HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_GGAF_10.05.2016Notice of Meeting for the
General Gov ernment and Finance Adv isory Board
of the City of Georgetown
October 5, 2016 at 4:30 PM
at Georgetown Communications and Technology Conference Room, located at 510 West
9th Street, Georgetown, TX
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's
Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th
Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711.
Legislativ e Regular Agenda
A Review minutes fro m the August 31, 2016 General Government and Financ e (GGAF ) Advis o ry Bo ard
meeting - Danella Elliott, Exec utive As s is tant
B Co nsideration and possible ap p ro val o f annual ap p ro p riations to several Informatio n Tec hno lo gy vend o rs
for maintenanc e s ervices d uring FY 2017 -Chris Bryce, Info rmation Tec hno lo gy Directo r
C Co nsideration and possible actio n fo r the approval of the annual payment fo r the o p eration of the c o unty
wid e radio c o mmunicatio ns s ystem to Williams on Co unty in the amo unt of $178,548.48 - S tan Ho hman,
Fleet Servic es Manager
D Co nsideration and possible actio n to approve a contrac t in the amount not to exceed $106,690 with Plante
Moran for c o ns ulting s ervic es to provide as s is tance in the selec tion of a s o ftware solution(s ) for financ ial
management, p ro curement, human res o urc es and p ayroll. – Leigh Wallac e, Financ e Directo r
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times ,
on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2016, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72
c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting.
____________________________________
S helley No wling, City Sec retary
Page 1 of 80
City of Georgetown, Texas
Government and Finance Advisory Board
October 5, 2016
SUBJECT:
Review minutes from the Augus t 31, 2016 G eneral Go vernment and Financ e (GGAF) Ad visory Board
meeting - Danella Ellio tt, Executive Assistant
ITEM SUMMARY:
Review minutes from the Augus t 31, 2016 G eneral Go vernment and Financ e (GGAF) Ad visory Board
meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Danella Ellio tt, Exec utive As s is tant
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
8.31.16 Draft Minutes Backup Material
Page 2 of 80
Minutes
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 4:30 PM
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board will met on Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 4:30 PM at the Georgetown
Communications and Technology building (GCAT), located at 510 West 9th Street, Georgetown, Texas.
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance
in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or
accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the Board Liaison, at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled
meeting date, at (512) 930-3676 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay
Texas at 711.
Board Members Present City Staff Present
Tommy Gonzalez, District 7 David Morgan, City Manager
Thomas Bonham Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
James Bralski Michel Sorrell, Controller
Clay Shell, Assistant. Fire Chief
Tadd Phillips, HR Director
Board Members Absent Laura Maloy, HR Assistant Director
Keith Brainard, Chair Kimberly Garrett, Parks & Rec Director
Severine Cushing Trish Long, Facilities Superintendent
Eric Nuner, Assistant Director, Parks & Rec
Jill Kellum, Administrative Assistant, Parks & Rec
John Sullivan, Fire Chief
Trina Bickford, Purchasing Manager
Nathan Parras, Budget Analyst
Stan Hohman, Fleet Supervisor
Legislative Regular Agenda
Tommy Gonzalez the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
A Review minutes from the July 27, 2016 General Government and Finance (GGAF) Advisory Board --
Danella Elliott, Executive Assistant
Board did not have any comments regarding the minutes from July 27, 2016.
Motion to approve the minutes by Thomas Bonham, second by James Bralski. Approved 3-0
B Consideration and possible action to approve the contract renewal for City of Georgetown janitorial and
floor cleaning services to Pruitt Building Services of Fort Worth, pending City Council appropriation in
the FY2017 budget, for an estimated annual amount of $700,000.00 - Trish Long, Facilities
Superintendent and Eric Nuner, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director
Staff is requesting renewal of the janitorial and floor cleaning services contract with Pruitt Building Services.
Trish Long noted that Pruitt Building Services has been the janitorial and floor cleaning provider for the City
for the past two years with great success. The original contract term was for 36 months with the option to renew
for two (2) additional one (1) year periods. There are 2 additional one year renewals remaining.
Bralski asked if the amount was broken down into specific services. Long noted that services include cleaning,
waxing, spot dusting, litter/recycling, kitchens, as well as, day porter services at the Public Safety Facility,
Library and Recreation Center. This renewal also includes funding for the addition of the Westside Service
Center.
Motion to approve the Item B by James Bralski, second by Thomas Bonham. Approved 3-0
Page 3 of 80
Minutes
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 4:30 PM
C Consideration and possible action to approve the contract renewal for irrigation system services for City
owned facilities to American Irrigation of Georgetown, Texas for a period of one year not to exceed the
amount of $70,000 - Trish Long, Facilities Superintendent and Eric Nuner, Assistant Parks and
Recreation Director
Trish Long noted the contract includes inspections, maintenance repairs and minor installations and that this is
the final renewal on the original contract approved by Council in September of 2012. This company has
provided excellent service.
Motion to approve Item C by Thomas Bonham, second by James Bralski. Approved 3-0
D Consideration and possible action to recommend approval of a services agreement with PerfectMIND
Inc. to implement a parks and recreation management software - Kimberly Garrett, Parks and
Recreation Director
Kimberly Garrett presented the item. She explained that this system has come to the end of its useful life and
after November 2017, it will no longer be supported through maintenance and upgrades. Two (out of four)
proposers gave presentations to the selection committee, The committee recommends PerfectMIND as the new
parks and recreation management software.
Kimberly answered questions and noted that the fees were locked in for 5 years. There will not be a data
conversion charge, as the company recommended starting fresh and not bringing 20 years of files into the
system; only balances will be brought forward.
Motion to approve Item D by Thomas Bonham, second by James Bralski. Approved 3-0
E Consideration and possible action to approve the purchase of a 3,000 Gallon Water Tender and a
Wildland Interface Fire Engine from Siddons-Martian Emergency Group through the BuyBoard
Contract #491-15 for a cost not to exceed $750,000.00 – John Sullivan, Fire Chief
Chief Sullivan explained that the Water Tender will replace the 1994 International Wildland Interface Engine,
which is 22 years old and a 1995 International 1,800 gallon Water Tender, which is 21 years old. It will carry
3,000 gallons of water, almost doubling our current capacity and increasing our capabilities. The new Wildland
Interface Engine will carry 400 gallons of water and 20 gallons of foam, and also has off-road capabilities.
Discussion followed, including suggestions to put the engines in the surplus auction or donating to a smaller
entity within the county. Clay Shell will research this.
The useful life expectancy was also reported to be around 15 years.
Motion to approve the Item E by James Bralski, second by Thomas Bonham. Approved 3-0
Page 4 of 80
Minutes
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 4:30 PM
F Consideration and possible action to approve Emergicon as the Emergency Medical Transport Billing
vendor for the City of Georgetown – John Sullivan, Fire Chief
Chief Sullivan explained that over the past year, they have experienced service related issues with the current
provider, Intermedix, thus making the decision “not” to renew their agreement.
An RFP peer review panel was established, which included Trina Bickford, Purchasing Manager (acted as the
facilitator), Leigh Wallace, Finance Director, Nathan Parras, Budget Analyst, Hank Jones, EMS Chief, Bill
Sherek, Logistics Officer, and Chief Sullivan. They reviewed and scored a total of thirteen (13) responses,
based on six (6) selected criteria. The top three presented their proposals to the group, and the RFP panel
unanimously recommends Emergicon as the Emergency Medical Transport Billing vendor.
Motion to approve the Item F by James Bralski, second by Thomas Bonham. Approved 3-0
G Consideration and possible action to approve and award an agreement for Self-Insured Group Dental
Benefits to Ameritas, and approval of 2017 HSA contribution model - Tadd Phillips, HR Director
Tadd Phillips noted that a total of six (6) proposals were received and evaluated in response to the City’s RFP
for Group Dental Benefits, which requested that interested parties bid on both fully insured and self-insured
dental models. HR and the City’s benefit consultant, HR, Gallagher and Co., focused on coverage offered, as
well as the financial impact.
Phillips noted that our current dental provider is MetLife. After evaluating the proposals, staff recommends
moving to Ameritas (a self-insured model) which will provide the City and employees with savings for the
2017 plan year. Reference checks with GISD were positive, and Ameritas matched our current structure,
provided the lowest rate, and will save about 15%, or $45,998.
With the savings, the City recommends offering (as a one-time change) additional H S A contributions for those
employees on the HDHP plan for the 2017 plan year. Currently the contribution is $1,000 for all categories.
Staff is proposing employee only (EE) - $1,000; EE + child - $1,200; EE + spouse - $1,300; EE + Family -
$1,400, for a total additional cost to the City of $45,500.
Bralski expressed his appreciation for the data provided. Gonzalez said he is in support of the additional HSA
contribution.
Motion to approve the Item G by James Bralski, second by Thomas Bonham. Approved 3-0
H Employee Benefits Update (no action) – Tadd Phillips, HR Director
Phillips gave a presentation on the current employee benefits, noting that the only vendor changes are the
Dental, and the Worksite Products carrier, Allstate will change to Aflac. He stated that this is 100% employee
paid.
Gonzalez said that EAP #’s were a good trend to watch, sometimes relating to work correlation. Phillips said
that they will continue to pay attention to the trends.
The Board thanked Phillips for the update.
Page 5 of 80
Minutes
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 4:30 PM
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn the meeting at 5:46 p.m. by Thomas Bonham, second by James Bralski. Approved 3-0
__________________________________ ____________
Keith Brainard Date
Board Chair
__________________________________ ____________
Thomas Bonham Date
Board Secretary
__________________________________ ____________
Danella Elliott Date
Board Liaison
Page 6 of 80
City of Georgetown, Texas
Government and Finance Advisory Board
October 5, 2016
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le approval of annual appropriatio ns to s everal Info rmation Technology vend o rs
fo r maintenanc e s ervic es during F Y 2017 -Chris Bryc e, Informatio n Tec hnology Direc tor
ITEM SUMMARY:
This item is fo r majo r IT s o ftware maintenance agreement renewals for the 2017 fis c al year. All items relate
to previous ly purchas ed p ro d uc ts o r maintenance c ontrac ts that are typic ally renewed at the beginning of
the fisc al year.
1 . Sungard Public Sector, Inc. (Sungard) in the amount of $159,000 for IT software maintenanc e
expens es for the S ungard OS SI CAD/RMS s ys tem (P ublic Safety Co mputer Aided Dis p atc h System).
OSSI is a sole-s o urc e s ys tem.
2 . Presidio Networked Solutions, Inc. (Presidio) in the amount of $125,000 for IT
hardware/software maintenanc e exp ens e ($60,000) and VOIP Pho ne Sys tem Maintenanc e ($65,000).
Presidio is a Dep artment o f Info rmation Res ourc es (DIR) vendor.
3 . SHI Government Solutions (SHI) in the amount of $210,000 for IT s o ftware maintenanc e
expens es related to the Mic ro s o ft Enterp ris e Agreement (Microsoft-b rand ed s erver, datab as e and c lient
s o ftware lic ens ing and maintenanc e). SHI is a Texas Department of Information R es o urc es (DIR) vend or.
4 . Tyler Technologies (Tyler) in the amount of $135,000 for IT s oftware maintenanc e exp ense for
the Incode s ys tem (Financ ial, Court and Utility Billing S ystems ). Incode is a s ole-s ource s ystem.
5 . Infor Public Sector, Inc., (Infor) in the amount of $100,000 fo r IT s oftware maintenance expens e
related to the Infor Enterprise As s et Management (EAM) sys tem. Infor is a F ed eral General Servic es
Adminis tration S c hed ule 70 vendor.
6 . Electsolve Technology Solutions and Services, Inc. (Electsolve) for the amount of $51,000 for
annual s oftware maintenanc e of the City’s Meter Data Management Sys tem. Elec ts olve is a s o le-s o urc e
s ystem.
7 . West Monroe Partners for the amount of $60,000 fo r management of the Mic ro s o ft BizTalk
enterp ris e servic e bus us ed for integrating and c o nsolidating enterp ris e s oftware s ystems . Existing
contrac t.
8 . Suddenlink Communications in the the amount of $55,000 for the annual c o s t of internet s ervic e
p ro vision and d ed ic ated fiber network c o nnec tions . S uddenlink is a sole s ourc e p ro vider.
9 . EST Group for the amount of $55,000 for annual hardware s up p o rt on the Dell Co mp ellant
s torage area netwo rk, the p rimary s torage devic e for all IT s ystems . EST Group is a Texas DIR vendor.
10. Itineris North America, Inc in the amount of $125,000 for IT software maintenanc e exp enses for
the UMAX c us tomer informatio n s ystem (CIS ) s ys tem. Itineris is a sole-so urc e s ys tem.
11. Zeno Imaging in the amount of $100,000 fo r p rinting supplies and printer maintenanc e. This is the
continuatio n of a c o ntract approved in 2015.
1 2 . Environmental Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI) in the amount of $50,000 fo r s o ftware
maintenance expens es for the ESRI s uite o f geographic informatio n s ys tem s oftware. ESRI is a s ole-
s o urc e sys tem.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Page 7 of 80
All items b udgeted for FY 2017. Expens es rec orded in acc o unt 570-5-0641-51-341 (IT Annual Contrac ts ).
SUBMITTED BY:
Chris Bryce, Direc tor, Informatio n Tec hno logy Direc tor
Page 8 of 80
City of Georgetown, Texas
Government and Finance Advisory Board
October 5, 2016
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion for the ap p ro val o f the annual p ayment for the operatio n o f the county
wide rad io c ommunic ations sys tem to Williams o n County in the amount of $178,548.48 - Stan Hohman,
Fleet Servic es Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
In F eb ruary 2008 the City Counc il ap p ro ved entering into an interloc al agreement with Williams o n Co unty
fo r the es tablishment, operation and maintenanc e o f the Williams on County Rad io Communic ations
Sys tem. This agreement d is s o lved the o ld CWICS group which c o ns isted o f Williams o n Co unty,
Geo rgeto wn, Ro und R o ck, Cedar Park and Hutto, and estab lis hed a Williamson Co unty Radio
Communic atio n Sys tem. The agreement c reated an o rganizational and management struc ture fo r o n-going
ad ministration, o p eratio n and maintenance o f the sys tem; and c reates a bud get proc es s , s trategic
p lanning/budget fo rec as ting proc es s , as well as allo catio n o f c o s ts as s oc iated with o p erating, maintaining
and up grading the s ys tem. In ac c ordance with the agreement, Williamson County b ills the City q uarterly for
o p erations and maintenance at a c os t o f $28.18 per rad io p er month. The C ity currently has 516 radios o n
the sys tem and we exp ect to increase next year to a total of 528.
In 2015/16 the annual cost was $148,494.00 b as ed up o n the rate of $25.62 p er radio fo r 483 radios.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Total amo unt of the City’s portio n of the Williamson County R SC fo r fisc al year 2016/17 is $178,548.48
b as ed up o n the rate o f $28.18 per rad io for 528 City of Georgetown rad io s . $185,000.00 was b udgeted in
acc o unt 520-5-0351-51-310 F leet Contrac ts and Leas es .
SUBMITTED BY:
Stan Hohman, Fleet S ervic es Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Official Notification Backup Material
Page 9 of 80
Williamson County
Radio Communications System (RCS)
OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION
4-1-16
____________________________________________________
Members:
Judge Dan Gattis, Chairperson, Williamson County
John Sneed, Program Manager
Catherine Roberts, System Manager
Rick White, Round Rock (Primary)
Leigh Carrico, Round Rock (Alternate)
Patrick Hurley, Georgetown (Primary)
Clay Shell, Georgetown (Alternate)
Marvin Harris, Cedar Park (Primary)
James Mallinger (Alternate)
Nate Spraggins, Hutto (Primary)
Rob Bocanegra, ESD 3 (Alternate)
RE: Radio Subscriber Fee FY 2017
This Official Notification is to allow for preparation of all agencies for the FY 20167 with regards to their
budget allowances for radio subscriber fees. In accordance with the ILA drafted in 2008 for the
establishment, operation and maintenance of The Williamson County Radio Communications System
reference Subsection 14.02 “Cost for RCS Party or Associate to Participate in RCS during First Five
Fiscal Years.”
Subsection 14.02: Cost for RCS Party or Associate to Participate in RCS During First Five Fiscal Years. For the first five Fiscal
Years of this Agreement, beginning October 1, 2007, the only cost chargeable to RCS Parties and Associates is $17.50 per
Subscriber Unit per month in order for the RSC Party or Associate to gain and enjoy full participation in the RSC System. All
parties expressly acknowledge and agree that the annual Subscriber Unit Fee shall, without exception, be frozen at $17.50 per
Subscriber Unit per month for the first five Fiscal Years of this Agreement, beginning October 1, 2007.
Please note at this time the County is exercising its right for potential increase set forth in Subsection
14.05.
Subsection 14.05: Potential Increases in Subscriber Unit Fees. Following the first five Fiscal Years of this Agreement, during which time the
annual Subscriber Unit Fees will have remained frozen at $17.50 per Subscriber Unit per month, the annual Subscriber Unit Fee which is assessed
for each Subscriber Unit may be increased by the Program Manager/Williamson County in an amount not to exceed ten percent (10%) per year
per Subscriber Unit.
In the event that the Program Manager/Williamson County makes a determination that an increase is necessary which exceeds such
ten percent (10%) limit, then and in that event the Program Manager/Williamson County shall submit the matter to the Advisory Board. After a
hearing, the Advisory Board shall make known in written form its determination as to whether an increase above such ten percent (10%) limit is
warranted and, if so, an appropriate percentage of increase to the Subscriber Unit Fee. Following receipt of such determination by the Advisory
Board, the Williamson County Commissioner’s Court shall set the actual amount of increase, if any. The Program Manager/Williamson County
shall notify the RCS Parties and Associates of same.
Subscriber fees set forth for the FY 2017 will be as such: $28.18 per subscribing unit per month.
You may direct any questions or concerns regarding this increase to the RCS System Manager Catherine
Roberts 512-943-3575 or Julie Kiley at County Auditor’s office 512-943-1552.
Page 10 of 80
City of Georgetown, Texas
Government and Finance Advisory Board
October 5, 2016
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion to approve a c o ntract in the amo unt not to exc eed $106,690 with Plante
Mo ran fo r c ons ulting s ervices to p ro vide as s is tanc e in the s electio n o f a s oftware s o lutio n(s) fo r financ ial
management, proc urement, human resources and payro ll. – Leigh Wallac e, F inance Direc tor
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background
The City’s current financial and p ayroll s ystem is Tyler Tec hno lo gy’s Incod e, which has been in us e since
1993. Due to the tremendous gro wth o f the C ity, modern, full-service financ ial management, human
res o urc e proc urement and payro ll sys tems are es s ential. A cons ultant is need ed to as s ist the City with
d eveloping a s o ftware s trategy, as s es s ing the C ity’s c urrent financial and human res ources p ro cedures ,
writing the reques t fo r proposals fo r the s o ftware s o lutio n(s) and evaluating the res p o nses.
RFP Process
On July 22, the City releas ed this req uest for propos al fo r c o nsulting s ervic es . The s taff c o mmittee that
d rafted this req ues t and reviewed the respons es inc luded the F inance Direc to r, C o ntro ller, Human
Resources Direc to r, HR As s is tant Direc tor, IT Direc tor, IT Assistant Director, and As s is tant City
Manager.
Nine proposals were rec eived. The proposals were reviewed and s cored ind ep endently by staff, then
reviewed c o llec tively fo r the b es t value and s ervic e match. T he top three sc oring firms were invited to meet
with the c o mmittee and p res ent details of their s trategy and best value fo r G eo rgeto wn.
Recommendations
Bas ed on the res pons es and staff evaluatio ns , Plante Mo ran was s elected as the top firm. S taff will
nego tiate a final c o ntract of s ervic es with the firm in amo unt not to exceed the p ro p o s al $106,690. This
amo unt inc lud es all p ro p o s ed phas es , inc lud ing the o p tional bus iness p ro ces s review.
The p ro p o s al is attac hed. Ad am Rujan, Partner Management Cons ulting fro m P lante Moran, will b e
p res ent at the meeting for q uestio ns.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds fo r this s ervice are includ ed in the General Government Contrac ts bud get of the General Fund in
acc o unt number 100-5-0638-51-349 ONE TIME PR OGRAM.
SUBMITTED BY:
Leigh Wallace, Financ e Directo r
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
City's RFP Backup Material
Plante Moran Propos al Backup Material
Page 11 of 80
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR
Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a
Software Solution(s) for Financial Management, Procurement, Human
Resources, and Payroll
RFP # 201652
Dated: July 22, 2016
DUE DATE FOR RESPONSES
August 23, 2016
2:00 PM
Central Standard Time
Page 12 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
2
Table of Contents
1.0 Notice to Proposers 3
2.0 Background and Current Circumstances 3
3.0 Project Purpose and Objectives 4
4.0 Key Event Schedule 5
5.0 Proposal Submission Requirements 5
6.0 Proposal Evaluation/Selection Process 7
7.0 Instructions to Proposers; General Conditions and Information 8
8.0 Terms and Conditions 12
9.0 Scope of Work 12
10.0 Minimum Qualifications 13
Exhibit A – Terms and Conditions 14
Page 13 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
3
1.0 Notice to Proposers
The City of Georgetown (the “City”) is soliciting sealed proposals for Request for Proposal (RFP) No.
201652 for Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for
Financial Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll.
All addenda, notices, additional information, etc. will be posted to the City of Georgetown Purchasing
Department’s web site, http://purchasing.georgetown.org/bid-information/. 2 printed copies (1 original
plus 1 copy) plus 1 digital copy on CD/DVD/thumb drive of proposals must be sealed and returned to the
City of Georgetown, Attention: Purchasing Manager, P. O. Box 409, Georgetown, Texas 78627 (mailing
address) or 300-1 Industrial Avenue, Georgetown, Texas 78626 (physical address) by 2:00p.m. Central
Standard Time, on August 23, 2016. All proposals must be plainly marked with the proposal name and RFP
number: “Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll RFP # 201652“.
Proposer is responsible for delivery of response by the date and time set for the closing of the proposal
acceptance. Responses received after the date and time set for the closing will not be considered.
The information contained in these specifications is confidential and is to be used only in connection with
preparing this proposal.
The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and waive informalities in proposals received.
All questions concerning this RFP must be addressed in writing (preferably via email) to the following point
of contact:
Trina Bickford
Purchasing Manager
300-1 Industrial Ave.
Georgetown, Texas 78627
Phone: (512) 930-3647
Fax: (512) 930-9027
Email: purchasing@georgetown.org
2.0 Background and Current Circumstances
2.1 City of Georgetown
The City, according to the US Census Bureau, is the nation’s fastest growing city with a population 50,000
or more. The City had a population of 63,716 in 2015, and is growing at a rate of almost 8% The City is
located on Interstate 35, and is the northern most “gateway” to the Austin metropolitan statistical area.
While Georgetown offers the amenities and charm of a small community, it is strategically and centrally
located in the middle of the four major metropolitan areas of Texas. As the community grows and changes,
the City as an organization needs to be more nimble and efficient and requires resources to support these
goals.
Within the City, Finance and Human Resources are core internal functions supporting all other City
services. These key areas require a robust software system to ensure the accuracy and transparency of
all financial and human resource related activities.
Page 14 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
4
2.1.1 Current Georgetown Financial and Human Resource Information Systems
The City currently utilizes a client-server based packaged software product for its financial applications
supplied by Incode, a subsidiary of Tyler Technologies. The software product has been in use since January
1993, and is routinely updated as new versions are provided by Incode. The financial modules currently in
use include the general ledger, accounts payable, accounts receivable, payroll, budget, utility billing,
centralized cash receipts, municipal court, purchasing, inventory, fixed assets, building permits and human
resources. The City does not currently have a full service human resource platform, although Incode does
provide some basic Human Resource and payroll functionality.
The City has begun the process of replacing the Incode Utility Billing module with a new Customer
Information System (CIS). The fixed asset system was replaced in October of 2014.
2.1.2 Future Needs for Financial Management, Procurement, Human Resource, and Payroll Software
Due to the tremendous growth of the City, modern, full-service financial management, human resource
and payroll systems are essential. The City’s goal is to procure a solution, either in the form of a single
software suite or combination of two systems, which provides advanced capabilities in each of these
areas:
Financial Management and Procurement – providing integrated fund accounting and budgeting, highly
flexible budgeting capabilities, performance measure tracking and analysis, centralized and decentralized
access to information and reporting, purchasing management, contract management, project accounting,
grant management, and adherence to Governmental Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting
(GAAFR), Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and Governmental Accounting Standards
Board (GASB) standards.
Human Resource and Payroll – an integrated system that takes an employee record from hiring of a new
employee through the life of an employee to retirement/termination including the following: recruiting
and onboarding of new hires, position control, compensation planning, benefit administration/open
enrollment capabilities, Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) tracking, Affordable Care Act (ACA)
compliance reporting, performance appraisal management, payroll, easy data extractions and reporting,
exiting and retiring of employee. Additionally, the system must provide easy time keeping capabilities,
user-friendly employee and supervisory access and reporting, Workers’ Compensation tracking and
employee training/development tracking capabilities.
The City also requires assistance in determining whether an onsite hosted solution or a cloud based
solution would be most advantageous.
3.0 Project Purpose and Objectives
3.1 Scope of Procurement
The City requires assistance in selection of a solution - a single software suite versus two separate
products; onsite hosted versus cloud based - to perform all required functions as detailed above.
Page 15 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
5
3.2 Anticipated Approach
3.2.1 Included Services
The City requires the successful Proposer to provide services appropriate to successful development of a
plan for selection of a system as described in the RFP, and anticipates specific services include, but are not
limited to: evaluation of available software systems, assistance in determination of system requirements
in order to ensure selection of all of the City’s immediate and future requirements are met, assistance in
evaluation of proposals and selection of a suitable software system(s).
The City also requests proposals for an optional assessment of the City’s current financial and human
resources processes. If proposing this optional service, Proposer must include a detailed proposal for the
assessment including separate pricing. As a part of the evaluation and award process, the City will make
the decision on award of the assessment process as a part of this project.
3.2.2 Excluded Services
The procurement of the service under this RFP will not include the solicitation process, actual
procurement of the software system(s), or contract drafting/negotiation for award of the procurement.
Separate RFPs will be used for the acquisition of the system(s) and for any required implementation
consulting services after system is selected.
3.2.3 Ability to combine vendors
The City will consider combinations of vendors to achieve all requirements of this RFP. As a result, it is
possible for a vendor to propose portions of the services and specify partners for the remaining
requirements. If this approach is taken, the City will evaluate the number, strength and relationship of
the vendors proposed to determine if that approach provides the best value for the City.
4.0 RFP Key Events Schedule
Issue RFP July 22, 2016
Deadline for questions on RFP August 8, 2016, 5PM CST
Proposals due August 23, 2016, 2PM CST
City evaluation of proposals completed (approx.) September 26, 2016
Selection of successful Proposer (approx.) September 27, 2016
Recommendation for award to Board (approx.) September 28, 2016
Council approval of Award (approx.) October 11, 2016
The City anticipates issuing the RFP for procurement of the required software system(s) no later than
March 1, 2017.
5.0 Proposal Submission Requirements
5.1 Proposal Submission Format
The Purchasing Department will not accept oral proposals, or proposals received by telephone or FAX
machine. Proposals must be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward, concise
description of Proposer’s ability to meet all requirements and specifications of this RFP. Emphasis should
Page 16 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
6
be focused on focused on completeness, clarity of content and responsiveness to all requirements and
specifications of this RFP.
The proposal must be submitted in hard copy. Proposer shall submit 1 original and 1 copy of the entire
proposal, plus 1 digital copy (on CD, DVD or thumb drive) consisting of:
• Signed cover letter;
• A detailed description of proposing firm’s history, structure, qualifications and experience,
including documentation of compliance with the minimum qualifications as indicated in Section
10;
• Detailed proposal for services specified in this RFP including detailed cost, including optional
assessment described in Section 3.2.1;
• Resumes of key staff proposed to provide services;
• References – a minimum of three references for consulting jobs similar in size and scope to the
project described in this RFP. References must include the name of the client, point of contact,
all contact information, description of project, project dates. References must be for projects
successfully completed within the past three years; and
• Any other information necessary for the City to evaluate Proposer’s ability to successfully provide
the specified services as detailed in this RFP.
Proposer may also provide supplemental marketing or technical materials, to be packaged separately
from the Proposal. No materials provided by Proposer will be returned at any time during or following
this procurement.
5.2 Proposal Time Stamp
The time proposals are received shall be determined by the time clock stamp in the Purchasing
Department. Purchasing Department personnel will promptly timestamp submissions as they are
received. Proposers are responsible for insuring that their proposals are received and stamped by
Purchasing Department personnel by the deadline indicated.
5.3 Proposer Representations and Responsibilities
By submitting a proposal in response to this RFP, Proposer represents that it has carefully read and
understands all elements of this RFP; has familiarized itself with all federal, state, and local laws,
ordinances, and rules and regulations that in any manner may affect the cost, progress, or performance
of the contract work; and has full knowledge of the scope, nature, quality and quantity of services to be
performed.
By submitting a proposal in response to this RFP, the Proposer represents that is has not relied exclusively
upon any technical details in place or under consideration for implementation by the City, but has
supplemented this information through due diligence research and that the Proposer sufficiently
understands the issues relative to the indicated requirements.
The failure or omission of Proposer to receive or examine any form, instrument, addendum, or other
documents or to acquaint itself with conditions existing at the site or other details shall in no way relieve
any Proposer from any obligations with respect to its proposal or to the contract.
Page 17 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
7
5.4 Proposal Withdrawal
A proposal may be modified or withdrawn by the Proposer any time prior to the time and date set for the
receipt of proposals in accordance with the following guidelines.
1. Proposer shall notify the Purchasing Department in writing of its intention to withdraw a
previously submitted proposal.
2. If a change in the proposal is requested, the modification must be worded by the Proposer as to
not reveal the original amount of the proposal.
3. Proposals withdrawn and modified must be resubmitted to the Purchasing Department no later
than the time and date set for the receipt of proposals.
4. No proposal can be withdrawn after the time set for the receipt of proposals and for a minimum
of sixty (60) days thereafter.
5.5 Late Proposals
All proposals received in the Purchasing Department on time shall be accepted. All late proposals received
by the Purchasing Department shall be returned upon request to the Proposer unopened. Proposals shall
be open to public inspection only after award of the contract.
5.6 Proposer Questions
Proposers may contact the individual listed in Section 1 with any questions regarding this RFP. Proposers shall
not attempt to contact City Council members, the City staff or management directly during the pre-proposal
or post proposal period. The City intends to respond to all appropriate questions and concerns; however, the
City reserves the right to decline to respond to any question or concern. All material questions/responses,
clarifications, modifications and/or interpretations will be incorporated into an addendum which will be
publically posted. All addenda issued prior to the due date/time for responses are incorporated into this RFP
and must be acknowledged in proposal. Only information provided in written addenda shall be binding – oral
or other interpretations shall not be binding and are held without legal effect.
6.0 Proposal Evaluation/Selection Process
The City has attempted to provide a comprehensive statement of requirements through this RFP for the
consulting engagement. Written proposals must present Proposer's qualifications and understanding of
the work to be performed. Proposers are asked to address each evaluation criteria and to be specific in
presenting their qualifications. Proposals must be as thorough and detailed as possible so that the City
may properly evaluate capabilities to provide the required goods/services.
Selection may be made of one or more Proposers deemed to be fully qualified and best suited among
those submitting proposals. Demonstrations and possible site visits may be conducted for the Proposers
so selected. The City reserves the right to award based on the responses received or to negotiate with any
or all of the Proposers so selected. Price shall be considered, but shall not be the sole determining factor.
The City may also award to other than the highest ranked proposer in the event the best and final price
submitted by Proposer is more than the budget available for the project. The City shall select the Proposer
which, in the City’s opinion, has made the proposal most beneficial to the City for award. Should the City
determine in writing and in its sole discretion that only one Proposer is fully qualified or that one Proposer
is clearly more highly qualified than the others under consideration, a contract may be negotiated and
awarded to that Proposer. The award document will be a contract incorporating by reference all the
requirements, terms and conditions of the solicitation and the Proposer's proposal as negotiated.
Page 18 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
8
For purposes of evaluation, the City may establish, after an initial review of proposals, a competitive range
of acceptable or potentially acceptable proposals composed of the highest rated proposals, and defer
action on proposals outside of the competitive range pending selection of a successful Proposer; however,
the City reserves the right to include additional proposals in the competitive range if deemed to be in the
City’s best interest.
The City may permit revision of proposal(s) prior to final selection of a successful Proposer; such revisions,
including pricing, shall become binding. Proposers within the competitive range may be provided an
opportunity for discussion and revision of its proposal. The City is not obligated to select the Proposer
offering the most attractive economic terms if such Proposer is not the most advantageous to the City
overall, as solely determined by the City.
By submission of a proposal, Proposer acknowledges acceptance of the evaluation process, the evaluation
criteria, all specification, terms and conditions and all other requirements and specifications set forth in
this RFP, and recognition that some subjective judgments must be made by the City during the process.
The City makes no guarantees or representations that any award will be made and reserves the right to
cancel this solicitation for any reason. Proposer shall be solely responsible and accept all risk for any costs
associated with preparation of a response to this RFP, or subsequent evaluation related activities such as
onsite interviews, demonstrations or presentations.
6.1 Evaluation Criteria
The City has established specific, weighted criteria for selection. This section presents the evaluation
criteria, description, and relative weight assigned to each (100 points maximum). The City will evaluate
each Proposer’s responses to the requirements contained in this RFP.
6.1.1 Quality of proposal 30 points
6.1.2 Qualifications and experience 25 points
Evaluation will be based on detailed description of Proposer’s qualifications and experience as well as
resumes of key staff proposed for assignment to the project.
6.1.3 Recent experience with comparable projects 25 points
6.1.4 Total cost 20 points
6.2 Proposal Evaluation Process
Each proposal will be reviewed, evaluated, and scored as part of the formal selection process. Each
proposal will be reviewed independently based solely on the merits of the proposal. The proposals will
then be scored and, if necessary, a short list of Proposers will be selected for additional evaluation,
Proposer presentations, demonstrations, and reference checks.
7.0 Instructions to Proposers; General Conditions and Information
A. The City is soliciting competitive sealed proposals from Proposers having suitable qualifications
and experience in providing services in accordance with all terms, conditions, specifications and
requirements of this RFP. This RFP is intended to describe the requirements and response format
in sufficient detail to secure comparable proposals.
Page 19 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
9
B. The City adheres to all statutes, court decisions and the opinions of the Texas Attorney General
with respect to disclosure of public information.
C. The City, in its sole discretion, expressly reserves the right to request and/or require any additional
information from Proposer(s) deemed relevant with respect to this RFP.
D. Pursuant to Texas Local Government Code Section 262.030, proposals shall be opened so as to
avoid disclosure of the contents to competing offers. Details will not be released until all ensuing
negotiations have been completed and contractual agreements have been executed. All
information submitted on this RFP will be public record.
E. All proposals become the property of the City and will not be returned to Proposer.
F. Award of the contract, if any, shall be made to the responsible Proposer whose proposal is
determined to be the best evaluated offer from negotiation, taking into consideration the relative
importance of price and other evaluation factors set forth in this RFP. All proposals must be valid
for a minimum of 90 days from the date of submission.
G. The City expressly reserves the right to:
i. Waive any defect, irregularity or informality in any proposal;
ii. Reject or cancel any or all proposals, or part(s) of any proposal;
iii. Accept proposals from one or more Proposers;
iv. Procure services by other means;
v. Select the acceptable Proposer(s) who will offer contractual terms and conditions most
favorable to the City; and/or
vi. Modify the specifications of the RFP contract for segments of this RFP, and/or negotiate
the price and any other terms with Proposers, as needed.
H. Any contract awarded based on this RFP shall be governed by and construed in accordance with
the laws of the State of Texas, is fully performable in Georgetown, Texas, and venue for any action
related to this contract will be Georgetown, Texas.
I. The implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose shall not be waived
under this RFP or any contract awarded from this RFP except as expressly authorized in writing by
the City granting the waiver.
J. Proposal and, as necessary, all associated documents must be signed by an individual authorized
to contractually commit Proposer.
K. Proposers must include the following information as a part of proposal. Failure to any information
requested in this RFP may result in the disqualification of the proposal.
1. Proposer shall furnish a complete name, mailing address and telephone number.
2. Proposal must designate individual(s), along with respective telephone numbers, responsible for
answering technical and contractual questions with respect to proposal.
Page 20 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
10
3. Proposals should not contain promotional or display materials, except as such materials may
directly answer, in whole or in part, questions contained in the RFP. Such exhibits shall be clearly
marked with the applicable reference number of the questions in the RFP.
L. By submission of a response to this RFP, Proposer acknowledges and/or certifies the following:
1. Cost for developing proposals is entirely the responsibility of the Proposer and shall not be
chargeable to the City.
2. Requirements stated in the RFP shall become part of any award to successful Proposer(s), and any
deviations from these requirements must be specifically defined in proposal, request for
clarification and/or counter proposal which, if accepted, shall also become part of any contract
resulting from this RFP. The contents of the proposal and any clarification or counter proposal
thereto submitted by the successful Proposer shall become part of the contractual obligation and
incorporated by reference into the ensuing contract.
3. Products and services not specifically mentioned in this RFP, but which are necessary to provide
the functional capabilities described by the Proposer shall be included in the proposal.
4. Proposer may withdraw their proposal by submitting a written request for withdrawal signed by
an authorized individual to the Purchasing Manager any time prior to the submission deadline.
Proposer may thereafter submit a new proposal prior to the deadline. Modifications offered in
any manner will not be considered if submitted after the deadline.
5. Successful Proposer may be required to provide an affidavit that they have not conspired with
other potential suppliers in any manner to attempt to control competitive pricing. This paragraph
does not, however, preclude two or more suppliers of certain parts of the requirements from
presenting a combined or joint proposal for the purpose of providing a complete proposal.
6. Proposer certifies that they are a duly qualified, capable and otherwise bondable business entity
not in receivership or contemplating same, and have not filed for bankruptcy.
7. Proposer shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of
race, religion, sex, sexual preference, color or national origin and shall make efforts to ensure that
employment is offered to applicants without regard to race, religion, sexual preference, color and
national origin.
8. Proposer, its employees, subcontractors, and agents shall comply with all applicable federal and
state laws, the charter and ordinances of the City of Georgetown, Texas, and all applicable rules
and regulations promulgated by all local, state, and national boards, bureaus, and agencies.
Successful Proposer shall further obtain and maintain all permits and licenses required, if any, for
the performance of any services required hereunder.
9. Proposals submitted in accordance with the requirements of this RFP shall be considered offers
to contract on the terms contained in the proposals and in this RFP and at the price offered by the
successful Proposer. If the City awards a contract to the successful Proposer, such award will
constitute an acceptance of that offer and a contract between the City and the successful
Proposer embodying the terms of this RFP and the proposal will become effective on the date of
such award.
10. Any award under this RFP, or any part of the work to be provided under this RFP, shall not be
assignable by Proposer without the express written permission of the City.
Page 21 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
11
M. The following insurance coverages are considered appropriate for the services required by the
City – Proposer must provide information in proposal indicating compliance with these limits.
Alternatively, Proposer may indicate their proposed coverage levels appropriate for the required
services and in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, guidelines, regulations and statutory
requirements, and the City will consider that information in the evaluation process:
a. Workers’ Compensation Insurance at statutory limits, including employer’s liability
coverage at minimum limits. In addition to these, Proposer must meet each stipulation
required by the Texas Workers Compensation Commission; (Note: questions concerning
these requirements should be directed to the TWCC at (512) 440-3789).
b. Commercial General Liability Insurance at minimum combined single limits of $500,000
per occurrence and $1,000,000 general aggregate for bodily injury and property damage,
which coverage shall include products/completed operations, independent contractors,
and contractual liability each at $500,000 per occurrence. Coverage must be written on
an occurrence form.
c. Auto Liability Insurance shall be no less than $500,000 combined single limit each accident
for bodily injury and property damage, including owned, non-owned, and hired vehicle
coverage.
d. Policies shall be endorsed to provide the City of Georgetown a thirty-(30) day notice of
cancellation, material change in coverage, or non-renewal of coverage. Applicable policies
shall also be endorsed to name the City of Georgetown as an additional insured on
General Liability and Auto.
e. Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City with respect to General Liability, Auto and
Workers’ Compensation.
f. Noncompliance may result in the contract being awarded to the next lowest responsive
and responsible Proposer.
g. After award, successful Proposer shall procure and maintain, at its sole cost and expense
for the duration of the contract, all contractually agreed upon coverages. Proof of
required insurance must be provided to the City.
N. Successful Proposer shall perform the work in accordance with applicable laws, codes, ordinances,
and regulations of the state of Texas and the United States and in compliance with Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations and other laws as they apply to its
employees. Successful Proposer shall be responsible for instructing employees with regard to safe
working habits.
O. Successful Proposer shall be responsible for conducting criminal background checks and verifying
employment eligibility on all custodial employees that will have access to City property in
accordance with the state and federal laws.
P. Identification must be worn or available for display upon request by employees of the successful
Proposer while fulfilling duties at City sites.
Page 22 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
12
8.0 Terms and Conditions
The City expects the successful Proposer to agree to the standard terms and conditions that would be
extended by the City for the purchase of comparable products and services. The City’s standard terms and
conditions are attached for reference. Any required contracts must be submitted with proposal for
review by the City.
9.0 Scope of Work
This Scope of Work specifies services that the City expects to acquire from the successful Proposer as a result
of this solicitation.
9.1 Development and documentation of a project vision, strategic objective and project plan for
software system selection process.
9.2 High level formulation of a simple “back office” application strategy or enterprise resource
planning (ERP) strategy which evaluates whether a single suite ERP solution, or separate applications
addressing financial management activities (finance, accounting, procurement) and human resource
activities (human resources, payroll) would be most advantageous, resulting in a brief outline of the
ERP strategy. Additionally, outline must address strategy for evaluation of on site hosting versus cloud
systems.
9.3 Facilitation of onsite meetings/workshops with decision makers, key stakeholders and subject
matter experts to determine business needs.
9.4 Facilitation and ongoing coordination of a selection team comprised of key stakeholders.
9.5 Development and documentation of a high level listing of primary business processes, both
current and desired, for financial management, human resources and payroll
9.6 Development and documentation of high level categories for evaluation criteria/software
requirements including at a minimum criteria for assessing product functionality, technology, costs,
service quality, product vision and viability of successful implementation.
9.7 Development and documentation of detailed criteria/requirements in each high level category,
including provision of typical criteria for this type of product, for review by the selection team.
9.8 Assistance in ranking and prioritizing of each detailed criteria as “mandatory” or “optional”,
resulting in a detailed prioritized requirements list.
9.9 Develop and document a market overview of software systems which best meet the City’s
requirements, including a description of any tradeoffs among available systems, operational benefits
resulting from various capabilities/functionalities and general pricing information, resulting in a written
overview and summary document along with a suggested project budget.
9.10 Development and documentation of a decision making methodology for assessing different
systems and implementation approaches, resulting in a recommended decision making process.
9.11 Assist in development of Request for Proposals for the required software system and any
necessary implementation services, collaborating with City staff to develop a draft RFP.
Page 23 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
13
9.12 Facilitate in proposer evaluation process including, but not limited to, coordination of proposer
demonstrations and reference checks.
9.13 Facilitate proposer evaluation process, collaborating with the selection committee, to make and
document a recommendation for award.
9.14 Assist in initial review of contract scope, verifying all required products and services as detailed
in the Request for Proposals, proposal, presentations, discussions, negotiations and proposer’s best and
final offer are incorporated into the contract scope, and provide written comments/feedback on draft
contract. City staff will handle legal review and negotiation of final contact.
10.0 Minimum Qualifications
Proposer must have documented experience in selection of financial management, human resource and
payroll software systems for organizations similar in size and complexity to the City. Additionally Proposer
must be familiar with business operations of Texas municipal governments including those operating
water and electric utilities. The City prefers Proposer be familiar with related software systems currently
in use, such as Infor EAM, Tyler Technologies’ Incode and Itineris UMAX. Proposals must include
documentation that Proposer meets all minimum qualifications.
Page 24 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
14
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Standard Terms and Conditions
By acceptance of a purchase order or agreement, or response to a solicitation, Vendor agrees the following terms and conditions, without
modification, will govern:
I. DEFINITIONS
The following definitions shall be used to identify terms throughout procurement documents:
A. AGREEMENT/CONTRACT – A mutually binding legal document obligating the Vendor to furnish the goods, equipment or
services specified within the solicitation and obligating the City to pay for the goods, equipment, or services specified. .
B. BID/PROPOSAL /RESPONSE/OFFER/QUOTATION– A complete, properly signed response to a solicitation that, if
accepted, would bind the Respondent to perform the resulting contract.
C. BIDDER/PROPOSER/RESPONDENT/OFFERER – The Respondent identified throughout the solicitation that they consider
themselves qualified to provide the goods, equipment or services specified herein, and are interested in making an offer
to provide the goods, equipment or services to the City.
D. CITY – The City of Georgetown, located in Williamson County, Texas.
E. GOODS –Materials, supplies, commodities and/or equipment.
F. PIGGYBACK CONTRACT – A contract or agreement that has been competitively bid in accordance with State of Texas
statutes, rules, policies and procedures and has been extended for the use of state and local agencies and active State of
Texas CO-OP entities.
G. PURCHASE ORDER – An order placed by the City for the purchase of goods or services issued on the City’s standard
purchase order form and which, when accepted by the Vendor, becomes a contract. The purchase order is the Vendor’s
authority to deliver and invoice the City for goods or services specified, and the City’s commitment to accept the goods or
services for an agreed upon price.
H. SERVICES – Work performed to meet the requirements and demand of the purchase order. The furnishing of labor, time,
or effort by the Vendor and their ability to comply with promised delivery dates, specification and technical assistance
specified.
I. SOLICITATION/INVITATION TO BID/REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS/REQUEST FOR QUOTES – The solicitation document
issued by the City containing terms, conditions and specifications for the service or commodity to be procured.
J. SUBCONTRACTOR – Any person or business enterprise providing goods, labor, and/or services to a Vendor if such goods,
equipment, labor, and/or services are procured or used in fulfillment of the Vendor’s obligations arising from a contract
with the City.
K. VENDOR/CONTRACTOR – Person or business enterprise providing goods, equipment, labor and/or services to the City as
fulfillment of obligations arising from an agreement or purchase order.
II. SOLICITATIONS
A. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
Effective January 1, 2006, Chapter 176 of the Texas Local Government Code (HB 914) requires an entity contracting or
seeking to contract for the sale or purchase of property, goods, or services with a local governmental entity to disclose any
affiliation or business relationship which might create a conflict of interest with a local government entity. The Conflict of
Interest Questionnaire is available from the Texas Ethics Commission at www.ethics.state.tx.us, and completed forms must
be submitted to the appropriate records administrator of the City not later than the seventh business day after the date
the entity begins contract discussions or negotiations with the local governmental entity, or submits to the local
governmental entity an application, response to a Request for Proposals or Bids, correspondence, or another writing
related to a potential Agreement with the local governmental entity. If responding to a Solicitation, the Conflict of Interest
Form may be submitted with the Response. The completed forms may be mailed or hand delivered to the City Secretary at
the following address: The City of Georgetown, Office of the City Secretary, City Hall, 113 East 8th Street, Georgetown, TX
78626. This legislation is subject to change and each entity should consult its own attorney regarding the current law. Any
attempt to intentionally or unintentionally conceal a conflict of interest may result in disqualification of any response to a
solicitation. The validity of the Contract is not affected solely because of failure to comply with the conflict of interest
disclosure requirements.
B. COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE CITY:
To insure the proper and fair evaluation of a Solicitation, the City prohibits ex parte communication (e.g., unsolicited)
initiated by the Offeror to the City Official or Employee evaluating or considering the Responses prior to the time an award
has been made. Communication between Offeror and the City will be initiated by the appropriate City Official or Employee
in order to obtain information or clarification needed to develop a proper and accurate evaluation of the Solicitation. Ex
parte communication may be grounds for disqualifying the offending Offeror from consideration or award of the
Solicitation then in evaluation, or any future Solicitation.
Unless otherwise specified, all requests for clarification or questions regarding a Solicitation must be directed to the City of
Georgetown Purchasing Department, Attn.: Purchasing Manager, PO Box 409, 300-1 Industrial Avenue, Georgetown, TX
78627, 512-930-3647, FAX: 512-930-9027, purchasing@georgetown.org.
Page 25 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
15
C. DISCLOSURE OF PENDING LITIGATION:
Each Respondent shall include in its proposal a complete disclosure of any material civil or criminal litigation or pending
investigation which involves the Respondent or in which the Respondent has been judged guilty.
D. CONFIDENTIALITY OF RESPONSES, PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT:
All Responses are subject to release as public information unless the Response or specific parts of the Response can be
shown to be exempt from the Texas Public Information Act. Respondents are advised to consult with their legal counsel
regarding disclosure issues and take the appropriate precautions to safeguard trade secrets or any other proprietary
information. The City assumes no obligation or responsibility for asserting legal arguments on behalf of potential
Respondents.
If a Respondent believes that a Response or parts of a Response are confidential, then the Respondent shall so specify. The
Respondent shall stamp in bold red letters the term "CONFIDENTIAL" on that part of the Response, which the Respondent
believes to be confidential. Vague and general claims as to confidentiality shall not be accepted. All Responses and parts of
Responses that are not marked as confidential will be automatically considered public information. Notwithstanding,
responses to Requests for Proposals shall be opened in a manner that avoids disclosure of the contents to competing
offeror and keeps the proposals secret during negotiations as provided for in Section 252.049 of the Local Government
Code.
E. CLARIFICATIONS, WAIVER OF MINOR TECHNICALITIES OR DISCREPANCIES:
The City reserves the right to request clarification or additional information specific to any response after all Responses
have been received and the Solicitation due date has passed. Additionally, the City reserves the right to accept or reject
all or part of any Response, waive any formalities or technical inconsistencies, delete any requirement or specification
from the Solicitation, or terminate the Solicitation when deemed to be in City’s best interest.
F. COST OF PREPARATION OF RESPONSE:
All costs directly or indirectly related to preparation of a Response to this Solicitation or any oral presentation required to
supplement and/or clarify a Response which may be required by the City shall be the sole responsibility of the Respondent.
G. RESPONSES BECOME PROPERTY OF THE CITY:
Submissions received in response to a Solicitation become the sole property of the City.
H. WITHDRAWAL OF A RESPONSE:
A Response may be withdrawn prior to the submission deadline by submitting a written request for its withdrawal to the
Purchasing Manager. A new Response may be submitted and must be received prior to the submission deadline to be
considered. Modifications offered in any manner will not be considered if submitted after the submission deadline.
I. DETERMINATION OF AWARD, RESULTING AGREEMENT:
In determining award, the City reserves the right to select the acceptable Respondent who will offer contractual terms and
conditions most favorable to the City. All requirements stated in the Solicitation shall become a part of any Contract,
Agreement or Purchase Order awarded as a result of the Solicitation, and any deviations from these requirements must be
specifically stated and defined by the Respondent in their Response. Requests for clarification and the responses(s) shall
also become a part of any Contract, Agreement or Purchase Order resulting from the Solicitation.
J. AFFIRMATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS:
By signature on and submission of a Response, Respondent certifies they have not conspired with any other potential
supplier in any manner to attempt to control competitive pricing. By signature on and submission of a Response,
Respondent certifies they are duly qualified, capable and a bondable business entity not in receivership or contemplating
same, and has not filed for bankruptcy. By signature on and submission of a Response, Respondent affirms that they will
not discriminate against any employee or applicant as prohibited by law.
K. REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMISSION OF RESPONSE:
1. All Responses must be submitted on the form provided by the City, and accompanied by all required attachments.
Each Response shall be placed in a separate envelope and properly identified with Solicitation Number and Opening
Date. Responses must be time-stamped at the Purchasing Department, 300-1 Industrial Avenue, PO Box 409,
Georgetown, TX 78626, on or before due date and time shown on the Solicitation form. Late Responses will not be
considered.
2. If applicable, Respondent will show exact cost to deliver. Responses must specify unit price on the quantity
specified, extend and show total. Unit prices shall govern, including in case of errors. Pricing will be considered firm
for acceptance for a minimum of 60 days after the due date unless otherwise specified in the Solicitation. The
validity period may be extended beyond that date on agreement of parties. Cash discounts will not be considered in
determining award; all cash discounts offered will be taken if earned. Respondent will list and deduct all discounts
not based on early payment from prices quoted.
3. The City is exempt from all federal excise, state and local taxes unless otherwise stated. The City claims exemption
from under Texas Tax Code §151.309, as amended. Texas Limited Sales Tax Exemption Certificates will be furnished
upon request. Do not include taxes in Response to any Solicitation.
4. Unless stated otherwise, any catalog, brand name or manufacturer's reference used in the Solicitation is descriptive
(not restrictive), and is used to indicate type and quality desired. Responses on brands of like nature and quality will
be considered. If quoting on other than referenced specifications, the Response MUST show manufacturer brand or
trade name and description of product offered. Illustrations and complete descriptions of product offered should be
Page 26 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
16
made part of the Response. If Respondent does not identify exceptions to the specifications shown in this Invitation,
Respondent will be required to furnish brand names, numbers, etc., as shown in the Solicitation.
5. Response must show the number of days required to deliver items or provide services to the City’s designated
location under normal conditions. Unrealistically short or long delivery promises may cause Response to be
disregarded. Failure to state delivery time obligates Respondent to complete delivery in 14 calendar days.
III. PURCHASE ORDERS
A. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. ACCEPTANCE:
A Purchase Order is the City’s commitment to make procurement and is subject to Vendor’s acceptance of the City’s
terms and conditions
2. ABSENCES OF PURCHASE ORDER OR AGREEMENT:
The City is not responsible for delivery of any materials or services without a proper Purchase Order
3. VENDOR’S OBLIGATIONS:
The Vendor shall fully and timely provide all deliverables described in the Solicitation and in the Vendor’s Offer in
strict accordance with the terms, covenants, and conditions of the Agreement and all applicable Federal, State, and
local laws, rules, and regulations.
4. EFFECTIVE DATE/TERM:
Unless otherwise specified in the Solicitation, this Agreement shall be effective as of the date the City issues and
signs the Purchase Order, and shall continue in effect until all obligations are performed in accordance with the
Agreement.
5. SUBCONTRACTORS:
If the Vendor utilizes Subcontractors in providing the goods and/or services under this Purchase Order, the Vendor
shall be fully responsible to the City for all acts and omissions of the Subcontractors just as the Vendor is
responsible for the Vendor’s own acts and omissions. The Vendor shall:
a. Require that all deliverables to be provided by the Subcontractor be provided in strict accordance with the
provisions, specifications and terms of the Agreement;
b. Prohibit the Subcontractor from further subcontracting any portion of the Agreement without the prior
written consent of the City and the Vendor. The City may require, as a condition to such further
subcontracting, that the Subcontractor post a payment bond in form, substance and amount acceptable to the
City;
c. Require Subcontractors to submit all invoices and applications for payments, including any claims for
additional payments, damages or otherwise, to the Vendor in sufficient time to enable the Vendor to include
same with its invoice or application for payment to the City in accordance with the terms of the Agreement;
d. Require that all Subcontractors obtain and maintain, throughout the term of their contract, insurance in the
type and amounts specified for the Vendor, with the City being a named insured as its interest shall appear;
e. Require that the Subcontractor indemnify and hold the City harmless to the same extent as the Contractor is
required to indemnify the City; and
f. Shall pay each Subcontractor its appropriate share of payments made to the Vendor not later than ten (10)
calendar days after receipt of payment from the City.
6. DELAYS:
The City may delay scheduled delivery or other due dates by written notice to the Vendor if the City deems it is in its
best interest. If such delay causes an increase in the cost of the work under the Agreement, the City and the Vendor
shall negotiate an equitable adjustment for costs incurred by the Vendor in the Agreement price and execute an
amendment to the Agreement. The Vendor must assert its right to an adjustment within ten (10) calendar days
from the date of receipt of the notice of delay. Failure to agree on any adjusted price shall be handled under the
Dispute Resolution Process specified in Section Z. However, nothing in this provision shall excuse the Vendor from
delaying the delivery as notified.
7. FORCE MAJEURE:
Neither party shall be liable for any default or delay in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement if,
while and to the extent such default or delay is caused by acts of God, fire, riots, civil commotion, labor disruptions,
sabotage, sovereign conduct, or any other cause beyond reasonable control. In the event of default or delay in
performance due to any of the foregoing causes, then the time for completion of the services will be extended;
provided, however, in such an event, a conference will be held within three (3) business days to establish a mutually
agreeable period of time reasonably necessary to overcome the effect of such failure to perform.
8. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS:
Unless specific insurance requirements are noted, Vendor shall maintain insurance coverage appropriate for the
fulfillment of the Purchase Order. In the event the Vendor, its employees, agents or subcontractors enter premises
occupied by or under the control of the City, the Vendor agrees to maintain public liability and property damage
insurance in reasonable limits covering the obligations set forth in this Purchase Order, and will maintain Workers’
Compensation coverage (either by insurance or if qualified pursuant to law, through a self-insurance program)
covering all employees performing on premises occupied by or under control of the City. Upon request, Vendor
shall provide a copy of its insurance policies to the City.
Page 27 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
17
9. EXCEPTIONS TO SPECIFICATIONS:
Any deviation from the specifications must be clearly indicated in the Response to the Solicitation or promptly
documented in writing at or before the time of the award. Any deviations or exceptions are subject to review by
the City and may be grounds for rejection.
10. TRAVEL EXPENSES:
All travel, lodging and/or per diem expenses associated with providing the materials, equipment or services
specified must be included in the original Quotation and/or the resulting Purchase Order or Agreement. All travel
expenses are subject to review by the City and documentation of actual itemized expenses may be requested. No
reimbursement will be made without prior authorization, or for expenses not actually incurred. Airline fares in
excess of coach or economy will not be reimbursed.
11. HUB REQUIREMENTS:
The City complies with the requirements of the State of Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 252, Section
252.0215.
12. SPECIAL TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT:
If the price stated in the Offer includes the cost of any special tooling or special test equipment fabricated or
required by the Vendor to fulfill the Agreement, such special tooling and/or equipment and all process sheets
associated thereto shall become the property of the City and shall be identified by the Vendor as such.
B. SERVICES
1. PLACE AND CONDITIONS OF WORK, ACCESS TO SITE:
If Services are to be performed principally on the City’s premises or in public rights of way, the City shall provide the
Vendor access to the sites where the Vendor is to perform the Services as required in order for the Vendor to
perform in a timely and efficient manner, in accordance with and subject to applicable security laws, rules and
regulations. The Vendor acknowledges that it has satisfied itself as to the nature of the City’s service requirements
and specifications, the location and essential characteristics of the work sites, the quality and quantity of the
materials, equipment, labor and facilities necessary to perform the Services and any other conditions or states of
fact which could, in any way, affect performance of the Vendor’s obligations under the Agreement. The Vendor
shall promptly notify the City if the actual site or service conditions differ from the expected conditions and failing
to do so, hereby releases and holds the City harmless from and against any liability or claim for damages of any kind
or nature.
2. VENDOR TO PROVIDE ALL MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT, LABOR:
Vendor shall provide all goods and labor necessary to perform Services. All material must be new and all equipment
utilized must be in good safe working condition and suitable for Services. Vendor shall employ all personnel for
Services in accordance with the requirements of applicable local, state, and federal law.
3. WORKFORCE:
If Services are to be performed principally on the City’s premises or on public right-of-ways:
a. Vendor shall employee only orderly and competent workers, skilled in the performance of the Services which
they will perform under the Agreement.
b. Vendor, its employees, subcontractors and subcontractor’s employees while engaged in participating in a
Solicitation or while in the course and scope of delivering goods and services under City Purchase Order or
Agreement may not:
i. use or possess a firearm, including a concealed handgun that is licensed under state law, except as
required by the terms of the Agreement; or
ii. use or posses alcoholic or other intoxicating beverages, illegal drugs or controlled substances, nor may
such workers be intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol or drugs while on the job.
c. If the City or the City’s representative notifies the Vendor that any work is incompetent, disorderly or
disobedient, has knowingly or repeatedly violated safety regulations, has possessed firearms, or has
possessed or was under the influence of alcohol or drugs on the job, the Vendor shall immediately remove
such worker from Agreement Services and may not employ such worker again on Agreement Services without
the City’s prior consent.
4. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS:
If Services are to be performed principally on the City’s premises or on public rights of way, the Vendor, its
subcontractors and their respective employees, shall comply fully with all applicable federal, state and local health,
safety and environmental laws, ordinances, rules and regulations in the performance of the Services, including but
not limited to those promulgated with the City and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). In
the case of conflict, the most stringent safety requirement shall govern. The Vendor shall defend, indemnify and
hold the City harmless from and against all claims, demands, suits, actions, judgments, fines, penalties and liabilities
of any kind or nature arising from the breach of the Vendor’s obligations under this paragraph.
5. STOP WORK NOTICE:
The City may issue an immediate Stop Work Notice in the event the Vendor is observed performing in a manner
that is in violation of Federal, State or local guidelines, or in a manner that is determined by the City to be unsafe to
either life or property. Upon notification, the Vendor shall cease all work until notified by the City that the violation
or unsafe condition has been corrected. The Vendor shall be liable for all costs incurred by the City as a result of the
issuance of such Stop Work Notice.
Page 28 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
18
6. WARRANTY OF SERVICES:
Vendor warrants and represents that all Services to be provided to the City under the Agreement will be fully and
timely performed in good and workmanlike manner in accordance with generally accepted industry standards and
practices, the terms, conditions and covenants of the Agreement and all applicable Federal, State and local laws,
rules or regulations. This warranty may not be limited, excluded or disclaimed and any attempt to do so will be
without force or effect. Unless otherwise specified, the warranty period shall be a minimum of one year from
acceptance by the City of Services. In the event any applicable warranty is breached, the Vendor shall promptly
upon receipt of demand of performance, perform the Services again in accordance with the above standard at no
additional costs to the City. All costs incidental to such additional performance shall be borne solely by the Vendor.
The City shall endeavor to give the Vendor written notice of the breach of warranty within thirty (30) calendar days
of discovery of the breach of warranty, but failure to give timely notice shall not impair the City’s rights under this
section.
In the event the Vendor is unable or unwilling to perform the Services in accordance with the above standards as
required by the City, then in addition to any other available remedy, the City may reduce the amount of Services
originally required to purchase from the Vendor under the Agreement and procure conforming Services from other
sources. In such event, the Vendor shall pay the City upon demand the increased cost, if any, incurred by the city to
procure such services from an alternative source.
C. COMMODITIES/EQUIPMENT
1. MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS:
Under the “Hazardous Communication Act,” commonly known as the “Texas Right to Know Act,” a Vendor must
provide to the City WITH EACH DELIVERY Material Safety Data Sheets, which are applicable to hazardous substances
as defined in the Act.
2. GOODS:
Goods furnished shall be the latest improved model in current production, as offered to commercial trade, and shall
be of quality workmanship and material. The Vendor represents that all goods and equipment offered shall be new.
Unless otherwise specified, used, shopworn, demonstrator, prototype or discontinued models are not acceptable.
3. PACKAGING OF DELIVERABLES:
Vendor must package deliverables in accordance with good commercial practice and shall include a packing list
showing the description of each item, the quantity and the unit price. Unless otherwise provided in writing by the
City, each shipping container shall be clearly and permanently marked with the Vendor’s name and address, and the
City’s name, address and Purchase Order number. Vendor shall bear all costs of packaging. Deliverables must be
suitably packed to secure lowest transportation cost, conform with requirements of common carriers and ensure
safe delivery. The City’s count or weight shall be final and conclusive on shipments not accompanied by packing
lists.
4. WARRANTY:
The goods or equipment specified shall be warranted against defects in material or workmanship for a period of not
less than twelve (12) months from date of acceptance by the City. If the manufacturer’s warranty exceeds twelve
(12) months, then the manufacturer’s warranty shall be in effect. Vendor shall furnish a copy of the manufacturer’s
warranty at the time of delivery.
5. NO LIMITATION OF MANUFACTURERS’ WARRANTIES:
Vendor may no limit, exclude or disclaim any warranty provided by manufacturer.
D. DELIVERY
1. DELIVERY TERMS, TRANSPORTATION CHARGES, FOB:
Deliverables shall be shipped FOB point of delivery unless otherwise specified on the Purchase Order or in the
Solicitation. The Vendor’s price shall be deemed to include all delivery and transportation charges. The City shall
have the right to designate what method of transportation shall be used to ship deliverables. The place of delivery
shall be specified in the Purchase Order.
2. NO SUBSTITUTIONS OR CANCELLATIONS:
Unless specifically permitted in writing by the City, no substitutions or cancellations shall be acceptable.
3. NOTICE OF DELAY IN DELIVERY:
If a delay in delivery is anticipated, Vendor shall give written notice to the City. The City has the right to extend the
delivery time/service date, or to cancel the Purchase Order or Agreement. Vendor shall keep the City advised at all
times of the status of the order. Default in promised delivery, service or failure to meet specifications authorizes
the City to procure the goods or services from an alternate source and charge the full increase, if any, in cost and
handling to defaulting Vendor. Default on delivery may result in legal action and recourse.
4. DELIVERY LOCATION, HOURS, DAYS, HOLIDAYS:
Unless otherwise specified, all deliveries must be made to City of Georgetown, Central Receiving, 300-1 Industrial
Avenue, Georgetown, TX, between the hours of 8AM and 4PM (CST), Monday through Friday except regularly
observed state and federal holidays (see http://georgetown.org/contact-us/holiday-schedule/ for schedule).
Receipt of goods or materials does not signify acceptance.
5. NO SHIPMENT UNDER RESERVATION:
Vendor is not authorized to ship deliverables under reservation and no tender of bill of lading will operate as a
tender of deliverables.
6. TITLE/RISK OF LOSS:
Title to and risk of loss of the deliverables shall pass to the City only when the City actually receives and accepts the
deliverables (no delivery, no sale).
Page 29 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
19
7. RIGHT OF INSPECTION AND REJECTION:
The City expressly reserves all rights under law, including but not limited to, the Uniform Commercial Code, to
inspect the deliverables at delivery or at a reasonable time subsequent to delivery, and to reject defective or non-
conforming deliverables. If the City has the right to inspect the Vendor’s or the Vendor’s subcontractors facilities,
or the deliverables at the Vendor’s or the Vendor’s subcontractors premises, the Vendor shall furnish or shall cause
to be furnished without additional charge all reasonable facilities and assistance to the City to facilitate such
inspection.
8. ACCEPTANCE OF INCOMPLETE OR NON-CONFORMING GOODS:
If, instead of requiring immediate correction or removal and replacement of defective or non-conforming
deliverables, the City prefers to accept such deliverables, the City may do so. The Vendor shall pay all claims, losses
and damages attributable to the City’s evaluation of and determination to accept such defective or non-conforming
deliverables. If any such acceptance occurs prior to final payment, the City may deduct such amounts as are
necessary to compensate the City for the diminished value of the defective or non-conforming deliverables. If
discovery that the deliverables are defective or non-conforming occurs after final payment, Vendor may be required
to refund such amounts to the City.
E. PAYMENT
1. TAX EXEMPT STATUS:
The City is exempt from all federal excise, state and local taxes unless otherwise stated in this document. The City
claims exemption from all sales and/or use taxes under Texas Tax Code §151.309, as amended. Texas Limited Sales
Tax Exemption Certificates are furnished upon request. Vendor will not charge for such taxes. If billed, the City will
not remit payment until a corrected invoice is received.
2. INVOICING REQUIREMENTS:
Unless otherwise specified, all invoices shall be submitted to City of Georgetown, Accounts Payable, PO Box 409,
Georgetown, TX 78627, and issued as required by the Purchase Order or Agreement. Each invoice must reference
the unique Purchase Order number, and include the Vendor’s complete name and remit to address. If applicable,
transportation and delivery charges must be itemized on the each invoice. A copy of the bill of lading and the
freight waybill must be submitted with the invoice if applicable. Invoices for labor must include a copy of all time
sheets with labor rate and Purchase Order or Agreement number clearly identified. Invoices for labor shall also
include a tabulation of hours worked at the appropriate rates and grouped by work order number, if applicable.
Time billed for labor shall be limited to hours actually worked at the work site.
3. PAYMENT TERMS:
All payments will be processed in accordance with Texas Prompt Payment Act, Texas Government Code, Subtitle F,
Chapter 2251. The City will pay Vendor within thirty days after acceptance of goods, supplies, materials, equipment
or the day of performance of services was completed, or the day of receipt of a correct invoice for goods, supplies,
materials, equipment or services, whichever is later. The Vendor may charge a late fee (fee shall not be greater
than that permitted under the Texas Prompt Payment Act) for payments not made in accordance with this prompt
payment policy; however, the policy does not apply to payments made by the City in the event: (a) there is a bona
fide dispute between the City and Vendor concerning the goods, supplies, materials, equipment delivered, or the
services performed, that causes the payment to be late; (b) the terms of a federal agreement, grant, regulation or
statute prevents the City from making a timely payment with Federal funds; (c) there is a bona fide dispute between
the Vendor and a subcontractor and its suppliers concerning goods, supplies, material or equipment delivered, or
the services performed, which caused the payment to be late; or (d) the invoice is not mailed to the City in strict
accordance with instructions on the Purchase Order or Agreement, or other such contractual agreement.
4. RIGHT TO AUDIT:
The Vendor agrees that the representatives of the City shall have access to, and the rights to audit, examine, or
reproduce, any and all records of the Vendor related to the performance under this Agreement. The Vendor shall
retain all such records for a period of four (4) years after final payment on this Agreement or until all audit and
litigation matters that the City has brought to the attention of the Vendor are resolved, whichever is longer. The
Vendor agrees to refund to the City any overpayments disclosed by any such audit.
5. FIRM PRICING:
The price shall remain firm for the duration of the Purchase Order or Contract, or extension periods. No separate
line item charges shall be permitted for either bidding or invoice purposes, which shall include equipment rental,
demurrage, fuel surcharges, delivery charges, and cost associated with obtaining permits or any other extraneous
charges. Vendor further certifies that the prices in the Offer have been arrived at independently without
consultation, communication, or agreement for the purpose of restricting competition, as to any matter relating to
such fees with any other firm or with any competitor.
6. PRICE WARRANTY:
The Vendor warrants the prices quoted are not materially higher than the Vendors current prices on orders by
others for like deliverables under similar terms of purchase. In addition to any other remedy available, the City may
deduct from any amounts owed to the Vendor, or otherwise recover, any amounts paid for items materially in
excess of the Vendor’s current prices on orders by others for like deliverables under similar terms of purchase.
7. VENDOR OWING TAXES OR FEES TO THE CITY:
Payment will not be made to any person, firm or in arrears in taxes or fees to the City.
Page 30 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
20
IV. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
A. VENDOR’S OBLIGATION:
Vendor shall fully and timely provide all deliverables described in Solicitation, Vendor’s Offer in strict accordance with the
terms, covenants and conditions of the Agreement and all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations.
B. DEFAULT:
Vendor shall be in default under the Agreement if the Vendor (a) fails to fully, timely and faithfully perform any of its
material obligations under the Agreement, (b) becomes insolvent or seeks relief under the bankruptcy laws of the United
States or (c) makes a material misrepresentation in Vendor’s Offer, or in any report or deliverable required to be
submitted by Vendor to the City.
C. ABANDONMENT OR DEFAULT:
A Vendor who abandons or defaults the work on the Agreement and causes the City to purchase the services elsewhere
may be charged the difference in service if any and may not be considered in the re-advertisement of the service and may
be rejected as an irresponsible bidder and not considered in future Solicitations for the same type of service unless the
scope of work is significantly modified.
D. TERMINATION/CANCELLATION:
1. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE:
In the event of default by the Vendor, the City shall have the right to terminate the Agreement for cause, by written
notice effective ten (10) calendar days, unless otherwise specified, after the date of such notice, unless the Vendor,
within such ten (10) day period cures such default, or provides evidence sufficient to prove to the City’s satisfaction
that such default does not, in fact, exist. In addition to any other remedies available under law or in equity, the City
shall be entitled to recover all actual damages, costs, losses and expenses incurred by the City as a result of the
Vendor’s default, including without limitation, cost of cover, reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs and
prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum lawful rate. Additionally, in the event of default by the
Vendor, the City may remove the Vendor from the City’s Vendor List and any Offer submitted by the Vendor may be
disqualified for up to three (3) years. All rights and remedies under the Agreement are cumulative and not exclusive
of any other right or remedy provided by law.
2. TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE:
The City shall have the right to terminate the Agreement, in whole or in part, without cause any time upon thirty
(30) calendar days’ prior written notice. Upon receipt of a notice of termination, the Vendor shall promptly cease
all further work pursuant to the Agreement, with such exceptions, if any, specified in the notice of termination. The
City shall pay the Vendor, to the extent of funds appropriated or otherwise legally available for such purposes, for
all goods delivered and services performed and obligations incurred prior to the date of termination in accordance
with the terms hereof.
3. NON-APPROPRIATION:
The resulting Agreement is a commitment of the City’s current revenues only. It is understood and agreed that the
City shall have the right to terminate the Agreement at the end of any City FMScal year (September 30th) if the
governing body of the City does not appropriate funds sufficient to purchase the estimated yearly quantities, as
determined by the City’s budget for the FMScal year in question. The City may effect such termination by giving the
Vendor a written notice of termination at the end of its then current FMScal year.
4. CANCELLATION:
The City reserves the right to cancel the Agreement for default all or any part of the delivered portion of the
deliverables if the Vendor breaches any term hereof including warranties, or becomes insolvent or commits acts of
bankruptcy. Such right of cancellation is in addition to and not in lieu of any remedies which the City may have in
law or in equity.
E. FRAUD:
Fraudulent statements by the Vendor on any Offer or in any report or deliverable required to be submitted by the Vendor
to the city shall be grounds for termination of the Agreement for cause by the City and may result in legal action.
F. INDEMNITY:
VENDOR SHALL DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, SERVANTS AND EMPLOYEES
FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL SUITS, ACTIONS, LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, CAUSES OF ACTION, CLAIMS, DEMANDS,
DAMAGES, JUDGMENTS, LOSSES, LIENS, COSTS, EXPENSES, ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND ANY AND ALL OTHER COSTS, FEES
AND/OR CLAIMS OF ANY KIND OR DESCRIPTION ARISING OUT OF, IN CONNECTION WITH OR RESULTING FROM THE
AGREEMENT OR THE GOODS OR SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER THE AGREEMENT.
IF THE VENDOR AND THE CITY ARE CONCURRENTLY NEGLIGENT, EACH PARTY’S LIABILITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THAT
PORTION OF NEGLIGENCE ATTRIBUTABLE TO IT AS DETERMINED UNDER THE APPLICABLE PROPORTIONATE
RESPONSIBILITY RULES OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.
G. LIABILITY:
Any person, firm or corporation performing services pursuant to this Agreement or Purchase Order shall be liable for all
damages incurred while in the performance of such services. Vendor assumes full responsibility for the work to be
performed hereunder and hereby releases, relinquishes, and discharges the City, its officers, agents and employees from
all claims, demands and causes of action of any nature including the cost of defense thereof, for any injury to, including
death of, any person whether that person be a third party, supplier or an employee of either of the parties hereto, and
any loss of or damage to property, whether the same be that of either of the parties, caused by or alleged to have been
caused by, arising out of or in connection with the issuance of the Agreement or Purchase Order to the Vendor and the
negligence of the Vendor, whether or not said claims, demands and causes of action in whole or in part are covered by
Page 31 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
21
insurance. Certificates of insurance may be required for, but not limited to, Commercial General Liability, Business Auto
Liability, Workers Compensation and Professional Liability Insurance.
H. INFRINGEMENT:
Vendor represents and warrants to the City that: (a) Vendor shall provide the City good and indefeasible title to the
deliverables and (b) the deliverables supplied by the Vendor in accordance with the specifications of the Agreement shall
not infringe, directly or contributory, any patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret or any other intellectual property
right of any kind of any third party; that no claims have been made by an person or entity with respect to the ownership
or operation of the deliverables and the Vendor does not know of any basis for any such claims. Vendor shall, at its sole
expense, defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against all liability, damages and costs (including court
costs and reasonable fees of attorneys and other professionals) arising out of or resulting from: (a) any claim that the
City’s exercise anywhere in the world of the rights associated with the City’s ownership, and if applicable, license rights,
and its use of the deliverable infringes the intellectual property rights of any third party; or (b) Vendor’s breach of any of
the Vendor’s representations or warranties stated in this Agreement. In the event of any such claim, the City shall have
the right to monitor such claim or, at its option, engage its own separate counsel to act as co-counsel on the City’s behalf.
Further, Vendor agrees that the City’s specifications regarding the deliverables shall in no way diminish Vendor’s
warranties or obligations under the Section, and the City makes no warranty that the products, development or delivery
of such deliverables will not impact such warranties of Vendor.
I. DAMAGE TO CITY PROPERTY:
Vendor shall be responsible for any and all damage to the City’s equipment and/or property, the workplace and its
contents, by its work, negligence in work, its personnel and equipment. Vendor shall be responsible and liable for the
safety, injury and health of its working personnel while its employees are performing service work.
J. OVERCHARGES:
Vendor hereby assigns to the City any and all claims for overcharges associated with this Agreement which arise under
the antitrust laws of the United States, 15 USCA Section 1 et seq., and/or which arise under the antitrust laws of the State
of Texas, Business and Commerce Code Ann., Section 15.01, et seq.
K. CONFIDENTIALITY:
In order to provide the deliverables to the City, Vendor may require access to certain of the City’s and/or its licensors’
confidential information (including, but not limited to, inventions, employee information, trade secrets, confidential
know-how, confidential business information and other information which the City or its licensors consider
confidential)(collectively, “Confidential Information”). Vendor acknowledges and agrees that the Confidential
Information is the valuable property of the City and/or its licensors, and any unauthorized use, disclosure, dissemination
or other release of the Confidential Information will substantially injure the City and/or its licensors. The Vendor
(including its employees, subcontractors, agents or representatives) agrees that it will maintain the Confidential
Information in strict confident and shall not disclose, disseminate, copy, divulge, recreate or otherwise use the
Confidential Information without the prior written consent of the City, or in a manner not expressly permitted under this
Agreement, unless the Confidential Information is required to be disclosed by law or as a result of an order of any court
or other governmental authority with proper jurisdiction, provided the Vendor promptly notifies the City prior to
disclosing such information so as to permit the City reasonable time to seek an appropriate protective order. The Vendor
agrees to use protective measures no less stringent than the Vendor uses within its own business to protect its own most
valuable information, which protective measures shall under all circumstances be at least reasonable measures to ensure
the continued confidentiality of the Confidential Information.
L. CODES, PERMITS, LICENSES:
Vendor shall comply with all federal, state and local standards, codes and ordinances and the terms and conditions of the
services of the electric utility, as well as other authorities that have jurisdiction pertaining to equipment and materials
used and their application. None of the terms or provisions of the specification shall be construed as waiving any rules,
regulations or requirements of these authorities. Vendor shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits,
certificates and/or licenses to fulfill contractual obligations to the City.
M. ADVERTISING/PUBLICITY:
Vendor shall not advertise or otherwise publicize, without the City’s prior written consent, the fact that the City has
entered into the Agreement, except to the extent required by applicable law.
N. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR:
The Agreement shall not be construed as creating an employer/employee relationship, a partnership or joint venture.
The Vendor’s services shall be those of an independent contractor. The Vendor agrees and understands that the
Agreement does not grant any rights or privileges established for employees of the City. Vendor shall not be within
protection or coverage of the City’s Worker Compensation insurance, Health Insurance, Liability Insurance or any other
insurance that the City, from time to time, may have in force.
O. LIENS:
Vendor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against any and all liens and encumbrances for all
labor, goods and services provided under this Agreement. At the City’s request, the Vendor or its subcontractors shall
provide a proper release of all liens or satisfactory evidence of freedom from liens shall be delivered to the City.
P. ASSIGNMENT/DELEGATION:
The Agreement shall be binding upon and endure to the benefit of the City and the Vendor, and their respective
successors and assignees, provided however, that no right or interest in the Agreement shall be assigned and no
obligation shall be delegated by the Vendor without the prior written consent of the City. Any attempted assignment or
delegation by the Vendor shall be void unless made in conformity with this Section. The Agreement is not intended to
Page 32 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
22
confer any rights or benefits on any person, firm or entity not a party hereto; it being the intention of the parties that
there be no third party beneficiaries to the Agreement.
Q. INTERPRETATION:
The Agreement is intended by both parties as the final, complete and exclusive statement of the terms of their
agreement. No course of prior dealing between the parties or course of performance or usage of the trade shall be
relevant to supplement or explain any term used in the Agreement. Although the Agreement may have been
substantially drafted by one party, it is the intent of the parties that all provisions be construed in a manner fair to both
parties, reading no provision more strictly against one party of the other. Whenever a term defined by the Uniform
Commercial Code (the “UCC”), as enacted by the State of Texas, is used in the Agreement, the UCC definition shall control
unless otherwise defined in the Agreement.
R. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE:
This Agreement is made under and shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas, including when applicable, the
UCC as adopted in Texas, VTCA, Business & Commerce Code, Chapter 1, excluding any rule or principle that would refer to
and apply the substantive law of another state or jurisdiction. This Agreement is fully performable in Georgetown, TX,
and the venue for any action related to this Agreement shall be Georgetown, TX. All issues arising from this Agreement
shall be resolved in the courts of Williamson County, Texas and the parties agree to submit to the exclusive personal
jurisdiction of such courts. The foregoing, however, shall not be construed or interpreted to limit or restrict the right or
the ability of the City to seek and secure injunctive relief from any competent authority as contemplated herein and does
not waive the city’s defense of sovereign immunity.
S. INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASING/PIGGYBACK CONTRACTS:
Other governmental entities may be extended the opportunity to purchase from Solicitations of the City, with the
consent and agreement of the awarded Vendor(s) and the City. Such consent and agreement shall be conclusively
inferred from lack of exception to this clause in Vendor’s Response. However, all parties indicate their understanding and
all parties hereby expressly agree that the City is not an agent of, partner to or representative of those outside agencies
or entities and that the City is not obligated or liable for any action or debts that arise out of such independently
negotiated piggyback procurements.
T. SURVIVABILITY OF OBLIGATIONS:
All provisions of the Agreement that impose continuing obligations on the parties, including but not limited to the
warranty, indemnity and confidentiality obligations of the parties, shall survive the expiration or termination of the
Agreement.
U. CLAIMS:
If a claim, demand, suit or other action is asserted against the Vendor which arises under or concerns the Agreement, or
which could have a material adverse effect on the Vendor’s ability to perform thereunder, the Vendor shall give written
notice to the City within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of notice by the Vendor. Such notice to the City shall state
the date of notification of any such claim, demand, suit or other action; the names and address of the claimant(s); the
basis thereof; and the name of each person against whom such claim is asserted. Such notice shall be delivered to the
Purchasing Department as set forth below and to the City Attorney at PO Box 409, Georgetown, TX 78627.
V. NOTICES:
Unless otherwise specified, all notices, requests or other communications required or appropriate to be given under the
Agreement shall be in writing and deemed delivered three (3) business days after postmarked if sent by US Postal Service
Certified or Registered Mail, Return Receipt Requested. Notices delivered by other means shall be deemed delivered
upon receipt by the addressee. Routine communications may be made by first class mail, fax, or other commercially
accepted means. Notices to the Vendor shall be sent to the address specified in the Vendor’s Offer or at such other
address as a party may notify the other in writing. Notices to the City shall be addressed to: City of Georgetown,
Purchasing Department, PO Box 409, Georgetown, TX 78627 and marked to the attention of the Purchasing Manager.
W. GRATUITIES:
The City may, by written notice to the Vendor, cancel the Agreement without liability if it is determined by the City that
gratuities were offered or give by the Vendor or any agent or representative of the Vendor to any officer or employee of
the City with the intent of securing the Agreement or securing favorable treatment with respect to awarding or amending
or the making of any determinations with respect to performing of the Agreement. In the event the Agreement is
cancelled by the City pursuant to this Section, the City shall be entitled, in addition to any other rights and remedies, to
recover the benefits or payments to the Vendor, as a result of the gratuities.
X. PERSONAL INTEREST PROHIBITED:
No officer, employee, independent consultant or elected official of the City who is involved in the development,
evaluation or decision-making process of the performance of the any Solicitation shall have a financial interest, direct or
indirect, in the resulting Agreement. Any willful violation of this Section shall constitute impropriety in office, and any
officer or employee guilty thereof shall be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. In the event a
member of the governing body or an appointed board or commission of the City belongs to a cooperative association, the
City may purchase equipment or supplies for the association only if no member of the governing body, board or
commission will receive pecuniary benefit from the purchase, other than as reflected as in increase in dividends
distributed generally to members of the association. Any violation of this provision with the knowledge, expressed or
implied, by the Vendor shall render the Agreement voidable by the City. Nevertheless, the City may obtain the
equipment or service if a conflict of interest affidavit is filed and the Council member recuses his/herself.
Y. WAIVER:
No claim or right arising out of a breach of the Agreement can be discharged in whole or in part by a waiver or
renunciation of the claim or right unless the waiver or renunciation is supported by consideration and is in writing signed
Page 33 of 80
City of Georgetown
RFP 201652 - Consulting Services to Provide Assistance in the Selection of a Software Solution(s) for Financial
Management, Procurement, Human Resources, and Payroll
23
by the aggrieved party. No waiver by either the Vendor or the City of any one or more events of default by the other
party shall operate as, or be construed to be, a permanent waiver of any rights or obligations under the Agreement, or an
express or implied acceptance of any other existing or future default(s), whether of similar or different character.
Z. DISPUTE RESOLUTION:
If either the Vendor or the City has a claim, dispute or other matter in question for breach of duty, obligations, services
rendered or any warranty that arises under this Agreement, the parties shall first attempt to resolve the matter through
this dispute resolution process. The disputing party shall notify the other party in writing as soon as practicable after
discovering the claim, dispute or breach. The notice shall state the nature of the dispute and list the party’s specific
reasons for such dispute. Within ten (10) business days of receipt of the notice, both parties shall make a good faith
effort, in person or through generally accepted means, to resolve any claim, dispute, breach or other matter in question
that may arise out of, or in connection with, this Agreement. If the parties fail to resolve the dispute within sixty (60)
days of the date of receipt of the notice of the dispute, then the parties may submit the matter to non-binding mediation
upon written consent of authorized representatives of both parties in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the
American Arbitration Association or other applicable rules governing mediation than in effect. If the parties cannot
resolve the dispute through mediation, then either party shall have the right to exercise any and all remedies available
under law regarding the dispute.
AA. INVALIDITY:
The invalidity, illegality or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement shall in no way affect the validity or
enforceability of any other portion or provision of the Agreement. Any void provision shall be deemed severed from the
Agreement and the balance of the Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the
particular portion or provision held to be void. The parties further agree to reform the Agreement to replace the stricken
provision with a valid provision that comes as close as possible to the intent of the stricken provision. The provisions of
this section shall not prevent the entire Agreement from being void should a provision which is the essence of the
Agreement be determined to be void.
BB. RIGHT TO ASSURANCES:
In the event the City, in good faith, has reason to question the intent of the Vendor to perform, the City may demand
written assurances of the intent to perform. In the event no written assurance is given within the time specified, the City
may treat this failure as an anticipatory repudiation of the Agreement.
Page 34 of 80
{Solutions that work.}
CITY OF GEORGETOWN | AUGUST 23, 2016
PR
O
P
O
S
A
L
T
O
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
SO
F
T
W
A
R
E
SE
L
E
C
T
I
O
N
A
S
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
FO
R
F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L
M
A
N
A
G
E
ME
N
T
,
P
R
O
C
U
R
E
M
E
N
T
,
H
UM
A
N
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
,
A
N
D
PA
Y
R
O
L
L
Page 35 of 80
1 | P a g e
Cover Letter
August 23, 2016
Ms. Trina Bickford
City of Georgetown
Purchasing Department
300-1 Industrial Avenue
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, TX 78626
Dear Ms. Bickford:
Plante Moran, PLLC (Plante Moran) is pleased to submit this proposal to provide Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) consulting services to the City of Georgetown. We are excited about the possibility of
working with the City on this important project!
Similar to other well managed municipalities we have worked with on similar engagements, we
understand that the City of Georgetown intends to replace its current legacy Tyler Incode system and
desires to identify the most effective selection and deployment strategy for a future enterprise system
environment. As a region with one of the fastest rates of population growth in the United States, the
City is in need of modernizing its enterprise resource planning platform so that it can be scalable to
meet increasing citizen demands.
Overall, Plante Moran is uniquely qualified to act as the City’s trusted advisor on this exciting project.
We have vast experience assessing Finance, Procurement, Human Resources and Payroll Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) solutions, including the evaluation of unmet automation needs in critical
areas (e.g. business intelligence, workflow, unautomated manual processes, etc.). Additionally, Plante
Moran’s government consulting team brings extensive knowledge and experience gained from working
with public sector clients in conducting enterprise system needs assessments, facilitating solution
selections and managing implementations. Over 200 current public sector clients have established
Plante Moran as a leader in this industry. We offer the following benefits:
Proven methodology and approach, based on over 30 years of enterprise software program
management including system needs assessment, solution selection, contract negotiation,
planning and implementation management experience with public sector c lients.
Complete independence from all public sector software providers, which allows us to assist
in assessments, selections and business process design that best meet the needs of the City.
Significant and recent experience in performing ERP system selection and implementation
projects involving all aspects of local government operations for clients including:
o Broward County, FL
o City of Long Beach, CA
o City/Parish of Baton Rouge, LA
o Horry County, SC
o City of Bend, OR o City of Corpus Christi, TX
o Milwaukee County, WI o Marin County, CA
o City of Longview, TX o County of St. Louis, MO
Page 36 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
2 | P a g e
o City of Mesa, AZ
o City of Palo Alto, CA
o City of Round Rock, TX
o Gwinnett County, GA
Strong knowledge of the ERP vendor community gained through direct visits by these
vendors, ongoing participation in association activities and continual involvement in similar
work for other public sector clients.
A strong project team, blending public sector systems, best practices and re-engineering
expertise with significant experience implementing technology and redesigning business
processes.
o Specific expertise regarding aligning software solutions with various public sector
operations including: administration, finance, accounting, human resources,
budgeting, purchasing, work order management, inventory management, customer
service, fixed assets, permitting and payroll.
o Experts in information security, IT infrastructure, IT management (including policies
and procedures) and enterprise/line of business applications.
o Certified project management professionals and members of national and local
organizations dedicated to improving the financial and technology operations of local
government including Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), International
City/County Management Association (ICMA), Public Technology Institute (PTI) and
Government Management Information Sciences (GMIS).
A high level of client satisfaction reflected by performing initial software assessment and
solution selection projects for clients who request subsequent implementation management
assistance.
We believe that based upon these benefits and the quality of our team, we are well qualified to provide
objective and comprehensive ERP consulting services for the City. If you have any questions
concerning this proposal, please contact me at 1-800-544-0203.
Sincerely,
PLANTE & MORAN, PLLC
Adam Rujan, Partner
27400 Northwestern Highway
Southfield, MI 48037
1-800-544-0203
1-248-233-8587 (fax)
adam.rujan@plantemoran.com
Page 37 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
3 | P a g e
Table of Contents
Cover Letter ........................................................................................................ 1
Qualifications & Experience .............................................................................. 4
Project Approach .............................................................................................. 10
Overview of Project Approach .................................................................................................... 10
Detailed Project Approach Proposed ......................................................................................... 10
Change Management Approach ................................................................................................ 21
Team Resumes ................................................................................................. 23
Project Team Overview .............................................................................................................. 23
Project Organizational Chart ...................................................................................................... 24
Project Team Resumes .............................................................................................................. 25
References ........................................................................................................ 32
Client References ....................................................................................................................... 32
Other References ....................................................................................................................... 35
Price Proposal .................................................................................................. 40
Forms ................................................................................................................ 41
Page 38 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
4 | P a g e
Qualifications & Experience
A detailed description of proposing firm including qualifications and experience
Summary
Plante Moran Background and Experience
Founded in 1924, Plante Moran, PLLC (Plante Moran) is the thirteenth largest management consulting
and public accounting firm in the United States. Plante Moran operates as a partnership. Plante
Moran's staff of over 2,000 persons is organized into four major service areas: Management
Consulting, Accounting and Auditing, Tax Consulting, and Personal Financial Planning Services.
Over the past several years, Plante Moran has continually expanded the scope and experience of its
Management Consulting Services Group. The firm is committed to continuing this growth by retaining
and attracting qualified professionals to provide the broad range of management and technical
services that are necessary to effectively serve the needs of our clients.
Plante Moran takes great pride in the quality of services it provides to its clients. We have a rigorous
set of quality controls designed to provide assurance that professional standards are followed and our
clients receive a high quality product. Plante Moran takes equal pride in our people and our
professional work environment. Some of the facts about our firm that we are proud of include:
Our partnership group is comprised of 19% women, which is the highest percentage of female
equity partners among the nation's largest public accounting firms, according to CPA
Personnel Report, a national public accounting trade publication.
Staff turnover rate below 15% which is significantly lower than that of other national public
accounting firms.
The firm has been named to Fortune Magazine’s “100 Best Companies to Work for in
America” for the last sixteen years.
The firm is ranked 55th on list of Training magazine’s “Top 100 Training Organizations”
Page 39 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
5 | P a g e
Plante Moran's Management Consulting Group, consisting of over 125 dedicated consultants,
is a versatile, full service consulting organization with a proven track record for providing
quality professional services.
Our emphasis and commitment to management consulting has resulted in the extension of the
consulting practice into all major aspects of government and education addressing our clients’ unique
needs related to information technology, security, compliance, and policy.
Plante Moran has become a leader in providing services to governmental organizations. At present,
we work with well over 200 local governments. Our professionals have made substantial commitments
to working with local, county and state government agencies. Our extensive experience with
governmental clients has enabled us to assemble a project team that we believe is uniquely qualified
to perform the proposed project.
Government Consulting Services Organization
Plante Moran has assumed a leadership role in providing consulting services to governmental entities.
The range of services we provide includes the following:
Information Technology Consulting
Communications & Networking Services
Project Management and Oversight
Operations Analysis
Consolidation Studies
Organizational Planning and
Development
Financial Management Services
Human Capital Management and
Development
Market Research Services
Business Planning and Feasibility
Analysis
Employee Benefits Analysis
Assurance Services
Real-estate, Design and Construction
Consulting
Industry Commitment
Because of our broad governmental client base, we are able to devote the necessary time to
specialize and thus provide maximum service. Our consultants have a variety of professional
designations and are active participants in state and national government organizations. In addition,
our consultants are very active in making presentations to a variety of governmental organizations on
current issues. To assist us in this specialization, we are also members of numerous local government
professional associations that have a partial or major focus on the application of technology for
government including:
International City/County Management Association (ICMA), an organization that develops
and advances professional local government management to create sustainable communities
that improve lives worldwide.
Public Technology Institute (PTI), a Non-Profit organization created by and for cities and
counties that works with a core network of leading government officials to: identify
opportunities for technology research, share best practices, offer consultancies and pilot
demonstrations, promote technology development initiatives, and develop educational
programming.
Government Management and Information Sciences (GMIS), an organization composed of
municipal information technology directors with a primary goal to foster a unified effort among
government entities to integrate and disseminate their respective research and design efforts
in the area of automated information sciences.
We are very involved with all of these organizations contributing our talents and expertise through
speaking engagements, articles for their publications and involvement in conferences at the national
level.
Page 40 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
6 | P a g e
As a result of our continuing involvement with government organizations at all levels, we have
acquired in-depth knowledge and experience in dealing with relevant technical, operational and
procedural issues. This experience and knowledge, and our commitment to assure objectivity and a
high level of independence, are fundamental to our proven and consistent ability to meet the needs of
our governmental clients.
Information Technology Consulting
Plante Moran’s management consultants have made a significant commitment to assist governmental
clients develop and implement appropriate technology. We are among the few accounting and
consulting firms that are completely vendor independent with respect to the offering of hardware or
application software for our governmental clients. This enables our consultants to select the most
appropriate solution for our clients based on the client’s current situation and future goals and
objectives. The services we offer address virtually all aspects of information systems including the
following with those services relevant and proposed on this project highlighted:
ERP Needs Assessment
Project Budgeting and Return on
Investment (ROI) Analysis
Preparation of ERP System
Requirements
Request for Proposal Development
System Selection Assistance
Contract Review and Negotiations
Systems Implementation Planning
Systems Implementation Assistance
User Procedure Development and
Documentation
Quality Assurance
Project Management
Strategic Information Technology
Planning
Information Technology
Assessments
e-Government Strategy and
Development
Conversion Planning Assistance
Systems Development
Technology Management
Systems Control Review
Information Security
Experience Providing Similar Services
Through our 30 years of conducting enterprise system selection projects, we have developed a useful
repository of tools, templates and methods that provide significant value and stream -lining to a
selection project while ensuring that the integrity and thoroughness of the process is maintained.
We have extensive knowledge of software selection best practices by enabling our local government
clients to navigate numerous software selection and implementation projects. In addition, our robust
and thorough selection process has resulted in the ability to significantly minimize the client’s risk in
the implementation phase of the project. Additionally, the thoroughness and self-documented nature of
our process has translated to outcomes which are not challenged by the vendors through a formal
protest process. This level of thoroughness has led to minimal change order activity during the
implementation resulting in the achievement of project budgets and timeframes for implemen tation.
In summary, Plante Moran has a number of characteristics that makes us uniquely qualified to assist
the City in this effort as follows:
Longevity of IT Practice: As a firm, we have over thirty years’ experience in assisting clients
in conducting IT full lifecycle projects for all areas of governmental operations including
Human Resources / Payroll, Time and Attendance, Finance, Utility Billing, Community
Services, Tax and Public Safety.
Page 41 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
7 | P a g e
Experienced Project Team: Our project team has significant and recent experience in
performing similar work for other governmental clients. We generally have approximately 25 –
30 ERP projects going on at any one time which allows our consultants to maintain currency
related to all facets and phases of a software initiative and the ERP software marketplace in
general.
Industry Recognition: A recent independent study of the ERP Procurement marketplace in
Federal, State and Local Government conducted by Onvia in mid-2014 ranked Plante Moran
as the #1 solution provider for ERP procurement services in the country in terms of volume of
work performed.
Involvement in Complex Software Procurement Transactions: We have significant
experience in working with ERP software solution providers whose solution set involves a
complexity of software solutions to meet the entire needs of a large organization. This has
translated to involvement in working with clients and the selected vendor in negotiating
complex contracts and statements of work. More recently, this has included involvement with
clients who are intending to have their entire ERP Solution provided via Managed Services in
which Managed Services options have significant variability in what can be provided.
Full Software Lifecycle Involvement: We have significant experience in leading clients
through the complete transition to a new ERP software environment including involvement in
providing ERP needs assessment, software selection, contract negotiations, implementation
planning and implementation management assistance. As a result of our significant ERP
software implementation experience, we are able to identify lessons learned that translate to
activities to be performed during the up-front phases of the project.
Completeness of Software Expertise: As a full-service consulting and accounting firm, we
have both depth and breadth in the types of services that we can provide within a single firm .
In addition to traditional ERP software selection services, we are able to provide the following
set of complementary services that are frequently viewed by our clients as value-add:
o Business process redesign
o Internal controls
o Security
o IT staff assessments to assist clients in understanding the degree to which their IT
organizations have the needed skills and certifications to support a new HRIS
software environment
o Organizational assessments to assist clients in restructuring their organization
including staff roles and responsibilities
o Change management services to assist client staff in the transition from legacy
technologies and business processes to more current technology and redesigned
business processes
o Application controls reviews
o Disaster recovery planning
Vendor ERP Software Marketplace Knowledge: We have extensive knowledge of the ERP
software vendor marketplace and system integrator marketplace for those vendors that will be
likely providers of software and services to the City. This experience has been gained through
a number of activities including work with other clients in selecting and implementing ERP
software solutions, participation in conferences in which ERP software vendors are
participating (e.g., GFOA annual conference) and proactive meetings with software vendors to
understand their latest product and service offerings to governmental clients. The additional
Page 42 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
8 | P a g e
benefit to the City is that the vendors are familiar and comfortable with how we manage our
system selection projects and are confident that they will receive fair treatment in the process .
This should lead to more responsive proposals for the City to consider.
ERP Software Tools, Templates and Methods: Through our 30 years of conducting ERP
software selection projects, we have developed a vast repository of tools, templates and
methods that provide significant value and stream-lining to an ERP software selection project
while ensuring that the integrity and thoroughness of the process is maintained.
Independence: We are completely independent from all providers of ERP software solutions
and system integrators. As a result, we will be working with the City to select a Solution that
provides the best overall value to the County and its stakeholders.
ERP Software Best Practice Identification: We have extensive knowledge of ERP
software-related best practices through involvement in numerous software selection and
implementation projects for other governmental clients . Through these projects and through
our involvement in governmental operations reviews, we have developed a set of best
practices related to execution of the various ERP areas.
Risk Mitigation: Our robust and thorough Solution selection process has resulted in the
ability to significantly minimize the client’s risk in the implementation phase of the project.
Client Retention: The biggest testament to our capabilities and project staff is the desire for
our clients to continue using our services after initial software needs assessment/selection or
other technology-related project. In our client references section, we will highlight such clients
including those that have used our services in multiple instances due to the high degree of
satisfaction with the quality of our services and our staff.
Project Management Methodology
Our firm has extensive experience in using a project management methodology based on the
principles in the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). PMBOK, a theory and set of
principles developed by the Project Management Institute (PMI), provides a project management
framework that can be used on projects of any size, type, complexity and industry to enhance the
ability to complete projects on-time, within budget, within scope and meet the objectives desired by the
client while managing change that frequently occurs on any project.
Our consultants have received extensive project management training, have conducted seminars and
training in project management theory for clients and have developed an extensive toolset of project
management templates, tools and lessons learned for managing projects. In fact, many of these too ls
and templates have been adopted by our clients to manage their own internal projects. Elements of
our approach to managing projects are as follows:
Assign personnel to areas of the project where their expertise is required
Ensure that project expectations and scope are clearly defined up-front through development
of a project charter
Ensure frequent communications with the client
Identify and anticipate potential project risks to minimize their occurrence and impact
Closely monitor project timelines and budgets
Governmental Accounting Practice Area
Plante Moran’s governmental practice has been in existence for nearly 50 years serving all levels of
local, county and State governmental entities. As a firm, we currently audit approximately 200
governmental units and special purpose governmental entities , over 100 public and private school
Page 43 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
9 | P a g e
districts and 400 nonprofit organizations. The Firm has partners and senior associates with deep
specialization and expertise in the various areas of need. At Plante Moran, we are more committed
than ever to providing accounting and consulting services to local governments. Our commitment is
evidenced by the significance investment that we have made by participating in the following activities:
AICPA Governmental Technical Standards Subcommittee: Three of our partners have
served on this committee, which was formed to process ethics complaints related to
governmental audits. In addition, one of these is a member of the Professional Ethics
Executive Committee of the AICPA Professional Ethics Division and the AICPA Task For ce on
the Quality of Audits of Federal Funds.
American Institute of CPAs: One of our partners chaired the AICPA’s Governmental
Accounting Committee that published the Industry Audit Guide for Audits of State and Local
Governmental Units. This is the guide used throughout the country on every governmental
audit.
Governmental Accounting Standards Board: One of our partners has served on the
Governmental Accounting Standards Advisory Council (an advisory board to the GASB). In
addition, we actively participate in the GASB’s due process system relative to issuance of new
pronouncements.
Government Finance Officers Association: One of our audit managers served on the
GFOA Special Review Committee for the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in
Financial Reporting.
Our commitment to governmental auditing, accounting and consulting has provided us with a range
and depth of experience that we feel is unequaled by any other firm. Because of this commitment to
serving governmental clients, we provide specialized training to our professional staff serving
governmental units. We regularly attend and frequently provide speakers for training sessions
conducted by numerous local government-based organizations. We have also been engaged by the
MGFOA to present a series of three, one-day seminars for their “Back to Basics” series on topics such
as “Fundamental Elements of Governmental Accounting”, “Governmental Budgeting” and “Public
Financial Statements”.
Page 44 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
10 | P a g e
Project Approach
Detailed Project Approach and Workplan for services specified in this RFP
OVERVIEW OF PROJECT APPROACH
Having performed similar projects for many small, mid-size and large, local units of government over
the years, Plante Moran’s seasoned project consultants have develo ped and refined a proven
methodology and set of related tools that are intended to mitigate our clients risk during this complex
project by leveraging best practices while incorporating the clients unique needs. Though our best
practice approach we present the specific tasks to be completed as well as detail the timeline for their
completion, highlighting the key project milestones. Additionally, in conjunction with further details
presented in our proposal, we present a description as to the roles and resp onsibilities of the City staff
on the project activities. Our approach consists of engaging our proposed qualified project team to
develop, refine and execute a proven project plan, supported by our mature toolkit, to meet the City’s
expressed project objectives.
Our methodology, includes the following three key phases to assist the City of Georgetown with the
selection and negotiation of a contract with the selected ERP vendor.
DETAILED PROJECT APPROACH PROPOSED
Phase 0: Project Management
Phase Objective and Summary of Activities: The purpose of this phase is to conduct activities that
are relevant to managing the project and enhancing its success for the City. The major activities to be
performed are as follows:
Develop a Project Organizational Structure that defines staff roles and expectations
Develop a Project Charter that provides a framework from which the project will progress
Develop a detailed Project Plan identifying the activities, responsibilities and timing of tasks
necessary to complete the project
Establish a Project Collaboration Environment to act as a repository for project information
Conduct periodic status meetings to monitor project progress
Page 45 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
11 | P a g e
Measurable Objective Deliverables/Milestones
Manage the defined project through to successful
completion within budget and on schedule while
meeting project goals and objectives
Project Organizational Structure
Project Plan
Project Collaboration Center
1. Project Initiation
A project initiation meeting will be conducted to introduce the project team, finalize the project scope,
deliverables and timetables. These objectives will be accomplished through the development of a
project organizational structure, project charter, detailed project plan and regularly scheduled progress
meetings. These steps are described below. A project kick-off meeting will also be held to
communicate to City staff the goals, structure and timeline of the project.
2. Define Project Organizational Structure
Our approach to each consulting engagement is structured to provide the services and level of
professional support required to meet the individual needs of the client. We will work jointly with the
key City contacts to design a process that will meet the overall needs of the City of Georgetown. As
standard practice in the majority of our engagements, especially those related to technology and
process transformation, we have designed a very collaborative approach to ensure a high probability
of success. During the early stages of the project we suggest creating a cross-functional group of
representatives from essential departments to be involved in the process. We would expect the City to
identify the appropriate individual participants. This Committee will be involved in all aspects of
defining system needs, selecting a new system and creating an environment of collaboration and
communication between critical departments and is referred to as the Project Management Office
(PMO).
3. Develop Detailed Project Plan
We will work with the City to incorporate the following into a detailed Microsoft Project ™ Plan:
Major phases and milestones
Work tasks and their due dates with assigned responsibility
We will work with the PMO during this activity to design a Project Plan for the contracted project
phases which is appropriate and meets the City’ overall priorities.
4. Establish Project Collaboration Center
Over the last few years, collaboration environments such as Microsoft SharePoint have become
increasingly viable tools in which to establish project collaboration environments for small, mid-size
and large-scale projects. These environments can serve a variety of purposes including acting as a
repository for documentation developed during the course of an engagement.
During this activity, we will work with the City to assist in establishing a Project Collaboration Center
including design, structure, security and content.
Page 46 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
12 | P a g e
5. Schedule and Moderate Project Status Meetings
Continuous feedback is the key to a successful project. In this way, problems can either be avoided
entirely, or addressed early on, to minimize wasted effort and keep the project on schedule. We will
schedule regular conference calls with the City to:
Report on the status of the Project Plan and timeline
Re-schedule tasks as necessary and update Project Plan
Discuss major open issues and develop strategies to address them
Phase 1: ERP Needs Assessment
Phase Objective and Summary of Activities: The purpose of this phase is to conduct a needs
assessment around process areas relevant to the project for the purpose of defining key functional
requirements that will be used as part of the process for evaluating proposed ERP solutions. Activities
to be included in this phase are as follows:
Obtain and review relevant documents to obtain background information on the current and
desired ERP environment
Assess the City’s current technology infrastructure and ERP environment
Conduct interviews with key stakeholders
Develop an Issues and Opportunities Matrix/ Plan of Action
Recommend a selection strategy (fully integrated vs. best-of-breed) and deployment strategy
(onsite hosted solution or a cloud based solution)
Measurable Objective Deliverables/Milestones
Understanding of current technical
environment
Established staff expectations on a
future environment with a new ERP
system
Knowledge of current system
Interview Schedules
IT Infrastructure Assessment
Issues and Opportunities Matrix
Business Process Mapping and
Review (Optional)
Needs Assessment and Selection
Strategy
Page 47 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
13 | P a g e
1. Review Documents
Plante Moran will review any available existing documentation gathered and provided by the City to
gain a comprehensive understanding of the City related operations and current technologies.
Documents to be reviewed include the following:
Previous studies that are relevant to the project
Relevant process and function descriptions/handbooks, pre-existing workflow
documentation/flowcharts, such as those that has already developed
Organizational charts
Billing Rates and Services
Relevant hardware, software and network diagrams, and/or other documents, illustrating the
layout, networking, etc.
Listing of existing systems supporting the various business processes that will be evaluated
for potential replacement or interfacing to the new ERP system
Listing of additional “shadow systems” and non-integrated systems
Critical systems to be interfaced with the new software
Outstanding enhancement requests on current relevant system
Locations of all sites involved in the project, identification of sites that share commo n property,
identification of sites to be visited, and schedules of staff for visits
City standards for hardware, software, network operating systems, configurations and
protocols, etc.
2. Assess The City’s Information Technology Infrastructure
We will distribute a technical questionnaire for the City’ completion and perform a phone interview with
staff directly involved with supporting the City’ current technical environment. The results of reviewing
documentation and interviewing staff will allow us to identify and document the legacy technologies,
infrastructure, and facilities. The potential implementation and administration of a new software
solution will require a thorough and responsive support and communication infrastructure. To this end,
we will identify and document the current environment for inclusion in the RFP as well as well as
identify and preliminary high level general recommendations related supporting technologies that must
be implemented well in advance of obtaining more detailed technical environment requirements from
software vendors as part of their proposals.
3. Conduct Interviews
After reviewing the documentation collected, Plante Moran will conduct up to three days of interviews
with teams representing departments directly involved with the City’ ERP management processes.
During the interviews, we will discuss key current business and technological workflows in order to
further define the current systems and required system interfaces. These sessions will focus on
reviewing any unique requirements that are needed by the City.
4. Develop Issues and Opportunities Matrix
We will prepare an Issues and Opportunities Matrix that will reflect the results of our benchmarking the
“issues” with our knowledge of Best Practices and experience with other governmental clients. We will
recommend how to address the issues that were identified. This matrix will be used as a tool to assist
in resolving the issues immediately through post implementation.
Page 48 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
14 | P a g e
5. Conduct Detailed Business Process Mapping and Review (Optional)
Optionally, as part of the interview session process with the departments, we can assess a select
number of business processes for a more detailed review that will encompass the following activities
for each designated process:
Document the existing As-Is process including the identification of issues and opportunities
with the existing process for re-engineering purposes
Document a high-level To-Be process based on opportunities to redesign the process to
achieve overall improved efficiencies and effectiveness in how the process is performed
Potentially include these redesigned process maps in a future ERP RFP to allow vendors to
respond as to how they would be able to support these processes with their product and to
also use as the basis for vendor demonstration scripts for the finalist vendors
Depending on the City’s desired level of refinement of As Is process maps, Plante Moran would be
pleased to conduct additional on-site interview sessions to conduct further validation and refinement of
the As Is process maps. However, these activities largely depend on the level of detail and intended
purpose for the As Is process maps desired by the City. We are happy to discuss various approaches
with the City during the Project Initiation step. As these processes can have variability in terms of size
and process we have scoped this service out as ‘optional’ and would like to discuss specific work effort
required with the City as part of initial project scoping discussions.
6. Finalize Needs Assessment and Options Analysis
We will prepare an ERP Needs Assessment Report encompassing each of the process areas
identifying potential areas for improvement. The analysis will include:
An executive summary, for the City that details the options available and which option the
consultant believes is the best course of action to be followed.
An identification of critical business requirements for each functional area that must be met
in a future system environment
A system selection strategy and application migration plan documenting the current
systems to be replaced by, considered for replacement by maintained with, or interfaced to
the new business system. Plante Moran will include a recommendation on selection approach
(fully integrated vs. best of breed) as well as deployment strategy (on-premise vs. off-premise
hosted).
A system interface listing documenting necessary interfaces between the existing enterprise
systems and new business system.
An ERP Awareness and current ERP Marketplace Overview analysis, including a listing of
vendors in the marketplace
Page 49 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
15 | P a g e
Phase 2: ERP RFP Preparation
Phase Objective and Summary of Activities: The purpose of this phase is to develop a Request for
Proposal (RFP) for purposes of soliciting responses from vendors who provide ERP implementation
services and solutions for entities similar in size and complexity to the City. This will include the
following activities:
Define Vendor Selection Criteria and Weighting Factors to evaluate vendor responses
Define a Decision-Making process that will be used to guide the evaluation and ultimate
decision on a selected vendor
Develop and finalize Software Specifications with City staff.
Develop and distribute a Request for Proposal (RFP) to providers of ERP software solutions
Measurable Objective Deliverables/Milestones
Develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) that represents
the needs of The City.
Vendor Selection Criteria
Decision-Making Process
ERP Software Specifications
Request for Proposal
1. Develop Solution Selection Criteria and Define Decision-Making Process
Our selection approach will enable the City to identify the overall finalist, in conjunction with other due
diligence tasks (i.e., reference checks, site visits, and successful contract negotiations). Before
proceeding with release of the RFP, the PMO should meet to delineate the selection criteria and
weighting factors that will be used to analyze Request for Proposal (RFP) responses and additional
analysis for the finalist vendors. Some examples of selection criteria ar e software specification
compliance, vendor background, costs, professional services contract compliance, and
implementation schedule compliance.
We typically use a tiered process in which to reach the finalist decision. For example, the City may
wish to specify minimum criteria that all responding vendors are required to meet in order for their bid
response to be considered (e.g., minimum population size of municipality with installation of the
current version of their software, bid response does not exceed a particular dollar figure, etc.). For
those vendors meeting the initial criteria, their bid responses will be evaluated against a second level
of criteria prior to any formal due diligence activities, vendor demonstrations, etc. This evaluation will
be based solely on their RFP response. The top two or three vendors that score the highest on this
second round of scoring will be considered the finalist vendors. For the finalist vendors, a more
comprehensive scoring process will be used that is based on the following sources of information:
Page 50 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
16 | P a g e
Vendor RFP response
Vendor demonstration(s)
Reference checking with comparable sites
Potential site visits
Other due diligence activities (e.g., vendor research, knowledge of vendor in marketplace as
noted by other clients or industry analysts)
2. Develop Software Specifications
As a basis for the development of software specifications, we will leverage existing best practice ERP
software specifications that we have developed for government clients with similar size/complexity
along with critical and unique specifications and interfaces that were defined in the assessment phase
of the project. These software specifications, when combined with the City’s unique requirements, will
form the basis of the City’ technical and functional requirements.
The software specifications will then be distributed to the City departments involved in the interview
process for review and feedback. A cross functional specification meeting will be held to collect
feedback/edits from the departm ents via web meeting. Final edits, additions, and deletions to the
specifications will be incorporated for use in the RFP. This activity ensures that feedback is continually
sought from the users and entrenches their engagement in the process.
Vendors will be asked to review the software specification forms in the RFP and respond accordingly.
The vendors’ responses will be entered under an Availability column on the forms as follows:
Y If specification/report is available as a standard feature of the software
R If functionality is available through reports generated using proposed Reporting Tools.
M If functionality is provided through customization to the application, including creation of a
new workflow or development of a custom interface, that may have an impact on future
upgradability.
F If functionality is not available now, but will be available in a future release of the
software within 1 year
N If functionality is not available
A Cost column on the form will be used for “M” or “F” responses to estimate the cost to be incurred by
The City to secure the specification/report. A Priority column will include one of the following entries to
indicate the importance of the specification/report to The City:
H High M Medium L Low
3. Develop Request for Proposal (RFP) Document
We will develop a single RFP document to solicit responses in a format that will ease analysis. The
RFP will be tailored to the City’s unique purchasing requirements based on the project activities
performed, but is minimally expected to include the following:
Background information on the City and the scope of the project, including:
o Current environment and Technology standards
Page 51 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
17 | P a g e
o Operating volumes
o Other planned, related City initiatives
o Interfaces required
A discussion of the timeline and approach being taken by the City to select a finalist software
solution, including:
o Intent
o Selection criteria
o Timeline
Guidelines for ERP software and implementation vendors to submit proposals
o Proposal response format
o Details of Implementation services requested
Project Management
System and operational procedure development
Hardware and software installation
Data conversion
Report development
Integration and interface development
Training for implementation team and end users
Documentation development
Process redesign
Ongoing support and maintenance services
o City contractual terms and conditions
o Minimum and recommended hardware
Software specifications
Various forms for the vendors to complete and return, including:
o Software and Technical Specifications
o Vendor Background Questionnaire
o Pricing Summary
o Reference Forms
Attachments as appropriate
4. Distribute Request for Proposal (RFP) Document
We will distribute the RFP to the City for review and feedback. We will incorporate all feedback and
necessary revisions before the City approves, finalizes and distributes all RFP contents.
During this activity, we will provide consultation to the City project manager and selection committee
regarding the ERP marketplace and appropriate distribution protocols including: advertising, bid
services, and other methods to solicit responses.
Page 52 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
18 | P a g e
Phase 3: ERP Solution Selection / Contract Negotiations
Phase Objective and Summary of Activities: The purpose of this phase is to conduct due diligence
activities associated with respondents to the RFP, to assist the City in reaching a selected vendor
decision and negotiating a contract and statement of work with the selected vendor. This will include
the following:
Manage ERP Vendor Q&A prior to the proposal due date
Present Proposal Response Analysis
Conduct additional due diligence activities (i.e., vendor demonstrations, reference checking,
site visits, etc.)
Conclude on selected vendor
Develop Statement of Work with selected vendor
Develop Negotiated Contract with selected vendor
Measurable Objective Deliverables/Milestones
Vendor is selected based on a
consensus decision
RFP Addendum
ERP Proposal Analysis
Demonstration Materials
Selected ERP Vendor
Negotiated Contract
Statement of Work
1. Manage ERP Vendor Q&A During Pre-Proposal Due Date Timeframe
We anticipate that the City’s procurement policy would, as is common with many municipalities,
require that the City’s staff be the formal key point of vendor contact for the RFP. As a primary
resource in the detailed development of the RFP, we would anticipate, along with the City’s PMO
team, having one of the most detailed comprehensive understandings of the overall requirements of
the joint-consultant – City’s project team. As such, and in accordance with typical municipal
procurement practices for RFP’s, we would expect that the City’s purchasing staff would act as the first
line of vendor communication and interaction for a formal written Q&A and proposal clarification
process.
Page 53 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
19 | P a g e
Plante Moran would support this activity by working to draft the responses to compiled list of vendor
questions. We would develop draft responses based on our understanding of the City’s expectations
established during prior project activities. We would then work with the City to identify the appropriate
City resources for any additional or supplemental, review and clarification. As the draft is completed,
the City’s PMO will review the draft responses. Feedback will be captured and revisions will be made
before the document is finalized and distributed by the City purchasing staff either directly or via the
bid services based upon methods described in the RFP.
2. Analyze Proposals and Select Semi-Finalists
Vendors will be instructed to complete the forms in the RFP and return them on CD with their
proposals. Through a semi-automated process we have successfully used numerous times, we will
then tabulate the responses to the specifications that will be included in the RFP. A percent
compliance will be calculated and incorporated into a proposal comparison template we have
developed. When combined with a variety of other comparative criteria gathered from the proposals,
the template automatically calculates a blind numerical ranking of each. This eliminates any bias from
influencing the selection process. The templates will allow the City to measure each vendor on:
Conformance with the specifications
Software licensing costs
Hardware purchase costs
Implementation, training, conversion, and modification services costs
On-going support costs
Contract terms and implementation schedule compliance
General background criteria (e.g., number of installations, historical financial performance,
number of support staff, platforms supported, etc.)
As part of this initial analysis, we will assess each of the vendors’ solutions and meet with the City to
present the comparative proposal analysis. Together, we will use the decision-making process
determined above to select the two or three most qualified vendors who may be subjected to the due
diligence tasks described in the following work plan tasks.
3. Assist in Developing Vendor Demonstration Materials and Other Due Diligence
Templates
We will assist the City in the development of material to use during the vendor demonstration and due
diligence activities including:
Vendor demonstration agenda
Letters to send to those vendors who are proceeding forward upon receipt of their RFP
responses as well as letters to send to those vendors whose solutions are not being
considered based on initial review of their RFP responses
Forms to document vendor information during the vendor demonstrations, reference checking
and potential site visit processes
We can also work with the City in the development of detailed demonstration scripts that are intended
to direct the vendor demonstrations towards the needs of the City. These scripts are intended to have
the vendors demonstrate their products according to desired financial processes within the City such
that staff can understand not only whether the vendor’s product will support their financial processes
Page 54 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
20 | P a g e
but also how well the product can support their financial processes . Furthermore, these scripts allow
for a more standardized process from which to compare the vendors.
4. Schedule and Assist in Vendor Demonstrations
On behalf of the City, we will prepare and facilitate the software demonstrations by providing logistic
advice, agendas and scripts. The demonstrations will be held at the City and should include a cross -
section of staff from the City. Evaluation forms will also be provided as checklist for scoring each
vendor’s performance and functionality. We are not planning to attend the demonstration sessions
from the vendors.
5. Conduct Additional Due Diligence Activities
In addition to vendor demonstrations, ther e are a number of activities that the City can undertake to
conduct additional due diligence on the finalist vendors including:
We will provide forms to the City if staff wishes to conduct site visits to comparably sized and
complex installations to review the installation of the vendor’s software. We will provide the
City with detailed checklists of issues and items to discuss and score during the site visits.
Note that as a result of the demonstrations, it may be possible to eliminate one of the vendors,
thereby reducing the number of site visits required.
We will provide forms to the City for reference checking to assess how well others have
adapted the semifinalists’ systems to their needs, and identify issues to address during
contract negotiations. We have found that having the City’s staff contact their peers at the
reference sites results in more productive and informative conversations. As such, we will
oversee the reference checking and site visit process, but not perform the checking ourselves.
The City may conclude to perform other additional due diligence, as necessary to evaluate
and consider the value of specific components of the vendor proposals.
6. Assist in the Selection of a Preferred Vendor
In our experience, due diligence activities conducted after vendors have responded to an RFP provide
further understanding for the client as to what is being offered by the software vendors as well further
understanding by software vendors as to the needs of the client. We would propose that the semi -
finalist vendors be requested to provide a clarification response to their original RFP to address
specific questions that the City has related to their solution to include a final cost proposal.
Together, based on those demonstrations, vendor proposals and other due diligence activities, we will
review and discuss the semi-finalist vendors overall solution and facilitate one meeting with the
Selection Committee to proceed forward with making a decision on a finalist vendor using the
decision-making process developed previously. At the City’ request, we will develop a synopsis of the
entire system selection process for the City to present to their City Council along to support the
Committee’s finalist recommendation, intending to gain concurrence from Board membe rs to proceed
with contract negotiations.
7. Support The City’s Contract Negotiations including Developing Statement of Work
(SOW)
We will review the license and support agreements provided by the primary finalist vendor and
propose recommended changes to the contract. We will participate with the City via phone in planning
the negotiations with the primary finalist vendor. Contractual terms, conditions, and costs will be
reviewed with the goal in mind of recommending contract language changes designed to pro tect the
City’s long-term interests. A draft of the final license and support agreements will be presented to the
Page 55 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
21 | P a g e
City’s legal counsel for their review. Terms and conditions relating to term and termination of the
agreements, purchase and support costs, caps on price increases, recourse for non-performance by
the vendor, software acceptance criteria, rights to the source code if vendor declares bankruptcy,
warranties and incorporation of the vendor’s response to the RFP, governing law, insurance coverage
requirements, rights to major new releases, payment terms tied to major deliverables, controls over
expenses, development of an implementation plan, on-going support criteria, etc., will be reviewed.
The City will conduct vendor negotiations and make all management decisions.
During this activity, the City will need to determine and conclude on the specific scope of software,
services and optional items which it will purchase from the finalist vendor(s). As part of this activity we
will also review work the Statement of Work (SOW) developed by the selected software vendor and
provide input to the City for consideration before finalizing.
CHANGE MANAGEMENT APPROACH
Nearly all of the ERP projects we are involved with include some element of formal or informal c hange
management activities. These activities are more critical with those clients who are migrating from
technologies and processes that date back several years or have an organizational culture that is
more resistant to change.
For a recent client, we started on an ERP selection and implementation project in which the client had
embedded technologies and business processes that had been around for a number of years. Overall
concern was expressed about the acceptance of a new ERP system and what significa nt changes that
were going to entail particularly around the roles and responsibilities of many of the staff members
involved in working with the system.
During the selection phase of the project, we worked closely with their Readiness team that had
responsibilities for Communications, Change Management and Training to strategize on ways in which
to facilitate the client’s transition to a new ERP environment. A number of methods were used to
include the following:
Educational outreach was provided through the establishment of a Microsoft Office SharePoint
site that had an internal focus to client staff involved on the project as well as an external
focus to all client staff who would be affected by the new system . The externally focused site
allowed any staff person to obtain information about the project that included a glossary of
terms, presentations regarding the project, frequently asked questions, project timelines and
other pertinent information on the project.
Project teams consisted of both process owners and process end-users from the client
departments such that they would take ownership of the new system and the new processes.
A Project Risk Assessment was conducted to identify project risks and mitigation strategies
that included a number centered on communications and change management
During the implementation phase of the project, the selected ERP vendor provided a change
management resource to work with the client’s Project Management Office (PMO) and Readiness
Team to facilitate additional change management and communications activities. The Readiness
Team included a Readiness Coordinator, a couple of staff to work with the Readiness Coordinator and
Readiness Coaches that existed within each of the departments. These Readiness Coaches were
assigned specific project responsibilities that also included being the “eyes and ears” within the
department and acting as a conduit of information between the project and the departments.
Additionally, the functional teams continued with significant invo lvement from process owners and
process end-users. As significant decisions were made during the course of the project, existing
governance structures were used as a forum for communicating the system and process changes that
would be occurring well in advance of the actual implementation and cut-over activities.
Page 56 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
22 | P a g e
Overall, these activities contributed to acceptance of both the system and process changes that were
eventually implemented.
The visual below depicts our change management tools and templates that we have incorporated
throughout all phases of the ERP consulting project.
Page 57 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
23 | P a g e
Team Resumes
Resumes of key staff proposed to provide services
PROJECT TEAM OVERVIEW
As a firm with over 2,000 staff members, we have deep resources to bring to the City’s project. The
following table summarizes the qualifications of each proposed team member to assist the City on the
project including recent relevant clients. Detailed resumes of each team member follows.
Staff Role
Adam Rujan
Partner
Plante Moran
Engagement Partner
W ill have overall responsibility for ensuring that all project tasks are
completed within schedule and budget and that all project deliverables
meet the required quality standards.
Natalie Schwarz
Manager
Plante Moran
Project Manager
W ill manage the day-to-day performance of the team, as well as the
development of all deliverables. Will participate in the facilitation of
departmental review sessions, development of business requirements,
development of the RFP, proposal analysis activities, vendor selection,
and Statement of Work development.
Mike Riffel
Principal
Plante Moran
Technical Advisor
Will serve as the technical and subject matter experts on the
technology and ERP selection and proposal analysis. Will also
participate in interviews and the development and deployment of the
RFP.
Dale Vanderford
Manager
Plante Moran
Infrastructure Advisor
Will serve as the technical and subject matter experts on the
technology and IT infrastructure. Will also participate in interviews and
the development and deployment of the RFP.
Alexandra Colletti
Senior Consultant
Plante Moran
Lead Consultant
W ill also participate in the departmental review sessions, development
of the RFP, assist in the deployment of the RFP, and proposal analysis
activities and the vendor demos.
Stephen Morrison
Consultant
Plante Moran
Project Consultant
W ill also participate in the departmental review sessions, development
of the RFP, assist in the deployment of the RFP, and proposal analysis
activities and the vendor demos.
Mike Grossman
Consultant
Plante Moran
Project Consultant
W ill also participate in the departmental review sessions, development
of the RFP, assist in the deployment of the RFP, and proposal analysis
activities and the vendor demos.
Page 58 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
24 | P a g e
PROJECT ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Adam Rujan
Project Director
City of Georgetown
Project Team
Natalie Schwarz
Project Manager
Alexandra Colletti
Lead Consultant
Stephen Morrison
Project Consultant
Mike Grossman
Project Consultant
Dale Vanderford
Infrastructure Advisor
Mike Riffel
Technical Advisor
Page 59 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
25 | P a g e
PROJECT TEAM RESUMES
EDUCATION
Master of Business
Administration University of
Michigan
Bachelor of Science Engineering,
Wayne State University
SELECTED PRESENTATIONS/
PUBLICATIONS
Cost Savings in Information
Technology: ICMA webinar 2012
Outsourcing IT: ICMA Annual
Conference 2011
Improving Performance through
IT Governance: Public
Technology Institute 2009, 2010
Effectively Capturing Business
Intelligence: ICMA Annual
Conference 2013
Adam Rujan
Partner
Management Consulting
SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE
Adam has nearly thirty years’ experience consulting to government and public
sector organizations. His experience includes assisting governmental units with
organizational and operational analyses, IT Assessment, and system selection
reviews. He has developed specific expertise in assisting organizations
understand and implement new technology, including issues of IT governance
and change management. Adam’s clients have included a wide range of local
municipalities, counties, agencies and authorities and state government. He is a
frequent presenter and has authored numerous articles on improving operational
efficiency and effectiveness. He recently authored a chapter on IT Governance
for the book CIO Leadership for Cities and Counties, published by the Public
Technology Institute. Adam was/is the Partner responsible for all of the
referenced public sector client engagements.
PROJECT ROLE
Adam will serve as the Project Director for management. He will have overall
responsibility to ensure that all project tasks are completed within schedule and
budget, and that all project deliverables meet the required quality standard.
SELECTED KEY CLIENTS
City of Alexandria, VA
Town of Hempstead, NY
City of Asheville, NC
Broward County, FL
City of Augusta, GA
Cook County, IL
City of Detroit, MI
City of Cleveland, OH
Johnson County, KS
City of Corpus Christi, TX
St. Louis County, MO
City of Colorado Springs, CO
City of Flagstaff, AZ
City of Mesa, AZ
City of Seattle, WA
Marin County, CA
Page 60 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
26 | P a g e
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Finance & Accountancy,
Illinois State University
CERTIFICATIONS AND
AFFILIATIONS
Certified, Thomson Reuters Indirect
Tax OneSource
Certified, Vertex O Series
Certified, Oracle R12 E-Business Tax
Natalie Schwarz
Consulting Manager
Management Consulting
SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE
Natalie has over six years of professional service experience cons ulting
and implementing systems for a wide range of clients and industries.
Natalie has a rare combination of experience including large scale project
management, service line process development, and ERP/tax systems
software selections and implementations. She has extensive experience in
developing business requirements, business process reviews, and gap
analysis along with detailed system analysis, design, development and
implementation. In addition, Natalie has successfully guided clients
through the vendor selection process, including facilitating workshops and
vendor demos, development of requests for proposals (RFP’s), evaluating
vendor responses, analyzing costs, identifying best fit solutions, drafting
contracts, and conducting post-implementation evaluations.
PROJECT ROLES
Project Manager
Will manage the day-to-day performance of the team, as well as the
development of all deliverables. Will participate in the facilitation of
departmental review sessions, development of business requirements,
development of the RFP, proposal analysis activities, vendor selection,
and Statement of Work development.
KEY RECENT CLIENTS
Milwaukee County, WI
Montgomery County, TX
Village of Glencoe, IL
St. Louis County, MO
Spotsylvania County, VA
Non public sector clients
Avis Budget Group Equinix
Biogen Express Scripts
Brown-Forman First Solar
Catholic Health Initiatives Kraft
Corn Products International Motorola Solutions
Cummins Shell
Dell Visa
Ecolab
Page 61 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
27 | P a g e
EDUCATION
Master of Public Policy Analysis and
Administration (MPA)
Michigan State University
Bachelor of Science in International
Relations
Michigan State University
PROFESSIONAL TRAINING &
AFFILIATIONS
Government Finance Officers
Association (GFOA)
Pi Alpha – National Honor Society in
Public Administration
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
Riffel, Mike; Bailey, Mike.
“Understanding and Mitigating IT
Project Risks.” Government Finance
Review; June 2010.
Riffel, Mike. “Chapter 4 - Overview of
the Current ERP Marketplace.” The
ERP Book: Financial Management
Technology from A to Z. Chicago,
GFOA, 2010.
Riffel, Mike; Kavanagh, Shayne and
Melbye, David. “Mission Critical:
Evaluating and
Funding Business Application
Projects.” IT Budgeting and Decision
Making; Maximizing Your Governments
Technology Investment. Edited by
Shayne Kavanagh. Chicago: GFOA,
2009.
Riffel, Mike; Kinney, Anne and Taylor,
Paul. “Strategies and Lessons.”
Revolutionizing Constituent
Relationships: The Promise of CRM for
the Public Sector. Chicago: GFOA
Mike Riffel
Principal
Management Consulting
SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE
Mike has over ten years of experience in assisting the public sector
through the information technology assessment, selection and
implementation process. Mike has facilitated the RFP development,
proposal analysis and system selection process for dozens of public
sector organizations throughout the United States and has extensive
knowledge of the functionality provided by public sector focused
enterprise solutions. Mike is well versed in conducting information
technology assessments as well as working in technology implementation
advisory roles, reviewing integrator deliverables, assisting in the design of
a post implementation support structure and implementing change
management techniques to ensure user acceptance of new business
processes and/or technology.
PROJECT ROLES
Technical Advisor
Will serve as the technical and subject matter experts on the technology
and ERP selection and proposal analysis. Will also participate in
interviews and the development and deployment of the RFP.
SELECTED KEY CLIENTS
City of Chandler, AZ
City of Baton Rouge, LA
City of Palo Alto, CA
Sumner County, TN
City of Bend, OR
County of Marin, CA
City of Fayetteville, AR
City of North Miami Beach, FL
City of Alexandria, VA
Town of Nantucket, MA
Hampton Roads Sanitation District, VA
Hampton Roads Transit, VA
Cook County Public Guardian, IL
Village of Elk Grove, IL
Montgomery County, TX
Village of Woodridge, IL
Village of Park Forest, IL
Suffolk County Water Authority, NY
City of Corpus Christi, TX
Town of Hempstead, NY
Milwaukee County, WI
Page 62 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
28 | P a g e
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science in
Communications Technology
Eastern Michigan University
SELECTED PRESENTATIONS
PROFESSIONAL TRAINING &
AFFILIATIONS
Specialized Training: Effective
Communications and Human
Relations, Dale Carnegie, Ann Arbor,
MI, 2006
Former Board Member, Washtenaw
County Homeland Security Local
Response Team
Member, CIO Council, Public
Technology Institute, Washington, D.C.
Former Member of Board of Directors,
Washtenaw County/EMU Legal
Resource Center, Ann Arbor, MI
Dale Vanderford
Manager
Management Consulting
SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE
Dale has over fifteen years’ experience assisting public sector clients
customers with various technology related needs. He has extensive
experience in providing numerous technology services for government
including technology assessment, technology planning, needs
assessment, selective sourcing, system selection, IT organizational
evaluations, infrastructure design, and implementation management. He
was Director of Technology and Operations for Washtenaw County,
Michigan and spent 2 years implementing and managing the
consolidation of the network infrastructure teams and data centers for
Washtenaw County and the City of Ann Arbor. During Dale’s tenure in the
department, it consistently received national accolades, including several
consecutive year appearances on the Digital Counties Survey and two
consecutive years on CIO Magazine’s Top 100 IT departm ents list.
Recently, Dale spent a year on assignment with the City of Fayetteville,
AR, serving as their interim CIO and implementing systems, departmental
procedures, controls, and dashboards resulting in exceptionally high
customer satisfaction.
PROJECT ROLES
Will serve as the technical and subject matter experts on the technology
and IT infrastructure. Will also participate in interviews and the
development and deployment of the RFP.
SELECTED KEY CLIENTS
City of Fayetteville, AR
City of Ogden, UT
City of Colorado Springs, CO
Borough of State College, PA
City of Carlsbad, CA
County of Ottawa, MI
County of Muskegon, MI
County of Oakland, MI
City of Peoria, AR
City of Madison Heights, MI
County of Macomb, MI
Circuit Court of Macomb
County, MI
County of Broward, FL
City of Colorado Springs, CO
Numerous projects as IT
Director for Washtenaw
County
Page 63 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
29 | P a g e
EDUCATION
Masters of Science in Accounting,
Information Systems Specialization
Michigan State University
Bachelor of Arts in Accounting and
Information Systems
Michigan State University
SELECTED PRESENTATIONS
PROFESSIONAL TRAINING &
AFFILIATIONS
California Society of Municipal Finance
Officers (CSMFO) Conference
Participant (2014)
International City/County Management
Association (ICMA) Conference
Participant (2013 and 2014)
Alexandra Colletti
Senior Consultant
Management Consulting
SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE
Alexandra has two years’ experience working with financial business
processes, miscellaneous receivables, business licensing, contract
management and human resources processes.
Her experience with public sector IT software solutions specifically
enterprise resource planning (ERP) solutions includes identifying
opportunities to enhance business processes, targeted benchmarking,
implementation budget management, cost of service and staffing needs
analysis all with a vested interest in incorporating stakeholder needs.
Alexandra specializes working with clients through the software selection
processes, including functional requirement development and the
preparation of request for proposal (RFP) solicitations. During the
selection process she focuses on vendor response evaluation including,
specification compliance analysis, one-time and on-going cost analysis,
and total cost of ownership (TCO) development. She also has experience
managing the vendor evaluation process and vendor demonstration
facilitation.
PROJECT ROLES
Lead Consultant
Will also participate in the departmental review sessions, development of
the RFP, assist in the deployment of the RFP, and proposal analysis
activities and the vendor demos.
SELECTED KEY CLIENTS
City of Baton Rouge, LA
City of Detroit, MI
City of Fort Lauderdale, FL
City of Long Beach, CA
City of North Las Vegas, NV
City of Paducah, KY
City of Palo Alto, CA
City of Philadelphia, PA
Village of Elk Grove, IL
San Diego Association of Governments
New York State Teachers Retirement System
Hampton Roads Transit
County of Outagamie, WI
City of Carlsbad, CA
Montgomery County, TX
Page 64 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
30 | P a g e
EDUCATION
A.B. in Chemistry with Secondary in
Computer Science
Harvard University
Stephen Morrison
Consultant
Management Consulting
SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE
Stephen began working with technology in the public sector in 2014,
taking on a development and support role with a permitting and lice nsing
vendor. In this role, Stephen began to engage with both the technical and
business considerations of implementing and supporting solutions for
government. Key activities included support of the vendor’s cloud
architecture, system configuration, workflow design, data conversion, and
report development. Since joining Plante Moran, he has served as a
project consultant on a variety of ERP, EAM, Community Development,
and Utility Billing procurement and implementation efforts.
PROJECT ROLES
Project Consultant
Will also participate in the departmental review sessions, development of
the RFP, assist in the deployment of the RFP, and proposal analysis
activities and the vendor demos.
SELECTED KEY CLIENTS
City of Grand Rapids, MI
County of Kent, MI
City of St. Charles, IL
City of Stockton, CA
Town of Jupiter, FL
Broward Metropolitan
Planning Organization, FL
County of Milwaukee, WI
County of Miami-Dade, FL
City of Carlsbad, CA
City of Bismarck, ND
City of Des Moines, IA
Hampton Roads Transit, VA
City of Sacramento, CA
County of Livingston, MI
City of Hallandale Beach, FL
Page 65 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
31 | P a g e
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science in Business
Administration, Information Systems
and Finance specializations
The Ohio State University
Mike Grossman
Consultant
Management Consulting
SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE
Mike is a recent graduate of The Ohio State University with a Bachelor of
Science in Business Administration with Information Systems and
Finance Specializations. He has taken classes in requirements analysis,
analysis and design of information systems, and information systems
planning and management.
Mike had an internship at a consumer goods company in their IT
department. His work included developing a new incident reporting
system, including requirements gathering, interviewing users, user
testing, and developing training documents.
PROJECT ROLES
Project Consultant who will participate in departmental interview
sessions, document functional gaps in the current solution, develop
business requirements, perform proposal analysis activities, and support
other project activities described in the scope of work.
SELECTED KEY CLIENTS
Montgomery County, TX
Page 66 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
32 | P a g e
References
A minimum of three references for consulting jobs similar in size and scope to the project described in
this RFP. References must include the name of the client, point of contact, all contact information,
description of project, project dates. References must be for projects successfully completed within
the past three years.
CLIENT REFERENCES
City-Parish of East Baton
Rouge, LA
Mr. Eric Romero
Director of Information Services
City of Baton Rouge, LA
222 Saint Louis Street, Rm. B284
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
225-389-3070
eromero@brgov.com
ERP Needs Assessment and System Selection
Currently assisting the City-Parish with an assessment of
existing ERP systems and selection of a future ERP solution.
Incorporated future needs and related services into an ERP
request for proposal, formal solicitation and analysis of
proposals received.
Project Staff: Rujan, Riffel, Cunliffe, Rau, Carrier
Project Timeline: Feb. 2014 – Present
City of Fayetteville, AR
Mr. Paul Becker
Finance Director
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
479.575.8330
pbecker@ci.fayetteville.ar.us
City Population (2013): 79,000
Assessment , Strategic Plan and Implementation
Conducted an Information Technology Assessment for the City
that included a review of all aspects of organization,
administration and use of technology within the City. As part of
the engagement we conducted IT departmental interviews,
interviews with all City staff departments, an end-user survey of
all City staff and a benchmarking survey of peer City
organizations from across the country. Specific areas of focus
included IT governance, IT organization structure, enterprise
resource planning (ERP), line of business applications (e.g.,
GIS, courts, etc.), cost allocation methodology, IT
infrastructure, project management approach, project portfolio
management and identifying opportunities for alternative
delivery of services.
Project Staff: Rujan, Chalasani, Riffel, Vanderford
Project Fees: $50,000 and $150,000
Project Timeline: October 2010 – March 2011, January 2013 –
June 2015
Page 67 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
33 | P a g e
City of Corpus Christi, TX
Ms. Margie Rose
Deputy City Manager
1201 Leopard Street
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
361.826.3220
margier@cctexas.com
City Population (2013): 316,381
ERP Needs Assessment and System Selection
Conducting a comprehensive Enterprise Resource Planning
(ERP) needs assessment and selection project for the City to
replace legacy applications within multiple lines of business
within the City. This project will include conducting of interviews
with process owners and process end-users, development of an
ERP RFP, proposal analysis, due diligence assistance and
contract negotiations and statement of work development with
the selected ERP vendor.
Project scope includes needs assessment and selection of a
new customer information system (CIS) and utility billing system
for gas, water, storm water and sewer utilities.
Project Staff: Bagley, Rujan, Riffel, Casler, Zyla
Project Fees: $230,000
Project Timeline: July 2012 – April 2013
System Selected: Infor
Montgomery County, TX
Mr. Ray Armstead
Project Manager
Montgomery County, TX
501 N Thompson St # 101
Conroe, TX 77301
(936) 539-7820
ERP Needs Assessment and System Selection
Currently assisting the County with an assessment of existing
ERP systems and selection of a future ERP
solution. Incorporated future needs and related services into an
ERP request for proposal, formal solicitation and analysis of
proposals received.
Project Staff: Rujan, Riffel, Schwarz, Colletti, Carrier
Project Fees: $150,000
Project Timeline: November 2015 – Present
City of Palo Alto, CA
Dr. Jonathan Reichental, Ph.D,
Chief Information Officer
250 Hamilton Ave.
Mail Stop MB
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650.329.2121
Jonathan.Reichental@cityofpaloalto.org
Enterprise Application Assessments
Currently assisting the City with a comprehensive review of
both its Enterprise Asset Management System (EAMS) and
Enterprise Resource Planning System (ERP). The City
objective is to ensure systems that feature robust data
integration, in a sustainable and cost effective manner.
Project Staff: Rujan, Blough, Baranski, Moshier, Riffel
Project Fees: $200,000
Project Timeline: March 2014 – September 2014
Page 68 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
34 | P a g e
City of Roswell, GA
Mr. Michael Fischer
Deputy City Administrator
38 Hill St.
Roswell, GA 30075
770.594.6190
mfischer@roswellgov.com
ERP System Selection and Implementation Management
Assistance
Assisted the City in the selection of a new general government
ERP software and separate public safety CAD and RMS
software selection effort. Activities included conducting of
interviews, RFP development, proposal analysis and assistance
to the city in the due diligence process of reviewing various
solutions, contract negotiations with the selected vendors and
development of a statement of work. Provided project
management assistance to the City’s project management team
associated with deployment of the initial phase of the selected
ERP solution.
Project Staff: Eiler, Rau, Warner
Project Fees: $442,000
Project Timeline: 2010 – 2012
Post ERP Implementation Analysis
Conducted a Post ERP Implementation review to assist the City
in understanding the status of the General Government (Tyler
Munis), Court Services (Tyler Incode) and Public Safety
(SunGard OSSI) implementations due to the City’s Project
Manager’s departure. Analyzed historical spending on the
project and compared it to the City’s established project budget.
Then determined preliminary cost estimates for completion.
Determined the status of each module of each area. Identified
issues that the staff was experiencing and recommended
potential solutions. Developed recommendations for steps the
City to complete the ERP project.
Project Staff: Warner, Rau, Pesis
Project Fees: $36,750
Project Timeline: Sept 2014 – March 2015
Page 69 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
35 | P a g e
OTHER REFERENCES
The following list provides a sampling of the municipal ERP projects that our firm has performed over
the last 36 months.
Client Name Project Title Project Date
County of Monterey, CA ERP Upgrade Implementation Management
Assistance
July 2016 - Present
City of Fernandina Beach,
FL
ERP Implementation Management
Assistance
July 2016 - Present
Town of Jupiter, FL Post Implementation Project Management
Services
May 2016 - Present
City of Norman, OK ERP Consulting Services May 2016 - Present
State of MI Senate ERP Consulting Services Feb 2016 - Present
Cuyahoga County, OH ERP Consulting Services Feb 2016 - Present
City of Palo Alto, CA ERP Consulting and Selection Services Feb 2016 - Present
City of St. Charles, IL Software Planning Feb 2016 - Present
City of Hollywood, FL ERP Consulting Services Feb 2016 - Present
City of Roswell, GA Post ERP Project Management Activities Feb 2016 - Present
City of Stockton, CA ERP Consulting Services Jan 2016 - Present
State of Florida, Division of
Rehabilitation and
Liquidation
Financial System Selection Jan 2016 – June 2016
St. Louis County, MO Time and Attendance Implementation
Management Assistance
Jan 2016 - Present
Juvenile Welfare Board of
Pinellas County, FL
ERP Consulting Services Nov 2015 – May 2016
North Miami Beach, FL Utility Billing/Customer Service Operations
Review
Nov 2015 – April 2016
Miami-Dade County, FL ERP Integrator Proposal Analysis Oct 2015 - Present
Great Lakes Water Authority,
MI
ERP Consulting Services Oct 2015 - Present
Montgomery County, TX Financial System Needs Assessment Oct 2015 - Present
Three Rivers Park District Parks & Rec Options Analysis Sept 2015 - Present
Pueblo County, CO ERP Feasibility Study Sept 2015 – Apr 2016
Milwaukee County, WI ERP Consulting Services Sept 2015 - Present
Broward County Metropolitan
Planning Organization
(MPO)
ERP Selection Sept 2015 - Present
Page 70 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
36 | P a g e
Client Name Project Title Project Date
Town of Jupiter Island, FL ERP Selection Aug 2015 – Jul 2016
Henry County, GA ERP Due Diligence, Contract Negotiations
and Statement of Work (SOW) Development
Aug 2015 - Present
Village Center Community
Development District, FL
CIS SOW Development and Contract
Negotiations
Aug 2015 – Oct 2015
Genesee County ERP Implementation Management
Assistance
July 2015 - Present
City of Sacramento, CA Payment Processing Study June 2015 – Dec 2015
City of Coral Springs, FL ERP Options Analysis May 2015 – Aug 2015
City of Bismarck, ND Work Management System (WMS) Study April 2015 – July 2015
Central Ohio Transit
Authority, OH
Technology Modernization Services April 2015 - Present
Michigan Municipal Services
Authority
FMS Program Management Assistance Mar 2015 - Present
City of Grand Rapids, MI ERP Implementation Management
Assistance
Mar 2015 - Present
Kent County, MI ERP Implementation Management
Assistance
Mar 2015 - Present
Miami-Dade County, FL ERP Integrator RFP Consulting Services Mar 2015 – July 2015
Outagamie County, WI HRIS Selection Services Feb 2015 – Jan 2016
City of Appleton, WI ERP Selection Services Feb 2015 - Present
City of Winter Park, FL ERP Selection Services Feb 2015 - Present
City of Delray Beach, FL ERP Options Analysis Feb 2015 – Aug 2015
Santa Margarita Water
District, CA
Technology Enterprise Resource Plan
Systems Selection and Implementation
Management Assistance
Jan 2015 - Present
Hampton Roads Transit, VA ERP Selection Services Jan 2015 - Present
City of Carlsbad, CA ERP Business Process Mapping Jan 2015 – Apr 2016
Cuyahoga County Public
Library, OH
FMIS Selection Services and Implementation
Management Assistance
Dec 2014 - Present
City of Roswell, GA Post ERP Implementation Review Oct 2014 – Jan 2015
City of Independence, MO CIS Selection and Implementation
Management Assistance Services
Nov 2014 - Present
City of Paducah, KY ERP Selection Services Sep 2014 - Present
Town of Longboat Key, FL Software Assessment
ERP Selection
Aug 2014 – Dec 2014
Mar 2015 - Present
Page 71 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
37 | P a g e
Client Name Project Title Project Date
Central Ohio Transit
Authority (COTA), OH
HRIS Needs Assessment and Selection June 2014 – Jan 2015
Horry County, SC ERP Implementation Management
Assistance
June 2014 – Sept
2015
Village of Park Forest, IL ERP System Consulting and Implementation
Management Assistance
June 2014 – Present
City of Palo Alto, CA ERP System Consulting June 2014 – Dec 2014
City of Arvada, CO EAM System Consulting Apr 2014 – Nov 2014
City of Fayetteville, AR ERP Consulting Services Apr 2014 – July 2015
Clarke County, VA ERP Consulting Services Feb 2014 – Jun 2014
City of Long Beach, CA ERP Consulting Services Feb 2014 – Present
City of Baton Rouge, LA ERP Consulting Services Feb 2014 – Present
City of Palo Alto, CA EAM System Consulting Jan 2014 – Nov 2014
San Diego Association of
Governments, CA
Contract Management Needs Assessment Jan 2014 – Nov 2014
St. Lucie County, FL ERP Consulting Services Nov 2013 – Present
City of Ft. Lauderdale, FL ERP Selection Nov 2013 – Present
Village of Elk Grove, IL ERP Selection and Implementation
Management Assistance
Sept 2013 – Present
City of Bend, OR ERP Selection and Implementation
Management Assistance
Aug 2013 – Present
City of Dublin, OH ERP Selection Sep. 2013 – Dec 2014
City of North Las Vegas, NV Enterprise Applications Analysis July 2013 – Oct 2013
Village of Fox Lake, IL ERP Selection July 2013 – July 2015
Detroit Water & Sewerage
Department, MI
AP Migration Planning Study June 2013 – Oct 2013
City of Pinellas Park, FL ERP Selection and Implementation
Management Assistance
May 2013 – Present
City of Flint, MI ERP Implementation Management
Assistance
Jan 2013 – Jan 2015
Huron Clinton Metropolitan
Authority, MI
ERP Selection and Implementation
Management Assistance
April 2013 – July 2014
City of Detroit, MI ERP Needs Assessment May 2013 – Aug 2013
Village of Woodridge, IL ERP Selection May 2013 – Jan 2015
City of Pueblo, CO ERP Due Diligence and Implementation
Management Assistance
Mar 2013 – Present
Page 72 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
38 | P a g e
Client Name Project Title Project Date
Village of Northbrook, IL ERP Selection Mar 2013 – Jan 2015
New Braunfels Utilities, TX FMS Needs Assessment, Selection and
Implementation Management Assistance
Dec 2012 – Present
City of Grand Rapids, MI FMS Needs Assessment and Selection Dec 2012 – Mar 2014
Sumner County, TN ERP Needs Assessment and Selection Aug 2012 – Dec 2013
City of Ann Arbor, MI HR/Payroll Software Assessment Jul 2012 – Dec 2012
City of Corpus Christi, TX ERP Selection Jul 2012 – June 2013
Town of Jupiter, FL Utility Billing and Enterprise Assessment
Management Software Selection
May 2012 – Nov 2012
City of Hallandale Beach, FL ERP Selection and Implementation
Management Assistance
May 2012 – Mar 2016
City of Columbia, MO ERP Needs Assessment, Selection and
Implementation Management Assistance
May 2012 – Aug 2016
Livingston County, MI ERP Selection and Implementation
Management Assistance
May 2012 – Jan 2015
Horry County, SC ERP Needs Assessment and Selection Feb 2012 – Jan 2014
City of Oakland Park, FL ERP Selection Feb 2012 – Jan 2013
City of Cooper City, FL ERP Selection Feb 2012 – Oct 2012
Marin County, CA ERP Operations Review Feb 2012 – Jan 2015
City of Greenville, NC ERP Selection Dec 2011 – Mar 2013
Hampton Roads Sanitation
District, VA
ERP Needs Assessment, Selection and
Implementation Management Assistance
Jan 2012 – December
2015
City of East Lansing, MI ERP Needs Assessment Dec 2011 – Aug 2012
Broward County, FL ERP Selection Assistance, Contract
Negotiations, Statement of Work
Development, 3PA Implementation Services
July 2011 – Present
City of North Miami Beach,
FL
ERP Needs Assessment, System Selection
and Implementation Management Assistance
Apr 2011 – Present
City of Chandler, AZ Oracle Upgrade Project Management
Services
Mar 2011 – Nov 2011
Town of Jupiter, FL Financial Management System Selection and
Implementation Management Assistance
Mar 2011 – Nov 2012
City of Flagstaff, AZ ERP Due Diligence Assistance Jan 2011 – Aug 2011
Muskegon County, MI FMIS Software Selection and Implementation
Management Assistance
Jan 2011 – Sep 2013
City of Owensboro, KY ERP Selection Nov 2010 – Dec 2011
Page 73 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
39 | P a g e
Client Name Project Title Project Date
City of Asheville, NC Development Services Software Selection Oct 2010 – Sep 2011
City of Casper, WY Software System Assessment Aug 2010 – Aug 2011
City of Alexandria, VA ERP Needs Assessment and Selection Aug 2010 – June 2011
Borough of State College,
PA
ERP Selection, Contract Negotiations and
Implementation Management Assistance
Jul 2010 – Mar 2014
City of Miramar, FL ERP Selection and Implementation
Management Assistance
May 2010 – Jul 2012
City of Roswell, GA ERP Selection, Contract Negotiations and
Implementation Initiation Assistance
Jan 2010 – Jul 2012
Town of Hempstead, NY Tax System Selection and Implementation
Mgt.
Jun 2009 – Present
City of Mesa, AZ ERP Selection and Implementation
Management Assistance
Apr 2009 – Aug 2012
Cook County Public
Guardian, IL
System Assessment and Selection Apr 2009 – Apr 2012
Village of Mt. Prospect, IL ERP Selection and Contract Negotiations May 2009 – Dec 2009
Mid-America Regional
Council (MARC)
ERP Selection and Contract Negotiations Mar 2009 – Dec 2009
City of St. Charles, MO ERP Selection and Contract Negotiations Jan 2009 – Dec 2009
Waukesha County, WI Financial Applications Analysis Study and
RFP Development
May 2008 – Mar 2011
City of Asheville, NC ERP Selection and Implementation
Management
Oct 2007 – Dec 2010
St. Louis County, MO ERP Selection and Implementation
Management
Apr 2007 – Feb 2010
City of Sheboygan, WI ERP Selection and Implementation
Management
Mar 2007 – Dec 2008
City of St. Clair Shores, MI Time and Attendance Software Selection Jan 2007 – Aug 2007
City of Elgin, IL FMIS Software Selection Assistance Jun 2006 – May 2007
City of Cleveland, OH FMIS Selection and Implementation
Management
Oct 2006 – Feb 2010
Page 74 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
40 | P a g e
Price Proposal
Plante Moran provides a fixed fee of $87,890 to complete the tasks as proposed in our work plan.
Totals by Phase Hours Fees
Phase 0: Project Management 24 $5,640
Phase 1: ERP Needs Assessment and Selection Strategy 140 $32,900
Phase 1: Business Process Mapping and Review (OPTIONAL) 80 $18,800
Phase 2: ERP RFP Preparation 80 $18,800
Phase 3: ERP Solution Selection and Contract Negotiations 130 $30,550
Total: 374 $87,890*
*Price does not include optional Business Process Mapping and Redesign Activities.
Our fixed fee is based on our blended consulting rate of $235 per hour for the estimated number of
hours expected to complete project activities. We would welcome an opportunity to review our
expected roles and responsibilities on the project with the City and submit a revised best and final offer
proposal.
Page 75 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
41 | P a g e
Forms
Professional Services Agreement – Consulting Services
Addendum to Plante & Moran, PLLC Engagement Agreement
This Professional Services Agreement is part of the engagement agreement for our consulting services dated
<Date> between Plante & Moran, PLLC (referred to herein as “PM”) and City of Georgetown (referred to herein as
“the City”).
1. Management Responsibilities – The consulting services PM will provide are inherently advisory in nature.
PM has no responsibility for any management decisions or management functions in connection with its
engagement to provide these services. Further, you acknowledge that the City is responsible for all such
management decisions and management functions; for evaluating the adequacy and results of the servic es
PM will provide and accepting responsibility for the results of those services; and for establishing and
maintaining internal controls, including monitoring ongoing activities, in connection with PM’s engagement.
The City will designate a Project Supervisor to oversee the services PM will provide.
2. Nature of Services – PM’s project activities will be based on information and records provided to PM by the
City. PM will rely on such underlying information and records and the project activities will not inc lude audit or
verification of the information and records provided to PM in connection with the project activities.
The project activities PM will perform will not constitute an examination or audit of any the City financial
statements or any other items, including the City’s internal controls. This engagement also will not include
preparation or review of any tax returns or consulting regarding tax matters. If the City requires financial
statements or other financial information for third-party use, or if the City requires tax preparation or
consulting services, a separate engagement letter will be required. Accordingly, the City agrees not to
associate or make reference to PM in connection with any financial statements or other financial information
of the City. In addition, PM’s engagement is not designed and cannot be relied upon to disclose errors, fraud
or illegal acts that may exist. However, PM will inform the City of any such matters that come to PM’s
attention.
3. Use of Report – At the conclusion of PM’s project activities, PM will provide the City with a written report as
described in this engagement agreement. PM’s report will be restricted solely to use by management of the
City and the City agrees that PM’s report will not be distributed to any outside parties for any purpose other
than to carry out legal responsibilities of the City. PM will have no responsibility to update PM’s report for any
events or circumstances that occur or become known subsequent to the date of that report.
4. Confidentiality, Ownership and Retention of Workpapers – During the course of this engagement, PM and
PM staff may have access to proprietary information of the City, including, but not limited to, information
regarding trade secrets, business methods, plans, or projects. PM acknowledges that such information,
regardless of its form, is confidential and proprietary to the City, and PM will not use such information for any
purpose other than its consulting engagement or disclose such information to any other person or enti ty
without the prior written consent of the City.
In the interest of facilitating PM’s services to the City, PM may communicate or exchange data by internet, e-
mail, facsimile transmission or other electronic methods. While PM will use its best efforts to keep such
communications and transmissions secure in accordance with PM’s obligations under applicable laws and
professional standards, the City recognizes and accepts that PM has no control over the unauthorized
interception of these communications or transmissions once they have been sent, and consents to PM’s use
of these electronic devices during this engagement.
Professional standards require that PM create and retain certain workpapers for engagements of this nature.
All workpapers created in the course of this engagement are and shall remain the property of PM. PM will
maintain the confidentiality of all such workpapers as long as they remain in PM’s possession.
Both the City and PM acknowledge, however, that PM may be required to make its workpapers available to
regulatory authorities or by court order or subpoena in a legal, administrative, arbitration, or similar
proceeding in which PM is not a party. Disclosure of confidential information in accordance with requirements
of regulatory authorities or pursuant to court order or subpoena shall not constitute a breach of the provisions
Page 76 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
42 | P a g e
of this agreement. In the event that a request for any confidential information or workpapers covered by this
agreement is made by regulatory authorities or pursuant to a court order or subpoena, PM agrees to inform
the City in a timely manner of such request and to cooperate with the City should the City attempt, at the
City’s cost, to limit such access. This provision will survive the termination of this agreement. PM’s e fforts in
complying with such requests will be deemed billable to the City as a separate engagement. PM shall be
entitled to compensation for its time and reasonable reimbursement of its expenses (including legal fees) in
complying with the request.
PM reserves the right to destroy, and it is understood that PM will destroy, workpapers created in the course
of this engagement in accordance with PM’s record retention and destruction policies, which are designed to
meet all relevant regulatory requirements for retention of workpapers. PM has no obligation to maintain
workpapers other than for its own purposes or to meet those regulatory requirements.
Upon the City’s written request, PM may, at its sole discretion, allow others to view any workpapers
remaining in its possession if there is a specific business purpose for such a review. PM will evaluate each
written request independently. The City acknowledges and agrees that PM will have no obligation to provide
such access or to provide copies of PM’s workpapers, without regard to whether access had been granted
with respect to any prior requests.
5. Consent to Disclosures to Service Providers– In some circumstances, PM may use third-party service
providers to assist with an engagement. In those circumstances, PM will require any such third-party service
provider to: (i) maintain the confidentiality of any information furnished; and (ii) not use any information for
any purpose unrelated to assisting with PM’s services for the City. In order to enable these service providers
to assist PM in this capacity, the City, by its duly authorized signature on the accompanying engagement
letter, consents to PM’s disclosure of all or any portion of the City’s information to such service providers to
the extent such information is relevant to the services the third-party service provider may provide and agrees
that PM’s disclosure of such information for such purposes shall not constitute a breach of the provisions of
this agreement. The City’s consent shall be continuing until the services provided for this engagement
agreement are completed.
6. Fee Quotes – In any circumstance where PM has provided estimated fees, fixed fees or not -to-exceed fees
(“Fee Quotes”), these Fee Quotes are based on the City personnel providing PM staff the assistance
necessary to satisfy the City responsibilities under the scope of services. This assistance includes availability
and cooperation of those the City personnel relevant to PM’s project activities and providing needed
information to PM in a timely and orderly manner. In the event that undisclosed or unforeseeable facts
regarding these matters causes the actual work required for this engagement to vary from PM’s Fee Quotes,
those Fee Quotes will be adjusted for the additional time PM incurs as a result.
In any circumstance where PM’s work is rescheduled, PM offers no guarantee, express or implied, that PM
will be able to meet any previously established deadline related to the completion of PM’s work. Because
rescheduling its work imposes additional costs on PM, in any circumstance where PM has provided Fee
Quotes, those Fee Quotes may be adjusted for additional time PM incur as a result of rescheduling its work.
PM will advise the City in the event these circumstances occur, however it is acknowledged that the exact
impact on the Fee Quote may not be determinable until the conclusion of the engagement. Such fee
adjustments will be determined in accordance with the Fee Adjustments provision of this agreement.
7. Payment Terms – PM invoices for professional services are due upon receipt unless otherwise specified in
this engagement letter. In the event any of PM’s invoices are not paid in accordance with the terms of this
agreement, PM may elect, at PM’s sole discretion, to suspend work until PM receives payment in full for all
amounts due or terminate this engagement. In the event that work is suspended, for nonpayment or other
reasons, and subsequently resumed, PM offers no guarantee, express or implied, that PM will be a ble to
meet any previously established deadlines related to the completion of PM’s consulting work or issuance of
PM’s consulting report upon resumption of PM’s work. The City agrees that in the event that work is
suspended, for non-payment or other reasons, PM shall not be liable for any damages that occur as a result
of PM ceasing to render services.
8. Fee Adjustments – Any fee adjustments for reasons described in this agreement will be determined based
on the actual time expended by PM staff at the hourly rates stated in this agreement, plus related costs PM
incurs, and included as an adjustment to PM’s invoices related to this engagement. The City acknowledges
and agrees that payment for all such fee adjustments will be made in accordance with the payment terms
provided in this agreement.
Page 77 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
43 | P a g e
9. Force Majeure – Neither party shall be deemed to be in breach of this engagement agreement as a result of
any delays or non-performance directly or indirectly resulting from circumstances or causes beyond its
reasonable control, including, without limitation, fire or other casualty, acts of God, war or other violence, or
epidemic (each individually a “Force Majeure Event”). The City acknowledges and agrees that a Force
Majeure Event shall not excuse any payment obligation relating to fees or costs incurred prior to any such
Force Majeure Event.
10. Exclusion of Certain Damages – Except to the extent finally determined to have resulted from PM’s gross
negligence or willful misconduct, the City agrees to limit the liability of PM and any of PM’s officers, directors,
partners, members, managers, employees, affiliated, parent or subsidiary entities, and approved allied third
party service providers (collectively, “PM Persons”) for any and all claims, losses, costs, and damages of any
nature whatsoever so that the total aggregate liability of the PM and the PM Persons to the City shall not
exceed the total fees paid by the City to PM for the services provided in connection with this engagement
agreement. the City and PM agree that these limitations on PM’s and the PM Persons’ maximum liability are
reasonable in view of, among other things, the scope of the services PM is to provide, the City’s responsibility
for the management functions associated with PM’s consulting services, and the fees PM is to receive under
this engagement. In no event shall the PM or the PM Persons be liable to the City, whether a claim be in tort,
contract, or otherwise, for any consequential, indirect, lost profit, punitive, exemplary, or o ther special
damages. PM and the City agree that these limitations apply to any and all liabilities or causes of action
against PM, however alleged or arising, unless to the extent otherwise prohibited by law. This provision shall
survive the termination of this engagement.
In the event this engagement agreement expressly identifies multiple phases of services, the total aggregate
liability of PM to the City shall be limited to no more than the total amount of fees paid by the City for the
particular phase of services alleged to have given rise to any such liability.
11. Defense, Indemnification, and Hold Harmless – As a condition of PM’s willingness to perform the services
provided for in the engagement letter, the City agrees to defend, indemnify and hold PM and the PM Persons
harmless against any claims by third parties for losses, claims, damages, or liabilities, to which PM or the PM
Persons may become subject in connection with or related to the services performed in the engagement,
unless a court having jurisdiction shall have determined in a final judgment that such loss, claim, damage, or
liability resulted primarily from the willful misconduct or gross negligence of PM, or one of the PM Persons.
This defense, indemnity and hold harmless obligation inclu des the obligation to reimburse PM and/or the PM
Persons for any legal or other expenses incurred by PM or the PM Persons, as incurred, in connection with
investigating or defending any such losses, claims, damages, or liabilities.
12. Receipt of Legal Process – In the event PM is required to respond to a subpoena, court order, or other legal
process (in a matter involving the City but not PM) for the production of documents and/or testimony relative
to information PM obtained and/or prepared during the course of this engagement, the City agrees to
compensate PM for the affected PM staff’s time at such staff’s current hourly rates, and to reimburse PM for
all of PM’s out-of-pocket costs incurred associated with PM’s response unless otherwise reimbursed by a
third party.
13. Termination of Engagement – This agreement may be terminated by either party upon written notice. Upon
notification of termination, PM’s services will cease and PM’s engagement will be deemed to have been
completed. The City will be obligated to compensate PM for all time expended and to reimburse PM for
related costs PM incurs through the date of termination of this engagement.
14. Time Limits – Except for actions to enforce payment of PM’s invoices and without limiting any claims for
indemnification hereunder, any claim or cause of action arising under or otherwise relating to this
engagement must be filed within two years from the completion of the engagement without regard to any
statutory provision to the contrary.
15. Entire Agreement – This engagement agreement is contractual in nature, and includes all of the relevant
terms that will govern the engagement for which it has been prepared. The terms of this letter supersede any
prior oral or written representations or commitments by or between the parties regarding the subject matter
hereof. Any material changes or additions to the terms set forth in this letter will only become effective if
evidenced by a written amendment to this agreement, signed by all of the parties.
16. Severability – If any provision of this engagement agreement (in whole or part) is held to be invalid or
otherwise unenforceable, the other provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
17. Conflicts of Interest – PM’s engagement acceptance procedures include a check as to whether any
conflicts of interest exists that would prevent acceptance of this engagement. No such conflicts have been
Page 78 of 80
ERP SOFTWARE SOLUTION SELECTION SERVICES
44 | P a g e
identified. The City understands and acknowledges that PM may be engaged to provide professional
services, now or in the future, unrelated to this engagement to parties whose interests may not be consistent
with interests of the City.
18. Agreement Not to Influence – the City and PM each agree that each respective organization and its
employees will not endeavor to influence the other’s employees to seek any employment or other contractual
arrangement with it, during this engagement or for a period of one year after termination of the engagement.
The City agrees that PM employees are not “contract for hire.” PM may release the City from these
restrictions if the City agrees to reimburse PM for its recruiting, training, and administrative investment in the
applicable employee. In such event, the reimbursement amount shall be equal to two hundred hours of
billings at the hourly rate stated in this agreement for the PM employee.
19. Third-Party Software – This engagement will involve implementation of third-party software on the City
systems. the City acknowledges that PM is not a developer, vendor, or owner of such third -party software
and that PM offers no warranty or guarantee, express or implied, against defects in such third -party software
or the City’s systems, or with regard to viability, availability, maintenance, or pricing of such third-party
software, or with regard to its fitness for the City’s particular purpose.
20. Signatures – Any electronic signature transmitted through DocuSign or manual signature on this
engagement letter transmitted by facsimile or by electronic mail in portable document format may be
considered an original signature.
21. Governing Law – This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Texas, and jurisdiction over any action to enforce this agreement, or any dispute arising from or
relating to this agreement shall reside exclusively within the State of Texas.
End of Professional Services Agreement – Consulting Services
Page 79 of 80
For more information contact:
Adam Rujan, Partner
248-223-3328
Adam.Rujan@plantemoran.com
plantemoran.com
14th
Largest CPA and consulting firm
in the United States
99%
Of clients say they would
recommend us
2,200+
Staff
Page 80 of 80