Active SLED Opportunity · COLORADO · CITY OF ASPEN
AI Summary
City of Aspen seeks proposals for a hosted Recreation Management System supporting mobile and desktop platforms, excluding golf operations. The RFP includes a pre-proposal meeting and electronic bid submission with a lump sum pricing model.
The project will include, but is not limited to: City of Aspen Parks and Recreation seek proposals from qualified vendors for a comprehensive, fully hosted Recreation Management System (RMS) to meet current and future departmental needs with the exception of golf operations. The system must support both mobile and desktop platforms, integrate with existing systems... **Solicitation Type**: RFP - Request for Proposal (Formal) **Source ID**: PU.AG.USA.2143.C15144676 **Piggyback Contract**: No **Question Acceptance Deadline**: 08/03/2026 02:00 PM EDT **Questions are submitted online**: Yes **Bid Submission Type**: Electronic Bid Submission **Owner Organization**: City of Aspen **Solicitation Number**: 2026-235 **Reference Number**: 0000430117 **Pricing**: Lump sum **Bid Documents List**: | Item Name | Description | Mandatory | Limited to 1 file | |---|---|---|---| | Bid Documents | Documents defining the proposal | No | No | **Pre-Bidding Events**: Event: Prebid Conference | Date: 07/22/2026 11:00 AM EDT | Location: Microsoft Teams (link below) **Questions and Answers**: | Question | Answer | |---|---| | Please can the City confirm whether offerors are permitted to submit exceptions, assumptions, or clarifications to the Contract Documents as part of their proposal response? The Instructions to Offerors state that the Contract Documents include the Agreement, and that specific indemnity and insurance requirements are set out in the Agreement. However, the Agreement appears to be provided only to the presumptive successful offeror with the Notice of Intent to Award. Please can the City confirm: 1. Whether a copy of the Agreement is available for review before proposal submission. 2. If the Agreement is not available before submission, whether offerors may submit their proposal subject to review and agreement of the Agreement once issued. 3. Whether any proposed exceptions, assumptions, or clarifications included in an offeror’s proposal will be considered during any negotiation of final contract terms prior to award. This is requested to ensure offerors can fully understand the terms and conditions applicable to performance of the work and identify any exceptions before submitting a proposal. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Would the city consider vendor SaaS terms (or an exhibit incorporating them) in the final Agreement? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | For SBOM, we typically don't produce this during the RFP proposal process as it's considered confidential data. Can you please share what you would like to review so we can provide the relevant material? | Answered in Addendum 3 | | Do you have an estimated number of POS devices the city will require? | Answered in Addendum 3 | | Beyond the requirements listed in the RFP, are there any unique business processes or operational workflows that are especially important for us to understand during implementation? | Answered in Addendum 4 | | What challenges with your current recreation management system ultimately led the City to issue this RFP? | Answered in Addendum 4 | | Which processes today consume the most staff time or require manual workarounds? | Answered in Addendum 4 | | If you could solve one operational challenge immediately with a new system, what would it be? | Answered in Addendum 4 | | After this successful project is complete, what will be different for staff six months after implementation? | Answered in Addendum 4 | | Are there specific goals—such as improving resident satisfaction, increasing participation, increasing revenue, improving cost recovery, or reducing staff administrative time—that leadership will use to measure the success of this project? | Answered in Addendum 4 | | How would improved reporting and financial visibility help your department make better operational decisions? | Answered in Addendum 4 | | Is there a target go-live date or registration season that is driving the implementation timeline? | Answered in Addendum 4 | | Can you walk us through your anticipated evaluation timeline following proposal submission, including finalist selection, demonstrations, contract award, and implementation? | Answered in Addendum 4 | | Beyond the evaluation criteria listed, what qualities or capabilities will make one vendor stand out over another? | Answered in Addendum 4 | | Hello, Will the pre-proposal meeting today be recorded? Thanks | Answered in Addendum 4 | | 1.Which Oracle product does your organization use (for example NetSuite, Oracle Fusion/ERP Cloud, Oracle EBS)? 2. What payment processor do you currently use, and does it run through Oracle or through a separate system? 3. Are you open to a third party payment processor, or do you require credit card payments to route through Oracle directly? 4. What are your must haves for how a new solution connects to Oracle (real time sync, batch export, specific APIs or middleware)? | Answered in Addendum 7 | | Regarding pulling reports for Oracle and Power BI updates (ref. Q11): how do you expect the new system to feed data into Power BI, specifically a direct connector, API, or scheduled export, and what file type and protocol are required? | Answered in Addendum 7 | | Which Oracle modules is the City currently using (e.g., Oracle Financials Cloud, Oracle General Ledger, Oracle Accounts Payable, Oracle Projects)? | Answered in Addendum 7 | | Section 5 (Financial Reporting and Integration) states a preference for "Integration of Apple Pay and Google Pay for payment processing." Does the City have a strict requirement that these specific payment processors must be directly integrated, or would the City accept Apple Pay and Google Pay processed through an intermediary payment gateway? | Answered in Addendum 7 | | Does the City have any requirements that data be hosted in U.S.-only data centers? We are a Canadian based company with clients across North America. | Answered in Addendum 7 | | Will the City require data migration services from the legacy RMS? | Answered in Addendum 7 | | Section 3.1 mentions artist space rentals. Should the RMS treat this as a facility type within scheduling, or as a separate rental subsystem? | Answered in Addendum 7 | | For locker management, does the City require embedded locker room maps or would a reference document with assignments suffice? How are locker rentals managed today? | Answered in Addendum 7 | | Can you provide the annual revenue for the parks and recreation department with a break of transactions that are credit card/cash/ ACH. | Answered in Addendum 7 | | How many active household accounts currently exist? How many memberships are managed annually? How many annual online transactions occur? What percentage of registrations occur online today? What current RMS platform is being replaced? Do they intend to keep Fiserv/CardPointe after implementation? What Oracle Fusion integration method is preferred: API SFTP Scheduled Excel imports Are demonstrations expected to follow scripted scenarios? | Answered in Addendum 7 | | Sections 5.3, 5.4, and Exhibit A Section 5.4 provides that participation in the procurement constitutes agreement to the City's terms without change, and Section 5.3 directs Respondents to Exhibit A, Instructions to Offerors of Professional Services. Amilia provides a multi-tenant Software-as-a-Service solution, and certain provisions of a professional-services template may not map cleanly to a SaaS relationship. Will the City consider vendor-proposed exceptions or clarifying language to the contract terms in Exhibit A, either as part of the RFP response or during contract finalization with the selected vendor? If so, what format and timing does the City prefer for submitting such exceptions? | Answered in Addendum 6 | | Section 6.0 requires compliance with applicable accessibility laws. Could the City confirm the specific standard expected of the software solution (for example, WCAG 2.1 AA), and confirm that the requirement applies to the public and participant-facing components of the platform? We maintain accessibility compliance for its participant-facing interfaces and can provide a current accessibility report and VPAT on request. | Answered in Addendum 6 | | Section 6.0 references compliance with "AI requirements." Could the City clarify what is meant by this term, including any specific Colorado statute, regulation, or City policy the solution must meet, so that the vendor can respond accurately? | Answered in Addendum 6 | | The City has identified Oracle and Power BI as important business systems, and ePACT as a desired but not required camp forms integration. Are there any additional current or future integrations the City would like vendors to consider, such as facility access control, digital credentials, locker management, visitor management, mobile applications, or smart facility initiatives? | Answered in Addendum 8 | | Beyond reporting for Oracle and Power BI, are there specific audit, reconciliation, scholarship management, gift card, household credit, refund, or customer balance tracking requirements the City would like the new RMS to support? | Answered in Addendum 8 | | What are the City's current payment processing rates and related fees? | Answered in Addendum 8 | | As the City seeks to improve customer service, streamline account access, and create a more convenient purchasing experience, what role do mobile applications and mobile-first resident services play in your long-term vision? Are there specific capabilities or digital experiences the City would like vendors to prioritize as part of a future mobile engagement strategy? | Answered in Addendum 8 | | Page 9 of the RFP indicates that Exhibit B, Cloud Application Compatibility and Security Questionnaire, will be requested from selected finalists, while page 10 requests the questionnaire be submitted as part of the proposal submission. Can the City clarify whether Exhibit B must be completed and submitted with the proposal, or only by vendors selected to advance to the finalist stage? | Answered in Addendum 8 | | The RFP states that the selected RMS must support funding, managing, and distributing scholarships to customer households. Can the City provide additional details regarding current scholarship workflows, including application processes, approval requirements, reporting expectations, funding-source tracking, eligibility criteria, and annual scholarship volume? | Answered in Addendum 8 | | Please confirm whether Total Bid Price in Bidnet should reflect (a) fixed contract fees only, or (b) fixed fees plus estimated payment processing costs, and over what contract term. | Answered in Addendum 9 | | What is the agency's current payment processing system? What are the payment processing rates established by the existing payment processor? Does the agency pay payment processing fees, or are these paid by the end user? | Answered in Addendum 9 | | What is the agency's budget for this project, and what is the annual contract value of the existing software? | Answered in Addendum 9 | | What is the agency's preferred contracting model? Would a revenue share model or a subscription model be preferred? | Answered in Addendum 9 | **Addendums**: | Addendum | Date | Note | |---|---|---| | Addendum No. 7 | 07/29/2026 10:50 AM EDT | | | Addendum No. 8 | 08/03/2026 05:06 PM EDT | | | Addendum No. 9 | 08/04/2026 08:42 PM EDT | | | Addendum No. 1 | 07/14/2026 11:10 AM EDT | | | Addendum No. 2 | 07/15/2026 02:21 PM EDT | | | Addendum No. 3 | 07/20/2026 10:43 AM EDT | | | Addendum No. 4 | 07/22/2026 10:09 AM EDT | | | Addendum No. 5 | 07/23/2026 12:55 PM EDT | | | Addendum No. 6 | 07/27/2026 01:23 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.