Grants & Loan Management Software

Q (Cloud Infrastructure Requirements): Does the City require the solution to be hosted on government-approved cloud infrastructure, or are commercial SaaS platforms with SOC 2 compliance acceptable?

A: Yes, the solution must reside on a government-approved cloud infrastructure to ensure security and compliance. Also, all City data must reside on systems located within the United States.

Q (Data Migration from Current Provider): Will the selected vendor be required to migrate historical data from the current provider, and if so, in what format is that data currently stored?

A: See Vendor Questionnaire, Item 12. The cost for migrating data is being requested as an optional cost. The city is currently able to download pdfs of the data.

Q (Future Expansion to Additional Funding Sources): Does the City anticipate expanding the platform to manage additional HUD programs or non-CDBG funding sources within the initial contract term?

A: See Sections 1 and 11 of the Scope of Services. The City reserves the right to expand use of the software at a later date, including potentially for other types of grants and funding sources. Pricing for such expansion is requested in Item 12 of the Vendor Questionnaire.

Q (IDIS Integration Scope): What level of IDIS integration is required — read-only reporting exports, or bidirectional real-time data sync?

A: Real-time data sync.

Q (Pricing Structure Preference): Is there a preference for fixed-fee project pricing versus annual subscription licensing?

A: There is not a strong preference either way, but any fixed fee pricing must include ongoing maintenance and support services to ensure the software is fully supported and updated after implementation. Additionally, the provided software must be fully vendor-hosted.

Q (Budget/Allocation): In section II.B, you list that the city administers a total of $555,000 in GDBG funding from HUD; would part of this allocation go towards the purchasing of this software? If not, can the agency elaborate on speculative budget this solicitation?

A: The City is not providing a budget for this purchase at this time to obtain a fair assessment of the market but part of the grant allocation would go toward purchasing/maintaining this software.

Q (No subject): Does the City prefer a Commercial-of-the-Shelf software solution of a custom software solution?

A: The City prefers a commercial-off-the-shelf solution with an established customer base.

Q (No subject): Are there any restrictions to the software development and support teams? Can US and/or non-US workers be used for to develop and support the solution?

A: All City data must be maintained on systems located in the U.S. There are no stipulations around U.S. versus non-U.S. workers if the first requirement is met.

Q (No subject): What actions does the City expect the 15 external users to be able to complete on a daily basis?

A: External users submit their request for reimbursement forms, progress reports, and supporting documentation for services rendered (documents uploaded) on a quarterly basis.

Q (No subject): What is the total number of grant programs that will be administered by each department? Is it only Public Services, Capital Projects, Economic Development Activities and Program Administration?

A: While the City may elect to utilize this software for other grant and loan programs in the future, this RFP will first only be used for administering the CDBG grant funds. The CDBG categories are public services, capital projects, economic development activities, and program administration. Subrecipients will fall under one of these categories.

Q (No subject): How many of these programs require a different front-facing application with separate workflows?

A: CDBG is the only program anticipated at this time.

Q (No subject): Could the City provide some examples of “backup responsibilities” that they would expect of individuals involved in this project?

A: This is up to the proposer to determine which, if any, of their expected project team members would require backup.

Q (No subject): Going live by July 1 is an aggressive timeline and will likely require a rush approach instead of a standard one. What is the expected timeline between RFP submission and contract award/negotiations?

A: City staff is somewhat flexible but would prefer a July 1 go live. Proposers should note what they believe is a realistic timeline for implementation in their responses to Question 11 of the Vendor Questionnaire. If the City is unable to go live by July 1, staff will manage programming manually and request the awarded vendor to include staff entry or upload of the information during implementation and set up.

Q (No subject): Can more information be provided about the other grant and loan management areas the City wishes to administer at a future date?

A: The City has no additional information on these at this time and is not sure if there will be any additional grants/loans.

Q (No subject): Does the City have an anticipated volume of data that you expect to migrate?

A: This is only an option that the City may request at its sole discretion. Proposers should provide their rates for data migration and indicate their unit of measure.

Q (Exemplar -Software License and Professional Services - Contractual Terms): Can you confirm whether the city is open to negotiating contractual terms to align with a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) delivery model? Our standard terms are designed to ensure compliance, security, and operational feasibility for cloud-based solutions?

A: The City is not negotiating terms and conditions through the Q&A portal. See Attachment A for the RFP AND/OR AGREEMENT EXCEPTIONS Form if you wish to submit exceptions; however, please be aware that requested exceptions to the City's standard terms and conditions may impact your proposal scores.

Q (Flexibility on Standard Contract Language): If your current contract terms are based on local Government standards, would you be willing to review and consider modifications that reflect SaaS industry norms, particularly around data security, service levels, and liability etc. ?

A: The City is not negotiating terms and conditions through the Q&A portal. See Attachment A for the RFP AND/OR AGREEMENT EXCEPTIONS Form if you wish to submit exceptions; however, please be aware that requested exceptions to the City's standard terms and conditions may impact your proposal scores.

Q (Other SaaS-Specific Contract Provisions): Is the City open to including vendor-proposed Service Level Agreements (SLAs) in the contract, such as defined uptime commitments (e.g., 99.9% availability) and support response time guarantees, incorporating standard remedies (e.g., service credits) for SLA breaches?

A: The City is not negotiating terms and conditions through the Q&A portal. See Attachment A for the RFP AND/OR AGREEMENT EXCEPTIONS Form if you wish to submit exceptions; however, please be aware that requested exceptions to the City's standard terms and conditions may impact your proposal scores.

Q (Other SaaS-Specific Contract Provisions): Would the City consider negotiating the contract’s liability and indemnification clauses to align with SaaS industry norms, For Example: By introducing a reasonable limitation of liability (with appropriate exceptions) and clarifying mutual indemnification responsibilities?

A: The City is not negotiating terms and conditions through the Q&A portal. See Attachment A for the RFP AND/OR AGREEMENT EXCEPTIONS Form if you wish to submit exceptions; however, please be aware that requested exceptions to the City's standard terms and conditions may impact your proposal scores.

Q (Other SaaS-Specific Contract Provisions): What are the City’s expectations regarding the exit process at contract termination? Specifically, will the vendor be required to return all City data in a specified format and certify the deletion of City data from its systems? Are these data return/deletion obligations open to negotiation?

A: The City is not negotiating terms and conditions through the Q&A portal. See Attachment A for the RFP AND/OR AGREEMENT EXCEPTIONS Form if you wish to submit exceptions; however, please be aware that requested exceptions to the City's standard terms and conditions may impact your proposal scores.

Q (Functional Requirements): Approximately how many individuals would be potentially reviewing and providing feedback on applications?

A: Currently, there is only one City user and application reviewer.

Q (Functional Requirements): To what extent are program funding budgets set/established at the beginning of a fiscal year vs. evolve dynamically throughout a year based on income?

A: The CDBG grant is a federally-funded program and has a specified amount awarded for the grant year. This can change year over year depending on Congress but does not change once established at the beginning of a program year.

Q (Functional Requirements): Is there a need to tie grants given (outbound grants) to funding sources (e.g., inbound grants) within the system? Relatedly, are funding pools managed within the core ERP currently in place, or does accounting for funding sources need to be considered/included as part of this proposal.

A: At the moment, there is only once source of funding that needs to be managed. At this time, funding is expected to be managed within the awarded vendor's system, and City staff will manage accounting outside of the awarded vendor's system. However, proposers offer an integration with Tyler ERP to transfer data for the accounting, they may include this information in their proposal responses.

Q (System Integrations and Data Exchange): Attachment C and Section II.A reference ‘seamless integration’ with HUD’s Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS). To ensure an accurate and appropriately scoped response, please confirm the City’s expectations regarding the integration method. Specifically, does the city consider scheduled file-based import/export processes (e.g. HUDcompliant files generated by the Solution and uploaded to IDIS, and/or files exported from IDIS for import into the Solution) to meet this requirement, or is realtime, APIbased integration required? In addition, please clarify which data elements are expected to flow to and from IDIS, the direction of each data flow, and whether the City has access to, and approval for use of, any IDIS APIs or endpoints relevant to this integration.

A: See response to Question 4. It is the vendor's responsibility to ensure integration and data flow with IDIS.

Q (System Integrations and Data Exchange): If the solution integrates with any third-party systems will the city consider limiting or removing liability obligations related to third-party integrations, as these are outside of our operational control and standard practice for SaaS providers?”

A: The City is not negotiating terms and conditions through the Q&A portal. See Attachment A for the RFP AND/OR AGREEMENT EXCEPTIONS Form if you wish to submit exceptions; however, please be aware that requested exceptions to the City's standard terms and conditions may impact your proposal scores.

Q (Experience & Qualifications): Do the client References need to be from comparable projects (e.g., other municipalities or agencies managing CDBG or grant/loan programs of similar size) i.e. should they focus on projects closely related to CDBG/HUD grant management, or can they showcase our broader public sector experience?

A: As noted in the RFP and on the form, it is recommended that the references be for services the same or similar to those specified in this RFP.

Q (Experience & Qualifications ): RFP Section IV.H.A.2 asks for a list of up to 10 active clients using our Solution, including implementation dates and program types. Could the City clarify how “similar products and services” is defined for this client list? Specifically, are the City’s evaluators looking only for directly comparable CDBG or HUD-funded program implementations, or will other public-sector grant/loan management projects of a comparable scale also be considered acceptable examples of relevant experience? We want to provide the most pertinent client examples – for instance, would a non-CDBG grant management system for a state agency or a county be viewed as satisfying this requirement? If we have fewer than 10 highly relevant clients, is it preferable to list only those rather than including less similar projects to reach the maximum of 10?

A: The reference appears to be to VI.8.A.2, not IV.H.A.2. Section VI.8.A.2 does not indicate "similar products or services." It states to provide up to 10 active clients who are currently using your software. It does not have to be for CDBG grants, but being as similar to the type of grant and a similar size city of Milpitas would be considered a positive.

Q (Experience & Qualifications): Section IV.H.A.2 (client list) and Section IV.I (References) both address past projects. Could the City clarify the relationship between the active client list in IV.H.A.2 and the formal References form in IV.I? For example, should the clients listed in IV.H.A.2 correspond to the references we provide on Attachment A, or can the active client list include additional projects beyond those for which we provide reference contacts? We want to avoid redundancy while ensuring we highlight all relevant experience. Also, please confirm that contact information for client references should be provided only on the Attachment A form (per IV.I), and not necessarily in the IV.H.A.2 client list (which seems focused on program types and dates).

A: They do not have to be the same, but they can be. Client list asks for less information. References are typically the first customers contacted by the City prior to an award of contract, although the City reserves the right to contact additional references as well.

Q (Experience & Qualifications): Section IV.H.B.4 prohibits changes in “key personnel” without written City consent. Could the City define which team members it considers “key personnel” under this requirement? For instance, is this designation limited to certain roles (such as the Project Manager and lead technical/configuration staff), or does it apply to every individual named in the proposal? Understanding which positions are deemed key will help us identify them properly and comply with the approval requirement. Additionally, if a change in a key person becomes unavoidable, what is the process and criteria for obtaining City approval of the replacement? (e.g., notification and justification in writing, City review of the new individual’s qualifications, a certain advance notice period, etc.) Clarification here will allow us to create a proactive personnel continuity plan that aligns with the City’s expectations.

A: Key personnel are anyone assigned to the project team who will participate in the implementation/setup of the software and the ongoing maintenance and support. The City reserves the right to reject a new assignment if they do not have sufficient qualifications. The project team's experience and qualification are scored as part of the RFP evaluation process.

Q (Experience & Qualifications): Section IV.H (Experience & Qualifications – Personnel Assigned) requests that Proposers contractually commit that the team defined in the proposal will perform the Services, and further notes that no changes in key personnel are to be made without written consent of the City. To ensure alignment with the City’s intent, please clarify whether this requirement is intended to mandate the contractual assignment of specific named individuals for the full duration of the project and contract term, or whether the City’s primary objective is continuity of expertise, role consistency, and accountability across the engagement. In practice, Proposers typically commit to defined roles, experience levels, governance structures, and named key roles (e.g. Project Manager), while reserving the ability to manage unavoidable changes such as illness, promotion, or staff transitions, subject to City approval and continuity safeguards. Please confirm whether this approach is acceptable.

A: See response to Question 29.

Q (Terms & Conditions): Clause VIII.A sets a 3-year initial term with one 3-year extension option, and notes the City can cancel “with or without cause” at its discretion. Is the City’s broad termination-for-convenience right fixed as written, or could a vendor propose minor adjustments?

A: The City is not negotiating terms and conditions through the Q&A portal. See Attachment A for the RFP AND/OR AGREEMENT EXCEPTIONS Form if you wish to submit exceptions; however, please be aware that requested exceptions to the City's standard terms and conditions may impact your proposal scores.

Q (Terms & Conditions): Clause VIII.C indicates that all employees performing services may be required to undergo a background security check (such as Live Scan) and be at least 21 years of age. Could the City clarify which personnel must undergo these background checks and the process/timing involved?

A: This reflects the City's standard contract language. It is not expected to be required for the CDBG grant software implementation.

Q (Terms & Conditions): Clause VIII.Z references California Prevailing Wage Laws for “public work” or “maintenance” projects and requires contractors (and subs) to be DIR-registered if applicable. Could the City confirm whether it considers this specific scope of work (cloud software implementation and support) a “public work” subject to prevailing wage?

A: The CDBG grant implementation is not a public works project.

Q (Terms & Conditions): Clauses VIII.E and VIII.F require the awarded vendor to have an active CA Secretary of State registration and a Milpitas business license. We understand these are post-award requirements. To confirm, there is no need to hold a Milpitas business license at proposal time (only prior to contract execution), correct?

A: Correct. As stated in the RFP, Milpitas business license registration is required of the awarded vendor, not proposing vendors.

Q (Terms & Conditions): Clause VIII.U and Attachment B’s insurance exhibit detail coverage types and limits required. Are the specified insurance requirements open to any negotiation or interpretation? We seek clarity in case our insurance carrier’s standard endorsements differ slightly in format.

A: The City is not negotiating terms and conditions through the Q&A portal. See Attachment A for the RFP AND/OR AGREEMENT EXCEPTIONS Form if you wish to submit exceptions; however, please be aware that requested exceptions to the City's standard terms and conditions may impact your proposal scores.

Q (Terms & Conditions): We did not see a liability cap in either Section VIII or Attachment B, implying full liability for direct damages. Is the City willing to discuss a reasonable limitation of liability for the contractor?

A: The City is not negotiating terms and conditions through the Q&A portal. See Attachment A for the RFP AND/OR AGREEMENT EXCEPTIONS Form if you wish to submit exceptions; however, please be aware that requested exceptions to the City's standard terms and conditions may impact your proposal scores.

Q (Terms & Conditions): Are the RFP’s indemnification requirements entirely one-sided, or would the City consider a mutual indemnity clause for certain conditions?

A: The City is not negotiating terms and conditions through the Q&A portal. See Attachment A for the RFP AND/OR AGREEMENT EXCEPTIONS Form if you wish to submit exceptions; however, please be aware that requested exceptions to the City's standard terms and conditions may impact your proposal scores.

Q (Terms & Conditions): Clause VIII.GG also requires proposal prices to include all applicable taxes. For a cloud-based software service, does the city anticipate any sales or use tax? Our understanding is that SaaS subscriptions and related implementation services are generally not subject to California sales tax. Please advise

A: Typically, software in California is not subject to sales tax unless it is purchased/shipped with tangible property.

Q (Terms & Conditions): Clause VIII.R specifies that if the contractor is delayed by causes beyond its control (e.g., natural disasters, acts of government, strikes), it must notify the city in writing within 24 hours of the event. Could the City clarify the Force Majeure notification and remedy process? For instance, is email considered sufficient written notice within 24 hours, and what information should that notice contain?

A: The City is not negotiating terms and conditions through the Q&A portal. See Attachment A for the RFP AND/OR AGREEMENT EXCEPTIONS Form if you wish to submit exceptions; however, please be aware that requested exceptions to the City's standard terms and conditions may impact your proposal scores.

Q (Terms & Conditions): Clause VIII.CC outlines that proposals are not public records until after award, and even then, any information marked as confidential or trade secret will be handled per the Public Records Act, with the proposer having the opportunity to seek court protection if needed. To ensure we handle our submission correctly, can the city confirm the procedure for marking and treating proprietary information?

A: As it noted, mark the specific information that qualifies for an exemption to disclosure under the Public Records Act and specify the qualifying exemption provision.

Q (Terms & Conditions): he RFP provides an Exceptions form (Attachment A) for any deviations to RFP or contract terms, and Section VIII.HH states the City reserves the right to negotiate final terms with the selected proposer. To validate our understanding: Should we list all proposed exceptions or alternate language to Section VIII or Attachment B on the provided Exceptions form, and only there? In other words, if we have a concern or alternative wording for a clause (say, the indemnification or liability clause), the City expects it to be clearly identified in that form with our proposal, correct? And if an exception is not listed, the City will assume we fully accept the term as is. Just want to clarify this one as we want to follow the City’s process exactly to maintain our proposal’s responsiveness.

A: Yes, any exceptions to the City's standard terms and conditions must be specifically noted in your response for this form. If an exception is not listed, it will not be considered after the fact.

Q (Terms & Conditions): Related to VIII.HH, which allows negotiations. Could the City identify if any of its standard Terms & Conditions (Section VIII clauses or corresponding Attachment B terms) are absolutely non-negotiable? If Milpitas has a firm policy that certain provisions must remain as published, it would help for us to know that now. We will tailor our proposal accordingly and focus any exception requests only on areas the city might consider.

A: The City is not negotiating terms and conditions through the Q&A portal. See Attachment A for the RFP AND/OR AGREEMENT EXCEPTIONS Form if you wish to submit exceptions; however, please be aware that requested exceptions to the City's standard terms and conditions may impact your proposal scores.

Q (Terms & Conditions): Section VIII.P and VIII.HH together imply that after Notice of Intent to Award, the city will negotiate the final agreement with the chosen vendor. Can the City share anything about the anticipated negotiation process and how unresolved exceptions are handled? We aim to facilitate a smooth and prompt negotiation by understanding the City’s approach – our goal is to reach final agreement quickly within the City’s “reasonable timeframe” so as not to jeopardize our selection.

A: The negotiation process is the same at Milpitas as with almost all other governmental entities. The Agreement will be drafted by the City's procurement staff who will address any requested exceptions and identify those that can most likely be accepted and those than cannot. The procurement staff will work with our City attorney as required to facilitate agreement. Providing the reasons for your requested exceptions typically helps reach a compromise quicker.

Q (Terms & Conditions): Clause VIII.JJ states that other public agencies may purchase under the resulting contract terms, and if they do, the City of Milpitas assumes no liability for those transactions. Question: Could the City clarify how this piggyback clause would be operationalized?

A: Other public entities may reach out to you to piggyback on our competitive process. They will typically request pricing the same as or less than ours based on the same or similar scope. That negotiation process is between the vendor and the requesting public entity.