City of Gainesville - File #: 180140.

• File #: 180140.
• Version: 4
• Type: Staff Recommendation
• Status: Passed
• File created: 6/29/2018
• In control: Utility Advisory Board
• On agenda: 11/18/2020
• Final action: 11/19/2020
• Title: Approval of a Customer Information System (CIS), Mobile Work Management, and Customer Self-Service Implementation and Hosting Services (B)

Date	Ver.	Action By	Action	Result
11/19/2020	4	City Commission	Approved as Recommended	Pass
11/18/2020	4	Utility Advisory Board
3/21/2019	3	City Commission	Heard
3/14/2019	3	Utility Advisory Board
1/3/2019	3	City Commission	Heard
12/13/2018	2	Utility Advisory Board
7/9/2018	1	City Commission	Heard

Title
Approval of a Customer Information System (CIS), Mobile Work Management, and Customer Self-Service Implementation and Hosting Services (B)

Explanation
The CIS, also known as Customer Care System (CCS) is a critical software system responsible for housing customer data and billing all of GRU’s utility customers. It is also used to bill Storm Water and Refuse services for the City of Gainesville. The system currently in use was installed in 2007.

On August 15, 2018, the City Commission requested GRU to move forward with issuing a solicitation to provide accurate pricing for an upgraded CIS. As part of this solicitation, Mobile Work Management and a Customer Self Service solution was included as they are both applications that are outdated and need to integrate with the CIS upgrade. An upgraded CIS is also necessary to be able to integrate with future Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) initiatives as the current system is unable to integrate.

On April 16, 2019, Utilities Procurement issued an Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) via the DemandStar electronic bid portal and was broadcasted to 239 providers/suppliers registered with the site. The ITN requested proposals for a Customer Information System, a Mobile Work Management (MWM) and Customer Self-Service System (CSS) which include implementation services. Proposals from six system integrators were received and were evaluated and shortlisted based on 3 phases. During Phase 1, three vendors considered most qualified based on qualifications and profile, software solutions(s), business outcomes, implementation plan/strategy, functional matrix, technology summary, solution costs, local preference, and small business criteria moved forward to Phase 2 whereby demonstrations and detailed discussions surrounding their proposed solutions were held. Based on the evaluation criteria product demonstrations, implementation and technology discussions, cultural fit and value added, reference checks and solution c...