Broken Arrow City Council
Meeting of: 05-19-2020
Title:
title
Consideration, discussion and possible approval to review bids received and award the most advantageous bid to CentralSquare for purchase of Software and Implementation Services for a Public Safety Software Suite and approval of and authorization to execute the License and Services Agreement
End
Background:
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) is a business/technology term for an information system based on a common database and software tools that enable information to be easily accessed, compared and shared throughout an organization. More specifically, this system is for a Public Safety software suite with a common database, which will improve information accuracy and availability. Common functions of the Public Safety Software Suite include Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), Records Management System including offense, arrest, collision reports and field interview reports, document imaging, mobile reporting and data for Patrol Officers and Courts Management System interface.
The City currently uses an aging system installed by SunGard in 1996. Users require better access to data, information, and reporting that is currently unavailable or significantly restricted by the current system. This lack of functionality and integration is inefficient, time consuming and inhibits the City from keeping up with industry best practices. The current system is based on an IBM AS400 platform, which is very reliable, but difficult to interface with and maintain. A new Public Safety Suite system will vastly improve business processes by eliminating the manual transfer of data and increasing access to information for internal and external customers.
In December 2017, the City selected BerryDunn Consulting to assist us in the selection of an ERP vendor and software system that best fits the City's current and future needs. The following table summarizes the system selection process.
|
RFP Type |
Schedule |
|
ERP - CAD, RMS, JNS, Mobile and Courts |
|
Needs Analysis (Fact-Finding) On-Site Meetings with City Employees |
March 6 - March 8, 2018 |
|
Joint Requirement Planning (JRP) Review Sessions |
June 19 - June 21, 2018 |
|
Release RFP for Public Safety Software Suite System |
February 1, 2019 |
BerryDunn facilitated On-Site Needs Analysis and Joint Requirement Planning sessions with City employees to develop our RFP for an ERP solution. We ended up with 3,616 functional requirements that each vendor had to indicate whether the requirement was standard within their solution, would be available in a future release by February 1, 2019, would require customization to their software or that the feature/function cannot be provided.
|
ERP RFP Proposals DueApril 2, 2019 |
|
|
ERP Proposal Analysis |
March 6 - 26, 2019 |
Four vendors responded to the RFP: CentralSquare, Tyler Technology, Journal, and Pioneer. It was noted that the CentralSquare response did not include a Courts package. CentralSquare company stance is a Courts Management System is a very subject matter specific system that is better served by vendors focused on courts system. The Tyler response included a Courts package. While Tyler was not ultimately selected as the final vendor, their Tyler (InCode) Courts package was selected for the Courts system. Journal and Pioneer were Courts Management System vendors only. Pioneer was later dropped from the consideration process. An Evaluation Committee was formed which included the members of the Communication Center, Records, Operations and Headquarters Division, Fire services and the Court Clerks office. This committee was tasked to read and evaluate each proposal based upon the following scoring criteria:
|
Criteria |
Description |
Max Points |
|
Functionality |
This criterion considers but is not limited to the following: • The vendor’s written responses to the Functional and Technical Requirements for proposed functional areas. • The ability for the proposed software to integrate with the City’s systems environment. |
35 |
|
Technical |
This criterion considers but is not limited to the following: • Alignment of the proposed software to the City’s preferred technical specifications. • The vendor’s written response to each Potential Interface. • The ability of the vendor to support the Project Objectives, and City Leadership Goals and Objectives, in terms of technical criteria. • The level of integration among proposed functional areas. |
15 |
|
Approach |
This criterion considers but is not limited to the following: • The described approach to implement an enterprise system to achieve the City’s goals and objectives. • The alignment of the proposed implementation timeline to the City’s desired timeline milestones. • The distribution of implementation tasks among City and vendor teams. • The proposed resources hours among City and vendor teams. • The vendor’s approach to key implementation tasks including but not limited to data conversion, testing, and training. • The vendor’s planned ongoing support and maintenance services. |
15 |
|
Vendor Experience |
This criterion considers but is not limited to the following: • The vendor’s experience delivering the services requested in the RFP. • The vendor’s experience with similar implementations for comparable organizations. • The vendor’s experience deploying comparable interfaces to the City’s related applications. |
15 |
|
Proposed Staff Experience |
This criteria considered but is not limited to the following: • The experience of named staff delivering the services requested in the RFP. • The experience of named staff with similar implementations for comparable organizations. • The qualifications of named staff to deliver the services requested in the RFP with a focus on business process optimization. |
20 |
|
Round One Scoring (100 points possible) |
March 25, 2019 |
Round one scoring results were:
CentralSquare 71.9
Journal 29.5
Pioneer 27.1
Tyler 58.3
|
Vendor DemonstrationsWeek of April 29 - May 6, 2019 |
|
CentralSquare, Tyler, and Journal were invited to demonstrate their applications over a two-week period. BerryDunn and City employees developed demonstration scripts jointly. This was to ensure that each vendor would demonstrate the same features. City employees with subject matter expertise in a particular application were encouraged to attend the corresponding demonstration sessions. Employees were given a scoring sheet to document what they liked and disliked with each vendor. These scoring sheets were submitted to the Evaluation Committee so the employee’s input would be considered when the Evaluation Committee members filled out their round two scoring sheets.
|
Round Two Scoring (30 points possible)May 10, 2019 |
|
Round two scoring results were:
CentralSquare 27.4
Journal 19.9
Pioneer -----
Tyler 14.1
These are the results of the round two scoring. CentralSquare continues to lead Tyler.
|
Reference Checks & Follow-up Request for InformationMay 13 - 31, 2019 |
|
|
Final Round Scoring |
August 21, 2019 |
The Evaluation Committee interviewed references and submitted questions for clarification for both vendors. Final round scoring results are below.
|
Round three Scoring (40 points possible) |
March 25, 2019 |
Round Three scoring results were:
CentralSquare 40
Journal 40
Pioneer ---
Tyler 38.5
At this point of the project, costs were calculated into the vendor scores.
|
Calculation of Points for Cost Component Ten Years |
|
|
Name: |
CentralSquare |
|
|
Proposed Cost: |
$2,404,081.04 |
|
|
Points Awarded |
40.00 |
|
|
Name: |
Tyler |
|
|
Proposed Cost: |
$3,685,446.00 |
|
|
Points Awarded |
38.05 |
Final scores for all vendors.
|
City of Broken Arrow Public Safety Software Suite Total Scores |
|
|
Round 1 |
Round 2 |
Round 3 (References) |
Round 3 (Costs) |
Total |
|
|
Vendor |
100 Possible Points |
30 Possible Points |
30 Possible Points |
40 Possible Points |
200 Possible Points |
|
|
CentralSquare |
71.9 |
27.4 |
27.3 |
40 |
166.7 |
CAD-RMS Vendor |
|
Journal |
29.5 |
19.9 |
15.1 |
40 |
104.5 |
|
|
Pioneer |
27.1 |
- |
- |
- |
27.1 |
|
|
Tyler |
58.3 |
14.1 |
25.4 |
38.5 |
136.3 |
Court Vendor |
We started contract negotiations with CentralSquare.
|
Contract Negotiations |
October 22, 2019 |
The following are some of the agreed contract provisions negotiated by staff.
• Waving of year one maintenance cost.
• 20% holdback on license fees and services to provide leverage for on-time implementation. Amounts held back are included in the total cost and will be paid at the end of each phase of the implementation
• Reduction in annual maintenance fees in years 2 through 10 saving $10,000 annually.
Full implementation is estimated to take at least eighteen (18) months and will be completed in seven phases.
|
Phase |
Functional Areas |
Potential Start Date |
Target Go-Live Date |
|
1 |
Administration |
9/8/20 |
9/13/21 |
|
2 |
CAD and Mobile CAD |
9/14/20 |
9/13/21 |
|
3 |
Mapping and Mobile Mapping |
10/5/20 |
9/13/21 |
|
4 |
AVL and Mobile AVL |
10/12/20 |
9/13/21 |
|
5 |
Records and Mobile Records |
9/16/20 |
9/13/21 |
|
6 |
Jail |
9/21/20 |
9/13/21 |
|
7 |
Reporting |
12/16/20 |
9/13/21 |
Tentative schedule
Breakdown of cost for this project
|
Break-Down of Best and Final Offer for this Project* |
|
DESCRIPTION |
One Time Fees |
|
CentralSquare Public Safety Suite Pro |
|
|
Software/Servers |
$629,240.00* |
|
Subscriptions |
$33,997.00 |
|
Peripheral Hardware |
$7,081.00 |
|
Contract Total: |
$670,238.00 |
|
Optional Software & Related Services |
$294,771.00 |
|
|
|
|
CentralSquare Total Cost |
$965,099.00 |
|
|
|
|
Recurring(Subscriptions & Maintenance) |
$182.528.00** |
*This is after a software discount of $222,634.00
** Ten year lock on Subscriptions and Maintenance with no more that 5% increase annually. Cost shown will begin the second year after the go-live date.
Cost: $965,099.00
Funding Source: Fund 36 E-911 Capital Outlay Project #203002
Requested By: Brandon Berryhill, Chief of Police
Approved By: City Manager’s Office
Attachments: CentralSquare License and Services Agreement
Recommendation:
recommend
Award the most advantageous bid to CentralSquare for purchase of Software and Implementation Services for a Public Safety Software Suite and approve the License and Services Agreement and authorize its execution
end