Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) Replacement

Q (4/2/26 2:00pm deadline): For the 4/2/2026 proposal submission deadline, we respectfully request a 2-week extension due to the nature of the fixed price bid and pre-proposal meeting scheduled for 3/16/2026.

A: Any changes to the proposal submission deadline would be issued by an addendum; Offerors should monitor OpenGov for any updates to the posting.

Q (General): Is there a desired “Go-Live” date?

A: Please reference Section Transition to Full Operations.

Q (General): Is the City committed to replacing the Mainsaver system?

A: Yes

Q (Asset Portfolio): How many City facilities (pump stations, treatment plants, etc.) are expected to be managed in this system (approximate sq. ft.)?

A: The following list represents the majority of facilities but does not include all facilities/structures: Water Treatment Plant, Wastewater Treatment Plant, Reservoir, (5) Ground Storage Tanks, (4) Elevated Storage Tanks, (9) Water Pump Stations, Operation Center, (3) Combined Sewer Facilities, Floodwall, (4) Stormwater Pumping Facilities and (8) Gas Gate Stations, (5) Streetlight Substations and (3) Wastewater Pumping Stations.

Q (Asset Portfolio): What are the asset types managed in the current system(s)?

A: The following list represents the top 50 asset groups; list does not include all groups: VALVES, PUMPS, ACTUATORS, HVAC, TRANSMITTER, MOTORS, CONTROL PANELS, SWITCHES, FANS, GATES & LOCKS, CONTROL PROCESS, RECORDERS, TANKS, ELEC PANELS, VFD, INDICATORS, GEARBOXES, FLOWMETERS, FACILITY LOCATIONS, DETECTION GAS, BREAKERS, GATES, DISCONNECTS, STRUCTURES, METERS, CRANES, TRANSFORMERS, TRANSMITTERS, FACILITY, CABINETS, UPS, MIXERS, COLLECTORS, CHEM FEED, BACKFLOW PREVENTION, FILTERS, SAFETY, RECTIFIERS, BACKFLOW PREVENTION, DAMPERS, COMPUTERS, ROTAMETERS, ALARM, COMPRESSOR, ANALYZERS, LIGHTS and SWITCHGEAR.

Q (Asset Portfolio): What is the size of the total portfolio of the City owned assets to be managed (how many assets)?

A: Approximately 14,000 assets are maintained in Mainsaver

Q (Asset Portfolio): What is the form and format of existing asset data to be migrated into the new platform (Work Order information, photos, related data)?

A: Mainsaver data is maintained in sql database. Asset information includes, but is not limited to the following fields: Code, Type, Cost, Group Code, Location, Long Description, Short Description, Number, Notes, Consequence of Failure Code, Cost Center, Critical Factor, Depreciation Tem, End of Life Date, Hierarchy Level, Installation Date, Manufacturer, Manufactured Date, Model Number, Parent Asset Number, Part Number, Plant Number, Purchase Date, Frequency Unit of Measure, Reading Frequency, Replacement Cost, Safety Requirements, Serial Number, Special ID Number, Supplier, Warranty Date, Work Group, Type, Location, Notes, Short Description, Facility Code, Lease Number, Probability of Failure, Risk Score, Process, Maintenance Work Group, Labor Account, Materials Account, Contractor Account, Rehabilitation Date, and Condition Code. Assets have photos and reference documents such as O&M or specifications. Historical work order information will not require migration. Approximately 1,400 Preventative Maintenance tasks that are assigned to assets or asset groups will require migration.

Q (Asset Portfolio): Are there existing workflows that define business processes related to the maintenance of various asset types?

A: None existing, but new ones to be defined.

Q (Work Orders and Maintenance): Does the City plan to initially implement new or existing workflows?

A: None existing, but new ones to be defined.

Q (Work Orders and Maintenance): Does the City have an existing library of PM procedures to be loaded into the system? Are they available for all asset classes?

A: Yes, but not for all asset classes.

Q (Work Orders and Maintenance): What is the current volume of Work Orders managed in the City’s system?

A: Approximately 8,000 work orders a year.

Q (Documentation): If needed does the City have “As Built” drawings for all the buildings and floors to facilitate location identification and intuitive access to asset data?

A: As-built drawings exist.

Q (Documentation): Is there a library of non-CAD documents (specifications, warranties, manuals etc.) in the current system?

A: Yes

Q (Documentation): What is the scope of historical data to be migrated from the current system?

A: Intention is to migrate asset information and preventative maintenance tasks. Historical work order information will not be migrated.

Q (Inventory): How many warehouses are used to manage and store parts and supplies?

A: One

Q (Inventory): What is the approximate number of inventory parts in the current system?

A: Approximately, 6500 parts.

Q (Integrations): What are the related systems that need to be integrated with this new CMMS? Are the integrations bi-directional?

A: Integrations have not yet been identified. Vendor responses should address the Functional Requirements outlined in Section F3 Interface Functions.

Q (User Base): What is the expected number of users for the CMMS system? Can you provide the expected number of users by User Roles? • System Administrators – Users responsible for System Administration including System configuration, Audits, access control, User ID, and Authorizations etc. • Primary Named users - with Read / Write privileges to access the entire system, exercise all functional capabilities, retrieve, and update data, and generate reports and analysis. • Executive users – focused on performance information access, Key performance indicators, dashboards, reports, and analysis. • Technicians – field maintenance staff • Requestor / Limited Access Users – Users just submitting and tracking work orders.

A: Estimated number of users as described in the question System Admin - 10 Primary Named - 10 Executive Users - 20 Technicians / Requestor / Limited Access Users - 100

Q (Systems to be monitored): Are all the systems within this RFP IT related endpoints, example: workstations (used to monitor pumps/meters/etc.), laptops, desktops & accessories?

A: Reference Section 1.1.8 of the RFP.

Q (No subject): Could the City please clarify whether a prime contractor that is not certified as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) or Emerging Small Business (ESB) is eligible to submit a proposal by demonstrating good faith efforts and proposing subcontracting participation to meet the 5% MBE/ESB participation goal? Additionally, please confirm whether vendors located outside the Commonwealth of Virginia may partner with Virginia-certified MBE/ESB firms to satisfy this requirement.

A: Yes. A prime contractor that is not certified as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) or Emerging Small Business (ESB) is eligible to submit a proposal. Bidders may meet the 5% MBE/ESB participation goal by demonstrating good faith efforts, past good faith efforts and by proposing the use of registered MBE/ESB subcontractors, as outlined in the RFP requirements. Additionally, vendors located outside the Commonwealth of Virginia may partner with Virginia registered/certified MBE/ESB firms to meet the 5% participation goal. The City of Richmond will recognize registered MBE/ESB firm(s) with a valid certification accepted by the City of Richmond.

Q (MBE/ESB ): Are there any expectations regarding local partner participation or subcontracting to meet the MBE/ESB participation goal (5%)?

A: At this time, there are no additional expectations regarding the use of local partners or subcontractors beyond what is stated in the RFP. Vendors may meet the 5% MBE/ESB participation goal through using our registered MBE firms or certified ESB firms, and valid certification recognized by the City.

Q (Purchase): Will the City allow cooperative purchasing by other municipalities using this contract, and should vendors account for that in pricing?

A: Reference Section 4.2

Q (AI ): Is the City utilizing AI to evaluate the proposal? If so, what is the AI tool you plan to use?

A: No. the City will not use AI to evaluate proposals for this RFP.

Q (MBE/ESB): Based on recent Executive Orders, including Executive Order 14173 which prohibits Federal contractors from engaging in “illegal DEI policies,” will the City waive or remove the 5% “MBE/ESB Participation” requirement and the 30% “MBE/ESB Commitment” Evaluation Criteria?

A: Based on the scope of work, the City is not planning to waive or remove the 5% MBE/ESB Participation requirement or the 30% MBE/ESB Commitment evaluation criteria. The City’s MBE/ESB goals are established under local ordinance and policy, not through Federal contracting rules. At this time, no directive has been issued to modify or suspend these requirements. If circumstances change due to new legal guidance or statewide action, the City will issue updated instructions to all vendors. For now, respondents should continue to comply with the published MBE/ESB participation goals and evaluation criteria as stated in the RFP.

Q (Data Migrations): 1. Can the City provide an estimate of total historical work order records to be migrated, asset records to be converted, inspection and maintenance history volume, and attachments (photos/documents) volume? 2. Has the City assessed the quality and completeness of legacy data, and are there known data cleansing needs vendors should plan for?

A: 1.Approximately 14,000 assets are maintained in Mainsaver. Approximately 10,000 asset photos. Approximately 5,000 pdf reference documents. 2. Efforts have been made through recent condition assessments to improve asset registry. At this time there are no data cleansing needs identified

Q (Implementation Approach & Timeline): Does the City prefer a phased rollout by division or a single enterprise-wide go-live?

A: Enterprise wide preferred. Respondents are encouraged to provide detail project plan; city is open to review either proposed rollout.

Q (Financial / ERP Systems): What financial or ERP system is currently used by the City for purchasing, inventory, or financial reporting that the CMMS may need to integrate with?

A: Oracle on-premise E-Business Suite

Q (RAPIDS and KABA Integration): The RFP mentions potential integration with building access/security systems such as RAPIDS and KABA. Could the City please clarify the expected scope of this integration (e.g., asset management of access control devices, event-triggered work order creation, facility maintenance alerts, or other operational workflows)?

A: Oracle E-Business Suite (aka RAPIDS); reference question 27 response. KABA the time clock system DPU uses. Proposals should identify what potential integrations are possible.

Q (SCADA ): Does the City expect the CMMS to integrate with SCADA systems used in the water or wastewater plants to generate alerts or maintenance triggers? If yes, which system?

A: Integration with water and wastewater SCADA systems is not currently planned for the initial rollout, though we intend to maintain this as a future capability for condition-based maintenance.

Q (No subject): Does the City require integration with a GIS platform (e.g., Esri ArcGIS) to visualize asset locations or manage linear assets?

A: Integration with GIS is not required. Respondents are encouraged to submit ability to integrate with ESRI ArcGIS

Q (Offline Mobile Capabilities): Could the City clarify the offline functionality requirements for the mobile solution? For example: Should field users be able to create, update, and close work orders while offline? Should the system support offline access to asset records, inspection forms, and attachments? Are there expectations for automatic synchronization once connectivity is restored?

A: Respond to functional requirement F6.17 with all offline functionality proposed system will offer

Q (No subject): Does the City maintain a defined asset hierarchy (facility → system → equipment → component) in Mainsaver that should be replicated in the new CMMS?

A: Yes. Parent child relationships are defined for most assets.

Q (regulatory compliance): Are there regulatory reporting requirements (EPA, environmental compliance, etc.) that the CMMS must support?

A: Regarding this specific question, no other requirements other than those explicitly detailed in the RFP need to be addressed.

Q (Service request): Does the City expect citizen service request portals or requests coming only from internal departments?

A: Only internal requests are planned. Vendor responses should address the Functional Requirements outlined in Section F3 Interface Functions and provide any information on potential future integration with a customer portal.

Q (No subject): Are there requirements for condition monitoring or predictive maintenance analytics?

A: No specific requirements are identified. Offerors are encouraged to provide detailed information regarding potential integrations.

Q (Pre-Bid Meeting): Is the March 16 pre-bid meeting just by dial in? Or is there a Teams or Zoom link to join the meeting?

A: Dial in information can be located under Timeline in the RFP documents.

Q (MBE): Regarding Section 2.2.4(B) (MBE/ESB Participation - Certification), the RFP states that the Office of Minority Business Development (OMBD) reserves the right to accept the certification of other certifying agencies. Our firm currently holds an active Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) certification in the State of California. Could the City please clarify if the OMBD will accept our California-issued MBE certification to fulfill the 5% participation goal and qualify for the evaluation points? or, does the City require us to partner specifically with a Virginia- or Richmond-certified MBE to meet this requirement?

A: To meet the 5 percent MBE/ESB participation requirement and to qualify for the associated evaluation 30 points, the certification must be recognized and accepted by OMBD. Firms must be certified through a certifying authority (such as the Virginia Department of Small Business & Supplier Diversity or Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority) for their participation to count toward the requirement.

Q (No subject): Is the City planning to expand the CMMS solution beyond the water and wastewater plant treatment operations in the future to support other departments such as facilities, fleet, or public works?

A: Refer to question 4 response. At this time, future expansion is not planned.

Q (preventive maintenance strategy): Could the City clarify its preventive maintenance strategy for the water and wastewater facilities? For example: 1. Are preventive maintenance activities primarily time-based, meter-based, or condition-based? 2. Does the City currently track asset condition assessments or reliability metrics?

A: 1. Offerors should include solution functionality to cover various types of preventative maintenance activities 2. Yes

Q (No subject): As the City transitions from the current Mainsaver system to a new CMMS platform, could the City share any key operational challenges or limitations experienced with the current system that the new solution should address (e.g., asset visibility, mobile capabilities, reporting, integration, or maintenance planning)?

A: No

Q (No subject): Beyond the formal evaluation criteria listed in the RFP, could the City share any key priorities or success factors that will be most important when selecting the CMMS solution (for example: usability, implementation approach, long-term platform scalability, vendor experience with utilities, or cost of ownership)?

A: The evaluation criteria and their relative importance are outlined in the RFP. Proposals will be evaluated based solely on the criteria identified in the solicitation documents.

Q (Hosting): Is the City expecting subscription-based SaaS pricing only, or are alternative pricing models acceptable?

A: Refer to requirements 1.1.6 General Requirements B. Provide pricing in Exhibit_2_-_CMMS_Pricing_Worksheet

Q (Service order type): How many service order types does the City currently use (preventive, corrective, emergency, inspection, etc.)?

A: Currently only preventative, corrective and task.

Q (User Acceptance Testing (UAT)): For the coordination and completion of UAT, what is the City's expectation related to the contractor's role and the City's role?

A: See requirements outlined in Transitional Requirements TR2 of the Attachment Exhibit_1_-_CMMS_ Technical_ Requirements

Q (No subject): What level of work order scheduling and dispatching is expected (manual scheduling vs automated scheduling optimization)?

A: Refer to 1.1.7 Functional Requirements H. Provide modern and flexible service order scheduling and routing tools.

Q (Cloud hosting): The RFP specifies that the solution must be cloud-based SaaS. Does the City have any preferred cloud provider (AWS, Azure, etc.)?

A: Vendors must submit their cloud provider.

Q (Data residency and security compliance): Are there data residency or security compliance requirements for hosting the solution?

A: United States

Q (API based integrations): Does the City require API-based integration capabilities for future integrations?

A: Refer to F3.02 The system shall provide such external application programming interfaces (APIs) and toolkits as are necessary to enable the integration of the system with external applications without the need for extensive interface design or coding.

Q (No subject): Could the City clarify if professional services (implementation, migration, configuration) should be quoted as fixed price or time-and-materials?

A: Professional services, including implementation, data migration, configuration, and related services, should be proposed as fixed-price amounts per the pricing worksheet unless otherwise indicated. Vendors should include all costs necessary to complete the implementation.

Q (pricing): Will the City require separate pricing for implementation, subscription, support, and optional modules, or should vendors submit an all-inclusive pricing structure?

A: Reference Tab 10 - Pricing. The Offeror’s pricing as set forth must be all-inclusive for all services required under this Request for Proposals.

Q (Support): Does the City expect the contractor to provide long-term managed services beyond the initial support period?

A: Provide scope based on the RFP requirements only.

Q (modules): Does the City expect optional modules such as predictive maintenance, advanced analytics, or GIS integration to be included in the base proposal or offered separately?

A: Respondents should include all relevant information about system capabilities.

Q (Current system ): Could the City provide details on the current system architecture of Mainsaver and any integrations currently in use?

A: Mainsaver is on-prem solution with no integrations.

Q (Section 2.3.1 and 5.1): Can you confirm that where an offeror takes exception or proposes modifications, the representation in Sections 2.3.1 and 5.1 of the RFP would be to the RFP terms and conditions as qualified by those exceptions or modifications?

A: Offerors may submit exceptions or proposed modifications in accordance with Section 5.1; however, the RFP terms and conditions govern unless approved.

Q (Authentication method): What authentication method does the City prefer (SSO, Active Directory, Azure AD, etc.)?

A: Active Directory

Q (No subject): In reviewing the RFP documents for the CMMS Replacement project, we did not find information specifying the number of users who will require access to the new CMMS. To ensure accurate licensing, pricing, system configuration, and project planning, could the City please clarify the following: Expected peak or concurrent usage (if available).

A: The City’s current CMMS user base consists of approximately 170 total users, with peak concurrent usage estimated at 25–30 users during high-activity periods.

Q (No subject): Requirements F4.01 to F4.03 are blank, is this intentional? Is there any information required with regard to batch processing?

A: Provide responses to requirements that contain a description of requirements.

Q (No subject): T1.08 and T1.09 have the same requirement? Is one of them supposed to be different?

A: Provide responses to requirements that contain a description of requirements.

Q (No subject): Has the City conducted any CMMS product demonstrations or preliminary evaluations with vendors prior to issuing this RFP?

A: Yes.

Q (No subject): Is the City currently working with, or has the City previously worked with, any external consultant or advisory firm to support the development of this CMMS RFP, requirements, or evaluation process?

A: This is not applicable to this RFP.

Q (No subject): Will the City provide a recording, transcript, or slide deck from the pre‑proposal meeting?

A: Offerors should rely on the RFP and any issued addenda for official solicitation information as the City did not record or prepare a slide deck for this pre-proposal meeting.

Q (No subject): Is the City expecting subscription-based SaaS pricing only, or are alternative pricing models acceptable?

A: Reference answer to Question 42.

Q (No subject): Could the City clarify if professional services (implementation, migration, configuration) should be quoted as fixed price or time-and-materials? Will the City require separate pricing for implementation, subscription, support, and optional modules, or should vendors submit an all-inclusive pricing structure?

A: Reference responses under Questions 42, 49 and 50.

Q (MBE Qualification): If the prime contractor is a registered MBE firm with the city, can that company fulfill the MBE requirement alone?

A: For contracts with the City of Richmond, Minority or small business Prime Contractor(s) cannot count themselves towards meeting the MBE/ESB participation goal requirements. To fulfill the MBE/ESB Participation goal, they will need to utilize registered and certified MBE/ESB firms. We encourage all Minority Business owners to get registered with the City of Richmond, Office of Minority Business Development.

Q (No subject): Will the City provide data cleansing prior to migration, or should the contractor perform data cleanup activities?

A: Reference answer on Question 25.

Q (No subject): "What is the expected scope of training: Number of users Trainer-led vs online training Administrator vs technician training"

A: The City anticipates approximately 170 end users may require some level of training, consistent with the current CMMS user base. However, training will vary by role. A smaller subset of core operational and administrative users will require more in-depth, hands-on training, while limited and self-service users will require more streamlined, role-specific training. Vendors should propose a scalable, role-based training approach aligned with these user groups and typical system implementation practices.

Q (No subject): Will the City provide a test environment and sandbox environment, or should the contractor provision these as part of the SaaS solution?

A: Vendor to provide per T2.07 City will require maintaining 3 environments - development, test/train, production, with ability to refresh selective production data to the lower environments.

Q (No subject): Can the City please confirm whether the Contractor may utilize a hybrid delivery model that includes both onsite and remote/offshore resources for implementation and support activities?

A: A hybrid onsite/remote/offshore delivery model is acceptable. Resources must meet all service, accessibility, and support requirements in the RFP (see Q91).

Q (No subject): What level of post-go-live stabilization support does the City expect from the contractor?

A: Reference sections G and J of Section 1.1.9 of the solicitation.

Q (SaaS Pricing): We intend to present a SaaS (Software as a service) solution in our response. In the city’s provided work sheet for pricing: Exhibit_2_-_CMMS_Pricing_Worksheet.xlsx the file does not allow for a standard yearly SaaS pricing. Ideally, it would be valuable to have a section where vendors can input pricing for a SaaS solution and not require to additional costs such as server hardware and server software. Can we change the fields in the xls sheets to reflect pricing or would the city prefer to update the file for all vendors so there is a consistent evaluation of all solutions?

A: Reference Section 1.1.6(B) and Tab 10. The Solution must be cloud‑based SaaS, and pricing must be submitted using Exhibit 2 – CMMS Pricing Worksheet. The City requires all‑inclusive pricing per Tab 10. Vendors should not modify the City’s file; include SaaS subscription pricing using the provided fields and add explanatory notes within the proposal if needed. (See 1.1.6(B); Tab 10.)

Q (MBE - ESB Participation): If a subcontractor is certified as a Veteran‑Owned or Service‑Disabled Veteran‑Owned Small Business, can that participation be credited toward the MBE/ESB requirement, or must subcontractors hold an MBE or ESB certification recognized by the City?

A: Please reference responses to Questions 20,21, and 64.

Q (Integrations): For all integrations referenced in Exhibit 1 (including ERP/financial systems, GIS, RAPIDS/KABA, reporting tools, and any other City systems), can the City please clarify what specific data elements are expected to be exchanged between each system and the new CMMS (e.g., assets, work orders, labor, materials, costs, user accounts, status updates), and whether these exchanges are expected to be uni‑directional or bi‑directional?

A: Refer to Functional Requirements outlined in Exhibit 1.

Q (No subject): Is there a firm currently supporting your Mainsaver instance?

A: This is not applicable to this RFP.

Q (No subject): How will the scoring (30%) for the 5% MBE goal be awarded? Is there a scale based on a higher percentage or does meeting the 5% get the full 30%?

A: 6. MBE / ESB Commitment In accordance with City Code § 21-67(e), this criterion considers the offeror’s “good faith minority business enterprise and emerging small business participation efforts” as defined in City Code § 21-4. Pursuant to City Code § 21-67(e), an offeror must receive at least 15 points under this criteria in order to be selected for negotiations, unless granted a waiver by the Chief Administrative Officer. The MBE/ESB participation goal for this contract is 5%. See sections "MBE/ESB Participation" of the Instructions to Offerors and "MBE/ESB Participation" and "MBE/ESB Participation—Reporting Requirement" of the General Terms and Conditions for the MBE/ESB provisions.

Q (Due Date Extension): Given that the deadline to submit questions is end of business on 3/23, and that questions will reasonably take a day or two to answer, would the City consider extending the due date by 2 weeks to give vendors sufficient time to incorporate answers into their proposal approaches?

A: Reference answer to Question 1.

Q (Functional Requirements): Section F4. Batch Processing Functions in the Functional Requirements tab of Exhibit 1 has 3 blank rows. Please list the requirements to which we are to respond.

A: Refer to question 58.

Q (Screenshots and demonstration): In 1.3 Proposal Contents, 1.3.1, G, the RFP states “The Offeror shall include screenshots and/or images demonstrating the various modules of the proposed software system reflecting how it meets the City's General, Functional, and Technical Requirements.” Would the City allow us, in lieu of submitting a multitude of screenshots, to submit a video recording of a product demonstration?

A: The City will adhere to the RFP requirements in Section 1.3.1(G). Videos may be included during the presentation phase for Offerors that are selected to advance to that stage of the evaluation process.

Q (Vendor HQ): Do you require that the awarded vendor be headquartered in the United States?

A: There are no requirements for Offerors to be headquartered in the United States - Reference Section 3.2.5 in the RFP.

Q (Demos): Has the City seen demos from vendors in the last 12 months? If so, from which companies?

A: Reference answer to Question 59.

Q (Attachments F-J): Can the City please clarify if Attachments F-J in regards to the MBE or ESB forms are required to be submitted with the response, even if the vendor does not qualify as either?

A: Yes, All the MBE/ESB forms are required to be submitted and completed by all bidder(s). For contracts with the City of Richmond, an MBE/ESB Prime Contractor cannot count themselves towards meeting the MBE/ESB participation goal requirements. To fulfill the MBE/ESB Participation goal, you will need to utilize registered and certified MBE/ESB firms. We encourage all Minority Business owners to get registered with the City of Richmond, Office of Minority Business Development.

Q (Departments): What are the departments that will be using the solution?

A: Reference section 1.1.1, 1.1.2 and response to Question 4.

Q (No subject): Has the City of Richmond appropriated a budget for the CMMS replacement project?

A: Yes.

Q (Contractual Clarifications): Contractual Clarifications The RFP specifies a ten (10) year warranty period. Please clarify whether this applies to SaaS software, implementation services, or both.

A: SaaS software.

Q (Environment & Access): Environment & Access Please clarify the definition and expected number of “external users” requiring system access. Please confirm the expected number and types of environments (development, test, training, production, etc.).

A: Reference responses to Questions 18, and 134.

Q (Public Works initiative): The Public Works Department is overseeing Richmond AIM, which has already selected Nextgen CMMS. Will this RFP select another CMMS for the Department of Public Utilities?

A: Yes.

Q (No subject): 1.4 – Evaluation Criteria. 6. MBE / ESB Commitment. • Please explain the calculations for the MBE requirement in relation to the 0 – 100 point scale. • How will the City score the proposal for the MBE requirement out of the 30 points available?

A: Reference response to Question 76.

Q (Contract Redlines): Can we make redlines to the Contract General Terms and Conditions?

A: Reference Section 2.2.10 in the RFP.

Q (Can you provide the Business License # and the Business Licensing Jurisdiction?): if we provide a business license# for VA, will that work?”

A: Reference section 2.2.6 and 3.2.5 in the RFP.

Q (No subject): Our offices are spread across the US, Canada, Pakistan, and India; and are available during the US business hours. We propose a hybrid resourcing model ( US + other countries) for a better cost benefit to the client. Does city mandate vendor resources to be exclusively in the US or are open to hybrid model as above?

A: Reference Question 80. Resources shall meet all service, accessibility, and support requirements in the RFP.

Q (Facility Square Footage): What is the total square footage of the facilities to be managed in the new CMMS?

A: This is not applicable to this RFP.

Q (Facility Condition Data): Has the City completed facility condition assessments in the last five years for the facilities that are in scope for this project? Would the City be interested in vendors' capabilities to provide these types of services?

A: Yes.

Q (No subject): Are there any in-progress or planned upgrades to systems that will integrate with the proposed CMMS during the course of this project?

A: Yes.

Q (middleware ): Does the City have an existing middleware or integration platform (e.g., ESB, iPaaS such as MuleSoft, BizTalk, Boomi) that vendors should leverage for system integrations? If yes, please specify the platform and any integration standards or protocols that must be followed.

A: BizTalk.

Q (No subject): Does City expect vendor to handle the configurations required in Microsoft Biztalk including but not limited to integration transformation, rules, error handling as well?

A: No.

Q (No subject): Our proposed solution comes with an in-built reporting mechanism and offers more than 100 out of the box reports and dashboards. While we understand that the solution should be able to integrate with industry standard reporting tool, could you please clarify if the vendor scope includes setting up the Enterprise Data warehousing for the solution (ETL)? (Requirement F # 3.08)

A: No, the RFP request is to migrate all applicable data from the current solution to the new solution.

Q (No subject): Requirement TR1.04 states that the city expects to migrate both current and historical records. However, as per the Q&A document shared on 03/16, historical data migration is out of scope. Please clarify the requirement.

A: Refer to responses to question 14 and 25’s answer to question 1.  Additionally, there are  approximately 1,200 preventative maintenance tasks programmed that will require conversion.

Q (No subject): The system shall be capable of providing support for translation of content; either through an internal facility, or by interfacing with an open-source solution (e.g., Google Translate.) -- 1 - Could you please confirm the specific languages that need to be supported? 2 - Do you require full application localization (entire UI translated), or is on-the-fly translation of content sufficient?

A: See Addendum No. 3.

Q (No subject): Does City expect the vendor to conduct end-user training or train-the-trainer approach is acceptable ?  If end user training is expected, please share the details of number of users by role in each department.

A: Reference responses to Question 67 and 132.

Q (No subject): Can you provide details on the number of mobile product users and the number of application types required? (Ex. Field Technician requiring a Work Order Application, Inspectors requiring Inspection Application, and an Inventory Clerk requiring a Storeroom Application)

A: All users could potentially be a mobile product user and require access to all application types.

Q (No subject): In the RFP, I. TAB 9 - Technical Requirements states “The Offeror shall submit to the City their demonstrated capabilities for all Technical Requirements using the 'Exhibit 1. - CMMS Technical Requirements' worksheet' included in the Attachments.” In the actual spreadsheet, the instructions state "On each tab, complete the light blue columns (#, Description, Criticality, Source of Requirement). You will use the orange columns during the Design Phase to determine that your proposed solution is a match for the requirements.” However, the light blue columns in all of the worksheets have already been completed, and the spreadsheet instructions state that the orange columns will be completed during the Design Phase. Given this information, what exactly are we required to submit with our proposal?

A: See Addendum No. 3.

Q (No subject): We do not see details of the integration in the Exhibit - 1 except the requirement that the new CMMS system should be capable to integrate with existing city systems. We require detailed information on the scope of integration to quantify the efforts required. Please share the details of all internal and external system including purpose of the system, type of data exchange required between new CMMS solution and the existing internal/external system.

A: Reference responses to Questions 17, 27 and 28.

Q (No subject): Section 1.1.2 – Background: What are the business functions/use cases of the system for the operations administration facility?

A: The same functionality as other identified users.

Q (No subject): Section 1.1.6 – General Requirements. F states that “the Solution must meet Americans with Disabilities Act regulations.” Can you clarify what aspect of the ADA regulation this solution needs to meet?

A: The Offeror’s product, services, and deliverables must be accessible to people with disabilities across software, hardware, documentation, training, and support, consistent with ADA obligations as required.

Q (No subject): Can you provide an organizational chart for the departments/divisions that are targeted to use the CMMS?

A: Reference response to Question 18.

Q (No subject): 1.3 – Proposal Contents, Tab 7, 1. System Module Demonstrations and Screenshots. The RFP states that “the Offeror shall include screenshots and/or images demonstrating the various modules of the proposed software system reflecting how it meets the City's General, Functional, and Technical Requirements.” Can you clarify what the expectation is for screenshots here? Should there be a screenshot for every applicable line item in the Functional worksheet?

A: Yes, to the extent that a screen capture or image can reflect that it meets requirements.

Q (Current System & Business Drivers): Current System & Business Drivers Please describe the primary challenges or limitations with the current Mainsaver system that are driving this replacement.

A: N/A - Offerors should base their proposals solely on the requirements and information provided within the RFP.

Q ( Asset & Work Management Scope): Asset & Work Management Scope Can you please provide a breakdown of total assets by facility and asset class (e.g., Water Treatment, Wastewater, Administration, Mechanical, Electrical). This will help to assess the scoping. Can you please indicate any anticipated growth in assets, users, or work order volumes over the next five (5) to ten (10) years. Do you have the data to provide a breakdown of annual work orders by type, including Preventive, Corrective, Emergency, and Inspection work.

A: Approximately 14,000 assets are maintained in Mainsaver (see Q6). The City manages roughly 8,000 work orders per year (see Q11). Current service order types are preventive, corrective, and task (see Q43). Growth and detailed WO breakdowns beyond this data are not available at this time.

Q (Financial & Asset Accounting Integration): Financial & Asset Accounting Integration Please confirm whether asset-related financial data (e.g., cost tracking, capitalization, depreciation, useful life) must integrate with an existing ERP or financial system and identify the system. How is fixed asset information currently managed, including attributes such as remaining useful life, depreciation, and end-of-life dates? Does the City manage leased or jointly owned assets, and how is asset ownership tracked? Are there any asset-related services that require billing or chargeback to customers?

A: Yes, see Functional Requirement F3.06. CORERP is the system's name. Asset information that is managed, is managed in the CMMS. The City owns all assets that are to be tracked in the CMMS software through this RFP. The last question is not relevant to this RFP.

Q (Mobile & Field Operations): Mobile & Field Operations Please confirm if City is already using a mobile application for managing the field services. Ask in the proposal is for new CMMS application to integrate with the existing mobile application.

A: Reference Question 101 response, the RFP outlines the functional and technical requirements the City seeks to meet with a new solution. Vendors should respond based on the RFP specifications.

Q (Field Operations & Advanced Use Cases): Field Operations & Advanced Use Cases Please describe current usage of inspection forms or checklists, including the number of forms expected and whether they include calculated fields. Does the City require support for mobile or truck-based inventory, including treating vehicles as mobile warehouses? Does the City require management of work permits within the CMMS solution? Does the City perform testing or sampling activities (e.g., water quality testing), and are there requirements to capture/store results or integrate with external systems (e.g., LIMS)? Does the City currently perform asset condition assessments or condition-based maintenance?

A: The City uses both electronic and paper checklists to track results of work; approximately 180 are electronic and approximately 700+ are paper checklists. There is no requirement for mobile or truck-based inventory but offerors should provide information on their solution's capability. No work permits are required. Water quality information is not managed in the CMMS. Yes the City performs both.

Q (Reporting & Analytics): Reporting & Analytics Please describe the City’s expectations for reporting, including operational dashboards, KPI tracking, and regulatory reporting requirements. Please provide an estimate of the number and types of reports required (operational, management, regulatory).

A: See section F2 of Exhibit 1.

Q (Integrations): Integrations Please provide a list of systems that must integrate with the CMMS, including vendor/platform details (e.g., GIS, ERP, SCADA, LIMS). Please confirm whether APIs are available for the systems identified above. Please indicate if City already has a middleware application. Is city open to using another middleware to meet the integration requirements.

A: Reference responses to previous questions regarding Integrations 17, 28, 48, etc.

Q (Parallel Operations): Parallel Operations Please confirm the expected duration for parallel operation of Mainsaver and the new CMMS. Please clarify whether data synchronization between Mainsaver and the new CMMS is required during the parallel run period.

A: The City prefers clean transition with no parallel operation.

Q (Support & SLA Expectations): Support & SLA Expectations Please provide detailed SLA expectations, including response and resolution times by severity level. Please confirm the expected support model (contractor-led, vendor-led, or hybrid).

A: Offerors should provide their ability to support and details on their solution's SLA.

Q (MBE/ESB): Please provide clarification regarding the evaluation methodology for the MBE/ESB Participation criterion. Specifically, in instances where an offeror is granted a waiver of the MBE/ESB participation requirement by the Chief Administrative Officer, please confirm that the Government will conduct a fair and reasonable competition and the offeror will receive the full points for this section.

A: In accordance with City Code § 21-67(e), the MBE/ESB Participation criterion comprises 30 percent of the evaluation. Offerors must receive at least 15 points under this criterion to be eligible for selection, unless a waiver is granted by the Chief Administrative Officer. Also in accordance with City Code § 21-67(e), the CAO may only allow a waiver when: (1) no other qualified, willing, and able offerors have submitted proposals, and (2) either the Office of Minority Business Development certifies that the offeror is unable, due to circumstances beyond its control, to achieve a higher score, or the Chief Administrative Officer determines the City would suffer substantial cost or other harm if a waiver is not granted. Offerors are required to submit an MBE/ESB Utilization Plan demonstrating good faith efforts to meet the 5% participation goal to the best of their ability. Any waiver determination occurs after evaluation; Offerors should not assume a waiver will be granted.

Q (MBE/ESB): Please confirm the process to be granted a waiver of the MBE/ESB participation requirement by the Chief Administrative Officer.

A: Should a waiver be determined and/or granted pursuant to the limited circumstances outlined in the response to Question 118 and City Code, Offerors would coordinate with the Office of Minority Business Development.

Q (MBE/ESB): In the case that the Proposer is the owner, developer, licensor, and sole provider of a proprietary Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) solution in response to this solicitation, will the Proposer be granted a waiver and please confirm that the Government will conduct a fair and reasonable competition and the offeror will receive the full points for this section.

A: The City conducts a fair and impartial evaluation of all proposals based on the criteria outlined in the solicitation. The City cannot guarantee the approval of any waiver requests, as such approvals are limited to the specific circumstances described in the response to Question 118 and City Code.

Q (User logins): How many user logins will require access to the system?

A: Please see response to question # 134.

Q (Facility Assets): Please define what Operations Administration facility assets are to be included in our proposed solution (HVAC, electrical, CCTV, etc.)

A: Please see answer to question #5.

Q (Integrations): Please confirm that no integrations between the proposed system and any legacy City systems are required. If any are, what are they (software name & function), what version of software, and what are the functional requirements of the integration?

A: See response to question 17.

Q (CityWorks): Will any department will continue using CityWorks for asset management? If so, which department? If so, what is the goal of the integration of the new EAM system with CityWorks          What data would be shared between the two systems?          Would data be transferred one way or two way?

A: Not applicable to this RFP

Q (MBE Participation): We are MBE certified company in Tennessee. Can we register business and get MBE certification from City of Richmond and Virgina once we get awarded?

A: Firms may register at any time to get MBE certification. Offerors are the prime and may meet the 5% MBE/ESB participation goal through using our registered MBE firms or certified ESB firms, and valid certification recognized by the City.

Q (Integration Scope with ERP): Can the City provide further detail on the expected integration scope with the existing Oracle E-Business Suite, including specific business processes (e.g., procurement, inventory, financial transactions), direction of data flow, and preferred integration methods (real-time vs. batch)?

A: See response to question 17.

Q (Process Transformation vs Replication): Does the City expect the implementation to primarily replicate existing maintenance processes, or is there an expectation for the vendor to recommend and implement optimized or re-engineered processes aligned with industry best practices?

A: The City does not expect a direct replication of existing maintenance processes. The intent is to leverage industry best practices to optimize and improve current workflows as part of the implementation. Vendors are expected to recommend and implement re-engineered processes, in collaboration with City staff, to enhance efficiency, standardization, and overall system effectiveness while aligning with operational needs.

Q (Integrations): For each integration: What is the System name and version? Is this One way or two way data exchange? What is the Sync frequency? What Data points are exchanged? What is the goal of the integration? Does the integration require real-time data transfer or batch imports? Is there a Rest API available for the integration?

A: See response to question 17.

Q (Workflow Definition & Complexity): Can the City clarify the expected approach for defining business workflows within the CMMS? Specifically, should the vendor propose and design workflows based on industry best practices, or will the City provide defined processes? Additionally, what level of approval hierarchy and workflow complexity is anticipated?

A: The City expects the vendor to propose and design workflows based on industry best practices, with collaboration and input from City staff to align with operational needs. While the City has existing processes, they are not fully standardized and will be refined and optimized as part of the implementation. In terms of approval hierarchy and workflow complexity, the City anticipates moderate complexity, including: Role-based approvals (e.g., supervisor, manager) Configurable approval thresholds (e.g., cost, priority, or work type) Standard maintenance workflows (e.g., request → review → plan → execute → close) Vendors should propose flexible, configurable workflows that can support both current operations and future process improvements.

Q (Implementation Timeline Expectation): While the RFP indicates an implementation period not to exceed eighteen (18) months, can the City clarify its preferred or target timeline for deployment? Are accelerated implementation approaches (e.g., 9–12 months) acceptable?

A: The City’s maximum implementation period is eighteen (18) months; however, this is intended as an upper limit, not a target. The City is open to accelerated implementation approaches (e.g., 9–12 months), provided they are realistic, well-structured, and do not compromise system quality, data integrity, or user adoption. Vendors are encouraged to propose an implementation timeline based on their recommended approach and experience with similar deployments.

Q (Data Migration Scope & Responsibility): Please confirm the final scope of data migration from Mainsaver, including whether any historical or open work orders are to be included. Additionally, can the City clarify responsibilities related to data extraction, cleansing, and validation?

A: The City may carry over up to 1000 open work orders.

Q (End User Training Scope): Section "1.1.9. H. - City Staff Training. - 2." states, "The Contractor shall perform all training for City end users and acceptance of the new Solution." How many end users are anticipated to be involved in these trainings?

A: The City anticipates approximately 170 end users may require some level of training, consistent with the current CMMS user base. However, training will vary by role. A smaller subset of core operational and administrative users will require more in-depth, hands-on training, while limited and self-service users will require more streamlined, role-specific training. Vendors should propose a scalable, role-based training approach aligned with these user groups and typical system implementation practices.

Q (User Base ): I noticed that you have not answered the user base question on Mach 9th. Can you please give us an answer to the following: • System Administrators – Users responsible for System Administration including System configuration, Audits, access control, User ID, and Authorizations etc. • Primary Named users - with Read / Write privileges to access the entire system, exercise all functional capabilities, retrieve, and update data, and generate reports and analysis. • Executive users – focused on performance information access, Key performance indicators, dashboards, reports, and analysis. • Technicians – field maintenance staff • Requestor / Limited Access Users – Users just submitting and tracking work orders.

A: See response to Question 18.

Q (No subject): Please provide a detailed breakdown of the expected user base, including total number of users and anticipated concurrent users. Additionally, kindly define the different user categories (e.g., Premium Users – full access to all modules and functionalities; Limited Users – restricted access based on role or module; Self-Service Users - typically requestors with minimal access such as submitting and tracking requests). Please also specify the expected distribution (percentage or count) across these user types and any peak concurrency assumptions to support accurate licensing and system sizing.

A: The City’s current CMMS includes approximately 170 total users, with peak concurrent usage estimated at 25–30 users. We anticipate a similar user base for the proposed system, with potential for moderate growth over time. Users will consist of both internal and external stakeholders as outlined in Section F5 of Exhibit 1, with role-based access controls aligned to functional responsibilities rather than fixed licensing tiers. At a high level, this includes: A small group of administrative users with full system access Operational users who create and manage work and asset data Limited/read-only users for visibility and oversight Self-service/requestor users with minimal access Given the variability in user activity, vendors are expected to propose flexible licensing and system sizing based on this information and typical industry practices.

Q (4. Americans with Disabilities Act regulations): If the program does not have ADA capabilities, does that automatically disqualify the software application? i. While apart of scoring, it does have this listed as General Requirements

A: ADA compliance is a General Requirement of this solicitation. Offerors should reference the key ADA and digital accessibility requirements applicable to CMMS solutions and must show current compliance or provide a credible plan to achieve it by go‑live.

Q (Data Migration): a. Does the City want the vendor to migrate the data as a service, or is the City willing to copy and paste the data into a Import Sheet via Excel? b. If done as a service, is the City willing to submit a copy of their backup database file for review? i. This will help generate a price for consideration.

A: Please see responses to Questions 7, 14, 25, and 66.

Q (Integrations): Does the City want a cost submitted for these applications shared, or just reference if they can be integrated? i. Oracle on-premise E-Business Suite – RAPIDS ii. KABA iii. ESRI – Arc GIS

A: See answer to question #17.

Q (Integrations): If the integration cost needs to be shared, can the city provide more context to how these integrations will flow in a diagram?

A: See answer to question #17.