Active SLED Opportunity · COLORADO · CITY OF LONGMONT
AI Summary
The City of Longmont NextLight division requests proposals for an operations and business support software system with a customer portal and eCommerce site, including ongoing support and implementation services.
The City of Longmont NextLight (“NextLight”) division is requesting qualified proposals for the purpose of providing an operations support and business support software system with a customer portal as well as eCommerce site. In addition to the software, ongoing support and implementation services will be included in the proposal. **Solicitation Type**: RFP - Request for Proposal (Formal) **Source ID**: PU.AG.USA.1267.C11143176 **Piggyback Contract**: No **Question Acceptance Deadline**: 07/24/2026 07:00 PM EDT **Questions are submitted online**: Yes **Bid Submission Type**: Electronic Bid Submission **Additional Bidding Instructions**: The City will only accept proposals submitted in the Rocky Mountain E-Purchasing System and will not accept hardcopy proposals, or proposals submitted by any other means. If you have questions or need assistance, contact BidNet support at 800-835-4603. After uploading proposal documents, you must click the SUBMIT button. The City will not accept uploads that are... **Solicitation Number**: 426054 **Reference Number**: 0000430642 **Pricing**: In attached document **Bid Documents List**: | Item Name | Description | Mandatory | Limited to 1 file | |---|---|---|---| | Bid Documents | Documents defining the proposal | Yes | No | **Questions and Answers**: | Question | Answer | |---|---| | Our model is to provide a zero cost implementation to keep incentives aligned (Nextlight pays when live on the new OSS/BSS). We do this with the promise of a 3+ year contract. Is Nextlight open to a longer term in return for free migration & implementation services? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Do you currently have a software system in place or are looking for the vendor to provide you with one and recommend them to you in the proposal? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Payment is awarded in specific increments. Generally OSS/BSS has a consumption-based component (billed based on active subscribers per month). Is the payment in the RFP in reference to migration & implementation costs, or in reference to software usage costs? If the latter (software usage costs), how do you reconcile the two payment awards against the actual live subscriber consumption captured monthly? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Please confirm the expected number of concurrent internal users (CSR, field, NOC, admin) that will require named or active licenses so we can size infrastructure and subscription tiers accurately. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Can the City provide the specific data export formats and database schema documentation available from the current GLDS BroadHub system to assess the scope, effort, and tooling for the mandatory data conversion? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | For the required Calix CMS/SMx and Alianza integrations, does NextLight expect real-time event web-hook connectivity or is nightly batch sufficient for acceptance testing and production operations? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Will NextLight consider a phased deployment (e.g., launching customer portal/e-commerce first, network provisioning second) and if so, how would that impact the staged Conditional and Final Acceptance timeline? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | What service-level objectives (uptime %, incident response, resolution time) will be written into the post-go-live support contract so vendors can align proposed staffing and pricing? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Can you clarify which current BroadHub modules are most heavily used today and which workflows are considered most critical for Day 1 cutover? “NextLight has utilized GLDS BroadHub as its OSS/BSS… since 2014.” | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Are there any planned new services (SmartTown, SmartMDU, Arlo Secure, Bark AI, mobile, etc.) that must be fully supported at launch, or is phased enablement acceptable? “Additional products and services are being considered… including SmartTown, SmartMDU… | Answered in Addendum 2 | | What is the expected volume of daily transactions (tickets, provisioning events, billing events, portal logins) to size performance requirements? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Does NextLight anticipate retaining Salesforce long term, or is consolidation into the new OSS/BSS a future possibility? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Can you provide a data dictionary or schema for BroadHub objects (customers, premises, services, billing, tickets, inventory)? “Proposals must include loading the existing BroadHub data into the new system.” | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Will NextLight require document migration (attachments, images, PDFs), or only structured data? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Are there any known data quality issues (duplicate premises, inconsistent service codes, legacy billing rules) that vendors should plan for? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | For Salesforce integrations (Service Cloud, Marketing Cloud, Data Cloud), does NextLight prefer direct API integration or MuleSoft mediated integration? “Ability to have bi-directional real-time integration with Salesforce Service Cloud… MuleSoft…” | Answered in Addendum 2 | | For Calix integrations (CMS, SMx, Cloud), can you confirm which provisioning workflows must be automated vs. manually triggered? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Does NextLight require real-time GIS updates or is near real time (e.g., 5–10 minutes) acceptable? “Ability to have bi-directional real-time integration with ArcGIS.” | Answered in Addendum 2 | | For Paymentus and Tyler Payments, does NextLight require tokenization reuse, refund workflows, or partial payment handling? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | How many billing cycles are currently active, and does NextLight plan to expand or consolidate them? “Ability to have multiple billing cycles within a month.” | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Are taxes determined solely by service type and location, or are there special district taxes or fee exceptions? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Does NextLight require automated collections workflows (promise to pay, delinquency tiers, disconnect/reconnect automation)? “Automate billing process… delinquency, disconnects and reactivations.” | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Will the new system need to support multiple merchant processors or only Paymentus/Tyler? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | What is the current field technician count, and how many concurrent dispatchers operate daily? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Are there existing routing constraints (service zones, skill-based routing, union rules, appointment windows)? “Ability to dispatch work with tech assignments, route optimization…” | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Does NextLight require automated ticket creation from network events or only from customer interactions? “Automated ticket creation based on integrations…” | Answered in Addendum 2 | | What is the expected SLA for MTTR reporting, and does it differ for service affecting vs. non service affecting tickets? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Does NextLight require embedded dashboards, or is Power BI intended to be the primary analytics layer? “Ability to integrate real-time with Power BI.” | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Are there mandatory regulatory or municipal reporting formats (FCC, city council, financial audits)? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Should the system support scheduled report delivery to external stakeholders or only internal users? “Automatic delivery of reports.” | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Does NextLight require single unified login across portal, eCommerce, and Salesforce? “API Integrations with Okta… SSO and MFA compatibility.” | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Should customers be able to change plans directly in the portal with real time provisioning? “Integrate with CRM to change package/service…” | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Does NextLight require WCAG AA or AAA accessibility compliance? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | For eCommerce, does NextLight prefer guided flows or free form package selection? “Dynamic package & enhancement configuration… conditional logic.” | Answered in Addendum 2 | | What are the expected transaction volumes (e.g., peak API calls per minute, daily throughput) for the mandatory bi-directional real-time integrations with systems such as Salesforce, Tyler Enterprise ERP, and Paymentus? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirements for Alianza, Calix, and GIS mention "real-time vs. batch" synchronization. Can the City clarify if real-time synchronization is strictly required for these platforms, or if scheduled batch processing is acceptable for specific data flows? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Does NextLight require multi tenant architecture, or is a single tenant cloud deployment preferred? “Cloud hosted and upgrades provided.” | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Are there specific municipal cybersecurity standards (CIS, NIST, CJIS) that the system must comply with? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | What is the total size and transaction volume of the historical data (e.g., years of billing history, number of customer records, size of documents) that must be mapped and migrated from the current GLDS BroadHub system?Section II.D (Project Acceptance) | Answered in Addendum 2 | | What is the expected data retention policy for customer, billing, ticket, and premise data? “Configurable retention policy on specific data…” | Answered in Addendum 2 | | While the RFP outlines a 45-day "pre-live" testing phase and a 60-day "live test" phase, how many persistent, dedicated environments (e.g., Development, QA, UAT, Staging) are required during implementation and post-go-live for ongoing testing and training? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Will NextLight provide test cases for the 45-day pre live testing period, or must the vendor develop them? “NextLight will have up to 45 days to test the system…” | Answered in Addendum 2 | | How many staff require onsite training, and what roles (CSR, billing, dispatch, network ops)? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | The RFP requires a "Cloud hosted" solution capable of meeting "performance and availability expectations," but does not define exact Service Level Agreements (SLAs). What are the specific uptime percentage requirements and Recovery Time/Recovery Point Objectives (RTO/RPO) for the system? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Does NextLight require sandbox environments for ongoing training after go live? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Are there any specific network connectivity requirements or security constraints for the cloud-hosted platform when communicating with the City's internal network or third-party vendors (e.g., Site-to-Site VPN, dedicated private links, or IP whitelisting over the public internet)? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | For acceptance testing, how will priority levels (high/medium/low) be defined? “The 60-day time frame restarts if high or medium priority problems are found…” | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Does the City require performance bonds, insurance minimums, or service level guarantees beyond what is stated? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Can the City of Longmont add the attachment C to Bidnet? We believe it is not part of the package on Bidnet. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Are there any livable wage compliance reporting requirements for subcontractors? “Contractors must pay at least a minimum livable wage $26.18 per hour…” | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Will interviews/demos require live access to a working environment or only scripted walkthroughs? “This is not a sales demonstration.” | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Attachment D, row 2 and column E. Attachment D includes the heading "Legend for 'Comply' field:" but no legend values are provided, and the Comply column has no drop-down or defined response set. Because the questionnaire is scored in the aggregate and represents 45% of the evaluation, a consistent response convention across vendors matters. Please provide the response values the City expects in the Comply column. If the City has no preferred set, will it accept the following: - Yes: available today in the standard product - Yes with configuration: available today, delivered by configuration within the implementation scope - Yes with development: delivered by go-live through development included in the proposed price - Partial: describe what is and is not delivered - Third party: delivered through a named integrated third party - No Will responses other than an unqualified "Yes" be scored lower, and if so, can the City describe how the categories are weighted? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Section II.B and Attachment D. There are differences between the requirement lists in Section II.B and Attachment D. Please confirm which document governs for both response and scoring purposes, and clarify: 1. Attachment D item 90, "Traffic and bandwidth utilization monitoring," is designated Mandatory, while the same requirement appears as Desired in Section II.B.8. Which designation applies? 2. Attachment D item 7, "Ability to regenerate a bill mid-cycle for corrections or adjustments," does not appear in Section II.B.1. Is it mandatory? 3. Attachment D contains an unnumbered Mandatory row in the Customer Portal section, "Ability for customer to use self-serve and reconnect due to a SD/HD." Is this in scope, how should vendors reference it, and what does "SD/HD" mean here? 4. Attachment D items 127 and 130 are identical, as are items 86 and 132. Should vendors respond to both instances, and are duplicated requirements scored once or twice? Separately, the Attachment D header is titled "Attachment C: Function Questionnaire," and Section III.B.4 refers to the minimum mandatory qualifications as being in "Section II, C" while they appear in Section II.I. Please confirm the correct references so responses are labeled consistently. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Attachment D columns G and H; Attachment E; Section III.B.10. Attachment D asks whether each item is included in the five-year price and, if not, what the additional cost is, while Attachment E requires a single itemized Total Cost. Please clarify: 1. Should per-item costs entered in Attachment D column H also appear as line items in Attachment E, or is Attachment E the sole pricing document? 2. Will items marked as not included in the five-year price be treated as excluded from the fixed price, scored unfavorably in the functionality evaluation, or both? 3. For Desired and Optional items, does the City want costs stated separately so it can elect them individually? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Attachment D, System section, item 131, "Customer account field is numeric." Please clarify the intent of this requirement: 1. Does it refer to the customer-facing account number shown on invoices, in the customer portal, and in payment lookups, or to the system's internal primary account identifier? 2. Are there required format, length, or uniqueness rules? 3. Must existing BroadHub account numbers be preserved and carried forward, or may the new system assign new numeric account numbers with legacy numbers retained as cross-references? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Attachment D, System section, item 137. Item 137 requires support for the latest versions of Microsoft Edge, Internet Explorer, Chrome, Firefox, and Safari. Microsoft ended support for Internet Explorer 11 in June 2022 and it is no longer a supported browser for modern web applications. Please confirm that support for current versions of Microsoft Edge, Chrome, Firefox, and Safari satisfies this requirement. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Section IV.KK; Attachment D items 33 and 54. Section IV.KK requires conformance with Level AA of the most current version of WCAG as incorporated in State of Colorado technology standards. Please clarify: 1. Is the applicable version fixed as of contract execution, currently WCAG 2.2 Level AA, or is the vendor expected to conform to later versions as the State standards adopt them during the contract term? 2. Does the requirement apply only to customer-facing interfaces such as the customer portal and eCommerce experience, or also to internal staff-facing interfaces? 3. Will the City require a formal conformance report such as a VPAT or ACR, and if so, is it required at proposal submission, Conditional Acceptance, or Final Acceptance? 4. How will accessibility conformance be evaluated during the pre-live and live testing periods? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Sections I.C, II.B.3.a, and II.B.5.d through II.B.5.f. Please clarify the intended ongoing role of Salesforce Service Cloud, Salesforce Marketing Cloud, and Salesforce Data Cloud relative to the selected OSS/BSS, customer portal, and eCommerce platform. Specifically, after go-live, which system is intended to be the system of record for the customer, for cases and tickets, and for outbound marketing communication? Should vendors assume Salesforce remains in place for the full contract term? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Sections II.B.5.l and II.B.5.m. Please clarify the intended roles of Paymentus and Tyler Payments. Is one platform the go-forward payment processor of record, what specific functions does each serve, and which payment channels, such as card, ACH, IVR, walk-in, and guest pay, are routed through each? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Sections II.B.5.h and II.B.5.i. Please describe the intended use cases and acceptable data latency for Snowflake and Power BI. Does scheduled or near-real-time data replication satisfy these requirements? For Snowflake, is the bi-directional expectation limited to reading data back into the OSS/BSS for reporting, or does the City expect writes from Snowflake to update operational records? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Section I.A and Section II.B.1. Will the new BSS be responsible for rating, taxing, and invoicing voice services, including regulatory fees and surcharges, or does Alianza bill those services directly? Does NextLight currently use a third-party telecom tax engine, and if so, which one? Is the selected vendor expected to integrate with it, or to provide tax determination as part of the platform? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Section II.B.1.d, invoice delivery by mail. Does NextLight have an existing print and mail vendor that the new system should integrate with, or is the vendor expected to provide print and mail services? Please also provide the approximate monthly printed invoice and notice volume so pricing assumptions are consistent across proposals. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Sections II.D and II.H, and the Schedule of Events. The RFP does not state a target go-live date. Notice of Award is tentatively 9/29/2026 and the initial term ends 9/1/2027, with up to 45 days of pre-live testing and 60 or more days of live testing inside that window. Please state: 1. The City's target or required go-live date. 2. Whether Final Acceptance is expected to occur within the initial term. 3. Any hard constraint driving the date, such as the expiration or notice date of the current GLDS BroadHub agreement. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Sections II.A and II.C. Section II.A refers to "all conversions identified in the RFP," but only BroadHub is identified. Are additional sources in scope, such as spreadsheets, a separate ticketing or inventory system, a document repository, prior CRM data, or Salesforce-resident data? Please also indicate the approximate volume and history depth expected for transactional and document data, for example years of billing history, tickets, and attachments. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Sections II.C and II.I. Section II.I references phased deployment or parallel operations. Does the City have a preference between the two? Will BroadHub remain available in a read-only capacity after cutover, and for how long? If parallel operation is expected, for which functions and for what duration should vendors plan? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Section II.D, Project Acceptance. Section II.D describes up to 45 days of pre-live testing, a 60-day live testing period after Conditional Acceptance, and an extension if high or medium priority problems are found in the last 15 days. Please clarify: 1. Will the City provide objective written criteria for Conditional Acceptance and Final Acceptance? 2. How will high, medium, and low priority issues be defined? 3. Will low priority, cosmetic, or non-material issues, or issues with an available workaround, prevent Conditional Acceptance or Final Acceptance? 4. Is there a maximum number of times the live testing period may be restarted or extended? 5. If an issue is caused by a third-party system, City-provided data, a City configuration decision, or City-controlled infrastructure, will it be excluded from the vendor's acceptance obligations? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Sections II.I and III.B.8.e; Attachment D item 136. The RFP requires the solution to meet performance and availability expectations and asks vendors to describe a disaster recovery plan, but does not state an uptime target, severity definitions, response or resolution targets, RPO or RTO, maintenance windows, support hours, or a service credit regime. Please provide the City's defined expectations for each, or confirm that vendors should propose their standard service level commitments for evaluation and that those commitments will be incorporated into the resulting contract. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Section II.I; Section III.B.10; Attachment E. Vendors will assume 29,500 subscribers at go-live, consistent with Section II.I, unless the City directs otherwise. For solutions priced on a per-subscriber basis, please clarify: 1. Can the City provide projected subscriber counts for Years 1 through 5 so the five-year total in Attachment E reflects anticipated growth on a consistent basis across proposals? If not, should vendors hold 29,500 flat for all five years? 2. Section III.B.10.c requires fixed pricing for the initial term, which ends 9/1/2027, while Attachment E requires five years of pricing. Please confirm the fixed-price requirement applies to the initial term only, and that Years 2 through 5 in Attachment E may be expressed as per-subscriber unit rates plus the stated maximum escalation. 3. Will the City accept per-subscriber unit rates, with the Attachment E total calculated at the stated baseline or projections and actual fees reconciled to actual subscriber counts? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Section II.E, Payment. Further to our earlier question Q3. Section II.E states that 50% of the contract amount will be paid upon Conditional Acceptance and 50% upon Final Acceptance. Building on Q3, please clarify: 1. Beyond implementation services, does this structure also apply to recurring subscription fees, license fees, usage-based fees, and third-party pass-through costs? 2. When do recurring subscription fees commence: contract execution, production availability, go-live, Conditional Acceptance, or Final Acceptance? 3. Will the City consider a payment schedule that separates one-time implementation fees from recurring subscription fees, including interim implementation milestones? 4. If acceptance or go-live is delayed by City dependencies, third-party systems, data availability, access, or decision-making, how will the payment schedule be adjusted? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Sections II.E and II.G. Section II.G requires in-person onsite training of key users, and Section II.E requires travel and per diem to be included in the cost of the software with a daily rate provided for additional days requested by the City. So that pricing is comparable across proposals, how many onsite training days and how many trainees should vendors assume? Does the City expect train-the-trainer delivery, end-user delivery, or both? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Attachment B; Attachment C; Section III.B.2. Attachment C is a professional services agreement addressing consulting deliverables such as drawings, plans, and work product ownership, and it assigns ownership of intellectual property developed under the agreement to the City. The solution requested by this RFP is a hosted, multi-tenant software subscription, in which the vendor retains ownership of the platform and the City owns its data. Please clarify: 1. Does the City have a software or SaaS agreement template, or a software addendum to Attachment C, that will govern the subscription components? 2. If not, will the City consider the awarded vendor's standard SaaS terms as the starting point for negotiation, with the City's required provisions incorporated, including Colorado governing law, City ownership of City data, no City indemnification, no binding arbitration, and the insurance and PCI requirements? 3. May vendors submit requested exceptions as a redline of Attachment C attached to Attachment B, rather than as a narrative list, provided each exception is clearly identified? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Section IV.CC; Attachment B; Attachment C, Section 35. Attachment B identifies limitation of liability for death, bodily injury, or damage to tangible property, including data, as non-negotiable, and Section IV.CC provides for actual and consequential damages on termination for the vendor's breach. Please confirm that, outside the four non-negotiable categories listed in Attachment B, the City will consider commercially reasonable and mutual limitations of liability and an exclusion of indirect and consequential damages as part of normal contract negotiation, and that requesting such terms in Attachment B will not by itself render a proposal non-responsive. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Section IV.G.5, Insurance. Section IV.G.5 requires Valuable Papers insurance in an amount adequate to assure restoration of plans, drawings, field notes, or other similar data. Please provide any guideline as to the amount the City would consider adequate for this engagement. Please also confirm whether cyber liability or technology errors and omissions coverage that includes data restoration costs may satisfy this requirement for a software and services engagement. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Ref: Section IV.G.4, Insurance. Section IV.G.4 requires Workers' Compensation in accordance with the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Colorado and Employer's Liability with limits of at least $500,000. Is Colorado Workers' Compensation coverage required if the vendor has no employees located in Colorado? If onsite work is performed in Colorado by employees based elsewhere, will coverage under the vendor's home-state policy with Colorado listed for other-states coverage satisfy the requirement? | Answered in Addendum 2 | **Addendums**: | Addendum | Date | Note | |---|---|---| | Addendum No. 1 | 07/28/2026 03:30 PM EDT | | | Addendum No. 2 | 07/30/2026 04:53 PM EDT | |
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.