Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
4 <br />SUMMARY OF SELECTION PROCESS <br />MULTIUSE PERMIT/ACTIVITY SOFTWARE <br />October 2000 <br />1. Need <br />The need for this new software was identified several years ago. Since that time, three meetings <br />with the Information Technology Committee have been held, as well as development of the <br />Request for Proposal (RFP), and investigation into software vendors by the software assessment <br />team. The RFP for development permit software and selection of a vendor who can, provide <br />software services is multifaceted. The existing software that operates the building permit function <br />is limited in both input and output activities. <br />2. RFP Process <br />A Software Assessment Team of eight'people made up of employees from Planning & <br />Inspections, Environmental Health, Information Systems, Land Records and Purchasing was <br />formed to review the responses. <br />1. Mailing <br />A comprehensive RFP was developed by staff that addressed Orange County's requirements <br />and performance goals.. Th.e RFP was advertised and sent to twenty-two prospective vendors. <br />2. Response <br />Responses were received from ten companies. There was a range in casts from $93,820.00 <br />to $959,057.00. <br />3. Short List (to six) <br />The ten responses were pared dawn to six based on a combination of cost, responses to <br />detailed specifications in the RFP and review of each package by each member of the <br />Software Assessment Team. Of the six vendors that submitted responsive proposals, five of <br />them had the lowest costs. <br />4. Presentations (six) <br />Each of these six semi-finalists were invited to demonstrate their product to the Software <br />Assessment Team. . <br />5. Evaluations (six) <br />a) After demonstrations were started, a list of evaluation criteria was created by the <br />Software Assessment Team. Each of these seventeen was prioritized and assigned a <br />value based on importance (see Exhibit 9 "Evaluafion Criteria Summary'). <br />b) The Software Assessment Team evaluated each of the six proposals and rated them <br />on each of the seventeen evaluation criteria. <br />See Exhibit 2 & Chart 2 <br />6. Short List (to three) <br />The ranking of the presentation of the top six proposals produced our list of three finalists, <br />Eden Systems, Sierra (Accella) and Tidemark (see Chart 3 "Evaluation Summary for Top <br />Three Finalists"). <br />7. Reference Check <br />Thorough reference checks of each of the three finalists were conducted via teleconference <br />with the Software Assessment Team members and the various local governments and <br />municipalities. <br />8. Further Evaluation <br />Visits were made to municipalities to view software packages in use, and a workshop was <br />attended to gain further information. In addition, the prime vendor returned far two additional <br />question and answer presentations and an Information Technology demo. <br />