Public Works Asset Management Replacement

Q (User Licenses): Could you please confirm the number of unique users who will be using the software?

A: Currently at 147 daily active users between mobile and desktop with 178 overall active accounts.

Q (No subject): What ESRI ArcGIS Enterprise Version is currently in use?

A: We are currently on 11.3 but will be moving to 11.5 in May.

Q (No subject): Does the City expect vendors to identify COBID-certified partners at the time of proposal submission, or can this be finalized post-award?

A: The city will review COBID Scores based on the Proposals, if you have identified COBID subcontractors and list them in your proposal that be advantageous to your COBID scoring, but it is not required.

Q (Due Date Extension): Would the City please consider extending the proposal deadline to May 7th? The Questions due date is just a few days before the proposal due date, and we would appreciate more time to put together a comprehensive and compliant proposal after receiving the final Q&A document.

A: Due to the city council award date, we are not able to extend the deadline, however we have moved the deadline to submit questions to April 10th. This will give vendors 2 weeks to review submitted questions.

Q (Consultant vs Software Vendor): The RFP references “qualified consultants” in several sections; however, the Scope of Work and submission requirements focus on selecting and licensing a specific Asset Management System. Please confirm whether proposers are expected to be the software vendor of the proposed AMS, versus a third‑party consulting firm recommending or implementing a solution.

A: We are in the market for a new solution as we can no longer utilize our current one, but we are expecting proposals to also include implementation. A third-party firm that would be performing implementation and is also an authorized vendor of a solution, or vice-versa, or partners with a solution provider/implementor, would be acceptable.

Q (No subject): Could the City confirm whether an external consultant, advisor, or third‑party firm assisted in drafting or preparing this RFP? If so, could the City identify the firm and indicate whether that party will participate in any part of the evaluation, scoring, or selection process?

A: We did not utilize any outside consultants, etc. in drafting the RFP. We did discuss requirements with other municipalities that are going through the same RFP process, however.

Q (FYI): Hello, the OpenGov portal appears to indicate that the Q&A function will close tomorrow. However, the RFP states that the question deadline is April 17, 2026, 2:00pm. I just want to make the City aware, if it isn't already. Thanks!

A: Thank you, the system has been updated to reflect that the Q&A portal will close on the deadline listed in the timeline. The Deadline for Questions have been moved to April 10, 2026.

Q ( Data Migration): Can the City provide an estimate of the volume of data to be migrated (e.g., number of assets, work orders, inspections, attachments)?

A: Database size is roughly 33gb, 6gb in another. Over 750k of assets, Service Requests: 4k, Work orders: 67k, Inspections: 177k with transaction beginning in 2013.

Q (Data Migration): What is the current data structure and format in Cityworks (e.g., database type, schema, GIS linkage)?

A: Current database type is Microsoft SQL Server with two schemas. GIS we are on 11.3 with an upgrade to 11.5 coming.

Q (Data Migration): What is the expected scope of migration: Full historical data Partial (e.g., last X years) Active assets only?

A: We are planning on full historical data, going back to 2013.

Q (Data Migration): Can the City share insights on the quality and completeness of existing data (e.g., missing attributes, duplicates, inconsistencies)?

A: Production instance - all data is there and currently functioning and working as system and processes were designed

Q (End Users): Can the City provide an estimate of the expected number of end-users to support training planning purposes, including a breakdown between office-based staff and field-based staff?

A: 147 daily users, all have access to the current system, but some are more mobile app focused however all need access to the desktop version.

Q (Existing solution): Is the City considering upgrading to a newer CityWorks platform?

A: We are open to options, but our understanding is that the on-prem CW solution will no longer be supported in July 2027, so any newer on-prem CW version wouldn't be an option.

Q (Page Limit): Can the City confirm if additional appendices will be counted towards the 20 page page limit? Can the City confirm if a cover letter, title page is counted towards the page limit?

A: The page limit does not include the cover page or résumés. If providing résumés or proposing changes to the Contract (Exhibit A - Sample contract), please include those at the end of the proposal. A Cover Letter in addition to a cover page will be counted in the 20-page limit. Additional appendices other than resumes and proposed contract changes will count towards the 20-page limit.

Q (Springbook Integration): Can the City provide more information on expectations around the Springbook integration? Additionally, which data points is the City looking to move (two way, one way)?

A: Two way integration would be preferred. This would include information that can be shared for work order creation and meter install information, as an example.

Q (Middleware): Does the City have a middleware, such as FME, and internal experience to develop and manage the integration with Springbook?

A: We currently manage ETL operations through SQL Server (for the most part). We do have some in-house development staff who handle integrations, but depending on the new solution we may need assistance.

Q (Budget): Is the Town able to share an anticipated budget range or not‑to‑exceed amount for this initiative to assist proposers in developing appropriately scoped responses?

A: There is not a not-to exceed amount for this project but cost will be a factor when making a decision on what direction we will go.

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

A: Yes, current funding is available and funding in next years budget has been requested.

Q (No subject): Is there a budget range associated with this project?

A: We have only used estimates for cost at this point. We will request to adjust the dollars needed for this project once we have chosen our direction.

Q (Live GIS Connection): Regarding Functional Requirement 126: Asset Registry (ArcGIS Online Mapping) for asset registry - using a relational database. Live connection to GIS data (no synching)." Could the City share the rationale behind this requirement and whether functionally equivalent approaches that maintain strong GIS alignment through frequent synchronization could be evaluated as compliant?

A: In the past, we've experienced issues with synchronization and having live data allows us to operate more effectively. While those systems may have improved since then, we hope to stay with GIS centric asset management because of its function, efficiency, and use by our employees.

Q (Demonstrations): Did the City review any asset management solution demonstrations prior to issuing this RFP, and if so, will those solutions be considered during evaluation?

A: Demonstrations no, but we've looked into solutions online. Yes, they will be considered.

Q (311 / Service Requests): Is the City seeking to manage their 311 service requests and linkage to work activity / assets within the public works asset management solution? If so- is the City expecting to integrate with or replace the existing civicplus Report a Problem portal?

A: That is a separate topic of conversation, but for this effort there are no plans to change our current system.

Q (Data Migration): Are there any data cleansing, normalization, or validation activities expected to be performed by the vendor?

A: We expect that the data from our current system would need to be migrated to the new system, but the data structure and format of the data would be dependent on whatever the new system is.

Q ( Asset & System Scope): Can the City provide an estimated number of assets by category (water, sewer, streets, facilities, etc.)?

A: Estimated Water 220k, Sewer 140k, Streets 66k, Facilities 78k, Storm 240k, Transportation 5k,

Q (No subject): Are there any asset hierarchies or parent-child relationships currently defined that must be preserved?

A: Yes there are both asset and work order processes that have this structure.

Q (No subject): Given the aggressive timeline (~150 days), is the City open to a big-bang approach?

A: Potentially, but that would depend on City staff being trained appropriately on the new system, data being migrated properly, integrations with other systems being built, and as little downtime as possible (ideally none) between turning off the old system and transitioning to the new one.

Q (No subject): Are there any preferred local partners or directories the City recommends for collaboration?

A: While we have worked with some companies on our current solution, as we don't know what the future solution will look like, we don't have any preferred partners at this time.

Q (No subject): “Can the City confirm whether funding for this project has been fully approved and allocated, and if there are any budgetary constraints vendors should consider when structuring their proposals?”

A: Funding has been approved and requested for the coming years.

Q (Sample Contract): The RFP describes the City’s intent to procure a cloud-based asset management system (i.e., a software platform with implementation and support services). However, the sample contract included in the solicitation appears to be a standard “Personal Services Contract.” Can the City please clarify whether it anticipates executing a software/SaaS agreement (e.g., including licensing, subscription, and related terms) rather than, or in addition to, the provided Personal Services Contract? If so, will the City provide a separate software agreement template, or should proposers include their standard SaaS terms for consideration?

A: The City intends to use its template SaaS agreement for this software. The template is now in the attachments section of this RFP.

Q (No subject): Which section does the City want the Substantive Requirements detailed on pgs. 9-12 of the RFP? Would it be acceptable to include this information in section B. Technical Proposal?

A: The city has no preference on how vendors layout the proposals as long as all required items are included.

Q (Project dates): What is the anticipated project start date and desired go-live date for the solution?

A: We have a deadline of 7/1/2027 for the new system to be up and running. Start date is expected to be in July 2026.

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

A: The city prefers to award contracts to vendors who are headquartered in the United States.

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

A: See Question 21.

Q (Phased implementation): Is the City open to a phased implementation?

A: We are open to phased or big-bang approaches, but the entire system must be live by 7/1/2027.

Q (Assets): Please provide a list or summary of asset types for this project.

A: See Question 24.

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

A: Construction, Engineering, Forestry, Fleet, Forestry, Landscape, Sewer, Stormwater, Street, Traffic, water

Q (Integrations): 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: Q: What is the System name and version? A: Springbrook. V7.18.7.0-7 Q: Is this one way or two way data exchange? A: Two-way, but Springbrook can only accept data changes through in-app batch processes and input files. Q: What is the sync frequency? A: Daily Q: What data points are exchanged? A: Meter device data. Routes, Serial#, Models etc. Q: What is the goal of the integration? A: Meter data synchronization between Springbrook, GIS and Cityworks Q: Does the integration require real-time data transfer or batch imports? A: Batch Imports Q: Is there a Rest API available for the integration? A: No

Q (Data Migration): What is the system name? What is the quality of the data? What data will be converted, i.e., cost history, inspection history, request history, etc.? What assets would need to be in this project?

A: See Questions 8, 10, 11, and 24.

Q (Price Proposal Information): Does the City have a requested/required structure for or any additional detail associated with the price proposal?

A: The City does not have a preference.

Q (User Licenses and End User Follow Up): For clarification, the previous answer to question number 1 indicated 147 daily users and 178 total users. The answer to question 12, on the other hand, only references the 147 daily users, but within a slightly different context (training). From a software licensing perspective, can the City clarify how many licensed users they would like quoted as part of this submission?

A: We are looking for up to 200 licenses.

Q (No subject): How should Form 1 be completed if the proposer will self-perform all work and will not use any subcontractors?

A: State on form that "all work will be self preformed."

Q (No subject): Will any external users such as contractors, citizens, vendors, or partner agencies require access to the system?

A: Not at this time.

Q (No subject): How many total users are expected in the new system, broken down by named, concurrent, field, administrative, and read-only users? The RFP requires web/mobile access and role-based permissions, but does not state user counts.

A: See Question 1

Q (No subject): Confirm whether the implementation is expected to be phased or a single go-live, and whether the milestone dates in the RFP are fixed or may be adjusted based on the proposer’s recommended deployment approach.

A: The only date that is set in stone is the final date - the system must be operational and ready by 7/1/2027.

Q (No subject): If the proposer is not COBID-certified and is not proposing any subcontractors, what narrative or documentation is expected to address the Beaverton Equity Procurement Program?

A: You will address each question in your proposal. You will just state you are not COBID and will not being using COBID Subs.

Q (No subject): Clarify the post-quantum cryptography requirement, including whether this is a future roadmap expectation through 2030 or a current procurement compliance requirement for the proposed platform.

A: It's a recommendation standard from NIST - something we will consider for assessing how future-proof the solution is.

Q (No subject): Confirm whether only two environments are required or whether additional environments are expected, such as training, UAT, and sandbox, in addition to development/testing and production. The workbook explicitly mentions development/testing and production, but other environments are implied in the workflow.

A: Two environments, a development or testing (which ever you would like to call it) and a production environment.

Q (No subject): Clarify the GIS architecture and integration model, including whether the City requires a live read/write connection to ArcGIS Online, which GIS services/layers are in scope, and whether any GIS editing must occur directly from the EAM. The workbook states a live connection with no syncing, which is a major requirement needing technical clarification.

A: 1. Clarify the GIS architecture and integration model, including whether the City requires a live read/write connection to ArcGIS Online - We need to update the asset in real-time via an update to an attribute on an asset that has been pulled up in the new system and likewise if an edit is made on the GIS side it can be immediately reflected in the map in the EAM. 2. which GIS services/layers are in scope, and whether any GIS editing must occur directly from the EAM - we have opened some layer attributes to certain users to make real time edits 3. The workbook states a live connection with no syncing, which is a major requirement needing technical clarification. - We have the ability to update assets today through versioning, which pushes edits from our staging to production databases on demand without any additional syncing to get the data from GIS into the EAM.

Q (RFP Response workbook): How do I get a copy of the RFP response workbook mentioned in the RFP.

A: It's located in the Proposal Submittals section.

Q (No subject): Confirm whether the City requires a SaaS solution specifically, or whether any cloud-based hosted deployment model is acceptable.

A: Our preference is a SaaS solution at this time.

Q (No subject): Clarify the asset onboarding and sandbox workflow, including which users can submit asset changes, who performs QA/QC review, what data must be reviewed before publishing, and whether the sandbox applies only to asset onboarding or also to third-party portal submissions.

A: This will be solution-dependent. Our processes may change depending on the vendor's proposal.

Q (No subject): Provide detailed requirements for service request initiation and status visibility, including whether service requests are internal only or also public-facing, what channels are required, and whether SMS/email notifications to requestors are mandatory at go-live.

A: This will be solution-dependent. Our processes may change depending on the vendor's proposal.

Q (No subject): Clarify the inventory management scope, including whether the City expects full storeroom functionality, reorder planning, procurement linkage, stock transfers, cycle counting, and warranty/vendor tracking at go-live.

A: Yes, system is expected to have full storeroom functionality however implementation will be very basic with stock boh, transfer ability, cycle count process and physical adjustments, receiving process, history for transaction audit. No vendor connections or reorder points needed at this time.

Q (No subject): Provide details for inspection and condition workflows, including required inspection types, number of forms, scoring methods, threshold rules, and whether OSHA, regulatory, and warranty inspections are all mandatory in phase 1.

A: This will be solution-dependent. Our processes may change depending on the vendor's proposal.

Q (No subject): Clarify the risk and lifecycle modeling expectations, including whether likelihood/consequence scoring, GIS heat maps, mitigation recommendations, and funding projections are required as standard operational functionality or acceptable through reporting/analytics tools.

A: This will be solution-dependent. Our processes may change depending on the vendor's proposal.

Q (No subject): Provide the required list of reports, dashboards, KPIs, and roll-up views for go-live, including whether Power BI is expected as a downstream reporting tool or as part of the delivered solution.

A: This will be solution-dependent. Our processes may change depending on the vendor's proposal.

Q (No subject): Clarify whether fleet work orders and inspection data are only for reference/integration or whether fleet maintenance must be fully managed in the new EAM platform

A: Fleet is managed in another system however we do have them in the current system to report usage and for morning vehicle inspections

Q (No subject): Clarify mobile requirements, including whether an installed iOS app is required, whether browser-based mobile access is acceptable, and what devices the City currently intends to use in the field.

A: Mobile app is preferred however web based could work through normal Safari browser. iOS devices (phones & tablets) only.

Q (No subject): Clarify the planning and scheduling expectations, including whether route optimization, skill-based assignment, contractor scheduling, and equipment scheduling are mandatory at go-live or acceptable in later phases.

A: This will be solution-dependent. Our processes may change depending on the vendor's proposal.

Q (No subject): Clarify the requirements for the limited third-party portal, including the intended user groups, allowed transactions, approval process, and whether the portal is required only for asset onboarding and maintenance requests or for broader external collaboration

A: This will be solution-dependent. Our processes may change depending on the vendor's proposal.

Q (No subject): Clarify the backup, disaster recovery, and uptime expectations, including required RPO, RTO, backup retention periods, recovery testing expectations, and whether the 99% uptime SLA applies across all locations and environments.

A: This will be solution-dependent. Our processes may change depending on the vendor's proposal.

Q (No subject): Provide attachment storage and performance expectations in more detail, including expected daily/annual storage volumes, average video size, retention requirements, and whether 500 work orders/service requests per day represents peak or average throughput.

A: This will be solution-dependent. Our processes may change depending on the vendor's proposal.

Q (Price Proposal): The Proposal Content and Format does not mention a price proposal section, and the online response form indicates that the Price Proposal is submitted as a separate file. Is this corrrect, and should we assume that the price proposal file page count is not included within the 20-page proposal limit?

A: Yes, there is a 2nd upload for your Price Proposal and that will not be counted in the Proposal's 20-page limit. The price proposal is specifically for the cost of the project.

Q (No subject): Provide the City’s security and compliance requirements in detail, including whether NIST 800-53 alignment must be formally certified, whether SOC 2 or other audit reports are required, and whether SSO, Azure AD provisioning, and privileged-access auditing are mandatory at implementation.

A: Preferred method would be Azure AD provisioning.

Q (No subject): Provide detailed interface requirements for SharePoint, Laserfiche, GraniteNet, and fleet data, including data direction, use cases, API/file exchange methods, ownership of integration components, and whether third-party licensing or API costs should be included in proposer pricing.

A: Gnet appears to be bi-directional - where the systems do pass data back and forth. Current system pushes a work order to GNet as a project. Inspections are then pushed from GNet to current system. SharePoint, Laserfiche we currently have no interfaces so there should be nothing here.

Q (No subject): We are a current vendor for the City of Beaverton. We have an existing agreement in place and wanted to confirm whether we could leverage that contract language, with any necessary amendments, if we are selected.

A: Proposers may review the attached sample contract and submit requested changes to it as a submission with their response.

Q (COBID Designation): If the Vendor is not COBID-certified and does not have COBID-sub contractors will this affect the vendors evaluation?

A: See Question #3.

Q (No subject): 1. What is the City’s anticipated budget range for software, implementation, and ongoing annual support for this project? 2. Has funding for this project been fully approved? 3. Does the City prefer a vendor-hosted cloud solution only, or will hybrid / alternative deployment models also be considered? 4. Are there any City requirements for data residency or hosting location (e.g., U.S.-based hosting only)? 5. Approximately how many total asset records will need to be migrated from the current Cityworks system? 6. Approximately how many historical work orders, inspections, and maintenance records are expected to be migrated? 7. How many years of historical asset and maintenance data should be migrated into the new system? 8. Will the City provide data dictionaries, export files, or data mapping documentation from the current system, or should vendors assume they will lead data discovery, cleansing, and mapping? 9. What is the City’s current GIS platform and version, and are there any GIS integration standards vendors must follow? 10. Does the City require real-time, bi-directional GIS synchronization, or will scheduled / batch synchronization be acceptable? 11. Should GIS integration support linear assets such as pipelines, mains, and conveyance systems with segmentation? 12. Is there an expectation for map-based work order creation, service request creation, and in-application asset visualization? 13. What specific integration outcomes are expected with Springbrook Utility Billing? 14. What specific integration outcomes are expected with GranetNet Sewer Inspection, and does the City have an available API or standard export/import method for that system? 15. Will the City provide API documentation, technical contacts, and sample data for GIS, Springbrook, and GranetNet during implementation? 16. Does the City require a built-in citizen / customer service request portal, or will service requests originate from another existing system? 17. Does the City require inventory, parts, and storeroom management to be fully deployed at go-live, or can this functionality be phased after the core AMS deployment? 18. Are there predefined maintenance strategies currently in use (e.g., time-based, condition-based, or predictive maintenance) that the new system should support? 19. Does the City have existing standard reports, dashboards, or KPIs that must be replicated in the new system? 20. Should the proposed solution support self-service dashboards for operations, management, and executive leadership? 21. Will the City require a scripted software demonstration, use-case presentation, or live system demo as part of the evaluation or interview process? 22. Can the City confirm the expected availability of City subject matter experts (SMEs) and project leads during data migration, GIS coordination, configuration, testing, training, and User Acceptance Testing phases?

A: 4 - US hosting only 8 - We likely will provide what we have 15 - We currently integrate with them, so yes. 16 - We are not expecting access to non-employees 19 - This will depend on the solution and what reports it can provide. 20 - The requirements workbook states we are expecting roll-up reporting 21 - We are expecting to have time to view demos as a later part of this process 22 - We're on a deadline, so they will be available depending on the project plan proposed. Please see the other questions for answers to the rest of your questions.

Q (Equity Procurement Program): After extensive review of the website linked for the Equity Procurement Program in the RFP document, we have been unable to find the referenced list of COBID firms. Is there a list that can be shared?

A: https://oregon4biz.diversitysoftware.com/FrontEnd/SearchCertifiedDirectory.asp?XID=2315&TN=oregon4biz