint.rpt / Reprint Plumbing Permit
Tidemark Advantage / Cases / CaseActivity.rpt / Case Activity
Tidemark Advantage / Cases / CaseNotes / Notes for Case
Tidemark Advantage / Cases / CaseParcels.rpt / Parcels for case
Tidemark Advantage / Cases / CaseValuation.rpt / case valuation
Tidemark Advantage / Clone / Clonesum / Cloning summary
Tidemark Advantage / Fees / CaseFees.rpt / Fees associated with case
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / !TidemarkLabel-General.rpt / !Tidemark Label - General
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / BI_AllActivities.rpt / BI - All Activities
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / BLDPermitReport.rpt / BI - BLD Permit Report
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / COMBuildingInspFinals.rpt / BI - COM Bldg Inspection Finals
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / BI_Insp_Canceled.rpt / BI - Canceled Inspections
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / BI_CaseInspections.rpt / BI - Case Inspections
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / BI_Daily_Inspections_List.rpt / BI - Daily Inspections List
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / ELVInspRpt-Indiv.rpt / BI - ELV Inspection Report - Individual
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / FireCOTracking.rpt / BI - Fire C/O Tracking
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / Inspectrecomp.rpt / BI - Inspections by Completion Date
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / ELE-MayNeedFinals.rpt / BI - May Need Finals (ELE)
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / FIR-MayNeedFinals.rpt / BI - May Need Finals (FIR)
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / MEC-MayNeedFinals.rpt / BI - May Need Finals (MEC)
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / PLM-MayNeedFinals.rpt / BI - May Need Finals (PLM)
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / BI_OA_PlanReview.rpt / BI - Outside Agency Plan Review
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / BI_PermitsIss.rpt / BI - Permits Issued by Date Range
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / BI_Plan Review.rpt / BI - Plan Review
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / BI-PlningNoCOReq.rpt / BI - Planning/No CO Required
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / Release-CityGas.rpt / BI - Release City Gas
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / Release-VAPower.rpt / BI - Release VA Power
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / refersopen.rpt / BI - Routing Review Report
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / SubtradePermit.rpt / BI - Sub-trade Permit Report
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / COBldgInspFinals.rpt / CO Building Insp Finals
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / CODailyReport.rpt / CO Daily Report
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / COIndivReport.rpt / CO Individual Permit Status
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / COM_NOV-Chapter10_Reprint.rpt / COM-Chapter 10 Notice of Violation Reprint
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / COM_NOV-Chapter24_Reprint.rpt / COM-Chapter 24 Notice of Violation Reprint
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / COMP_Affidavit.rpt / COMP_Affidavit
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / coreview_all.rpt / Dept CO Routing Report (all items by date range)
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / coreview.rpt / Dept CO Routing Report (open items)
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / ES_RPT3_All_Active_by_Insp.rpt / E&S - Report 3 All Active - By Inspector
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / rfeerev.rpt / Fee/Revenue Report
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / PODReviews-Fire.rpt / Fire - POD Reviews By Date Range
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / PCAppsRecd.rpt / PC - Applications Entered by Permit Center Staff
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / BLDPermitsRevwd_COM.rpt / PC - BLD Permits Revwd by Permit Center Staff(COM)
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / BLDPermitsRevwd_RES.rpt / PC - BLD Permits Revwd by Permit Center Staff(RES)
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / PCCasesWOPermits.rpt / PC - Cases Without Permits
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / Refer_com.rpt / PC - Commercial Permit (Routing Report)
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / Refer_com_sig.rpt / PC - Commerical Permit Signs (Routing Report)
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / refer.rpt / PC - Dept Routing Report
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / PermitsIssued.rpt / PC - Permits Issued by Permit Center Staff
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / pc_faxrev.rpt / PC - Plan Reviews Report (Fax Copy)
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / SIGPermitsRevwd.rpt / PC - SIG Permits Reviewed by Permit Center Staff
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / tradepermits.rpt / PC - Trade Permits by Date Range
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / PCAppsRecdEast.rpt / PCEast - Applications Entered by EGC Staff
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / BLDPermitsRevwdEast.rpt / PCEast - BLD Permits Reviewed by EGC Staff
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / PermitsIssuedEast.rpt / PCEast - Permits Issued by EGC Staff
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / fcp_reviews_case.rpt / PL-Active Activities on a Case
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / GPIN_History.rpt / PL-GPIN History Report
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / POD_Case_hist.rpt / PL-POD Case History
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / reviews_open.rpt / PL-POD Reviews - Open
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / reviews_open_A.rpt / PL-POD Reviews - Open (ALL)
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / rev_due_date_A.rpt / PL-POD Reviews By Due Date (ALL)
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / reviews_due_date.rpt / PL-POD Reviews by Due Date
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / PODCasesRec.rpt / PL-PODs Received by Date
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / primary_planner.rpt / PL-Primary Planner Report
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / reviews_routed.rpt / PL-Reviews By Date Routed
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / reviews_routed_A.rpt / PL-Reviews By Date Routed (ALL)
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / reviews_open_out.rpt / PL-Reviews Open - Outside Agencies
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / reviews_rout_out.rpt / PL-Reviews Routed to Outside Agencies by Date
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / rUsersMileage / User Mileage Report
Tidemark Advantage / Main Reports / BI_FAXActivities.rpt / ZZZZ - All Activities Fax
Tidemark Advantage / Parcel / H_ParcelSummary.rpt / Summary Report for Parcel #
Tidemark System Utilities / Form and Reports / FormReport.rpt / Form and Report Registration (System Utilities)
Tidemark System Utilities / Role Types / H_RoleTypes.rpt / Roles Types Report
Tidemark System Utilities / User List / Users.rpt / Tidemark User Table report
Q19.Is Accela Tidemark Advantage is providing full functionality for “To Be”Enterprise Land Management Solution (ELMS)?
No.
If yes then what is the main purpose of this RFP? If No then why these additional functionalities cannot be implemented by “Change request” to the current vendor?
Q20.As mentioned under the proposal document “Accela Tidemark Advantage (Tidemark) is the County’s current system of record for all land management, permitting, and code enforcement. Please clarify, if Accela is an eligible bidder for submitting the proposal as they will have additional advantage of current system/domain knowledge?
Yes.
Q21.We presume that County has GIS licenses, in case if we have to integrate with the web application, please clarify.
Henrico maintains ESRI ArcGIS licenses.
Q22.Does the county want to use its own GIS system/viewer or vendors could also offer GIS system/viewer?
Henrico intends to use its own GIS database. Offerorsmay offer their own viewer provided it is capable of interfacing with Henrico's GIS database.
Q23.Please indicate the different rolesand number of users, who will have access to the system ?
Please refer to Q7 and Q8. Numbers and roles will depend on the functionality provided by the new system.
Q24.Could you please provide some guidance on the estimated budget for this project? Does County have a budget, even estimated budget, assigned to this effort?
Funding for the project is available.
Q25.Interaction with other County systems – Is this be a one way or both ways interaction?
Please refer to Q43.
Q26.Could you provide more details of Vision Real Estate Assessment system?
This system contains parcel ownership history, assessment data and property sale records for all tax parcels in the County.
Q27.We understand that the currentBilling is handled by Oracle Financial and county needs integration with Oracle Financial to achieve billing functionality, is that correct understanding, please clarify.
This is not correct. Tidemark billing is currently handled by adding fees to cases and generating invoices using Crystal Reports files that pull data from Tidemark. Integration with Oracle Financials or other financial systems to be determined is necessary to ensure confirmation of payment receipt and posting.
Q28.Is there an anticipated target date for the County to release answers to questions? If the volume/content of questions is such that more time is needed to respond than anticipated, would the County consider a 2-week extension to the proposal due date?
Please see response to Q 92.
Q29.For project scheduling purposes, has the County considered what timeframe would be desirable to have the complete system in production?
The Successful Offeror’s implementation schedule and functionality available will determine project scheduling.
Q30.Is the County open to a phased approach, with multiple go-lives?
Yes.
If yes, is there a desired order of priority for the departments within the Community Development Division and Community Operations Division?
No.
Q31.Attachment I: Where should Offeror place their responses to the Attachment I requirements in the proposal format?
Response to Attachment I can be placed in RFP response as separate section.
Q32.What is the budget amount that has been set aside by the County for this ELMS project?
Please see response to Q24.
Q33.Pg. 3: The RFP refers to 318 employees in 15 departments using Tidemark. Can the County please clarify the following regarding the number of users to be included in the proposal pricing:
The number of users has increased. Current users total 323.
a. Total number of internal named users?
Approximately 253
b.How many field users requiring access to the mobile application?
Approximately 70
c. How many ePlan reviewer users?
50 - 100
d. How many Report Designer users?
Unknown
Q34.Pg. 6, under7. Reporting & Search Capabilities: Reference to the County requiring several formatted reports such as permits, receipts and other documents. Is the County requesting that the vendor create these reports as part of the project, or will County staff be creating these?