SLED Opportunity · FLORIDA · CITY OF LAKELAND
AI Summary
The City of Lakeland seeks proposals for a cloud-based budgeting software solution to integrate operating, personnel, and capital budgeting into one platform, replacing multiple systems and reducing manual processes. Budget estimate is $120,000.
The City of Lakeland (“City”) is issuing this Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit proposals from qualified vendors to provide a hosted, cloud-based budgeting software solution designed specifically for government budgeting.
The City seeks a comprehensive solution that consolidates operating, personnel, and capital budgeting into a single, integrated platform, replacing multiple disparate systems and reducing manual processes.
The budgetary estimate for this software and service is $120,000.
The City currently utilizes Oracle Hyperion along with custom worksheets, Excel, Word, and PDF documents to support its budget process. This fragmented environment has resulted in inefficiencies, data integrity issues, limited forecasting capabilities, and significant IT overhead related to on-premise infrastructure.
The City intends to transition to a modern SaaS-based budgeting solution that improves efficiency, transparency, collaboration, and long-term sustainability.
Operating, personnel, capital budgeting; multi-year forecasting; scenario planning
Union support, grades/classes/steps, wage calculations, automation
Dashboards, ad hoc reporting, ADA-compliant online/printed budget books
Modern UI, no-code configuration, ease of use
Able to integrate with Microsoft Entra (SAML)
Oracle ERP integration, SaaS architecture, upload of budget to Oracle eBS
An acceptable implementation timeframe with a goal of 6 months
Please supply references and a case study aligning to our position
Price, unlimited model, long-term value
“I attest no City of Lakeland employee, their spouse, or child has an ownership stake in this organization.”
A certificate of existing insurance coverage should be submitted with the proposal as proof of insurability. If the current coverage does not meet the RFP requirements, then the Respondent should request an affidavit of insurability from the Respondent’s insurance agent that certifies the requirements can and will be met.
THIS RFP SHALL BE VALID FOR SIXTY (60) DAYS FROM DATE OF OPENING.
The following RFP is in strict accordance with the City of Lakeland Request for Proposal No. 2026-RFP-018, dated Friday, March 6, 2026 and all attachments as referenced therein.
“I hereby certify that I understand and am aware that the City of Lakeland at its sole discretion reserves the right to waive technicalities or irregularities, to reject any or all proposals, and/or to accept that proposal which is in the best interest of the City. The award of this RFP, if made, may be based on considerations other than total cost and may be awarded based on various considerations, including without limitation; Respondent’s experience and/or qualifications, past experience, administrative cost, standardization, technical evaluation and oral and/or written presentations as required. The City reserves the right to accept all or part, or to decline the whole, and to award this RFP to one (1) or more Respondents. There is no obligation to buy. The RFP, if awarded, will be in the judgement of the City the most responsive to the City’s needs. The City of Lakeland encourages the use of minority and women owned businesses as subcontractors or in joint venture arrangements.
If claiming Local Vendor Preference, I certify that the company satisfies each of the following criteria at the time of their submission of a response to the solicitation necessary to qualify as a “Local Business”: a vendor, supplier or contractor that: (i) conducts business within the jurisdictional limits of Lakeland Electric’s service territory by providing goods, services or construction; (ii) maintains a physical business location within the jurisdictional limits of Lakeland Electric’s service territory in an area legally zoned for conducting such business; (iii) conducts business on a daily basis from the local business location; (iv) has conducted business from such location for at least twelve (12) consecutive months prior to the due date for the applicable bid or proposal; and (v) provides a copy of its local business tax receipt, if located within the City of Lakeland, or a copy of its Polk County local business tax receipt, if located outside of the City limits but within Lakeland Electric’s service territory.”
If claiming Local Vendor Preference, a valid Local Business Tax Receipt must be provided at the time the response is submitted in order to qualify for such consideration.
The liability limits shall not be less than: $ _____
Enter $ amount.
The liability limits shall not be less than: $ _____
Enter $ amount.
The liability limits shall not be less than: $ _____
Enter $ amount.
limits of not less than $_____ per occurrence.
Enter $amount
The liability limits shall not be less than: $ ____
Enter the $ amount.
The liability limits shall not be less than: $______
Enter the $ amount.
The liability limits shall not be less than: $ _____
Enter $ amount.
The liability limits shall not be less than: $_______
Enter $ amount.
The liability limits shall not be less than : $ ______
Enter $ amount.
The liability limits shall not be less than : $ ______
Enter $ amount.
The liability limits shall not be less than: $_______
Enter $ amount
The liability limits shall not be less than: $ ______
Enter $ amount.
The liability limits shall not be less than: $ _______
Enter $ amount.
The liability limits shall not be less than : $ _______
Enter $ amount.
The liability limits shall not be less than $_____ single limit each occurrence.
Enter $ amount.
The liability limits shall not be less than: $ _____
Enter $ amount.
The liability limits shall not be less than: $ ______
Enter $ amount.
The liability limits shall not be less than: $ ______
Enter $ amount.
The liability limits shall not be less than: $ _____
Enter $ amount.
Q (Budget Estimate for Software and Services): The solicitation references an estimated budget of approximately $120,000 for software and services. Could the City please clarify whether this amount is intended to represent: An estimated planning figure for budgeting purposes, or A not-to-exceed amount for the initial procurement and implementation? Additionally, if possible, it would be helpful to understand how this estimate was derived, as it may assist vendors in proposing solutions that align with the City’s expectations since there are limited solutions meeting this $120,000 limit.
A: The $120,000 is a target but not a firm "not to exceed". The proposed solution should not stray too far from that figure.
Q (Current Environment and Future Direction): To ensure proposals address the City’s intended direction, could the City confirm whether the current budgeting and planning solution is Oracle Hyperion, and whether the City’s objective is to migrate from an on-premise environment to a cloud-based budgeting and planning platform, or if the City is considering a broader evaluation of budgeting solutions as part of this replacement effort?
A: Yes, the current budgeting and planning solution is an on-premise deployment of Oracle Hyperion. This is a broader evaluation of any budgeting and planning application and we will consider a cloud deployment of Hyperion also.
Q (User Counts and User Roles): Would the City please confirm the anticipated number of users and user roles expected within the future system (for example: system adminis, read/write, read only/report users)? This information will help vendors provide more accurate solution sizing and pricing assumptions.
A: We would anticipate 5 admins and 150 users. We do not currently distinguish between a R/W and R/O user.
Q (COTS): Is the City seeking a custom solution or off the shelf solution
A: COTS
Q (Suppor): Is your organization responsible for support and maintaining the application after the 3 year support window?
A: No, we are looking for a cloud hosted solution that will not require our organization to maintain. We expect to take on support of the application configurations after the setup and deployment is complete.
Q (Hosting): Does the City intend to pay the proposal winner ongoing hosting fees after the 3-year period covered by the contract from this RFP?
A: We expect that generally an on-going service/support fee is required for a cloud hosted application.
Q (AI): Does the City have a preferred AI Vendor?
A: No
Q (OCI): Does the City currently use Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) for any applications? If so, which ones?
A: Yes, Oracle Utilities Meter Solution Cloud Service
Q (Cloud Providers): Does the City use Amazon Web Services (AWS) and/or Azure Google, or other cloud provider? If so, which ones?
A: We license AWS Direct Connect and are working through the migration of an enterprise application to that platform. We also use Azure but do not license ExpressRoute.
Q (Snowflake): Does the City use Snowflake?
A: No
Q (Current data storage): Do you maintain a Data Lake or warehouse with ERP and/or Budgeting information?
A: No
Q (Testing): Will City Staff time, be made availability for testing?
A: Yes
Q (Work Flow): Who takes the lead of the work-flow? Likely AI
A: Can you please elaborate on this question?
Q (FTE Tracking): Does the FTE Tracking requirement require Timecard Entry?
A: No. We are looking at FTE from a budgeting perspective and there is no expectation of timecard entry or integration to a timecard system or its data.
Q (Follow-up Questions): Frequently answers to questions create new questions. If the City publishes answers after the deadline to ask questions (March 30), will the City allow Follow-up questions to those answers published after the deadline to ask questions?
A: We are not going to commit to extending the deadline if a question is answered after March 30. We'll review the RFP at that time and make the appropriate considerations.
Q (No subject): Regarding the budgetary estimate of $120,000 outlined in Section 2.1 , could the City please clarify if this amount is intended to cover the Total Cost of Ownership for Year 1 (which would include all one-time implementation, data migration, and integration services, plus the annual software subscription), or is this estimate strictly for the annual recurring SaaS licensing cost?
A: Yes, the budgetary estimate of $120,000 is intended to cover implementation and annual subscription. If that is an unattainable figure, please do still submit a proposal with your best price.
Q (No subject): Can the City confirm the anticipated evaluation and award timeline (April–May 2026) following the April 7, 2026 proposal submission deadline? Inquiring since this seems to be an agressive timeline. Is the City targeting contract execution between May and June 2026, with project kickoff shortly thereafter? Again, confirming since this seems agressive. The proposed timeline suggests an implementation period of June through November 2026. Can the City confirm this aligns with expectations, particularly in relation to the City’s fiscal year (October 1 start) and preparation for the FY2027 budget cycle? Does the City intend for the solution to be live in time to support FY2027 budget development and/or monitoring, or is the expectation to support FY2028 budget development following go-live? Is the City’s desired go-live timeframe November–December 2026, or are there specific milestones tied to the budget adoption process (typically September) or fiscal year transition that should be considered? Are there any internal constraints (e.g., budget adoption timeline, audit cycles, ERP availability) that could impact implementation timing or go-live readiness?
A: The intention is to run a summertime implementation project. The FY2027 budget is currently in-progress and will be completed in the current software. The FY2028 budget will be done in the new software. A go-live by the end of 2026 or very early 2027 would likely be acceptable for the budget processes but staff availability is during the summer months.
Q (Due Date Extension): Would the City consider extending the proposal due date by three weeks to April 28th?
A: We will consider but not commit to it at this time.
Q (Current Hyperion Model Scope): Can the City provide additional information regarding the current Hyperion environment, such as the number of planning applications, cubes, or budgeting modules currently in use (operating, personnel, capital), and whether any workforce or capital planning models exist today?
A: Planning Applications: 2 (Workforce and Central Budget) Cubes: 2 Budgeting Modules: 2 (Operating and Personnel) Workforce planning exists today but not capital planning.
Q (Budget Data Structure): Could the City provide an estimate of the number of funds, departments, accounts, and capital projects currently included in the budgeting process?
A: Funds: 371 Centers: 344 (Departments) Accounts: 1939 Capital Improvement Projects: 702
Q (No subject): Could the City provide examples or a description of the current budget book format and the level of automation expected in the proposed solution (for example, narrative content, charts, departmental summaries, and public transparency portals)?
A: Here is a link to our budget book: https://www.lakelandgov.net/departments/finance/annual-budget/ We are looking for a solution which can generate the budget book (online and print form) which would include configurable areas to enter narratives, etc.
Q (Oracle ERP Integration Architecture): Could the City provide additional detail on the expected integration approach with Oracle PeopleSoft and Oracle E-Business Suite, including whether the City prefers file-based integration, API/web services, middleware, or another method currently used within the City’s integration architecture?
A: We are open to integration options and API/web based are generally preferrable. We are open to developing custom database views in the source systems to organize the data.
Q (Post-Implementation Support Expectations): After the initial implementation and training period, does the City anticipate needing periodic vendor assistance for system enhancements, configuration changes, or integration support, or does the City expect to operate the system fully independently?
A: We expect to be able to operate the system independently after implementation.
Q (Multiple Solutions): Would the City accept proposals that include multiple solution options (e.g., a budget-aligned approach and a more comprehensive implementation approach) to allow evaluation of cost, timeline, and functionality trade-offs? If so, would the City prefer these options presented within a single submission, or as separate proposal submissions?
A: Multiple submissions would be fine. However, budget alignment is important and part of the rating criteria.
Q (Personnel Budgeting ): Would the City need to reconcile the budget with payroll at the position or employee level?
A: We presently budget by position for vacancies but positions with incumbents are based off of actual pay rates.
Q (No subject): What is the total number of accounts currently being used?
A: 15,803
Q (No subject): How many Departments contribute to the budget creation?
A: 18 departments
Q (No subject): Do the Departments use a standard chart of accounts?
A: yes
Q (No subject): Do the Departments use the same budgeting process? i.e. standard input forms, standard calculations, etc.
A: No. Some of our revenue departments budget by project.
Q (No subject): Do you budget by Employee, Position, or both?
A: We presently budget by position for vacancies but positions with incumbents are based off of actual pay rates.
Q (No subject): Does the City of Lakeland budget by Unions?
A: Yes, the unions have their own assumptions.
Q (No subject): How many unions are there?
A: Approximately 10 union contracts
Q (No subject): Does each union have its own step and grade matrix?
A: Yes
Q (No subject): Are Grade/Step calculations required?
A: Yes
Q (No subject): How many different Step and Grade matrices are there?
A: 6
Q (No subject): Does the current system calculation salaries base on step and grade?
A: Our hourly employees are in a grade/step matrix and exempt are in a pay band.
Q (No subject): Do you budget at the same level that you report Actuals?
A: Yes
Q (No subject): Do you use an account code segment to define the data? i.e. account-cost center-fund-project, etc.
A: Yes, fund/center/account/project/activity/business unit/ferc
Q (No subject): Are allocation calculations required in the budget system?
A: Yes
Q (No subject): Will business rules and calculations be performed in the budget system? If they are required, how many business rules/calculations are required?
A: Yes, we presently have only a few business rules for calculating pay table adjustment scenarios and merit increases.
Q (No subject): Can the current business rule in the Hyperion system be migrated to the new system or are they being re-defined?
A: I would doubt that they could be migrated but that would depend on the target and if it can work with Hyperion business rules.
Q (No subject): The current budget system is Hyperion, can the current process, i.e. forms, data load rules, calculations, dimensions be migrated or is this a total redesign?
A: I would doubt that they could be migrated but that would depend on the target and if it can work with Hyperion objects.
Q (No subject): Are the current state/desired future state calculations and processes relatively well documented?
A: We are looking to do a like for like conversion. The current process is reasonably well defined.
Q (No subject): How many reports are required to be produced using the new system? Can the existing reports be migrated?
A: Line item, CIP, and the budget book. I would doubt that they could be migrated but that would depend on the target and if it can work with Hyperion objects.
Q (No subject): Can the current dimensions be migrated?
A: I would doubt that they could be migrated but that would depend on the target and if it can work with Hyperion objects.
Q (No subject): What are the issues with the current Hyperion budgeting process?
A: Our pain points are defined in the RFP and not necessarily related to the Hyperion software.
Q (No subject): Can the current Hyperion Budgeting process be migrated and improved?
A: I would doubt that they could be migrated but that would depend on the target and if it can work with Hyperion objects. We are open to improvements but view this as a like-for-like from a budget process perspective.
Q (No subject): Are there time periods when the City of Lakeland project team is unavailable?
A: No, though the summer is our window for engagement.
Q (No subject): Does the project team need to be on-site or is remote work acceptable?
A: Remote is acceptable.
Q (No subject): How is the budget book currently produced?
A: Using Microsoft Word and exports from Hyperion.
Q (No subject): How many Hyperion licenses does the City of Lakeland currently have?
A: 142 user licenses across Planning
Q (Financial System Modernization): Does the City have any plans to modernize the current EBS financial system in the near future that the new budgeting system would need to integrate with?
A: No, not in the near future that could impact this project.
SLED stands for State, Local, and Education. These are solicitations issued by state governments, counties, cities, school districts, utilities, and higher education institutions — as opposed to federal agencies.
SamSearch Platform
AI-powered intelligence for the right opportunities, the right leads, and the right time.