Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-17-2000-9c1 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONER'S ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 17, 2000 Action Age da Item No. SUBJECT: _ Geo-Base/Land Management & Permit Information Tracking S~rstem DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No ATTACHMENT(S): IT Committee Recommendation Summary of Selection Process and Attachments INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Benedict, ext. 2592 David Cannell, ext 2650 Dick Taylor, ext 2276 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill .968-4501 Durham fi88-7331 Mebane (336)227-2031 PURPOSE: To consider approving the acquisition of permitting and inspections computer software to replace the County's outdated legacy system computer programs. BACKGROUND: Several years ago, County staff identified the need to acquire computer software that would provide significantly enhanced mechanisms for approval, tracking, and monitoring in the plan review, permit issuance, inspection, and follow-up processes. Replacement of existing software dating to the 1980s would provide greater intra- and inter- departmental connectivity, would improve customer service by providing quicker response times far submittal questions, and eventually, allow Internet access for customers and staff to check on permit/plan review status. New software would also provide performance measurement indicators of staff and project activities, including interface with the County's Geographical Information Systems (GIS), and would further the Information Technology (IT) Plan by replacing a portion of the Legacy System. Staff have worked extensively during the past two years in collaboration with the Information Technology Committee (ITC) to assess needs, solicit and review proposals, and develop recommendations to the Board of Commissioners regarding the purchase of appropriate software. Staff and the ITC recommend that the Board approve the acquisition of multi-use permit/activity software provided by ACCELA (Sierra) as vendor, in an amount not to exceed $177,222. The ITC's recommendation and a staff summary of activities involved in the selection of the proposed software package are provided as reference materials. As noted in the ITC's recommendation, the recommended package does not currently demonstrate all the web enablement capabilities that the County would eventually like to provide. However, staff and the ITC believe that the substantial improvements and increased efficiency in workflow processing and customer service that will be realized through implementation of this software package significantly outweigh the current web access limitations. Furthermore, the recommended package is expected to provide greater web enablement capabilities in future releases of the product. 2 FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funding for the proposed software acquisition is available in the approved 2000-2001 IT Plan Capital project in the County's Capital Investments Plan (CIP). RECOMMENDATIONS:. The Manager recommends that the Board approve the purchase of permitting and inspections software from ACCELA, in an amount not to exceed $177,222, and authorize staff to execute all documents associated with the acquisition and implementation. 3 Memorandum To: Orange County Commissioners CC: Dick Taylor, IS Director From: Information Technology Committee Date: October 9, 2000 Re: Accela Permits Plus System There is universal praise from the committee .for the hard work done by Craig Benedict and the rest of the county staff involved in the Permits software selection process. They worked diligently to understand the needs of their business processes and to recommend the software that they felt best met these criteria. The committee concurs with their analysis in this area. Where .the committee members have differences in their support of this project is in the degree to which this software package allows us to web-enable access to permitting information for the citizens. This software package has great strength in workflow automation, the ability of the package to help shepherd requests electronically through the county offices, making sure that appropriate authorizations are received and the review is done in a timely, efficient fashion. This was the number one evaluation metric used by the county staff. The committee feels strongly, however, that web accessibility is a very important measurement. Indeed, the county staff placed this 5th out of 17 criteria they used. The Accela Permits Plus system provides the ability for certain stakeholders (contractors, legal professionals, etc.) to access information via the web through the "Velocity Hall" application service provider (ASP) model. However, this ASP model does not afford the county information technology (IT) staff the ability to modify and extend Velocity Hall. However, the vendor is willing to share their database documentation with the IT staff (and has provided such materials already)..The IT director believes that his staff has the ability to work with this information to web-enable citizen access or provide basic web access in the event that the Velocity Hall service becomes unavailable to the county (or to direct contractors in this endeavor). However, the scope and cost of that effort is not well defined. The county's IT Architecture states that we should move toward web-enabled access wherever possible and avoid systems that require installation of client software on each desktop (to minimize support and maintenance costs). None of the products met our architectural guidelines for web enablement. However, the majority opinion of the committee is that we can, in this case, support acquisition and installation of this software since it offers so much improvement in workflow processing, even if it does not present the degree of web-enablement that we would like. The members that hold this opinion also believe that industry directions will bring more web-enablement to this product in future releases, as this vendor attempts to keep this product attractive for future customers. We believe that making the step to the Permits Plus system at this time is a positive step for the county even if it does not completely meet the architectural guidelines that we have established, and we are willing to make that compromise. Ta reiterate, however, this was not a. consensus opinion from the committee. The dissenting opinion is that we should follow our architectural principals, even if we forgo current benefits, so that we make the correct long term decision. 4 SUMMARY OF SELECTION PROCESS MULTIUSE PERMIT/ACTIVITY SOFTWARE October 2000 1. Need The need for this new software was identified several years ago. Since that time, three meetings with the Information Technology Committee have been held, as well as development of the Request for Proposal (RFP), and investigation into software vendors by the software assessment team. The RFP for development permit software and selection of a vendor who can, provide software services is multifaceted. The existing software that operates the building permit function is limited in both input and output activities. 2. RFP Process A Software Assessment Team of eight'people made up of employees from Planning & Inspections, Environmental Health, Information Systems, Land Records and Purchasing was formed to review the responses. 1. Mailing A comprehensive RFP was developed by staff that addressed Orange County's requirements and performance goals.. Th.e RFP was advertised and sent to twenty-two prospective vendors. 2. Response Responses were received from ten companies. There was a range in casts from $93,820.00 to $959,057.00. 3. Short List (to six) The ten responses were pared dawn to six based on a combination of cost, responses to detailed specifications in the RFP and review of each package by each member of the Software Assessment Team. Of the six vendors that submitted responsive proposals, five of them had the lowest costs. 4. Presentations (six) Each of these six semi-finalists were invited to demonstrate their product to the Software Assessment Team. . 5. Evaluations (six) a) After demonstrations were started, a list of evaluation criteria was created by the Software Assessment Team. Each of these seventeen was prioritized and assigned a value based on importance (see Exhibit 9 "Evaluafion Criteria Summary'). b) The Software Assessment Team evaluated each of the six proposals and rated them on each of the seventeen evaluation criteria. See Exhibit 2 & Chart 2 6. Short List (to three) The ranking of the presentation of the top six proposals produced our list of three finalists, Eden Systems, Sierra (Accella) and Tidemark (see Chart 3 "Evaluation Summary for Top Three Finalists"). 7. Reference Check Thorough reference checks of each of the three finalists were conducted via teleconference with the Software Assessment Team members and the various local governments and municipalities. 8. Further Evaluation Visits were made to municipalities to view software packages in use, and a workshop was attended to gain further information. In addition, the prime vendor returned far two additional question and answer presentations and an Information Technology demo. 5 9. Final Presentation It was unanimously decided by the Software Assessment Team that Sierra (Accella) was the best solution for Orange County based on cost (upfront and recurring), references and the vendors responses to our RFP. A final presentation was made by Sierra (Accella) to members of the Software Assessment Team as well as additional staff, and the final decision was confirmed [see Chart 4 "Final Evaluation Score of Accela (Sierra)]. 3. Applicability 1. Primary Use The following departments and divisions will be able to utilize various aspects of the new software and included in the software cost: ~ Planning and Inspections • Planning: tracking of subdivision submittals, landscape plans, etc. . Building Inspections: structural, electrical, mechanic, and plumbing permits and inspections • Zoning and Code Enforcement: junk car complaints, home daycare permits, etc. • Erosion Control: land-disturbing permits, plan approval tracking :• Environmental Health • Septic Site Evaluations • Well Permitting Land Records/GIS: addressing y Tax Department • Soil and Water 2. Secondary Use In- house development of additional activity applications should be at no added cast. • Fire Marshal Soil and Water • Animal Control r Business Licenses • Comprehensive Planning :• Planning GIS 3. Complimentary Use ~:• Land Records/GIS: addressing • Tax Assessor's Office interface .• Revenue :• Register of Deeds 4. Software Benefit The proposed software is intended to do the following: 1. Better Access Create better access to data for internal and external customers by providing access to information via the World Wide Web and an Interactive Voice Response System. 2. Performance Measurement Create a database that can provide performance measurement to gauge goal success and /or outcomes, 3. Productivity Reduce time -consuming data entry of repetitive information, 4. Connectivity Provide a software system where information can be shared by various departments with on- line interactivity, and enhance coordination and responsiveness to requests between departments, 5. GIS 6 Provide a software platform that can interface with a Geographic Information System (GIS), as well as interface with the Land Records Department through a hardware server that will allow for real time GIS, and current updates between Planning and Inspections and Land Records. 6. Public Information Provide consistent and accurate information to our customers. 5. Future Consideration 1. Compatibility with existing and/or proposed master system software The county is interested in eventually purchasing adepartment- wide local government software and hardware system. This development permit software module, although a predecessor of the master county system; should be able to interface as `seamlessly' as possible. In the interim, this permit software module should still be able to interact either directly or through an intermediate server, i.e. the existing county mainframe system. In summary, the new development permit software system should increase the level of accountability and accuracy of our professional staff to respond to the information and public service needs of our citizens, and businesses. Orange County uses ARCINFO and ARCVIEW to map local Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Successful bidders must have the capability to make changes to meet local needs. All programs must be certifed to indicate Y2K compliance or date of completion. Report writing methods (similar to Structured-Query Language) must be provided so that special and~custom daily, monthly and long-term reports can be prepared without constant return to the vendor. 2. Interactive Voice Response System '(IVR) The software solution provided by Sierra (Accella) is capable of connecting to an IVR. IVR is one of the goals of the Software Assessment Team because it provides great customer service. The hardware for IVR (approximately $25,000) was not included in the RFP, however the Software Assessment Team will request funding to purchase the hardware through a separate bidding process after base installation of the business operation. - fi. Schedule Per approval, and contract signing, the permit software should be in place and functioning within 18 months of contract signing. Staff anticipates that primary functions will be implemented within 9-12 months. (see Chart 5) 7. Financiallmpact The County's Information Technology Capital Project Ordinance approved by the Board in June 2000 provides for the purchase of this software. 1. Initial Costs (financed by the Information Technology Capital Project Ordinance) See Exhibit 6 2. Annual Maintenance Fees See Exhibit 7 Note: Fee includes all upgrades and direct software support. 3. Future Costs Customization by county employees to allow creation of new permif types, forms, reports, etc should prevent future programming costs. No further action regarding the Information TechnologyCapital Project Ordinance is needed at this time by the Board. 7 Software Assessment Team Members • Craig Benedict, AICP Planning Director • Susan Mellott Code Enforcement Supervisor • David Cannell Purchasing Agent • Thomas Konsler Environmental Health Supervisor • Chris Dwinell GIS Applications Programmer • Jack Eason Systems Analyst • Daniel Bruce Planner II • Kristi Anspach Erosion Control Officer - 8 Evaluation Criteria Summary Exhibit 1 PRESENTATION 1.3 Vendor presentation of software FIELD INTERFACE 1.3 Ability to utilize software in the field using a laptop computer, palm pilot, etc. IMPLEMENTATION 1.6 Time from contract signing/data conversion until software is up and running. RFP 1.7 Thoroughness of response by the vendor to Orange County's RFP. IVR 1.9 Interactive Voice Response system to allow call-in inspection (scheduling) requests, and status checks. EXPANDABILTTY 2.1 Ability of software to handle more licenses than the original contract number (if additional licensee need to be urchaaed). WI;B 2.3 Ability of software to provide on-line access far permit application submittal, inspection (scheduling) requests, status checks, etc. EXPERIENCE 2.4 Past experience of vendor in planning and inspections software. SOFTWARE 2.4 Ability of software to interact with existing county software (i.e. Novell GroupWise) REPORTS ORKFLOW 2.6 .6 Standard and ad-hoc report generation via embedded reports and report generation software. i ity a so re to track action ems permd app icatians, p ins m review, etc as ey move between departmerlts/divisions/staff, and provide 'length of time in review' reports (performance measurement). Also, ability to notify certain dep't/divisions/staffWhen an item is 'due', and issue an alert when these deadlines are not met. SPECIFICATIONS 2.7 Degree to which vendor met our specifications. CUSTOMIZATION 2.7 Ability of trained county employees to add new activity, permits, forms, reports, etc. to system without vendor involvement. MS OFFICE 2.7 Ability of software to interact with the e~asting MS Office Suite[V11ard(Mail Merge, form letters,etc), Excel (spreadsheets), etc]. PARCEL 2.7 Level of parcel management offered by software (does input into a permit update parcel data in GI5 software and vice-versa?). USER-FRIENDLY 2.9 Expected ability of software to be used by all levels of computer trained operators. GIS 3 Interaction with existing Planning and Inspections/ Land Records G15 software(Arcview). EVALUATION WEIGHTS 3.5 3 2.5 2 I.5 I 0.5 0 ®PRESENTATION ^ FIELD INTERFACE D IMPLEMENTATION D RFP ^IVR ^ EXPANDABILITY ^ WEB ®EXPERIENCE ^ SOFTWARE ^ REPORTS O WORKFLOW ^ SPECIFICATIONS ^ CUSTOMIZATION ^ MS OFFICE ^ PARCEL. ^LISER-FRIENDLY ^GIS kca:z/zs/oo vendor evaluation criteria EVALUATION CRTTERIA N U ^, e~ 0 0 ~. a .~ a 0 H ~, w d .~ W 0 U 0 ., H H w a as 0 d .~ ~a A W 9 O p ~ N O 040 ~ ~ N ~ ~ ...i ,~ 10 M .~ U w O 0 a 0 H w ~~ ~~ ~o~~ ~~~~ ~ J~ ~'o ~~~, ~o~ ~ ? o ~ ~s ~~ ~ s~ ~o~ ~ , ~- o~ ~ o~ `~. -~~ ~~. ~~ ~~ ~~ ~o ~ ~~ ~~, ~'~~ `~- `~~ ~P ~~~ a .~ O ~ C rv .~ x O o 0 o O O O O o o O o. O O C O Q O O C7 O G7 O 0 ~ C ~ 000 ~ ~ Vd'1 ~ M N C O .. s~;oZ aa~iu~uio~ a.rB~og 1 U w a w v U w O O U ~I w F~ d ~ ~ o ~" z c~ ~ d ~ w HAAS ~ w Q~ m W ~ d z Q o A ~ ~ ~ G G ~ ~ ~ ~ U U a ~ a' ~ ~ ~ rW W O o®®o^o®^^®^®^^^®^ .~ .~ U a O +:.~ a o 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 c Q a o 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0°, 040 °n ~ ,°r, °.~. o N o 0 12 .r., .,~ x W ~ ~$ ~ ~ s ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~_ _ ,~:. .; ~ $ ;~~ti ~ .~ .......................... ..........-•---•-•----•-•........ --•-•-.......-•----........---.. ~'g ~ cc~ ~$ ~ . ~ d n ~. a ~d o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,o o ~ a ~0° ~ e a ~ ~ . .~: • . ~ .~ m ~. ~ : $ -- ~ ~ $ ~~ ~ UN ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ a e ~ m ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~. o~ m~ ~ ~~ O ~ ~ m ~ 4 m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ C W r ~ m D. ~ z ~ ~ ~ a ~ O ~ ~ cry ~~ a~ d m ~ c ~ d n~ E d~ v c ui u: ~ r $ ~ nl p! ~ ~ ~ ti M .., .~ ~ ~ _ a r ru M ~ u~ m 1. m ee 13 .,~ .~ x W .~..`. r IMYf N Q ~ ~ ~ m N N ~ ~ N +" q C N w N ~ r C N , N C C y d • ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~' m ~ ~ ~ Q ~ g~ s ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m g ~ ~ C ~+ ~ ~ W = ~ .~. ~` ~ 4 E ~ a ~ ~ W ~ o'~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~! y S a V Q ~ lV dj f Yf ~ iD A ~ , , p r ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ m U ~ LLI Ii: ui m = o ~ e 3~_ o`o 4~ p • w~ ~ C O ~. ~ '~ 4 A ~ ~. ~ 3 C • ~~ M 3 3~ 9 ~ ~r A s m p `~~"yy' q~ ~y rr~~1 I~~p P! F N N N H N ~ H ~, ~ ~ {q N ~ A N e3 M c~ .r., .,~ x w N a~ a ~•~ •~ --- .._....... a . ...... ...................................... ..................... -~5'-i - ~v iZ i~ ~ .o $ ` ~ v ...... ~ .....................................................................................•-•---....... :e !e :~ ~~ O m 4 ~ ~A O h h O W N O~ N m O O G O ~ d r ~ ~ {~ Ei T i ~_ ~ f Q ~ ~ ~ ` .~ ~; ~ ~~~ ~ ~s ~.~ -~ o ~ Q~ : ~ ~ ~~~'~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ O O .~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~~~ ~ a~~~-~~ ~~~ g ~ Q a. ~ak~ ~d ~ a ~ a ~ ~ ~_ W y ~ ~ ~ O ~q ~ O ~ ~ ~ m O www ~ ~ ~ ~r C © E ~ y ~ p ~- e+i cri ~ ~' u'~7 ~ ~ W H U' _ - E ~ ~ Ci C LLI E d m CV C tp ti 1~ 15 m x w N N ~+ C a V a E V c ea C LL j O V °o o n N ~ o a °o_ d03 °o v °o 6~4 o c ~°n ~ °o o `~' o o OO ~ °o cQ v ~ I o 0 o o ~ ~ o 0 0 co GD ~ c o o a '~t ~ o o o o 0 ~ a v a o 0 ~ a v ca r~ N ~ o o o o N ~ 0 v a m C7 ~ 0 c o a ~ ~ ~ 0 a ci N. N ti ~ 0 o ~ m ~ r ~ N ~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ N Rr L p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ L ~ ~ ~ p ~ L ~ . C , . C O 4 r ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ CO C7 N C N C7 N I~ r O M _ ~ ,-- N t^ t6 w O H p v O o o a a .;= c ~ ~ y A ,~ o ;a y ca ~ ~` V ~`' ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ o ~ •y r n ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ` ~ O ra, ~ `O t ~ ~ LL a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O a ~Op . .. may,, N ~ uJ ~ O ~ ~ O N ~ ~ Z V m ~ O CO O ~ O Cl ~ +r ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ .d ~ U ~ ~ ~ w N O .G O L CL v 7 d y ~ G. O ~ ~ y f~ Q C`7 O O ri ~- ~ ~ o °' c ~ ~' ' a ~ o ° °' u v W in ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •- a z N ,- ~ w O ~ ~ p ~ E ~ O '~ O ~y ~ v ~ x ~ ! 0 O $i ~ ~ ~ ~. = O 'O ~ W _ = ~ o -v °' ~ ~ ? m ° ~ a~ ~ C7 aJi ~ y U ca ~ '.p--+ C C O 0. ~ Q V t0 Q 3 L2 ~ G c N ¢ ~ ~ O ~ ~ '~ C ~ ~ O ~ O. _ p' ~ C N ,Q~ ~ ~ '~p ~ •tA ~ C p~ ~ ~ c O O (~ f!1 ` V) ~ _ CIJ (V .~ ~ t7I O ~ C N + ~ y 'C ~ , ~ ~ ~ OI ~ ~2 ~ ~ • ~_ 7 ~ 3 p V .~ `'' (rj ~ Y C p, O ++ ~ to •y O " C t (~ ~ ~ y C N Q. N 7 C ~ . G EA •~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O J .~ ~ Q O p v 'O p c 0 ~ p w W S W p V y y ~ a~ ~ ~ ,v s ~ 3 o y m ~ c c c a~ U ~ ` .c .c ~_ .c ,c a~ .y ~ ~ U I- ~ O ~ ~ = a~ '~ c ¢ " O ~ ~ y ~ ~ o a ~ 3 .3 .3 ~3 .3 W c ii y to ~ v) 2 t!1 ao E ~ a i ~ c ~ `o c ~ co ~ a y ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ y ~ H h» H ~, H ti H ~ a a~ .r ~ ~ o qr 3 O °~ 0 2 _ rr E w e ~ c .c m c ca c H a~ ~' a i Q1 C] ~ ~ ~ O ~ w ~ ~ V1i N ~ 7 U C •- C O' G1 N O ~ p ~ ~ y ~ Q y .C N N N ~ y ~•• ~ ~ ~ a a a ~ ow.. ~ ~ o a o ~ c°a ~ . ~ ~ ~ ¢ a ca ~ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ w u ¢ ~ z z z z z z z z z z z W ~ 0 = 0 ~ O O O = O O O O O ~ w w w w w w 0 w 1 - ¢ ~- H ¢ t- I- ¢ t- z O z O H ¢ ~ H ¢ ~ I ¢ N z O~ z O H ¢ h- ¢ H ¢ H ¢ ~=- ¢ w ca I- cr ¢ ~ ¢ ~ ¢ ~ ¢I ~ ¢ ~ ¢ z g z w z w z w ~ N Z w Z w - Z w ~ N t- z f- z ~ z F-. z ~ z z ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~ w w w w ~ j ~ j w w w ~ ~ w ~ w z w ~ w ~ w ~ w ~ w ~ ~ z w LL LL LL I LL LLI U J J J Z Z J J J I ~ J J J w J JI I Z I O cnl i OI tn . Oi cn. O; cn~ O rn O~ rn ~ i , ~I s; °-~ ~~ cLj ~; a. ~1 O; ~,~ O .,~ ~' ~~ ai ~' a ~~ ~ I Z ~~ Z O~ ~ I ¢ ~~ a 51 a 5! ai s; . , a.! st a~ s! ! ~ ¢I