HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 2022.04.14 - 35437BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
April 14, 2022
MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION #22-110
Sponsored By: Gwen Markham
Information Technology - Budget Amendment Website Content Management System Implementation
Chairperson and Members of the Board:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Oakland County Board of Commissioners approves the transfer
of the amount of $357,638 from the General Fund Non -Departmental Transfers (9090101) Technology Projects
- One Time line item (#760180) to the Information Technology Fund (#63600) for the Website Content
Management System Implementation Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners approves the following
budget amendment as detailed in the attached Schedule A document.
Chairperson, the following Commissioners are sponsoring the foregoing Resolution: Gwen Markham.
(f �� du Date: April 14, 2022
David Woodward, Commissioner
�1QP��
^"� au Date: April 22 2022
Hilarie Chambers, Deputy County Executive II
�f
Date: April 25, 2022
Lisa Brown, County Clerk / Register of Deeds
COMMITTEE TRACKING
2022-04-06 Finance -recommend to Board
2022-04-14 Full Board
VOTE TRACKING
Motioned by Commissioner Gwen Markham seconded by Commissioner Penny Luebs to adopt the attached
Budget Amendment: Website Content Management System Implementation.
Yes: David Woodward, Michael Gingell, Michael Spisz, Karen Joliet, Kristen Nelson, Eileen Kowall,
Christine Long, Philip Weipert, Gwen Markham, Angela Powell, Thomas Kuhn, Charles Moss, Marcia
Gershenson, William Miller III, Yolanda Smith Charles, Charles Cavell, Penny Luebs, Janet Jackson, Robert
Hoffman, Adam Kochenderfer (20)
No: None (0)
Abstain: None (0)
Absent: (0)
Passed
ATTACHMENTS
Amendment Schedule A
Draft Contract for Website Content Management
RFP Scorecard Summary
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
I, Lisa Brown, Clerk of the County of Oakland, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and
accurate copy of a resolution adopted by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners on April 14, 2022, with
the original record thereof now remaining in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the Circuit Court at Pontiac,
Michigan on Thursday, April 14, 2022.
Lisa Brown.. Oakland County Clerk/Register of Deeds
Oakland County, Michigan
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - WEBSITE CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION
Schedule " A" DETAIL
Operating
ndmzent
R/E
Fund Name
I Division Name
Fund #
I Division #I
Program #I
Account #I
Un (OU)
I Affiliate
I Account Title
Amendment
I Am
Amendment
E
General Fund
10100
9090101
196030
760180
Technology Projects -One Time
(357,638)
-
-
E
General Fund
10100
9010101
196030
788001
63600
Transfer Out — IT Fund
357,638
-
-
Total Expenditures
$ -
1 $ -
$ -
R
Information Technology
63600
1080101
152000
695500
10100
Transfer In - General Fund
1 $ 357,638
L 357,6381
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Total Revenue
�
E
Information Technology
63600
1080201
152010
730373
Contracted Services
$ 357,638I
$ -
$ -
I $ -
$ -
Total Expenses
$ 357,638
Oakland County Department of Information Technology
Content Mgt Sys and Email -Text Mktg Sys RFP
Vendor and Product Scoring List - Master Compilation and Summary
--
Y
I Y
I Y
Y
N
Y I
Y
I Y
Passed Critical Requirements (From Appendix A)
y
I y
y I
y
N
Y
Y
I Y
Solution Requirements "High and Med and Low" (From
1
Appendix A)
20%
3.19
2.77
2.50
1.84
0.00
3.34
3.31
2.69
Vendor Demos (top three vendors only)
Scores from vendor demo evaluation
30%
3.42
0.00
2.48
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
2.03
Remaining RFP Summary Responses'
20%
3.02
2.60
1.87
1.36
0.00
2.81
2.76
2.46
Cost score based on Price Proposal total year cost
I(From Appendix D)
30%
4.00
2.40
3.40
3.00
0.00
1.00
1.80
3.00
Written ResponseWeiahtedEvaluaiotScore - ....
�100%' '� � . -�'-�"
3A7- �
• � : 1.78" �
."�-� Z64,��
': 1.54,
�. -. 0.00.'
� -�1—
-�-1,76 ::=
�� 2,54Top
rRemaining
3 prior to Demo
1 {
4
3
6
0
7
5
2
RFP Summary Responses
Corporate Viability and Vision (section 9)
Top 3 after Demo
Technical Compliance (App 6 approach)
Implementation and Support (App C approach)
Value -Added Alternatives (section 11)
Licensing (section 5.4)
CMS Part A RFP Scorecard_Summary_vl/Summary Page 1
Oakland County Department of Information Technology
004784 Land Records Management RFP
Vendor and Product Scoring List - Master Compilation and Summary
Transfer rating of the Corporate Viability
and Vision Requirements for the
10%
2.80
2.40
2.60
2.00
0.00
2.88
2.90 220
appropriate tab (automatic)
Transfer rating of the Technical
Compliance for the appropriate tab
30%
3.10
2.40
1.40
1.00
0.00
3.13
3.30 2.50
(automatic)
Transfer rating of the Implementation
and Support for the appropriate tab
25%
3.20
2.60
1.70
1.20
0.00
3.53
2.80 2.30
(automatic)
Transfer rating of the Value Added
Alternatives for the appropriate tab
10 %
2.50
2.40
2.00
1.80
0.00
1.75
220 2.00
(automatic)
Transfer rating of the Licensing for the
appropriate tab (automatic)
25%
3.00
3.00
2.25
1.50
0.00
2.00
225 2.75
Total Score ...:3.02'-
-, .:
2.60.
1 ZT � ...
1.36 .
0.00
2$f - . 2.743 .: 246 �_
Score Legends
Remaining RFP
Criteria
-Automatically populated
1
NOTE: IT made more sense to bring in summarized scores from the individual
tabs
to the sections above.
We will not use the summary version calculations below, starting on row 15.
All scores represented on this tab are collected
from other tabs in this score workbook.
CMS Part A RFP Scorecard_Summary_v1/Remaining RFP Summary Page 2
Oakland County Department of Information Technology
004784 Land Records Management RFP
Vendor and Product Scoring List - Master Compilation and Summary
ttrr written in a protessional manner and
satisfied all requirements.
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Yes, they complied with the RFP
N
No, they did not comply with the RFP
Section below is ONLY for Master Copy
Scorer 1
Y
Y
Y
Y I
N
I N/A
Y
Y
Scorer 2
Y
Y
Y
Y I
N
I Y
Y
Y
Scorer 3
Y
Y
Y
Y I
N
I Y
Y
Y
Scorer 4
Y
Y
Y
Y I
N
1 Y
Y
Y
Scorer 5 I
Y
Y
Y
Y I
N
Y
Y
Y
Total Y j
5
5
5
5 I
0
4
I
5 1
5
Total N 1
0
1
0
0 1 0 I
5
0
0 1
0
Final Y/Nj
Y
I Y I Y I Y I
N
I Y I
Y I
Y 1
CMS Part A RFP Scorecard_Summary_v1/PA-RFP Compliance Page 3
nansmus w. paue-Inwer cnandes
A-GE-01
Y/N
Ability for content contributors to add pages to the secondary navigation
A-CE-02
YIN
h
y
'
Funchonal on -page breadcrumbs that are automatically updated when
content is added, edited, or removed from the site
A-CE-03
Y/N
r
Y
�Jser-friendly and intuitive back end and WYSIWYG editor
A-GE-05
Y/N
i I t�
Content versioninNmllback of content to Previous version
A-CE-08
YIN
{
'I
{ 1 - •• N
View/EaH HTML for webpaoe content
A-CE-09
Y/N
r
Y
Y Y I
Compatibility across multiple desktop browsers.
tI
Provide a list of browsers findudmp mobile devices)
A-D-OT
Y/N
r
1
r v r y
Y
across multiple mobile browsers'_ Phone and Android
(Compatibility
mobile browsers
p-0-06
Y/N
l
Y
IIr
t -
Abilitytofollowthe County's brand guidelines
A-D-09
Y/N
Availability of a wide variety of page templatellayout options to support a
-
diverse array of information across county departments (currently over 80
A-D-13
de artments and ro rams)
Y/N
{
y
y
val a i o a vane o widgets mousing (but not limited ro7.
-
•Custom HTML
•Data Tables
-Document Rollup
Embedded Online Fenps
-Embedded Video
A-D-14
-Embedded Social Media Feeds
•Information Gallout Boxes
•NewslPress Releases
-Maps
-Photo Galleries
-Photo and/or Post Carousel
WIN
'{
/Browser based solution - enabling trained content editors to make
updates without havmq to download or purchase any additional software
A-G I
WIN
Y r •r
Ability to use key third -party, integrators:
-Doodle Analybcs
-SRelmprove
- not -blocked to integrate
NOTE: this is a piece of this question, remainder is listed as a "High" on
the PA -Solution Rep "Hqh Med Low'tab.
A-G-05
Y/N
v
r a
Does the solution confirm to standards set by WCAG 2.1 guidelines and
1
section 508?
A-G-08
Y/N
Availability of websrte/page hierarchy fsubsM1e capability)
A-G-00
Y/N
r Y I
Ability for website to be responsive across all devices/screen sizes
A-G-11
Y/N
_
r Y I e
Ability to push custom alert banner messages at global levels
NOTE this is a piece of this question, remainder is listed as a "Low" on
A-G12
the PA -Solution Reg "Rich Mod Low" tab.
Y/N
Y Y
Ability for search to find content within web carts
A-G-13
Y/N
1 Y
Transparent, proactive communication from vendor regarding any
planned site updates and/or patches
AG-14
Y/N
Y Y Y "
Availability of global and nested navigation
A-(S-IT
Y/N
Y r 7 Y I v
(Are there Typical steps in ensuring that the code is up to date and has
been vetted for known threatsv
ASE-02
Y/N
Y
Does the solubon enforce patching against the latest CVEs tCommon
Vulnerabilities and Exposures)?
q-SE-03
Y/N
Y Y Y Y
Does the solution protect against cross site scripting and other known
II(
attacks, such as server -side request forgery, etc.?
qSE-04
Y/N
r { Y v
DoesMesolutionhaveausermanagementsystemtoenforceleast
privilege access?
qSE-0SE
Y/N
{ Y y
Ability to have a change log/report to easily review what was changed, by
whom, and when
ASA-01
Y/N
v { Y / -
Role based permissions allowing the restr¢hon of content edmrg by
I(
subsite
ASA-08
Y/N
Y Y + -•
Technical support Post -implementation
ASU-01
Y/N
1 Y Y Y 1
199.9% Upmee. 2W system momtonng and emergency support
A-SU-03
YIN
Abtlrty to scale dunng times of peak demand maintaining performance
(and availability
ASU-04
IN Y
r
r
Does the solution use Cloud -based Software -as -a -Service l5aa5l
ASY-07
IN I Y
t t
Ability to create website anaiytics and filter base, on cdteda (topic,
tagging, deaf. etc.)
ASY-02
YIN Y
I r
v
Robust msde search funotionakty, which includes ablity to hide or
himsoht autumn subsites, banes. or tables
ASY-04
IN Y I Y
r
v
Is a pass fail evaluation on this sheet, as part of a team discussion.
Provide your overall "Y" or "N" score for the vendors A "N" answer will
r
Y
..
we a discussion on behalf of the score team.
IN
Y
N I N
Y
Y 4 I
t f I ( Y ' r Revlzereeervetl an ove211'N"tlue to not pawing RFP
N
t Rave, nce
Oakland County Department of Information Technology
004784 Land Records Management RFP
Vendor and Product Scoring List - Master Compilation and Summary
Appendix A CMS Part A Design (A-D)
Appendix A CMS Part A General (A-G)
Appendix A CMS Part A Security (A -SE)
Appendix A CMS Part A Site Administrators (A -SA)
Appendix A CMS Part A Support (A-SU)
[Appendix A CMS PartA System (ASY)
Score Legends
1 3.60
2.90 1 2.70
1 2.00 1
3.88
3.70
2.30
2.90
2.40 2.70
1.60
3.13
3.20
2.90
3.00
2.50 2.30
1.80
3.25
3.20
2.90
2.90
2.80 2.20
2.10
+ 3.50
3.50
2.90
1 3.40
2.90 2.50
1.80
3.63
3.40
I
2.30
1 3.30
3.10 2.50
1.80
3.63
3.20
3.00
3.20
280 2.60
1.80
2.38
3.00
2.50
4
(Exceeds Expectations
3
(Meets Expectations
2
`Meets some Expectations
1
(Does not meet Expectations
'aboVe.Append'a-Categories,,itre aYerage of the Seoters.aalues in iF>e : i 8 19. �.: 2.77- -_ 2.5(? - - 1.84
0.00 ( 3.34if:,:3.311 - i% '
CMS Part A RFP Scorecard_Summary_v1/PA-Solution Req High Med Low Page 6
,-Mv
Summary �11C°cP°rateUiabilltYand,/,%S°n
CN1S pact P �FP ScOf eGatd'
Page 7
est Of Informat orl RFP d Sum ary
m
d Gournty D nd �e cal ord has{e gGo PIIafIOn an
OaKian 00 8 f coring List
Vendor
and Product S p0 tam
Page 8
� Su�maN �11 (ecrr�ca�c°t�P�iancg
cOS Pad P RPP Scoreca
hnoio9y
t of inform rn fi RFP d SuMn'ary
d County Deplore eords Mate Co piiation an
Oakian 04184sco in9 i-ist. M
Vendor and product
Page 10 \
Sun,rnaN v1I\mP\emen�6On and guPP°R
GMS Part P RFP S6O(ecard'
mationtechno4o9Y
ePartmeot ° Mana9 ment RI Fp d gumrnarY
nd GountY De arld Record aster Gomp�iation an
01 0041g4Scorin9 fist' 1 Zo
Vendor and Product 'I I 170
10*0t SCote to(
Page Al
ummary v1I\mP�ettjenta6on and guPPott
GMSPa��RFPscpsecacd S
nt of "ar,
mation 7ateochnnaonlo9Y
fd Sumnary
rl artm
ty deoterCopi
paklan p°u004784 st'Masn
vendor and PoducttScorngLi
�n
vow
Page 12
Summer VANatue Add AltemaGves
G1y1S pad A rtfP Scoregcd,
of Information RFPn°logy mart
erlt
paklarl 478$ D d epaRr a o Master onage C mP� ation and Sum
List
Vendor and product Scoring
i pvero V vera : - ends /�2 Below P 1.50 .Kith then resPnse.
msry
vr�e'sonau / � 3 � 225 thyrr ProPsed Pr°doct`�$eNr�s
3.00 0
Total score SUmis re\arin9
Vendor snail ada paftn PncePOP°sal9reemon
of Rf P . en aco
Fsorn section 5 4 has slreadr
cost of IroensW6
Pa90 A3
vltUcensrn9
cNIS Paft ARFP Scorecard Sommarf,
e legends
wM Other Vendors
Oakland County Department of Information Technology
«Type Name of System» RFP
Vendor and Product Scoring List - Master Compilation and Summary
Vendor satisfies all requirements and has lowest cost solution
Vendor satisfies major requirements and has reasonable cost solution compared to vendor respondents
Vendor satisfies major requirements and has higher cost solution compared to vendor respondents
Vendor satisfies some requirements and has higher cost solution compared to vendor respondents
1.80
CMS Pad A RFP Scorecard_Summary_v1/Price Proposal Page 14
Oakland County Department of Information Technology
004784 Land Records Management RFP
Vendor and Product Scoring List - Master Compilation and Summary
(Vendor Monitored Chat and Answered Questions 1 3.30 1.85 ( (, ( 2.60
Solution Presented is Functional for Oakland Countv 3.40 2.65 j - ( ( 1.60
Total Score for Summary 3.42 2.48 j j 2.03
IScoreLepiends Demo Respor ses
Exceeds Expectations =
Vendor Demo Evaluation 4 Vendor provided a professional, clear and concise presentation. Presentation started and ended on time.
- Vendor monitored chat and answered all questions with acceptable answers.
- Solution presented is best in class and aligns with the needs and functions of Oakland County organization.
Minimal customization may be required.
Meets Expectations =
- Vendor provided a professional, mostly clear and concise presentation. Presentation started and ended on
3 time-
- Vendor monitored chat and answered most questions with acceptable answers.
- Solution presented is functional and aligns with most of the needs and functions of Oakland County
organization. Moderate customization will be required.
Meets Some Expectations =
- Vendor presentation was mostly professional and/or sometimes difficult to follow. Presentation did not start
2 or end on time.
- Vendor monitored chat and answered most questions but did not provide clear answers or enough detail.
- Solution presented may not be functional without extensive customization to align with the needs of Oaklant
County organization.
Does Not Meet Expectations =
- Vendor presentation was not professional, was not concise or did not start or end on time.
1 - Vendor did not monitor chat and/or questions were not answered.
- Solution presented requires too much customization to align with the needs of Oakland County
organization.
CMS PartA RFP Scorecard_Summary_vVPA-RFP Demos Page 15
Oakland County Department of Information Technology
004784 Land Records Management RFP
Vendor and Product Scoring List - Master Compilation and Summary
3 1
4 1
5 1
6 �1
7 1
8 1
9 1
10 1 A-D-16
A-G-05
A-G-07
Corporate Viability and Vison
Implementation and Support
Implementation and Support
I I t f and Su ort
V Current successful Oakland County vendor.
38 Also has multiple contracts at local and national
level for this service
Implementation plan is excellent - Answers were
108 complete and comprehensive. I just wasn't a fan
of their default terms. Which would need to be
negotiated if selected.
108 Vendor supports for the duration of the site
implementation
Custom SLA will need to be created - Standard
mp emen a ion pp 69 is not sufficient
SL& - Level 1 = 1 hour initial response time is
Implementation and Support 69 not sufficient for complete website outage;
Implementation and Support
Implementation and Support
Licensing
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
Under 30 min is ideal
990/, uptime requirement. Many locations note
69 99.9% guaranteed uptime = 2.19h allowable
downtime per quarter
69 'Site Outage exclusions are not acceptable
69 Site Outage exclusions are not acceptable
Question was re: hosting videos in the CMS and
80 an integrated player. Vendor responded with
External hosted videolplayer details.
82 Yes assumes it integrates with alloted, n
"variety" is suspicious
Based on Comments, CMS does not have
83 I integrated multi-lingual capabilities.
CMS Part A RFP Scorecard_Summary_v1/Comments Page 17
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Oakland County Department of Information Technology
004784 Land Records Management RFP
Vendor and Product Scoring List - Master Compilation and Summary
1 A-SA-02 /A-
SA-06
1 A-SU-01
1 A-SY-02
1
1
1
1
1
1
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
PA -Solution Req High h Med Low
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
Price Proposal
Technical Compliance
Value Add Alternatives
Value Add Alternatives
Value Add Alternatives
Value Add Alternatives
91 & 92
0IN
What level is the banner/alert? Can we have a
separate emergency alerts/banner at
homepage/site vs subsite level? Can we have
multiple types of banners (e.g. holiday schedule
notice in a different color than emergency alert
banner)'
Items that made it a 4
Item that made it a 4
95 Nice feature to not have to provide everyone
Google Analytics account (many general users
don't know how to use Google Analytics)
One Time/Implementation$108,825
Additional Options $0
Hosting$0
59 Support / Maintenance-Annual$30,709
Annual Increase10% p. 59
PaymentLump sum - upfront
Discount 0
Proprietary CMS - Vendor required. No version
upgrades. No developer required.
Fully delivered / implemented site. Experience
38 working w, gov't agencies delivering this type of
solution
27 Pre built integration w/Sitelmprove
35 Microsite builder
Vendor provides writing for the web and
51 accessibility training for content contributors
(#3)
CMS Part A RFP Scorecard_Summary_v1/Comments Page 18
Information Technology
County Department of ment RFP Surnmary
Oakland Records Manage ilation and
004784 Land List IIJ
Master (;0"
Vendor and product Sc°ring
..�- s q 6
23
— 24
26
I
Z
I
27
I
2 I
28
2
29 I
I
2
30
I
_
_- �
2
31
2 I
I
32
33
I ? I
2
34
I
Implementation and Support
Implementation and support
Imp1e em ntation and Support
i
Implementation and support I
implementation and support
Implementation and support
Licensing
ILicensing
PA Critical Requirements
— "Solution Req High Med Low
A-D-03 I
CMS Part A RFP Scorecard—Summ!" v1tComments
— scorers rovided
is in the codnee ita 4 Multiple similar
ms that ma bout US
dnicipalities listed in A but long) - 5
48 Pprox.
eeN ks (realistic -and oNY 4 `^,eeks
tonths of DiscovlemD tation support-
lsunsescga ecamp - Confir ounty EULA
vendor is looking to form a long
eQuirE in its needs.
implementation to meet evolving
lasting
relationship Support plan for
Evolution & c ❑Dort —
23
23
I 149
104
I 45
uires
r;,w„. r,'.,_.-
Charge a flat fee o is port 'ell
annual fees for hosCI —
No �';ehigan bucurrently rn
wlMacomb County
Under hour initial nse time
discussions ebsite outage:
SLA _Critical = let, w
is not sufficient f1aealmP
under 30 min is . ricin9 that would reduce duce
rovided p requirements as optional
Vendor P some
costs by listing resources &
features• increase
peak usage conditions iF
invoice cost + 20% ability which is the Y as
not existing cap custom using defined
(Much would be
this solution N capability they
toolstideas and designed.
Page IaYouts are
de neisdta9
would need to be
Page 19
Oakland County Department of Information Technology
004784 Land Records Management RFP
Vendor and Product Scoring List - Master Compilation and Summary
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
36
2
A-D
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
46-48
37
2
A-G-03
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
49
38
2
A-G-05
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
50
39
2
A-G-07
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
51
40
2
A-G-13
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
53
41
2
A-G-20
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
54
42
2
A-SE-02
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
54
43
2
A-SE-07
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
55
44
2
A-SE-09
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
56
45
2
A-SA-06
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
57
Social Media integration requires 3rd party tool.
Recommendation: AddThis.com
3 because not default - Vendor answered Y on
critical requirements re: Existing Capability -
however many items would require
define/build/customization.
Updates made to the core platform as part of
this project will be contributed to the Drupal
community to benefit other Drupal users.
Standard Scope of Work assumes no specific
3rd party integrations - Advanced integrations
are optional pricing.
Machine Translation would be 3rd party
integration through WeGlot.com - additional fee.
Search 3rd party tool = Elasticsearch - included
in Standard Scope of Work (implementation,
how much is ongoing license?)
is iCal configuration included in Scope of
Services?
Security updates require vetting through
Evolution & Support plan & occur at least once a
month.
OKTA integration available; additional cost
SSO integration available; additional cost
Unlimited storage - "virtually" unlimited, at an
additional cost. Current pricing includes 50GB of
data.
CMS Part A RFP Scorecard_Summary_v1/Comments Page 20
Oakland County Department of Information Technology
004784 Land Records Management RFP
A,,..,.#,.. f-mmnilation and Summary
2 I A-SU-02 I PA -Solution Req High Med Low
46
2 A-Sy-01 PA -Solution Req High Med Low
47
A-SY-04 PA -Solution Req High Med Low i
48 2 Ir - -
I Price Proposal
49 2 I
- I I
I 50 2 Price Proposal
I
I Technical Compliance
1 I
5 2I --
52
2 I 1 I Technical Compliance
I- -
2 I I Value Add Alternatives
53
I
CMS Part A RFP Scorecard_Summary_vl[comments
How many training sessions are included? No
specific documented admin level training to use
58
as reference about our specific
implementation/site/modules? We would need
to create our own. -
Vendor answer Y but Drupal is PaaS - and
59
requires developer/security updates.
that require $9500
These are advanced options
60
+ usage fees (see pg. 149)
Options such as calendar range from $17-32k,
149
OKTA integration is $1lk, Site Search is $4k +
usage fees
One Time/Implementati0n$465,750
Additional Options $63,200
Hosting$62,750
Support / Maintenance - Annual$39,600
149
AnnualIncrease5% p.151
PaymentPaid on milestones
if 3+ year
Discount 5% on implementation
contract executed
—TVendor
Implemented - Drupal CMS - Open
Source, not tied to specific vendor. Requires
developers readily available.
periodic upgrades,
Upgrades every few years requiring significant
65
time and $. upgrades "likely" covered by
support plans. online pop up form
Voice of Citizen (p. 3 & 11)
asking users why they came to site and if they
3
found what they were looking for -then maps
their answers
Page 21
Oakland County Department of Information Technology
004784 Land Records Management RFP
Vendor and Product Scoring List - Master Compilation and Summary
55 2 1 Value Add Alternatives
56 3
57
3
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
Implementation and Support
Implementation and Support
3 1 Implementation and Support
3 9 Implementation and Support
3 10 Implementation and Support
3 Licensing
3 Licensing
3 ! A-CE-08 PA -Critical Requirements
3 A-CE-07 PA -Critical Requirements
3 A-D-08 PA -Critical Requirements
3 ' � PA-RFP Compliance
3 PA-RFP Compliance
CitizenAssist Multichannel (CAM) _
6 conversational services (e.g. Aiexa or Sid
rsp eonse to services) (p. 6)
58 Project timeline of 15-20 Weeks _
58 Uses Basecamp - Confirm meets County ELL A
Erequirements
Project Management, Testing,
ducation/Marketing/Policies, Support is
17 sufficient. Technical Design / Installation,
Security and Implementation (technical side) is
lacking,
18 Did not answer but information is listed on Main
Proposal Final p.34
Did not answer but information is listed in Main
18 Proposal Final p. 58
55-59 Main Proposal Final
33 SL A details & policies provided at later date
We are in the process of adding a version
38 control system as well, so that admins may, at
'the push of a
button, roll content back to a previous version.
36 Nothing on animation (parallax scrolling) - only
note is re: cropping images (36)
Support for older browsers (more than two
33 versions back) can be discussed but may have
budget impacts.
Some answers did not follow requested answer
format
Did not spell check their submission
CMS Part A RFP Scorecard_Summary_v1/Comments Page 22
Oakland County Department of Information Technology
004784 Land Records Management RFP
Vendor and Product Scoring List - Master Compilation and Summary
Inadvertently began to answer Part B Appendix
68
3
PA-RFP Compliance
A, thinking they were answering Appendix B for
Part A
,There is limited integration with other platforms
69
3
A-G-05
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
3
(Salesforce, FormAssembly). P.3
Said they can integrate as custom
70
3
A-G-07
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
51
we have a number of other third -party solutions
we can recommend p.51
71
3
A-G-15
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
51
Integration choices can be limited p.51
72
3
A-G-20
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
51
Integration choices can be limited p.51
73
3
A-S
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
Defer to Infosec on A-S
Most of our sites are running a web application
firewall and are continually scanned, in real
74
3
A-SE-06
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
34
time, for malware and suspicious activity. Most
responses to such threats are automated as
well.
75
3
A-SA-07
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
36
The new site will include pages and sections in
a navigational schema up to four levels deep.
All legitimate bugs and issues will be fixed at no
76
3
A-SU-01
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
charge for a 90-day period after the site goes
live. After that, Maintenance work will be billed
at a blended agency rate of $125/hr. Estimate of
200 hours per year used for cost comparison_.
Vendor implemented - OrgCentral (Open
77
3
Technical Compliance
Source/LAMP) - Full marketing / redesign
services - limited technical / CMS information
78
3
2
Technical Compliance
13
No attachment found?
CMS Part A RFP Scorecard_Summary_v1/Comments Page 23
Oakland County Department of Information Technology
004784 Land Records Management RFP
Vendor and Product Scoring List - Master Compilation and Summary
/y
3
80
3
12
81
3
16
82
3
21
83
3
23
3
84
4
85
4
m
M
1
A -SE
A-SY-01
Technical Compliance
Technical Compliance
Technical Compliance
Technical Compliance
Technical Compliance
Price Proposal
Implementation and Support
PA -Critical Requirements
PA -Critical Requirements
14
15
15
16
35
2 h Tor urgent issues initial response time is not
sufficient for complete website outage; Under 30
min is ideal, also NEED RESOLUTION TIME
OBJECTIVE ADDED
Responded "Unclear on the question"
Did not answer
Did not answer
noted it is based on our exact needs
One Time/Implementation$92,750
Additional Options $1,800
Hosting$8400 annual
Support / Maintenance-Annual$25,000 (200
hrs of support)
Annual Increasenot provided
PaymentPaid on milestones - 70% by design
milestone
Discount - Discountnt the full visual redesign
phase of the next project by 50%
Missing everything except project management,
Eduction/Marketing/Policies
Vendor did not present a proposed CMS
30 solution or initial software or hardware costs.
Answers are all vague - depending on what we
choose after they are hired.Vendor provided
hours of effort for their professional services.
noted Not Likely - but did not expand on the
31 statement;
Software as a Service
CMS Part A RFP Scorecard_Summary_v1/Comments Page 24
M
F-U
01
91
92
Oakland County Department of Information Technology
004784 Land Records Management RFP
Vendor and Product Scoring List - Master Compilation and Summary
4 PA -Critical Requirements
4 PA -Critical Requirements
4 A-SU-01 PA -Solution Req High Med Low
4 Technical Compliance
4 Technical Compliance
4 1 Price Proposal
93 5
Implementation and Support
25
32-35
Responded that their solution would most likely
not be SaaS (platform not specific and would be
identified after discovery)
Did not provide a specific example or specs of
their solution, only a bucket of hours with
multiple statements of generalized delivery
based on discovery. Mentioned WordPress to
be used as part of the delivery solution.
System Maintenance: 4 will provide up to 2
hours per month
Vendor is Work for Hire Agency and noted that
they will identify CMS solution after hire - likely
open source - p. 25 notes Wordpress
Vendor did not answer majority of Technical
Requirements - noted N/A on Technical
Requirements 3.0-13.0, 15.0-16.0, 18.0-21.0,
23.0, 25.0-29.0
One Time/Implementation$190,000
Additional Options $0
Hosting$0
Support / Maintenance-Annual$18,000
Annual Increasenot provided
Paymentnot provided
Discount not provided
Did not provide a sample implementation/project
plan
CMS Part A RFP Scorecard_Summary_0/Comments Page 25
95
Oakland County Department of Information Technology
004784 Land Records Management RFP
Vendor and Product Scoring List - Master Compilation and Summary
Price Proposal
Kt-r o.j, o.4, etc were not answereo to the ru-r
instructions
Did not provide a cost proposal
One Time/Implementationnot provided
Additional Options not provided
Hostingnot provided
Support / Maintenance - not provided
Annual Increasenot provided
Paymentnot provided
Discount not provided
Vendor did not comply with RFP -
No 5.3 Solution Requirements response
96
5
PA-RFP
Technical Compliance
No 5.4 Licensing Requirements response
Compliance
No 6.0 Price Proposal Requirements response
No sample implementation plan
This vendor was not scored
6
Vendor #6 had one less scorer (four scorers
total for this vendor).
97
6
Licensing
Unable to identify a reduction in cost
lowered score because Item A-D-07 Notes that
98
6
A-D-08
PA -Critical Requirements
16 mobile browsers are not supported but A-D-08
is answered Yes
99
6
A-CE-09
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
Editors need to see the content HTML if there is
10
a display issue. How is this addressed?
lowered score because We only commit to
100
6
A-D-07
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
16 support the latest version although it should run
on older versions, too.
CMS Part A RFP Scorecard_Summary_v1/Comments Page 26
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
Oakland County Department of Information Technology
004784 Land Records Management RFP
Vendor and Product Scoring List - Master Compilation and Summary
6 A-G-04
6 A-G-08
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
6 A-G-15 PA -Solution Req High Med Low
6 A-G-20 PA -Solution Req High Med Low
6 A-SA-07 PA -Solution Req High Med Low
6 A-SY PA -Solution Req High Med Low
6 PA -Solution Req High Med Low
6 Technical Compliance
6 Value Add Alternatives
6 Price Proposal
7 Implementation and Support
24
25
25
43
75
VUUD I IUl PIUVIUG RJJ [CGUS UUL UI LIIC UVA -
requires custom UI/extension fo this integration
(ok, but noted)
Vendor provides some accessibility testing.
Recommending 3rd party validation.
Patches implemented within 30 days by vendor
,through a support contract
Noted as TBD - Requesting more information.
Vendor requesting more information re:
adjusting menu levels
Missing information - did not include in table of
answers.
Part A— System (A-SY) - didn't answer this
section specifically, but is within the content they
delivered
Vendor implemented CMS = Contentful,
integrated 3rd party search engine
Unable to identify a value added alternative
One Time/Implementation$1,570,000
Additional Options $15k CMS training (one time)
Hostingnot provided
Support/ Maintenance - Annual"$444,096
$180/yr each user license after 10"
Annual Increasenot provided
Paymentnot provided
Discount $329k (already discounted from
$1.57M)
; Critical support (site outage) response time <4
ihours for $132k annual
CMS Part A RFP Scorecard_Summary_0/Comments Page 27
111
7
112
7
113 7
114
7
115 1 7
116 7
117 7
118 8
119 I 8
120
8
121 8
122 8
Oakland County Department of Information Technology
004784 Land Records Management RFP
Vendor and Product Scoring List - Master Compilation and Summary
A-G-06
A-G-20
A-S-05
6
9
10
PA -Solution Reg High Mad Low
PA -Solution Reg High Med Low
PA -Solution Reg High Mad Low
Price Proposal
Technical Compliance
Value Add Alternatives
Implementation and Support
Implementation and Support
Implementation and Support
Licensing
Licensing
105
109
113
124
146
83
84
85
20
49
new version updated as whole software
package in author mode.
no out of the box blogging capabilities
Publish Oulook / Shpt calendars requires
integration using API/connector
Editing Robots.txt requires custom development
One Time/Implementation$965,530
Additional Options $87,200 annual on Search
Hosting$179,000
Support / Maintenance-Annual$132,800
Annual Increasenot provided
Paymentnot provided
Discount not provided
Adobe Experience Manager custom built
solution
Recommend search tool SearchBoost.Al as a
value add tool
Vendor requesting full access (source code
access) to current website
One virtual training session for Administrators
and Content Creators - with manual
Vendor implements patches as they determine
validity. Major updates are separate change
request. No SLA provided.
Technical Assumption - County should provide
license of integration APIs
There is not requirement for license
CMS Part A RFP Scorecard_Summary_vl/Comments Page 28
Oakland County Department of Information Technology
004784 Land Records Management RFP
Vendor and Product Scoring List - Master Compilation and Summary
123
8
Licensing
78
124
8
A-CE-03
PA -Critical Requirements
50
125
8
A-CE-04
PA -Critical Requirements
50
126
8
A-CE-08
PA -Critical Requirements
50
127
8
A-SY-01
PA -Critical Requirements
65
128
8
A-SA-02
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
61
129
8
A-CE-10
PA -Solution Req High Med Low
51
130
8
Technical Compliance
131
8
1
Technical Compliance
67
132 i
8
18
Technical Compliance
79
133
8
19
Technical Compliance
79
noting question is not appliciple for Wordpress
as it is Open Source. Self identified information
is available: https:/wwordpress.org/about/license/
and https://wordpress.org/abouttprivacy/)
Vendor noted breadcrumbs would need to be
custom built
Vendor noted staging content for preview prior
to publication would need to be custom built
Content versioning not default functionality, can
be custom built
Wordpress not considered SAAS ;
Software as a Service
Workflows must be custom built
content editors can see pages/document
locations in nested pages?
Vendor implemented custom built Wordpress
solutions (open source) using onshore and
offshore resources
During support window vendor will complete
latest stable version update (new major versions
every 4-5 months)
Collaboration: Our offshore resources will be
available during US time between 6 AM EST to
12 noon EST to allow for collaboration on
requirements, design, and development with
onshore resources.
N/A re: 3rd party comparision of Wordpress
against other CMS for scope of this size?
CMS Part A RFP Scorecard_Summary_v1/Comments Page 29
134
Technology
of Infornlat1 t RFP Surn►nary
unty pepa�rnentt as{e rnpilane tion and
paklandp047g4 Land g his{ . M
ring jo
t gco
Vendor and Produc
Value P.dd PlternatrVes
1 8
price prop°sat
1 g
1 !
1 i
cMS Part P IzFP $GOre�rd Summary
o f comments
SuPP°rt & i� e ears, we
. , . discoun{ on for rnultipl Y the
th oont I is ae yen z - disG°eecontract
Gan PCOvide a P and �aintena 2
g9 overall S13 entati one 108 20
cneTimeitmPlen' none
Addi6onpfjs7
Annua1�50,880
Host+no9t Mainten anGerovided
Anne al tnorea rod 240 saving
ded S {contracted
Payn entn°t pf $4
pisG°untaPP
mullrPle Yrs�
Page 30