Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Addendum #1
Addendum #1
Addendum #1
Addendum #1
Addendum #1
Addendum #1
Addendum #1
Addendum #1
Addendum #1
Addendum #1
Addendum #1
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Addendum #1

278

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
278
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. BOULDER COUNTY ADDENDUM #1 BID # 4925-07 REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM October 31, 2007 The attached addendum supersedes the original Information and Specifications regarding BID #4925-07, where it adds to, deletes from, clarifies or otherwise modifies them. All other conditions and previous addendums shall remain unchanged. 1. On Page 19, you request an electronic copy of our user manual. You have indicated this can be in one of the following formats: CD, DVD, Website, Word or PDF. Our current documentation for our product is quite through and thus lengthy. Are you requesting a sample of a user document? Or would you prefer our entire documentation library, which would be over 1500 pages. We can also provide you with a URL with login credentials so that you and your staff may review our entire library. Please indicate your preference. The URL will work fine. 2. In the General Appraisal section, can you please elaborate on the following questions: · 'Store a unique account number and a Parcel number (multiple Account numbers per Parcel number).' Account number is the single unique property identifier (key). We need to be able to have multiple accounts that have the same parcel number. Ie: severed improvements on the same parcel of land belonging to different owners is such a case. Also, some accounts may not have any parcel number assigned. · Ability to Override/Reconcile of either the total value of the property or a portion of the value (i.e. account, model, use, improvement, or land level) by transaction or in mass. This means setting value to any or all land or improvements of an account(s) with an externally provided value either by hand data entry or by an import process. · Multiple approaches to value displayed at one time (Cost, Market, Income, Override and user defined algorithms). What is your definition of a user defined algorithm? User algorithms refer to things like but not limited to formulae derived for external process like SPSS, Table curve and the like being “implanted” in the valuation processes of the system as yet “another approach to value” available to transactional and mass appraisal. 1
  • 2. 3. In the I.T. System requirements section, can you please describe what you are defining as 'archiving process'? Does this refer to system backups, log shipping, transaction logs, exports, or something else entirely? We like to see applications that provide administrators the ability to delete or archive information out of the database. For example, we may only want to keep 4 years of information in the database. When we get to year 5 we want the ability to move out of the database year 5 information. 4. In Phase 2, you mention that you will require onsite training sessions for your staff. Is it your intention that we would leave this software behind for your staff to evaluate or would we be able to remove the software upon our leaving your facilities? Leave it behind for post-training testing and evaluation. The system will be uninstalled before the contract is awarded. 5. How many people in the office need to be trained? At least a dozen. Our training facility imposes this limitation. The population of the classes may change depending upon the subject matter. 6. How many years of historical data will be converted? Year end data back to 1994 as well as at least two intra-year events (NOVs and Certification) in addition to year end for years 2002 thru current. 7. How much of the historical data will be converted (Sales and Admin are understood, but what about CAMA data, Appeals, Exemption Applications, Building Permits, ect.)? All of it. CAMA and certain admin data will follow the snapshot cycles/versions referenced in question 6. 8. How many different data sources will be converted? This depends upon what the target schema demands. Right now there are roughly 62 in the Assessor application and several from our in-house ASRGRID application. 9. What is your definition of Software As A Service (SaaS)? We define Software As A Services as: When a vendor hosts the application at a remote site. Users access the application through the internet. 2
  • 3. 10. What is your database of choice – SQL server or Oracle? SQL Server is our first choice. Oracle is acceptable. 11. Are you currently using SPSS to calibrate the models? If so, are you valuing the properties within SPSS? We do use SPSS to calibrate models. We externally value selected groups with Spatialest (ie: Residential, Condos, Vacant land). We also derive our Income approach values from another in-house application. 12. Please identify the number of buildings for each construction type are valued using Marshall and Swift (these number are used to calculate the Marshall & Swift license fee) a. Residential b. Commercial c. Manufactured Home d. Agricultural outbuildings Presently we provide a cost approach value for roughly 6000 Commercial and Industrial improvements only. We expect to be able to provide an M&S cost value for all improvements which number roughly 108,000. 13. From the System Requirements section, page 5 - Are the cost tables for personal property and oil and gas sent electronically to the County from the State? If they are, can you please provide the data file format. These tables from the state are provided in ARL volume 5 chapter 4 and chapter 6 and available to you online at http://www.dola.state.co.us/dpt/publications/arl_index.htm. All tables can be requested in Excel format from the Colorado Division of Property Taxation at the URL above. 14. From the System Requirements section, page 5 - What data fields would be updated in the assessment database from the GIS. We would like the ability to update any field in the CAMA system from the GIS based on a selection set of accounts created in the GIS. 3
  • 4. 15. From section System Requirements, page 5 - Is the County currently running on Vista operating system? Not yet but the new system must be Vista compliant at the point of delivery. 16. From the General Appraisal section, page 6 - Please explain further: “Handle and manage sequenced buildings (i.e. building with multiple uses or where different sections were built at different times)”. Different areas of a single building need to be able to be valued based on their specific use and/or their characteristics/attributes that are not common to the structure as a whole. 17. From the General Appraisal section, page 6 - Explain the difference between Account number and Parcel number. Account number is the unique identifier for each property/ownership combination. Parcel number is the non-unique identifier of the land. Thus multiple accounts can rest on a single parcel. Some accounts have no parcel number assigned. 18. From the General Appraisal section, page 6 - Please identify how many levels of locational groupings would be required. This would mostly be through the use of attributes at the model level (subdivision, neighborhood, marketing area, economic area, etc.,) and should be able to handle as many levels as deemed necessary by our office. But there should also be at least several fields (preferably user defined) available at the account level to track location information (neighborhood #, tax district, a field for the appraisal team that is responsible for that account, etc.). 19. From the General Appraisal section, page 6 - Please provide details on the user-defined rounding capabilities required for multiple account types. In our case real estate actual values are presently rounded to the nearest $100 and assessed values rounded to the nearest $10. This rounding occurs at the classification level (ie: the sum of the land values then the sum of the improvements). Other account types such as Personal Property and Oil & Gas round differently at different levels within each. In other words we cannot have one single rounding scheme for all account types. Also, for very low valued accounts we need to be able to set minimum actual and minimum assessed values and never have an account where the assessed value is equal to or greater than the actual value. 4
  • 5. 20. From the Addressing section, page 7 - Please provide detail on the address domain requirements. The address domain requirements can be found in the Draft FGDC Street Address Standards document and in the USPS Addressing Standards (Publication #28). 21. From the Modeling section, page 8 - “All variables stored on the account are available to the model with 3+ lookup capability in the model.” What is “3+ lookup capability”? User defined lookup rules specifying conditions by which attributes are related to one another and the resulting valid combinations. 22. From the Personal Property section, page 9 - Please provide the Leasing information data file that would be used to upload to the system and assign proper location/tax district. Information is provided in either Excel or PDF formats with each lessor having different formatting. (ie: Column names and location can vary) 23. From the Personal Property section, page 10 - Please explain further: “Ability to compress detail of personal property to print declaration at a reduced number of pages for cost reduction of mailing.” As data is entered in detail there may have as many as 15,000 lines of information for an account. When declarations and other documents are queried or printed there should be the choice of either seeing the detail or having a compressed version. (Summarize all items with the same year acquired, same life, depreciation factor and class code as one value using the major heading for that class code as the compressed name). 24. From the Ownership and Transfer section, page 10 - What system does the Clerk of Recorder office currently have installed? Does the system have an API? What database is this system currently running? Is this integration currently working between your current assessment software and the Clerk of Recorder. The Clerk and Recorder currently uses CRIS+Plus, Eagle Computer Systems, Tyler Technologies Inc. Currently this is an internal custom workflow process. The database is Oracle. GAP analysis needs to include examination of potential data sources that could enable this functionality. 5
  • 6. 25. From the GIS section, page 11 - Please provide more details on the integration required with Hart Intercivic and ParcelPoint. Do these systems have an API? Are there data file formats available? The Hart Intercivic ParcelSync (formerly ParcelPoint and formerly Integrated Parcel Maintenance) software does have an API. The ParcelSync software uses ESRI format GIS software and data structure and can integrate with Oracle, SQLserver, and SDE geodatabases. Please contact: Bill Campbell Hart InterCivic Phone: (303) 385-6459 bcampbell@hartic.com 26. From the Integration section, page 12 - Please provide more details on the integration required with content management system and Accela. Do these systems have an API? Are there data file formats available? We expect that the investigation of such APIs is the responsibility of the vendor since there may be more than one depending upon how the vendor has implemented integration avenues in their system. Generally, for this question and any other question regarding APIs, we expect the vendor to describe the capability of their product to communicate seamlessly with third party products. We believe that their software that connects to Assessor data, is called APO, Address Parcel Owner, is by a WebService provided by Accela. Please contact Accela directly for more information. 27. From the Integration section, page 13 - Please provide more details on the requirements to integrate with municipalities and external agencies. Can you name the specific municipalities and external agencies? How many other are there? Are there data file formats available? At present we provide flat text files to the city of Boulder and a similar text file to title companies and the public. We anticipate you designing and implementing a new file format(s) whose purpose is to provide our entire property dataset to the public and those jurisdictions that do not have access to our data online in mass. Boulder County presently has four school districts, ten municipalities, and numerous additional service districts. We also allow “view read only” query to several municipalities which we also expect would change with any new vendor’s schema. Specific format alternatives we expect to be designed during GAP analysis. 28. From the Integration section, page 13 – Regarding the Integrated Public web component. Is your expectation to “feed” data into your existing Web application or is the County requiring a new Web component? A new Web component. 6
  • 7. 29. Manatron submitted a response to Boulder County’s RFI in July of this year, but was not notified that this RFP was released on October 10th and only learned of its release via a contact with another vendor. Can the county explain how the release of the RFP was communicated to the vendor community and why Manatron was not part of that list? We are concerned that we may not learn of future addendums to the RFP unless we maintain a vigilant watch on the county’s purchasing website. This is the address we provided to Purchasing: Manatron Inc 510 E. Milham Ave. Portage, MI 49002 USA 269-567-2900 Fax: 269-567-2930 info@manatron.com www.manatron.com 30. On the fist page of the RFP it states: “Award of this RFP is contingent upon budgetary funding approval for 2008.” When does the County receive approval of the 2008 budget? Will the County please identify the amount of budget monies it is seeking for this project? Our 2008 budget will be approved by mid November. The amount requested in the 2008 budget for this project is not important at this point in the process. 31. The RFP states:“Phase I will consist of a written RFP response.” While the Submittal Section describes with some detail many of the elements of the RFP, the initial section provides basically a listing of requirements, but no description as to what the County expects in the response other than to provide a “description of how our Company can meet the above requirements.” Is the County not seeking a Yes/No/Modify style response to any of the business components? Please describe the county’s expectations in this regard. The RFP stated at the beginning of the Technical Requirements section on page 4: “Explanatory answers or specific topic references in the product documentation provided with the RFP response are encouraged where appropriate. “ Simple Yes/No answers are not the best choice in answering most of the questions 32. In Phase II the RFP states that the top 3 or 4 vendors submitting responses will then be obligated at their own expense to provide 2 to 3 days of product training. What are the County expectations related to the test data to be used in these training sessions? Will data be provided by the County to be converted into the test system, or can the vendor use its own representative test data? Also, while it states that the vendors will provide a “complete on-site training program”, it is not possible to do so in just 2 or 3 days. These 7
  • 8. usually take weeks to perform. How does the County suggest vendors approach this aspect? The vendors may use their own test data but that data needs to be complete enough so that no function in the system is inoperative. Complete training means that enough has to be provided so that functionality throughout the system can be taught. We think of this as an “extensive demo”. Users of both transactional screens and mass and batch processes must be able to try out those functions during the training since the training is expected to be with users hands on. 33. The RFP states: “…that all vendors must submit a copy of the product’s ERD and data dictionary.” Based upon our experience, separating submissions such as this and marking them confidential does not insulate the items as exempt under Open Records law. Is it the position of Boulder County Purchasing, or that of the County Prosecuting Attorney’s office that these critical components can be kept from being disclosed should the County receive a request for such materials? Same questions relate to the request for a firm’s non-disclosure agreement. Is it the County’s position that endorsing such a document provides insulation from Colorado Open Records law? The RFP does state that “Neither a proposal, in its entirety, nor proposal price information will be considered confidential/proprietary.” Please clarify. Unless your material is proprietary to your firm it will be releasable under the Open Records law. 34. The RFP states: Minimum requirements that must be met for the RFP response to be considered: • Must run on architectures listed in IT requirements above. • Application being proposed must be in production at more than one site. • Colorado statutory requirements and deliverables must be provided by statutory due dates. • 24/7 system support. Is it the County’s position that the vendor must be in the business of providing product support 24/7 as normal business practice? Or is it satisfactory that the vendor can provide support during off-hours by previous arrangement for upcoming identified critical processing times? The way this statement reads is that if the vendor does not provide 24/7 system support, that vendor’s response cannot be considered. Prearranged is fine in most cases, but the County expects such service is available on demand within 4 hours of making the first call or service ticket submittal whether that call is actually answered by a live person or not. Some activities such as mass or batch processes occur on weekends or off prime time. Recovery from failures in such cases cannot wait for next business day attention. 8
  • 9. 35. The RFP provides a sample contract, many components of which would not seem related to an implementation agreement for what is requested by the county. Is it the county’s expectation that vendors review the sample contract and provide comments? Our preference is for the vendor to submit a copy of the contract the vendor would prefer to use (Internal contract). 36. Page 4, Technical Specifications, “Application/version submitted for consideration MUSTmeet these minimal requirements:,” Does this statement apply to all the requirement listed inthe RFP, or only to the System Definition paragraph that immediately follows the statement? The System Definition Paragraph. 37. Will Boulder County consider a proposal for a solution that does not currently have all the minimal requirements, but will have them available in a specified timeframe? Yes, but those requirements must be satisfied before system certification testing begins. 38. Page 5, 3rd item from bottom, “Domain capabilities to maintain data integrity,” Please explain what is meant by this requirement. This means data items that validate against other data items such as situs address within jurisdiction (city) is a valid address there. We also expect that individual fields have validation schemes like drop down lists. 39. Page 15, I.T. SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, Are responses to these items to be included in our proposal, or are they provided for information as examples of what will be included in the Phase III letter of qualification? Responses to I.T. specific questions are expected as part of the response to this RFP. 40. Page 20, item 14, 24/7 system support. Please explain the minimum expectation of the County for 24/7 system support. See the answer to item 34. 9
  • 10. RFP's are due in the Purchasing office for time and date stamping by 2:00 p.m., on Tuesday, November 27, 2007. Two (2) unbound copies of your proposal, printed double-sided, 11 point, on at least 30% post-consumer, recycled paper along with two (2) electronic copies of the response on CD in either Word or PDF format must be submitted in a sealed envelope clearly marked as RFP #4925-07. RFP’s should be delivered to the Purchasing Division, 2020 13th Street, Boulder, CO 80302, or mailed to Boulder County Purchasing, P.O. Box 471, Boulder, CO 80306. All Overnight, Express and Priority Mail should be directed to the above street address. All RFP's must be received and time and date stamped in the Purchasing office by the above due date and time. Any RFP's received after due date and time will be returned unopened to the bidder. No faxed or emailed RFP's will be accepted. Sincerely, Jenny Olberding, C.P.M., CPPB Purchasing Agent 10
  • 11. RECEIPT OF LETTER ACKNOWLEDGMENT October 31, 2007 Dear Vendor: This is an acknowledgment of receipt of Addendum#1 for RFP # 4925-07, REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM. In an effort to keep you informed, we would appreciate your acknowledgment of receipt of the attached fax. Please sign this acknowledgment and fax it back to us as soon as possible. Our fax number is 303-441-4524. If you have any questions, or problems with transmittal, please call us at 303-441-3525. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. This information is time and date sensitive; an immediate response is requested. Sincerely, Boulder County Purchasing Signed by: _______________________________ Date: _______________ Name of Company_____________________________________________ 11

×