Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout26 - Questions and Answers - Permits, Licenses, and Code Enforcement Request for Proposals (RFP) Permits, Licenses & Code Enforcement (PLCE) Software and Implementation Services Addendum #1 May 1, 2026 ADDENDUM #1 This Addendum #1 is issued in response to questions and requests from vendors for the City of Bozeman’s Request for Proposals (RFP) for Permits, Licenses, & Code Enforcement (PLCE) Software and Implementation Services. All responses reflect the City’s best information and understanding as of the date of this Addendum. In some cases, responses describe current intentions, preferences, or anticipated approaches that may be further refined during contract negotiation, discovery, or implementation planning. Nothing in these responses should be construed as a guarantee, commitment, or modification of the RFP beyond what is explicitly stated. All other terms and conditions of the RFP remain unchanged unless expressly modified herein. Respondents are responsible for reviewing and incorporating the information contained in this Addendum into their proposals. This Addendum has three (3) parts: I. Responses to the written questions submitted by Respondents. To improve clarity and readability, the City has organized the responses to submitted questions into logical topic groupings. These groupings are provided solely as a navigational aid and are not intended to redefine, limit, or otherwise characterize the substance or importance of any individual question or response. Respondents are solely responsible for reviewing all questions and all corresponding responses in their entirety, regardless of how questions have been grouped, and for incorporating all relevant information into their proposals. II. Additional Information Regarding Interfaces III. PowerPoint from Pre-Proposal Conference Part I: Responses to Written Questions 1. Procurement Process, Submission Rules, and Administrative Clarifications 1.1 Has the City conducted any software demonstrations or vendor evaluations prior to the release of this RFP? If so, we respectfully request disclosure of which vendors participated or were previously evaluated, in the interest of ensuring a fair and transparent procurement process for all responding parties. City Response: The only demonstration that the City has received was from Cityworks, which is a current vendor of the City and has asset management capabilities for permitting and licensing. 1.2 Has the City attended any software demonstrations of permitting software? If so, which ones? City Response: See the City response to question 1.1. 1.3 Has the City seen demos from vendors in the last 12 months? If so, from which companies? City Response: See the City response to question 1.1. 1.4 Has the City received any presentations, demonstrations, or pricing estimates from any vendor for a permitting, planning, land management, code enforcement, or business licensing system in the past 12 months? If so, could you share a list of the vendors you've engaged with? City Response: See the City response to question 1.1. 1.5 V.1.1-V.1.6 has a 3-page limit, but V.1.6 requires 3 references. May we provide summary references in V.1.6 with full details as a separate attachment? City Response: The three-page limit only applies to the narrative response describing the Respondent Team. The attachments 1.1 – 1.6 are not included in the page limit, but please respond to the responses in the attachment as succinctly as possible. 1.6 Would it be possible to kindly extend the proposal deadline, as our technical team is traveling through May 22 and the extra time would really help us? City Response: The City does not intend to extend the proposal deadline. The timeline established in the RFP was designed to balance adequate preparation time for Respondents with the City's project schedule and procurement objectives. 1.7 Would the City consider granting a two-week extension to the proposal submission deadline to allow vendors adequate time for a comprehensive response? City Response: See the City response to question 1.6. 1.8 Do you require that the awarded vendor be headquartered in the United States? City Response: No. The RFP does not require that the awarded vendor be headquartered in the United States. However, Respondents must comply with all requirements set forth in the RFP, including data residency, security, accessibility, and compliance with applicable U.S. federal, state, and local laws, as well as any applicable trade restrictions, sanctions, and data security requirements. Additionally, the City expects that implementation services and ongoing support — including technical support, project management, and issue resolution — will be available during the City's standard operational hours (Mountain Time). 2. Evaluation Approach & Relationship to Other Procurements 2.1 In the event that a Respondent's narrative responses exceed the stated page limits for any section in order to more fully and accurately address the City's requirements, will such responses still be considered responsive? Alternatively, is the City open to increasing the page limits? City Response: The City does not intend to increase the stated page limits. Proposals that exceed the established page limits for any section may be deemed non‑responsive. Attachments are excluded from the page count, as noted in the RFP, but respondents are expected to answer all narrative questions succinctly and within the defined limits. The City believes the page limits provided are sufficient for Respondents to fully and accurately address the requirements. Given the anticipated volume of proposals, adherence to page limits is important to support a fair and efficient evaluation process. 2.2 Was a consultant involved in writing the RFP? If so, will the consultant be involved in the decision making process? City Response: Yes. The City engaged the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) to assist with PLCE readiness activities, development of the RFP, and to guide the City through the solicitation and selection process. The RFP and requirements were developed collaboratively, with significant input from City staff across departments. While GFOA facilitated discussions, documented requirements, and provided best‑practice guidance, the content of the RFP reflects City priorities, policies, and decisions. GFOA is supporting the City by facilitating the evaluation process, helping to identify risks, and advising on procurement best practices. However, GFOA is not a decision‑maker, does not score proposals, and does not recommend or establish rankings. All evaluation, scoring, shortlisting, and selection decisions are made solely by the City’s Evaluation Committee and City leadership in accordance with the RFP. 3. Pricing, Budgets, and Cost Structure 3.1 Has funding been approved for this project? If so, what is the project budget? City Response: Yes, the City has provided the implementation and annual software fee budget in section III.3 of the proposal. 4. Implementation Strategy, Phasing, and Timeline 4.1 Could the City confirm the expected project kick-off and go-live? City Response: The anticipated project kick-off is January 2027, with go-live dependent on implementation timeline. 4.2 What is the anticipated project start date and desired go-live for the solution? City Response: See the City response to question 4.1. 4.3 Does the City prefer a phased implementation approach or a single enterprise go- live? City Response: The City does not have a predetermined preference for a phased implementation approach versus a single enterprise go‑live. The City’s primary priority is maintaining operational continuity and minimizing disruption to staff and customers throughout the implementation and transition. Respondents are encouraged to propose an implementation approach they believe is most appropriate based on their solution, methodology, and experience with similar PLCE implementations. 5. User Counts, Licensing, Roles, and Mobile Access 5.1 Can the City provide the approximate number of internal system users broken down by department and role, as well as the expected volume of external portal users? City Response: The RFP provided the approximate number of total internal system users in the Pre-Proposal Conference (see Part II below), as well as annual volumes for permits, licenses, inspections, and code enforcement cases. The City believes this information is sufficient for Respondents to appropriately size and price their proposed solution based on their experience with similar municipal PLCE implementations. Respondents should propose a licensing and pricing model that is flexible enough to accommodate reasonable changes in user distribution without requiring contract modifications. Regarding external portal users, the City expects the portal to be available to the general public, including residents, contractors, developers, and business owners. Respondents should propose a portal licensing approach that accommodates public‑facing use without per‑user restrictions. 5.2 Our solution is licensed on a named-user basis, meaning every user, regardless of whether they require full read/write access or read-only access, needs their own account. Could the City provide an estimate of how many users will need system access? City Response: The City's current system environment supports approximately 90 internal users. However, this number reflects current‑state usage and may not be representative of future‑state needs. The number of users requiring access to the new PLCE system may increase or decrease as the City refines workflows, roles, and system usage during implementation. Respondents should use this approximate figure for initial pricing purposes but should propose a licensing model that reasonably accommodates fluctuations in user count without requiring immediate contract modifications. The City will evaluate licensing approaches that offer flexibility and scalability favorably. 5.3 How many internal users will require permissions beyond applicant or read-only access (e.g., plan reviewers, inspectors, code enforcement officers, supervisors, administrators)? City Response: See the City responses to questions 5.1 and 5.2. 5.4 How many internal users will require access to the new software? City Response: See the City responses to questions 5.1 and 5.2. 5.5 How many external users (consultants, contractors, or partner agencies) will require elevated access? City Response: External users are needed as part of the City’s permitting and licensing ecosystem, however it is not able to provide a specific count of external users. The types of external users are generally contractors and design professionals, partner agencies, and other stakeholders (e.g., utilities). The primary need for external elevated access is review‑based — meaning external parties would most commonly need the ability to view project information, access documents, and provide review comments rather than create, approve, or deny permits. Additionally, the City currently uses ProjectDox for electronic plan review and document management, which accommodates much of this external reviewer functionality today. The extent to which external users require elevated access in the proposed PLCE system may depend on how the Respondent's solution addresses or replaces this functionality. 5.6 If available, could you please provide the number of users in the following categories: i) General users ii) Plan review iii) Building inspectors iv) Code Enforcement inspectors v) Code Enforcement general users vi) View-only users City Response: The City is not able to provide user counts mapped to vendor‑specific licensing categories, as these classifications vary across solutions and do not necessarily align with the City's current organizational structure or anticipated future‑state usage. As noted above, the City's current system environment supports approximately 90 internal users. For additional context, the City's adopted budget includes FTE counts by department and is publicly available at https://www.bozemanmt.gov/departments/finance/budget-and-financial-reports. Respondents may reference this information to inform their understanding of organizational scale. However, the number of users requiring full read/write access versus limited or view‑only access will depend on the capabilities and access model of the selected solution and may differ from current‑state staffing. Respondents are expected to propose a licensing and pricing model informed by the total user count, operational volumes, and functional scope provided in the RFP. The City will evaluate licensing approaches that offer flexibility to accommodate evolving user roles and access needs favorably. 5.7 How many departments are involved in permit and license review workflows, and does the City require concurrent (parallel) review processes? City Response: Yes, the City requires the ability to support concurrent review processes to meet modern practices and expectations from the contractor community. The City expects that multiple departments should be able to conduct reviews simultaneously where appropriate, rather than sequentially, to reduce overall processing time and improve service delivery. The system should also support sequential review steps where a defined dependency exists (e.g., planning approval required prior to building permit issuance). 5.8 Are there plans to utilize the new permitting system in the field on mobile devices? If so, what type? City Response: Yes. The City anticipates that the PLCE system will be used in the field on mobile devices to support building inspections, public right of way and street restoration inspection, code enforcement, and other field‑based workflows. The City expects the solution to be device‑agnostic, supporting use across iOS, Android, and standard web browsers on laptops, tablets, and smartphones. The City does not intend to commit to a single device platform and expects Respondents to propose a solution that accommodates a range of devices without degradation in core functionality. 6. Permits, Licenses and Code Enforcement 6.1 How many application forms are anticipated to be configured, including: i) Applications that do not result in a permit (plan review only)? ii) Applications that result in a permit? City Response: As noted in the pre‑proposal conference materials, the City has approximately 120 permit and license types across Planning, Building, Engineering, Code Enforcement, and Licensing functions. These range from planning and land use applications that result in an approval or decision, to building and engineering permits that include inspections and closeout, to business and regulatory licenses with renewal cycles. The City is not able to provide a breakdown by the categories described in this question at this time, as the distinction between application types that do or do not "result in a permit" may vary depending on how the Respondent's solution defines and configures those workflows. Respondents should use the approximate number of permit and license types provided, along with the functional scope and volumes described in the RFP, to inform their configuration and pricing approach. The City expects that the detailed classification and configuration of application types will be a collaborative activity during discovery and implementation. 6.2 How many permit types are currently in use across planning, building, engineering, and right-of-way functions? City Response: See the City response to question 6.1. 6.3 How many inspection types are currently tracked, and are these standardized across departments or unique by function? City Response: The City does not have a precise count of inspection types at this time. As noted in the response to Question 6.1, the City has approximately 120 permit and license types, each of which may involve one or more inspection types depending on the function, including currently having over 140 inspection types for building permits. Inspection types are generally unique by function and permit type rather than standardized across departments. The City expects that the detailed identification and configuration of inspection types will be a collaborative activity during discovery and implementation, including identifying ways to streamline and standardize where appropriate. 6.4 How many document templates will need to be configured (e.g., permit documents, certificates of occupancy, notices, comment letters)? City Response: The City does not have a precise count of document templates at this time. The City uses a variety of generated documents across permitting, licensing, and code enforcement functions, including but not limited to permits, certificates of occupancy, notices of violation, comment and decision letters, and license certificates. The City expects to work collaboratively with the selected vendor during discovery and implementation to identify, prioritize, and configure the necessary document templates. The City is committed to a reasonable scope of document configuration and recognizes that the final count will be informed by the capabilities of the selected solution. Respondents who wish to propose limits on the number of included document templates may do so through the bounded exceptions process described in the RFP. 6.5 Can you provide a full list of permit types and license types that you would like to be digitized in the new system? City Response: A comprehensive list of individual permit and license types is not available at this time. As noted in the responses to Questions 6.1 and 6.2, the City has approximately 120 permit and license types across Planning, Building, Engineering, Licensing, and Code Enforcement functions. The RFP provides descriptions of functional scope, operational volumes, and representative permit and license categories sufficient for Respondents to inform their proposals. The City expects that the detailed identification, rationalization, and configuration of individual permit and license types will be a collaborative activity during discovery and implementation. The City anticipates that some current types may be consolidated, restructured, or retired as part of the process improvement activities described in the RFP. 6.6 Does the City require the ability to track parent-child relationships between permits (e.g., planning approvals flowing into subdivision and building permits over time)? City Response: Yes. 6.7 Are fee structures standardized across departments, and should the system support automated calculations for items such as pavement degradation fees, lane mitigation fees, and bond tracking? City Response: The City's fee structures are generally established by ordinance and resolution. While fee schedules are not consolidated in a single document, they are largely standardized by function and publicly available. Respondents should anticipate configuring fee structures that reflect ordinance‑defined rates, formulas, and conditions across permitting, licensing, and enforcement functions. Regarding automated fee calculations and bond tracking, yes — as described in the Challenges to Solve section of the RFP, the City is seeking a system that supports automated calculation of fees such as pavement degradation fees and lane mitigation fees, as well as tracking of bonds, letters of credit, and warranty periods. Respondents should refer to the Challenges to Solve for Pavement Degradation Fees, Lane Mitigation Fees, and Bond / Warranty Management for additional detail on the City's expectations. 6.8 Please describe the current workflows in place for PLCE processing. City Response: The RFP describes the City's functional scope, operational volumes, organizational context, and specific challenges across permitting, licensing, and code enforcement. The City believes this information is sufficient for Respondents to understand the complexity and scale of current operations and to propose an appropriately scoped solution and implementation approach. The City has conducted preliminary current‑ and future‑state process mapping for representative workflows. However, detailed workflow documentation and process redesign are anticipated to be collaborative activities during discovery and implementation with the selected vendor. As noted in the RFP and pre‑proposal conference, the City's approach prioritizes process improvement before technology. Respondents should not assume that current‑state workflows will be replicated in the new system. The City is seeking a partner that can recommend best‑practice workflows informed by experience with similar municipal PLCE implementations. 6.9 Are the permitting, licensing and code enforcement workflows documented? City Response: Yes, in addition to some workflow mapping completed with GFOA, the City has the workflow documented for many processes. Please see response to 6.8 for additional context and expectation. 6.10 While Appendix A provided volume data, it would also be very helpful to have a breakdown of the following: i) Permit Types ii) Planning Application Types iii) Inspection Types iv) Code Enforcement Case Types v) Business License Types City Response: See the City responses to questions 6.1 – 6.5. 6.11 How are businesses currently identified and tracked for fire inspections, and should the proposed solution integrate with the City’s fire inspection system? City Response: Commercial properties within the City are subject to fire inspections on a risk‑based cadence (annually, biennially, or triennially depending on occupancy type and risk profile). The City's Fire Department uses First Due as its fire records management system for managing inspections, pre‑plans, occupancy data, and emergency contacts. Currently, businesses that hold a City business license may trigger a fire inspection as part of the licensing process. However, as noted in the Challenges to Solve section of the RFP (Fire Inspections), certain businesses are licensed by the State of Montana and are not required to obtain a City business license. As a result, those businesses may not appear in City licensing records, creating gaps in the City's ability to identify and track all commercial occupancies for fire inspection purposes. Yes, the City expects the proposed PLCE solution to integrate with First Due. Respondents should refer to the Fire Inspections challenge in the RFP for additional context and should describe how their solution can support the identification and tracking of businesses operating within the City — including those not subject to City business licensing — and how inspection data and statuses can be synchronized between the PLCE system and First Due. 6.12 How many code enforcement case types are currently managed within the City? City Response: The City does not necessarily maintain a fixed list of code enforcement "case types" in the same manner as permit types. Code enforcement cases can involve violations of many sections of the Bozeman Municipal Code, including but not limited to property maintenance, zoning, nuisance, signage, parking, snow removal, and building code violations, of which approximately 200 have been identified as of now. Cases are generally categorized by the nature of the complaint or violation rather than by a predefined case type structure. The City anticipates working collaboratively with the selected vendor during discovery and implementation to define appropriate case categories, intake classifications, and workflow configurations that align with the solution's capabilities and the City's enforcement practices. For reference, as noted in the data provided in the RFP, the City opened approximately 1,359 code enforcement cases in 2025. 7. Billing Scope, Cashiering, POS, and Payments 7.1 Which payment gateway does the City currently use? City Response: The City currently utilizes multiple payment gateway providers across its various systems and functions, including Paya, Authorize.net, and Converge. 7.2 Do you currently use an online payment processing system? If so, which vendor? City Response: See the City response to question 7.1. 8. Data Conversion, Historical Data, and Records Retention 8.1 Can the City provide estimated data volumes for migration, including permits, licenses, inspections, and code enforcement cases, as well as the number of years of historical data to be converted? City Response: Approximate records are identified in Attachment 4.3. In addition to structured data, the City expects that supporting documentation associated with permits, licenses, inspections, and code enforcement cases will be migrated with their associated records to the extent practicable. Respondents should describe their approach to document and attachment migration, including any limitations on file types, file sizes, or storage. The City recognizes that data conversion scope involves tradeoffs between completeness, cost, and implementation risk. Where the Respondent's recommended conversion scope or approach differs from what is described in Attachment 4.3, the Respondent should clearly explain the rationale in the Comments column of the attachment. The City values practical, experience- informed recommendations that balance historical data preservation with implementation efficiency. 8.2 What is the estimated total database size (in GB/TB) and the total number of historical records to be migrated? From what year does the city require historical data to be migrated? City Response: The estimated size of the structured data identified for conversion in Attachment 4.3 is approximately 1.5 GB. This represents the targeted subset of PLCE records (permits, licenses, inspections, and code enforcement cases) to be extracted from the City's legacy system and does not represent the full production database. This estimate reflects structured data only and does not include documents and attachments associated with PLCE records (e.g., plan sets, scanned documents, notices, photographs, and correspondence), which may be maintained in separate systems. The City does not have a precise estimate of total document and attachment volume at this time, but it is at least 110GB. Approximate record counts, functional areas, and historical timeframes for conversion are detailed in Attachment 4.3, which Respondents are expected to review and complete as part of their proposal. Respondents should describe their approach to migrating both structured data and associated documents, and should clearly state any conditions regarding data or document volume that may affect pricing. 8.3 Does the City need historical data migrated? What are the goals for historical data conversion? What use cases are you hoping to serve with the historical data? Will you be using the data purely informational purposes? Will there be any need to perform transactional work on the data? Do you have active projects (e.g., open permits) in the data? Will you need to close these applications in OpenGov, or are you able to close them out in your current system? Do any of the records require renewals, e.g., licenses or permits that expire? Does the data include scanned documents, e.g., PDFs or scanned images? What is the expected volume of records to be migrated from the previous system? Volume of documents/attachments? City Response: Yes, the City requires historical data migration. The City's data conversion expectations are described in detail in Attachment 4.3 – PLCE Data Conversions, which specifies the functional areas, data items, record types, approximate volumes, and time periods for conversion. Respondents are expected to complete the Respondent columns in Attachment 4.3 as part of their proposal. To address the specific sub‑questions: Goals for historical data conversion: The City's goals are to preserve regulatory context, support ongoing operations, and maintain historical reference for permitting, licensing, inspection, and code enforcement activity. As noted in the attachment, recent permit data (2016– present) is intended for active reporting and operational reference, while older records (2000–present) are intended to preserve basic permit history and land use context tied to properties and parcels. Informational vs. transactional use: The City expects that recent and active records — including open permits, pending licenses, and active code enforcement cases — will be fully transactional in the new system (e.g., completing reviews, scheduling inspections, processing renewals, closing cases). Older historical records are expected to be available for reference and reporting purposes and do not need to support active transactional workflows. Open permits and active cases: Yes, the City has active permits, open code enforcement cases, and pending licenses that will need to continue processing in the new system. The City does not intend to close all active work in the legacy system prior to go‑live. Renewals: Yes, the conversion scope includes licenses with renewal cycles and expiration dates. Respondents should describe how renewed and renewable licenses will be handled in the new system following conversion. Documents and attachments: The City's legacy data includes documents and attachments associated with permits, licenses, and code enforcement cases (e.g., plans, notices, correspondence). The City does not have a precise count of documents or total volume at this time. Respondents should describe their approach to document migration and any limitations on document types, file sizes, or storage in their proposal. Record volumes: Approximate record counts by functional area are provided in Attachment 4.3. Respondents should use these estimates for pricing and planning purposes and should note any assumptions or conditions in their response. 9. Interfaces, Integrations, and Technical Architecture 9.1 Which systems are considered the system of record for GIS, financials, and code enforcement, and does the City anticipate replacing or integrating with existing platforms such as ProjectDox, Laserfiche, and ESRI GIS? City Response: The City currently uses ESRI GIS for GIS, Naviline for financials, and Comcate for code enforcement. As mentioned in the RFP, the City as an open RFP solicitation for ERP/HCM and will make a determination to either replace or integrate with ProjectDox based on proposals that are received. There are no plans to replace ESRI GIS; an interface(s) with ESRI GIS will be necessary. 9.2 Does the City expect real-time integration with its GIS platform, and will GIS remain the authoritative source for parcel and addressing data? City Response: The City intends for its Enterprise GIS platform to serve as the authoritative source for parcel and addressing data. The PLCE system is expected to integrate with the City's GIS environment and consume authoritative address and parcel data rather than independently maintaining a separate source of truth for these data elements. However, the City recognizes that the specific integration model — including the direction, frequency, and method of data synchronization between the PLCE and GIS systems — will depend in part on the capabilities of the selected solution. The City is open to vendor recommendations on the most effective integration approach, provided it maintains data integrity, minimizes duplication, and supports clearly defined system-of-record responsibilities. 9.3 What are the desire use cases for integrating/interfacing with the systems listed in Attachment V.3.2? City Response: Many of the use cases can be learned by reading Attachment 3.2. 10. Questions from Pre-Proposal Conference (may be paraphrased) 10.1 When you mention there are 120 license and permits types, does that include code enforcement types too? City Response: The 120 listed in the presentation does not include code enforcement case types. See the City response to question 6.2. 10.2 Page 35 of the RFP lists page limits, including 8 pages for the implementation approach section which requires several attachments. Can the limit be increased to account for these attachments? City Response: The page limits established in the RFP do not include the required attachments. While attachments are not subject to page limits, respondents should still keep their answers concise. 10.3 Is there an approved project budget? City Response: See the City response to question 3.1. 10.4 Will the City consider a joint-implementation proposal to address multiple RFPs? City Response: That is a consideration that the City will discuss in choosing which respondents will be elevated to the next round. However, the City's objective is to select solutions that best meet its functional, technical, and operational requirements, and proposals will be evaluated on that basis. 10.5 Is there going to be a list of the vendors that you sent this out to? City Response: This is an open procurement. Vendors who reached out to the City or GFOA in the preceding months received a notification that the RFP was available but otherwise it was just posted generally. We will not be sending out that list. 10.6 Can we get a list of the people on this call? City Response: A registration or attendance list for the pre‑proposal conference was not maintained and is not available. 10.7 Can Procurement provide a list of vendors that have provided demos? City Response: See the City response to question 1.1. Part II: Additional Information Regarding Interfaces The City has compiled the information below regarding anticipated or preferred interface approaches for certain third‑party software solutions based on a combination of outreach to providers, available documentation, prior experience, and/or high‑level research. The identified interface types are provided for planning and proposal development purposes and are not intended to represent a final or exhaustive integration specification. For items marked “TBD,” the City was unable to confirm a preferred interface approach based on available information at this time. Third-Party Application / Entity Type of Interface Offered Third Party ActiveDirectory TBD Atlas Selectron TBD Cityworks Rest API Deckard TBD First Due Rest API Future ERP System TBD GIS (ESRI) Rest API Gallatin County TBD Laserfiche Rest API Naviline Fusion API ProjectDox (Avolve) Rest API Webhost TBD Public Safety Suite Professional (Zuercher) Restful Web Services Part II: PowerPoint from Pre-Proposal Conference C I T Y O F B O Z E M A N , M O N T A N A Permits, Licenses, & Code Enforcement (PLCE) Software and Implementation Services Pre-Proposal Conference April 21, 2026 T O D A Y ' S A G E N D A 1 Welcome & Purpose 2 City Overview & Context 3 Why We're Replacing the PLCE System 4 Implementation Goals 5 Key Challenges to Solve 6 Procurement Logistics 7 · Q&A & Next Steps The majority of our time together 01 · WELCOME & PURPOSE Setting the Stage Clarify Context Help vendors understand the City's environment, scale, and procurement process so proposals are informed and competitive. Answer Questions This is your opportunity to ask questions that will sharpen your proposal. The majority of this meeting is reserved for Q&A. Scope is Set This conference does not modify the RFP. The scope, timeline, and requirements are established —not up for negotiation today. Material questions will be included in the question response addendum. 02 · CITY OVERVIEW & OPERATING CONTEXT Scale & Complexity at a Glance ~90 Users Across multiple departments, from heavy users to departmental reviewers ~2,400 Building permit applications (~56% residential); along with over 22,000 inspections performed 356 Planning applications received 430 Engineering permits issued ~1,350 Code Enforcement cases opened ~120 License and Permit types Based on last year’s data 03 · WHY THE CITY IS REPLACING ITS PLCE SYSTEM Strategic Drivers for Change The City's decision to replace its Permitting, License, and Code Enforcement system is driven by a forward-looking vision to modernize operations, improve transparency, and position Bozeman for continued growth. Modernization of aging legacy platform Improve operational efficiency and cross-departmental information access Improve customer experience and self-service capabilities Enable integration & “system of record” alignment S U C C ES S I N 5 –1 0 Y EAR S Reduced permit and review cycle times Fewer touchpoints and re-entry of common data Clear visibility into historical approvals and land use Balanced staff workloads and on-time reviews Transparent, self-service application process Flexibility for policy, rate, and program changes Platform that scales with Bozeman's growth 04 · IMPLEMENTATION GOALS & GUIDING PRINCIPLES How the City Will Approach This Project Process Improvement First This is not a lift-and-shift. The City will focus first on improving and standardizing business processes across permitting, licensing, and code enforcement before configuring the new system. Configuration Over Customization The City will adopt best-practice configurations wherever possible and looks for vendor support in advising on efficient industry standard practices that meet City needs. Custom development is a last resort. Single Source of Truth Integration Design The City will prioritize solutions that integrate cleanly with existing systems and respect authoritative sources for key data elements such as addresses, parcels, people, and assets. Operational Continuity and Managed Implementation Risk The City will prioritize a smooth transition that maintains daily operations and supports staff and customers throughout implementation. 05 · KEY CHALLENGES THE CITY IS ASKING VENDORS TO SOLVE Partnering to Solve Key Challenges Understanding the City’s key challenges and providing clear, actionable guidance will be viewed favorably. ✓Integration with Existing Systems Developing efficient integrations to reduce manual intervention, duplicate work, and data misalignment, particularly with GIS. ✓Land/Address Complexity Over Time Addresses and parcels change over time, so the City is focused on solutions that preserve authoritative addressing and historical context . ✓ Workflow Management Given the volume and diversity of work types, the City is looking for a system that helps staff manage workload, meet statutory timelines, and prioritize work effectively ✓ Financial and Compliance Complexity Permits involve time-based fees, restoration requirements, and performance guarantees, so the City needs to actively track obligations, deadlines, and compliance through the full permit lifecycle. ✓ Transparency, Records Retention, and Public Access The City places a high value on transparency around PLCE processes.✓ Code Enforcement Integration For code enforcement, the City needs a solution that supports reliable owner identification, notification, and evidence management while integrating efficiently with public safety and prosecution systems. 06 · PROCUREMENT & EVALUATION LOGISTICS Timeline and Key Terms RFP Released April 11 Pre-Proposal Conf Today Questions Due April 24 Responses Issued May 1 Proposals Due May 18 Elevation June 16 Demos August 13 -14, 18 –20 Award October "Yes" Is Binding A "Yes" response to a requirement commits your firm to delivering it. Do not mark Yes unless you can fully comply. Fixed Fee Contract Fixed fees shall include all labor, hours, effort, and resources necessary to complete the agreed-upon scope Deliverables, Milestones, & Acceptance Key work products (Deliverables) will require Bozeman review and approval with defined acceptance criteria. Milestones drive payments and consist of one or many Deliverables, work products, and/or events. Questions Ask! Do not assume! If you are unclear on a request or need more information to accurately price this project, please ask! Discovery September 16 –17 0 7 · Q & A & N E X T S T E P S Your Questions. Written Questions Submit all follow-up questions in writing to by April 24. Addenda Posted All Q&A responses will be documented and posted as an addendum in the RFP portal on May 1 . Today’s Questions Material questions will be included in the question response addendum. Thank you for your interest in partnering with the City of Bozeman.