The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000 04 10 Regular K Financial Systems RFP COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM K CONSENT INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING REGULAR X 4-10-00 Meeting MGR. ~ IDEPT CiJ Authorization REQUEST: The Information Services Department desires to give its recommendation to the City Commission for the award for the Financial Systems Request For Proposal and to allow the City Manager to enter into contract negotiations with preferred vendor. PURPOSE: To inform the City Commission as to the most preferred bid package received as a result of the Financial Systems RFP. NOTE: The attachments listed on page 3 are currently being completed and will be available Friday. CONSIDERATIONS: The following categories have been used in the determination of the preferred vendor for The City of Winter Springs Financial Systems solution: Required features: To what level does prospective bidder meet the application software and supporting hardware requirements presented within the RFP? Database Design: To what level does prospective bidder propose a database engine that will support the importation of existing data, the management of current data, and connectivity to state and county database systems? Maintenance/Support: To what level does prospective bidder propose ongoing software maintenance and systems technical support for proposed solution? References: Based on a scale of 1-10, how does prospective bidder's reference contact grade prospective bidder on the previous 3 categories? Vendor Stability: To what level does prospective bidder's financial stability insure proper systems implementation and support for the City? Page 2 of3 Regular Agenda Item K - Recommendation to Commission on award of Financial Systems RFP April 10, 2000 Cost: Based on required features, maintenance and support, and supporting hardware and software; to what level does prospective bidder's bid package offer reasonable cost/value to The City? The following vendors submitted sealed bids in response to the Financial Systems RFP and are listed in order of vendor preference: SCT Global Government Solutions Munis Specialized Computing, Inc. Aquilium Corporation Expert Technical Consultants, Inc. Vadar Systems, Inc. IMSoffech, Inc. Bi- Tech Software, Inc. FUNDING: The current budget includes funding for this project in the amount of $350,000 with a 5 year note. Since the actual numbers have exceeded budgeted amounts, funding can be obtained by extending the note and remaining within the budget. RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Information Services Department, in conjunction with Ameritek Orlando Consultation Group to award the bid to SCT Global Government Solutions. The cost summary and purchase options are as follows: Ameritek Consultation Group $45,130 Option 1: Finance and HR Core Components Application Software Database Engine Enhancement Software Implementation Support & Training Maintenance Hardware Total $206,000 $ 32,393 $ 6,400 $232,400 $ 52,310 $ 52.279 $581,782 Option 2: Finance, HR, with Land Management Revenue System Application Software Database Engine Enhancement Software Implementation Support & Training Maintenance Hardware Total $269,500 $ 32,393 $ 6,400 $310,225 $ 62,3l0 $ 52.279 $733, 1 07 \\CITYHALL_PDC\SHARED\City Hall\Agenda Items\FY 2000\April2000\April 10, 2000\Recommendation for Financial System RFP.doc Page 3 of3 Regular Agenda Item K - Recommendation to Commission on award of Financial Systems RFP April 10, 2000 Option 3: Finance, HR, with Land Management Revenue System and GIS Interface Application Software Database Engine Enhancement Software Implementation Support & Training Maintenance Hardware Total $276,300 $ 32,393 $ 6,400 $322,585 $ 63,558 $ 52,279 $753,5l5 Based on the preceding funding numbers, it is requested that the City Commission allow the City Manager to enter into contract negotiations with SCT Global Government Solutions for the procurement ofthe desired option # 3. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: See RFP. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment #l- prospective vendors evaluation results (available Friday) Attachment #2 - special considerations concerning preferred vendor criteria (available Friday) COMMISSION ACTION: \\CITYHALL]DC\SHARED\City Hall\Agenda Items\FY 2000\ApriI2000\April 10, 2000\Recommendation for Financial System RFP.doc REGULAR K. Information Services Department Desires To Give Its Recommendation To The City Commission For The Award For The Financial Systems Request For Proposal And To Allow The City Manager To Enter Into Contract Negotiations With Preferred Vendor. (Attachments Will Be Available On Friday, April 7, 2000) \1 ~;'I,;;( IFfiii 1- o R LAN D 0,1 N C. 151 Semoran Commerce Place. Apopka, Florida 32703 . (407) 886-2323 Apri17,2000 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Winter Springs Commission, The intent of this letter is to outline the intangible criteria which has been taken into account on behalf of the City of Winter Springs in the recommendation of a pr~ferred vendor for the new Financial System. The goal of the RFP was to receive from qualified vendors the most "complete" and "reliable" solution they offered which would entirely replace the existing Tresun / Pentamation system as well as meet and/or exceed the feature requirements listed within the RFP. Also included as a major requirement of the RFP was a database design which would facilitate connectivity to Seminole County and the State of Florida's database system for various shared data purposes. Fifty-two RFP's were sent out to various local and national firms which had an interest in bidding on this project. After dozens of phone call, site visits, and a pre-bid conference we, received twelve "Intent to Bid" forms which resulted in seven actual bids received by the deadline of March 29,2000 @ 2:00PM. One bid was received late on March 30, 2000 @ 3:40PM which disqualified them from consideration. From the seven bids received, only three of the prospective bidders could provide a complete solution for the City of Winter Springs Financial System. Those three were SCT Global Government Solutions, Bi- Tech International, and Aquilium Software. Of these three complete bids, only one bidder offered a system that was completely and unconditionally compatible with the Seminole County system as well as the State of Florida's various systems. This vendor was SCT Global Government Solutions. SCT Global Government Solutions partnered with KIVA Land Management Systems to provide the most comprehensive bid package which will consolidate many of the independent legacy systems scattered throughout the City, as well as provide a comprehensive interface to Seminole County's land management / GIS mapping data and for the City's own future GIS system. SCT's references provided unsurpa~ praise for the installation, implementation, training, and support offered by SCT and in every case would be chosen again by each reference. SCT offers its' solution in a modular fashion which allows the City to mix and match a solution which best fits the needs of the city at this time. Three basic options have been included in the Agenda Item K. It is the recommendation of the City of Winter Springs Information Services Department, in conjunction with Ameritek Orlando Consulting that the Winter Springs Commission award SCT the bid for the Financial Systems implementation, and allow the City Manager to enter into contract negotiations with SCT to finalize the solution for the City of Winter Springs. Cordially, Michael E. Korgan Ameritek Orlando Consulting Group Attachment: Bid Cost Summary. Serving Central Florida Since 1976 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PROPOSAL COST SUMMARY - FINANCIAL SYSTEM RFP Price includes: Application Software Supporting Hardware Installation and Configuration Project Management and Training 1st Year's Support and Maintenance VENDOR NAME PROPOSAL COST DATABASE DESIGN LAND MANAGEMENT VADAR Systems: $ 113,805.00 Microsoft SOL No Bid IMSofTech: $ 214,617.00 Microsoft SOL No Bid MUNIS: $ 371,727.00 Informix Dynamic No Permitting Aquilium Software: $ 507,758.00 Microsoft SOL Non Compliant SCTGGS #1 $ 581,782.00 Oracle Systems Option #2 or #3 SC/: $ 622,883.00 Microsoft SQL Non Compliant SCTGGS #2: $ 733,107.00 Oracle Systems Yes SCTGGS #3: $ 753,515.00 Oracle Systems Yes wi GIS Interface ETCI: $ 1,004,549.00 Oracle Systems No Bid Bi-Tech: $ 2,537,844.00 Informix Dynamic Yes en (") o ~ _0 ~ en t: 3 3 Q) I 'TI -0 ~ Q) ~ (") _0 Q) - en en ..... (1) 3 en m ~ en ~ )> OJ ~ en ~ -i Q 0 'I C (') Q 0 en c -i Z -i :;) )> 0 m Ci) g. ;:0 =I c () en Ci) CD C I ~ (') ~ en :::r ~ I 3 ell , I (i) ell :;) ell I ii1 - :--J to ...... ...... ...... ...... .... ~ t .... -...J 0 0 0 0 0 Q .Q -...J s:: ~. 3 ell :3 tit (1) OJ ~ -...J OJ ...... ...... .... ~ 01 rv 01 w rv 0 0 Q N (1) Ol to (1) r- '1:l s:: ~ -...J :'J ~ OJ ~ ~ rv 0, ...... .... ::s- Ol <0 N W 0 Q II) ...... .llo. w -...J N ...... en 5' lQ OJ (1) ~ ~I~ ~ ...... .... ~ 0 01 'J NO -...J 0 Q .llo. OJ 01 tON 01 OJ 01 !Xl OJ ~ ...... to co ~ :t.. rv <0 :t.. w 0 :t.. :,.. N (1) -l>. N ...... -...J ~ :!1 >(' ell Q. OJ ...... Cl> to ...... ...... ...... .... ~ 0 0 0 Q en en ell en I tit trJ s:: ...... 01 ~ :--J ~ ...... ...... .... c8- 0 ~ 01 OJ 01 0 0 Q ell ...... 'J 01 -...J g. lQ 0 0 en - N N to ~ ...... ...... .... (') 0 .... . rv (') OJ 0...... 0 0 Q 01 .llo. OJ 0 s:: :;) t:!" :;)' lQ 0 ~ -...J 01 <o-...J ~ ~ ~ co ii1 ...... :t.. om 0 -...J to to ::::: w w <O-...J to to W W (I) (') 0 Ci1 en n o ... -. ~ en c: 3 3 Q) I :I: c: 3 Q) ~ ::c (I) en o c: ... n (I) en m<<n:s:)>cos::en -t)>Q(J)o~c~~ (')0 0 CmZG)~ ~ =lC(')(J)G)g. mCI en'" ~s:: ~ 3 Cll , I I ~ "a n' III o:><O<Xl<Xl<OCD~ . . . . . . .... oO"J~VJ<XlO>Q)-.I W N <0 01 01 ,Ilo. ~-. Qj I ~ , ~ ea ~ "0 () l Cll ~ ... !=1>~~~~....""'" OO"J01~"""VJOO ; ......<Xl<ONN 0 . 3 ' "0 j Cll ~ ~ ~ o' ~ OJ 0> .....,<O<XlCD~ OOCoOW01O>C,nCll 0'1 <OO><OQ)::!l (it I ~ -. ~ o' !Jl~.....,~~....~ oo~rso,~~oO o ~ 9' o - OJ c: Q.. !Jl 9..............eaoOo:>01<XlOOOCll w VJ ... S. ea ::t 3' Cll o:><O~<O<Xl....::O o 0 W ~ ~ ~ 0, o~ w ~ ~ ~ <Xl I~ :::l S' ea '-- '-- '-- L-J_ (J) n o .., -. ~ (J) c: 3 3 Q) I :I: c: 3 Q) ~ :;c (1) en o c: .., n (1) en m ,;; en s:: )> S!:! s:: en -l Q 0 ~ c o~ () 0 en c z -i:::s )> 0 m G>Q. ;:0 =i c () en C)O m C I en"" () s:: ~ I :3 Cl) ~ ~ 0 :::: 0 Q) 0- c:: iii :'l CO C1l CO ..... .... g- O 0 ..... :t.. -...J CXl 0 0 :::s ..... I\.) W Q) :::s Q. 0 (ii' I ::;- 5= I c:: - O' :::s ~ "':: a :::: , ):0 I I oS: c:: CIl , g <0 CO ~..... ..... co 0 06 0, go 0 en Cl) <0 01 U'I :::s tit Q) :::s Q. :x: (ii' 0 -< 0 ~ ....,CXl C1l co co coiil "-><0 0,0, . - 00 m co- Ol..... WI\.) .(1) (') 0 ~ ------------------- Scorinq Summary - Financial Systems Vendors Name General Requirements G/L Purchasing AlP AIR Fixed Assests Budgeting Cost Accounting Overall Score SCTGGS 10 10 10 10 9.47 10 10 10 9.93 MUNIS 10 10 10 10 9.47 10 10 10 9.93 ---.-- 10 9.79 Sf-TECH 10 9.31 9.75 10 10 10 9.28 AQUILlUM 10 8.26 8.62 9.02 8.31 10 8.57 10 9.09 I MSofTech 10 7.39 8.27 8.29 8.42 9 7.85 2.14 7.67 .- SCI 10 9.56 7.93 9.75 8.94 8 8.57 10 9.09 VADAR 9.44 8.26 7.24 6.58 5.26 1 5.71 0 5.43 ETCI 7.77 6.52 5.51 8.04 8.42 8 10 2.85 7.13 ------------------- Scoring Summary - Human Resources Vendor Name Applicant Tracking EmploymentlComDensauon Benefits Position Control Budgeting Time ReDorting I SCTGGS 9.64 10 9.56 10 10 10 I MUNIS 9.65 9.32 8.69 9.64 10 8.88 81- TECH 8.85 9.72 9.56 8.92 10 9.44 I AQUILlUM 8.39 8.49 7.39 7.5 0.83 4.44 IMSofTECH 9.42 m ... 9.58 10 8.92. 5 9.44 I --_.~ o_~_____ SCI 8.73 6.71 6.95 5.35 5.83 8.33 . VADAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 I ETCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------------- Scoring Summary - Human Resources Vendor Name Payroll Calculation and Distribution Payroll Adjustments and History Overall Score SCTGGS 10 9.55 9.84 MUNIS 10 10 9.52 BI-TECH -.-- 9.8 --- -------. 10 9.53 --..--- AQUILlUM 6.73 9.09 6.6 IMSoffECH , 9:42 9.55 8.91 __ SCI 7.11 9.09 7.26 VAOAR 0 0 0 ETCI 0 0 0 ------------------- Scoring Summary - Licensinq and Permitting System Vendors Name Occupational Licensing Building Permits Contractor Licensing Temporary Use Permits Overall Score SCTGGS 10 9.12 8.88 7.77 8.94 MUNIS 10 0 7.77 7.77 6.38 81..TECH 9.51 -c- 8.85 9.44 10 9.45 AQUILlUM 8 6 7.22 6.66 6.97 I MSoffech 0 .. 0 0 0 0 -~-- 8.02 SCI 7.5 6.85 8.88 8.88 VADAR 0 0 0 0 0 - ETCI 0 0 0 0 0 I I i I I en (") o .., -. ~ en ~ 3 3 Q) I - ~ < (1) ~ ..... o en tn ..... (1) 3 m ~ en s: )> cos: tJ) -I Q 0 IC n (') 0 (/) C -Iz ~ )> 0 m_ ;::0 ~ C (')(/) G> () C Ii CJ) ::T s: a;t n ~ :3 .... n II) - ~ , ..Q c: ~. :3 ~ (\) :'" :--J :--J -....J :3 0> 0 ~ CO 0 CQ lit 010 ~ <.n N <.n N ! I 0 I I I ~ I I I iiJ I :::: (I) n :'" :--J -....J ~I:--J 0 0> 0 Cn CO 0 Cl:l ~ '0 0 ~ <.n .to. N<.n N ------------------- Scorin~ Summary - Customer Information System Vendor Name Techn~alSpecifications Meter Reading Establishing Accounts Billing Payments Collections Adjustments I SCTGGS 10 9.44 9.63 9.68 8.18 9 10 ~_.J MUNIS 9.54 10 9.81 9.37 10 10 10 81- TECH 9.54 9.44 9.63 10 9.54 10 ~~-~-'1O-l AQUILlUM 9.09 7.22 9.09 10 9.54 9 10 I MSoITech 10 7.77 9.81 8.75 8.63 8 9.28 I --~---_._- .~-.-~~.,-~..-.,~---~ set 8.63 5.55 8.12 9.06 7.72 8 5.55 VADAR 8.18 6.66 5.63 7.5 5.91 5 7.85 l ETCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I g I ~ -. ~ I en 3 I 3 Q) I I g> I t/) g I (t) 5- I ~ ~ I Q) .... c)" I ~ ~ I .... (t) 3 I I I I I m<CIl ::t>c:o~en -t ::t> Q ~ 0 2:i C ~ .~ 00 0 CrnZe>::J ~ =iCOCf)e>8- (t) C I en '" C'>".. C!: ::r:::.. III :3 CD (I) CD 3 I r" -....I ............-....I..a.CD Oo,01ex>00CJ100 ::J- III <<Q ~ :z: !=O -l......l. --a. -l. ... ,iii" 0-....101000000 CJ1 -< )). r:::: ~1:):)-....Iex>ex>........a.Q. Oo>wCJ1WWOO;:;: o>W ww S. CQ ~ ~ 01 0> co ex> 0> CD .:lII' OO<:OCoCJ1NCOUtO ..... CJ1 0> 0> CJ1 en :a. CD iil ..:11 .~ ~ !=X>!J1~......~~_-. O......""'WOO"'O"~ ex> 01 0> co -....I .CD .::s III ::J C') CD o -....1.....-....1............ ~ Oo,o,o,OOCJ1Ut?> (I) ~ .... ~-.Io.-lr.--a.-lr.--a....S" OoooooooCB' i C') CD "tI a C') CD III III ......, -.....J -J -l. -l. ... 5' oOo,o,o,ooolQ .::0 CD 2' ::J .~ '-- '-- '-- L-I_ I I I I 8 I ... -" ~ I en 3 I 3 Q) I I g> I tn ~ I CD 5- I ~ ~ I Q) .... g" I ~ I .... CD 3 I I I I I m<cn )>OJ5:en~ -1)>Q~O:!:ie~CD QO 0 ~m~(j)a ~ ~c(')cn(j)O <DeI en'"' o ::;:0 ~ ::T:::.. Q) :3 CD o o :3 :3 CD .......................................;a, 0(,,0,(,,0000(1) C') Ci1 ~ III b ~ ;:,. ~ w ~............ S: OOwOwwoo:;) w ww lQ tJ Qj S tD Q) C') ~ :!! o ~ tJ ~""""""''''''''''''CI) OOOWoooo< W -. C') CI) ;t lU ~ 5' lQ "tl a C') m III 5' ....... ...... ....... ...... _.lQ Oo<OO1ooo-"":t o :;) S ~ Q. tD Qj !=X>~!=X>~..................Qj 0(X)01(X)Q)000~ (X) 01 (X) Q) _. :;) lQ ~!J>:--J!=X>~~CDO' o 0 0> 01 <0 W I\.) w.~ (X)WWQ)01.....:::, 'i . " CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA Ronald W. McLemore City Manager 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327c1800 MEMORANDUM FROM: Mayor and Commission/} . A /' ~ 1/ L/" Ronald W. McLemore, City Manager { " TO: DATE: April 10, 2000 SUB]: Financial/GIS Information System Improvements The bid results for the Financial Management System is stated below along with"-the cost of consulting services approved by the Commission. The original off-the-cuff estimate was $350,000 plus $50,000 consulting fees for a total of $400,000. The bid has come in higher than estimated. However, the inclusion of the KJV A Land Base Management Revenue Accoun"ting System in Option II p.rovides the platform for having a full GIS interaction with the County as provided in Option III for an additional $20,000 over the cost of Option II. APPLICATIONS SCT AMERITEK TOTAL OPTION I $581,782 $45,130 $626,912 Finance Human Resources OPTION II $733,107 $45,130 $778,237 Finance Human Resources Land Management Revenue OPTION III $773,515 $45,130 $798,645 Finance Human Resources Land Management Revenue GIS ') p;? I am recommending Option III due to the fact that it allows us to implement Financial Systems and GIS in one state of the art seamless inter-active system. Financing alternatives are included on the attached table. I am recommending that the cost be frnanced over 10 years with the General Fund and Utility Fund paying 50% of the cost each as shown in Alternative II. Total costs on this table are rounded to the nearest $1,000. This results in the General Fund annual debt service cost being $50,000 per year rather than $90,000 per year as provided in the budget. When the budget was approved the utility system was not allocated its share of the cost, as it should have been. /jp ATTACHMENT U:\Docs\ Word\BUDGET\GIS System Improvements.doc Page 20f2 FINANCING ALTERNATIVES FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT/GIS INFORMATION SYSTEM COST 5-YEAR NOTE to-YEAR NOTE General Utility General Utility General Utility Fund Fund Total Fund Fund Total Fund Fund Total BUDGET $350,000 -0- $350,000 $90,000 -0- $90,000 OPTION I $313,500 $313,500 $627,000 $71,000 $71,000 $142,000 $40,000 $40,000 $80,000 Finance Human Resources OPTION II $389,000 $389,000 $778,000 $88,000 $88,000 $176,000 $48,500 $48,500 $97,000 Finance Human Resources Land Management Revenue OPTION III $399,500 $399,500 $799,000 $90,000 $90,000 $180,000 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 Finance Human Resources Land Management Revenue GIS f" U:\Docs\ Word\BUDGET\Financial Mgmt System.doc 4. i. lAta,. _ f IFIiii1=C II 0 R LAN D 0, I N C. I I I ~ , ~ II I I~ I: I,' ~ ~ ~ 151 Semoran Commerce Place. Apopka, Florida 32703 . (407) 886-2323 April 7,2000 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Winter Springs Commission, The intent of this letter is to outline the intangible criteria which has been taken into account on behalf of the City of Winter Springs in the recommendation of a preferred vendor for the new Financial System. The goal of the RFP was to receive from qualified vendors the most "complete" and "reliable" solution they offered which would entirely replace the existing Tresun / Pentamation system as well as meet and/or exceed the feature requirements listed within the RFP. Also included as a major requirement of the RFP was a database design which would facilitate connectivity to Seminole County and the State of Florida's database system for various shared data purposes. Fifty-two RFP's were sent out to various local and national firms which had an interest in bidding on this project. After dozens of phone call, site visits, and a pre-bid conference we, received twelve "Intent to Bid" forms which resulted in seven aq:ual bids received by the deadline of March 29,2000 @ 2:00PM. One bid was received late on March 30, 2000 @ 3:40PM which disqualified them from consideration. From the seven bids received, only three of the prospective bidders could provide a complete solution for the City of Winter Springs Financial System. Those three were SCT Global Government Solutions, Bi- Tech International, and Aquilium Software. Of these three complete bids, only one bidder offered a system that was completely and unconditionally compatible with the Seminole County system as well as the State of Florida's various systems. This vendor was SCT Global Government Solutions. SCT Global Government Solutions partnered with KIVA Land Management Systems to provide the most comprehensive bid package which will consolidate many of the independent legacy systems scattered throughout the City, as well as provide a comprehensive interface to Seminole County's land management / GIS mapping data and for the City's own future GIS system. SCT's references provided unsurpassed praise for the installation, implementation, training, and support offered by SCT and in every case would be chosen again by each reference. SCT offers its' solution in a modular fashion which allows the City to mix and match a solution which best fits the needs of the city at this time. Three basic options have been included in the Agenda Item K. It is the recommendation of the City of Winter Springs Information Services Department, in conjunction with Ameritek Orlando Consulting that the Winter Springs Commission award SCT the bid for the Financial Systems implementation, and allow the City Manager to enter into contract negotiations with SCT to finalize the solution for the City of Winter Springs. Cordially, Michael E. Korgan Ameritek Orlando Consulting Group Attachment: Bid Cost Summary. Serving Central Florida Since 1976 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PROPOSAL COST SUMMARY - FINANCIAL SYSTEM RFP Price includes: Application Software Supporting Hardware Installation and Configuration Project Management and Training 1st Year's Support and Maintenance VENDOR NAME PROPOSAL COST DATABASE DESIGN LAND MANAGEMENT V ADAR Systems: $ 113,805.00 Microsoft SQL No Bid IMSofTech: $ 214,617.00 Microsoft SQL No Bid MUNIS: $ 371,727.00 Intormix Dynamic No Permitting Aquilium Software: $ 507,758.00 Microsoft SQL Non Compliant SCTGGS #1 $ 581,782.00 Oracle Systems Option #2 or #3 SCI: $ 622,883.00 Microsoft SQL Non Compliant SCTGGS #2: $ 733,107.00 Oracle Systems Yes SCTGGS #3: $ 753,515.00 Oracle Systems Yes wI GIS Interface ETCI: $ 1,004,549.00 Oracle Systems No Bid Bi-Tech: $ 2,537,844.00 Intormix Dynamic Yes ScorinQ Summary - Complete Bid Packa~ Requirements Score Database Score Maintenance Score Reference Score Vendor Stability Score Cost Score BID SCORE SCTGGS 9.242 10 9.5 10 9.5 1.43 49.67 MUNIS 8.43 8 7.5 8.5 9.5 2.65 44.58 BI-TECH 9.38 8 8 8.5 8 0.43 42.31 AQUILlUM 7.852 6 8.5 7.5 8 1.81 39.66 I MSofTech 6.23 6 7.5 7 6.5 3.38 36.61 SCI 7.728 6 9 6.5 4 1.44 34.67 VADAR 2.302 6 3 8 7.5 2.36 29.16 ETCI 1 .426 10 2.5 5.5 5.5 0.16 25.09 ------------------- Scoring Summary - Overall Systems Requirments Vendors Name Financial Systems Human Resources Licensing and Permitting Inventory Management System I SCTGGS 9.93 9.84 8.94 8.2 I MUNIS 9.93 9.52 6.38 7.05 81- TECH 9.79 9.53 9.45 8.82 I AQUILlUM 9.09 6.6 6.97 7.64 I MSoITech 7.67 8.91 0 7.05 I SCI 9.09 7.26 8.02 7.64 VADAR 5.43 0 0 0 I ETCI 7.13 0 0 0 ------------------- Scoring Summary - Overall Systems Requirments Vendors Name Customer Information System ReQuirements - Overall Score SCTGGS 9.3 9.242 MUNIS 9.27 8.43 BI-TECH 9.35 9.38 AQUILlUM 8.96 7.852 I MSofTech 7.53 6.23 SCI 6.63 7.728 VADAR 6.08 2.302 ETCI 0 1.426 ------------------- Scorintl Summary - Financial Systems Vendors Name General Requirements G/L Purchasing AlP AIR Fixed Assests Budgeting Cost Accounting Overall Score SCTGGS 10 10 10 10 9.47 10 10 10 9.93 MUNIS 10 10 10 10 9.47 10 10 10 9.93 81- TECH 10 10 9.31 9.75 10 10 10 9.28 9.79 AQUILlUM 10 8.26 8.62 9.02 8.31 10 8.57 10 9.09 IMSoffech 10 7.39 8.27 8.29 8.42 9 7.85 2.14 7.67 set 10 9.56 7.93 9.75 8.94 8 8.57 10 9.09 VADAR 9.44 8.26 7.24 6.58 5.26 1 5.71 0 5.43 ETCI 7.77 6.52 5.51 8.04 8.42 8 10 2.85 7.13 ------------------- Scoring Summary - Human Resources Vendor Name Applicant Tracking Emp/oyment/CompensaUon Benefits Position Control Budgeting Time Reporting I SCTGGS 9.64 10 9.56 10 10 10 I MUNIS 9.65 9.32 8.69 9.64 10 8.88 BI-TECH 8.85 9.72 9.56 8.92 10 9.44 I AQUILlUM 8.39 8.49 7.39 7.5 0.83 4.44 IMSofTECH 9.42 9.58 10 8.92 5 9,44 I set 8.73 6.71 6.95 5.35 5.83 8.33 VADAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 I ETCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------------- Scoring Summary - Human Resources Vendor Name Payroll Calculation and Distribution Payroll Adjustments and History Overall Score SCTGGS 10 9.55 9.84 MUNIS 10 10 9.52 BI-TECH 9.8 10 9.53 AQUILlUM 6.73 9.09 6.6 IMSofTECH 9.42 9.55 8.91 SCI 7.11 9.09 7.26 VADAR 0 0 0 ETCI 0 0 0 ------------------- ------------------- ScorinQ Summary - Licensing and Permittinq System Vendors Name Occupational Licensing Bui/ding Permits Contractor Licensing Temporarv Use Permits Overall Score SCTGGS 10 9.12 8.88 7.77 8.94 MUNIS 10 0 7.77 7.77 6.38 BI-TECH 9.51 8.85 9.44 10 9.45 AQUILlUM 8 6 7.22 6.66 6.97 IMSofT ech .. 0 0 0 0 0 SCI 7.5 6.85 8.88 8.88 8.02 VADAR '0 0 0 0 0 ETCI 0 0 0 0 0 ------------------- ScorinQ Summary - Inventory Manaqement System Technical Requirements Overall Score SCTGGS 8.2 8.2 MUNIS 7.05 7.05 BI-TECH 8.82 8.82 AQUILlUM 7.64 7.64 IMS6fTech 7.~05 7.05 SCI 7.64 7.64 VADAR 0 0 ETel 0 0 ------------------- Scorin~ Summary - Customer Information System Vendor Name Technical Specifications Meter Readina Establishing Accounts Billing Payments Collections Adjustments I SCTGGS 10 9.44 9.63 9.68 8.18 9 10 I MUNIS 9.54 10 9.81 9.37 10 10 10 BI-TECH 9.54 9.44 9.63 10 9.54 10 10 I AQUILlUM 9.09 7.22 9.09 10 9.54 9 10 IMSoffech 10 7.77 9.81 8.75 8.63 8 9.28 I SCI 8.63 5.55 8.12 9.06 7.72 8 5.55 VADAR 8.18 6.66 5.63 7.5 5.91 5 7.85 I ETCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 /' ------------------- Scoring Summary - Customer Information System Vendor Name .Se'r:JIic~Cl1.aiges;ljlstory Auditing Work Orders File Maintenance C.A.S.S G/L Interface Processing Refunds I SCTGGS '10 ., ...." >10 10 9.56 10 5 10 10 I MUNIS 7.5 10 10 6.95 7.27 5 10 10 BI-TECH c. 1,(F- ........ ~.~lO .. 8.33 8.26 9.09 10 10 10 I AQUILlUM 10 10 8.33 9.56 10 10 10 7.5 I MSofTech .. ...j~f: 10...--.. 7.5 6.95 6.36 7.5 10 7.5 I SCI 5 5 8.33 5.81 5.45 7.5 10 7.5 VADAR 7.5 ...... 8.75... 6.66 0 8.18 7.5 10 0 I ETCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------------- ScorinQ Summary - Customer Information System Vendor Name Comment Screens Archiving Data Back-Flow Device Tracking Processing Month End Balancing Total SCTGGS 10 10 10 7 10 9.3 MUNIS 10 10 10 10 10 9.27 BI-TEGH 10 3.33 10 10 10 9.35 AQUILlUM 10 3.33 10 10 6.66 8.96 I MSofTech ....m 7.,5 0 3.33 5 8.88 7.53 SCI 7.5 3.33 0 9 5.55 6.63 VADAR 7.5 0 0 10 8.88 6.08 ETGI 0 0 0 0 0 0