Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution

City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

The following is additional information regarding RFP #FAS-3102, titled Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution released on January 11, 2013. The Proposal due date has been updated from Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 4:00 pm to Thursday February 28, 2013 @ 4:00 pm.

This addendum is hereby made part of the RFP and therefore, the information contained herein shall be taken into consideration when preparing and submitting a proposal. Vendors should review the Q&A carefully as some of the responses have been reworded/clarified. These written Q&A's take precedence over any verbal Q&A.

From: Carmalinda Vargas, Sr. Buyer City of Seattle Purchasing Phone: 206-615-1123; Fax 206-233-5155 Email Address: [email protected]

Item # Date Date Vendor’s Question City’s Response RFP Additions/Revisions/ Received Answered Deletions 1 01/23/13 01/24/13 Due to the size of the RFP, the time The Proposal due date has been necessary to solidify partnerships, and updated from Tuesday, February the volume of outstanding questions, we 12, 2013 @ 4:00 pm to Thursday respectfully request a 4-week extension February 28, 2013 @ 4:00 pm on the proposal deadline. This will allow us to develop the best response for the cities.

2 01/14/13 02/05/13 Insurance Requirements have been DELETION & REVISION: updated. – Delete Attachment 21 in its entirety and replace it with Attachment 21A – 2013 Tax portal Insurance Requirement.

Attachment 21A_2013 Insurance Requirements_RFP3102.doc Page 1 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

3 01/14/13 02/05/13 Software as a Service (SAAS) DELETION & REVISION: Contract language has been Delete Attachment 22 in its updated. entirety and replace it with Attachment 22A – 3102 SAAS Agreement. For those submitting a standard proposal for an implementation system use Attachment 24 – Technology Agreement. Attachment 22A_ 3102 SAAS Agreement.doc

ADDITION- Technology Agreement:

Attachment 24

Attachment 24_Technology Agreement.doc

4 01/16/13 01/16/13 Are the Cities looking at a Custom The Cities’ preference is for a Development or a COTS Solution for the COTS solution. Portal? 5 01/16/13 01/16/13 Can you provide more details about the The details to the system can be B&O License & Tax management found in Attachment Five – systems? Technical Requirement report Appendix B and in Attachment 3 – Feasibility Study Appendices.

6 01/16/13 01/16/13 With different back-office B&O License & The scope of this RFP does not Tax management systems and as part of include replacement of back-end

of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

this project, are any or ALL of the 5 cities systems. looking for a back-office COTS solution to help them manage the B&O license & Tax processes? In other words, since the Cities are looking for a common portal, will they consider a common back-office software hosted by each of the Cities? 7 01/16/13 01/16/13 Where applicable by City, are the Cities As part of the long term use of the looking as well to enable the filing of the portal a City would have the ability other Tax Types (Utility, Admission, to add other tax types to the Gambling, Commercial Parking, & system. The scope of the initial Other) as outlined in Attachment 6 of the implementation is business license RFP documents? registration and B&O tax filing.

8 01/16/13 01/16/13 Can you share the approved budget for The City would like the Vendor to this project? include the true estimated cost to perform the work irrespective of the City’s budgeted funds for this project. 9 01/17/13 01/22/13 Typically only corrections, clarifications Per Section 12, Item 12. The Delete: page 23 or mutually agreed strikeouts may be Vendor has a means to provide accommodated within vendor standard exceptions to the City’s Terms and agreements as client terms and Conditions. The City will not sign a conditions do not adequately handle the licensing or maintenance essential requirements of software agreement supplied by the licensing. Your RFP states that, “Under The City cannot provide a definitive vendor. If the vendor requires no circumstances shall vendor submit its response to this question. The City the City to consider otherwise, own boilerplate of terms and conditions”. would need to review the the vendor is also to supply Before city and vendor unnecessarily strikeouts. this as a requested exception expend time and effort with this to the contract and it will be proposal: Will a vendor be seriously The City intends to have its own considered in the same considered should substantially all of contract be the Master Agreement manner as other exceptions.

Update 02/14/13

their standard terms and conditions be to all other documents including required while negotiating strikeouts to license and maintenance vendor agreements and exceptions to agreements, if applicable. your terms and conditions?

Addition: 02/01/13 The Vendor will necessarily be rejected. It depends on the substance of those exceptions. The City may not except suggested changes, therefore, Vendors should be judicious when taking exceptions to the City’s terms and conditions.

The City Terms and Conditions contains provisions that are derived to satisfy City Policy and City, State and Federal regulations (requirements).

The City will not accept the Vendor’s Agreement. The Vendor must work from the City’s 10 01/17/13 01/23/13 How much total has been spent to date The information is not available. on the project? (Consulting studies, staff time etc.)

11 01/17/13 01/22/13 Has this RFP been sent to a list of Yes vendors? (I.E. we found this RFP using our "Find RFP" service)

Update 02/14/13

12 01/17/13 01/23/13 Will the list of vendors who responded to Yes on the City Purchasing Web the "letter of intent" be published? Site: http://thebuyline.seattle.gov/2013/0 1/11/multi-city-business-license- and-tax-portal-solution-rfp-fas- 3102/ 13 01/17/13 01/23/13 Other than the $200 million collected by As stated in the RFP, there is a 5 cities in 2011, what other revenue desire for other taxes to be added sources if any is expected to go through to the portal but the initial phase of the new system? (It is important to know the project is the business license how much revenue the portal will be and Business and Occupation tax responsible for). which comprises the $200 million listed in the RFP. 14 01/17/13 01/23/13 Is there a consultant (or other party) who Yes, various consulting firms have has already received an award who will assisted in the project to date. play a continuing role with this project? (I.E. the selected vendor resulting from this RFP would be expected to work with - or depend on - this party for guidance/technical details/communications between stakeholders, etc.)? 15 01/17/13 01/23/13 Are you open to a portal that in and of See response #4 itself is a commercial off the shelf licensed software solution or do you prefer an SAP and/or other tool based customized software development owned by the five (or more) city consortium? 16 01/17/13 01/23/13 What is more important? A) receiving a Our preference is a commercial off complete commercial off the shelf the shelf software as stated in the Page 5 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

licensed software product (the RFP. completed portal) that offers regular updates or B) developing a custom See response #4 solution that the consortium may sublicense functionality to other entities and bear the burden of 95% of the maintenance?

17 01/17/13 01/23/13 How important is business tax software Given that the scope of this work is experience to this procurement? for business and occupation tax collection, tax software experience is important. 18 01/17/13 01/23/13 Given recent legalization of marijuana in The collection and distribution of your state (I-502, Nov 7th 2012), is a licenses and taxes related to vendor's prior experience collecting Marijuana is not local jurisdictions $millions in marijuana taxes a plus? responsibility.

19 01/17/13 01/23/13 “The proposed solution will provide the Refer to requirements attachments ability to interface with the Systems of 8 through 11. Record (SOR) to transfer information between the portal and the SORs for each participating government agencies (cities, Department of Revenue)”. [From "Mandatory requirements" section of attachment #8 - Functional Requirements]. By initially populating the portal with basic BL account data the portal can function independently from the legacy BT systems in the event of loss of connectivity. Is initial data population of all account information from each city participant desirable?

Update 02/14/13

20 01/17/13 01/23/13 Is prompt implementation a priority? Having business license (Given the large list of requirements, registration and the collection of have you considered prioritization at the Business and Occupation tax is a level of individual functionality? priority by Q2 2014.

The vendor is responsible for preparing implementation strategy (see Attachment 16 Management Response).

21 01/17/13 01/23/13 Are you willing to prioritize desired If vendors do not feel they cannot functionality so that the most beneficial address all functionality in functions are promptly implemented? implementation then the vendor should address in an implementation strategy (see Attachment 16 Management Response).

22 01/17/13 01/23/13 Have the consequences of one city (a The benefit of implementing for the new one who joins the portal, for five participating cities is that 90% example) requiring extensive of the local Business and customization cost for limited benefit Occupation tax collected is through (such as the ability to renew their "one these five cities and these five dance hall" via the portal), been cities are closely aligned in addressed? processes, data and procedures (See Attachment 2 and 3 Feasibility Report and Appendices) so the risk of any of the additional 35 cities who could join in the future being different from the five cities is very low. Page 7 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

23 01/17/13 01/23/13 Do we know if the existing BL software Half of the existing BL software was (SOR) vendors are willing and/or able to built in house and the other half is provide APIs or web services to either provide by the State of communicate with the portal vendor? Washington Department of [I.E. can the BL vendors push out data to Revenue or done manually. The the portal]? city systems are able to work with the vendor to provide API’s or web What happens if one vendor becomes services; we are working on a unwilling or their interface is unable to similar agreement with the function? Department of Revenue.

24 01/17/13 01/23/13 How much time do the five cities expect The project is currently working will be required to obtain integration with the five cities to obtain this tools from BT software (SOR) providers information but we do not have a to pull/push required data from their final schedule yet. We ask vendors legacy systems? Has this been for this in the recommended determined? implementation planning management response (See Attachment 16 Management Response. 25 01/17/13 01/23/13 If the SOR vendors are unwilling to Majority of backend systems are create such APIs, are you willing to pay built in-house and cities have IT the very high cost of independently staff to create the APIs (see creating such APIs via reverse Attachment 5 Technical engineering? (for each new city at their Requirements report), we are individual base terminal cost, plus costs asking the vendor to propose an for unique requirements)? integration strategy to address this specific concern. 26 01/17/13 01/23/13 Have you considered the impact on the As stated in Attachment 5 portal of 3rd party vendor software Technical Requirements report, Page 8 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

changes at one or more city legacy BT most of the systems are built in systems? (Going out of business, house and will be not be at risk for nonsupport of obsolete versions, major changes during this project. upgrades etc.) The integration with the Washington State Department of Revenue is currently in discussion with staff.

27 01/17/13 01/23/13 How will staff ensure that decisions are The portal project operates under a made in a timely fashion (considering Steering Committee and will each may impact 5 jurisdictions)? continue to do so during the course of this project. Vendor should recommend an appropriate response period to ensure timely completion to the project which the cities should response to question or issues. 28 01/17/13 01/23/13 Who will decide whether functionality The five cities participating in this desired by one city (which may affect project are aligned in their only one account) is cost beneficial? functionality, data and processes and are committed to the same functionality for the cities with the exceptions being configured workflow and processes as there are some differences. Refer to Attachments 1, 4, 5 and 7.

29 01/17/13 01/23/13 Would this cost be paid by the one city Please refer to Attachment 1 – or divided amongst the portal members? Memorandum of Understanding for the specific funding agreement. 30 01/17/13 01/23/13 Are you open to adding one city at a In the RFP we are asking time to the portal? I.E. a proposal based proposers to provide us with Page 9 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

on per city deployment with payment recommendations for tendered subsequent to each city going implementation. Refer to live? Attachment 16 – Management Response (section 9)

31 01/17/13 01/23/13 As part of a proposal, may a vendor The five cities have no interest in quote an optional per terminal cost for replacing existing back-end BT functionality with the highest rated systems of record as part of this business licensing solution? Such an project. option would include required interfaces in lieu of creating interfaces to current BL software providers? (This option would replace the SOR BT software at all cities using the portal). 32 01/17/13 01/23/13 Are consultants who have already Yes. worked on project specifications allowed to compete in this procurement? 33 01/17/13 01/23/13 Do you plan to utilize one lockbox No. vendor to facilitate payment processing? Cities that continue to use a (some cities do use lockbox per lockbox will retain their independent documentation) lockbox provider. Tax Returns and payments processed through the Portal will not go through the City’s Lockbox. Only paper returns submitted manually will go to a Lockbox for processing.

34 01/17/13 01/23/13 Do you desire to transfer images See Question 33. (scanned checks/forms) derived from lockbox processing to the portal? 35 01/17/13 01/23/13 Assuming that all payments are routed The vendor is responsible for daily to one merchant or bank account, who dispersal to the different cities or

Update 02/14/13

will be responsible for periodic dispersal direct settlement in each city’s bank to different cities? account dependent on the requirement of the participating city.

36 01/17/13 01/23/13 Given the reality of merchant fees will The payment processor should a any dispersing participant receive a reasonable convenience fees (if small cut of the proceeds for payment applicable) that would cover fees to processing? make the Portal attractive to businesses.

Convenience fee(s) should be listed in the cost proposal. 37 01/17/13 01/23/13 If you intend to require 100% of a staff Please refer to Attachment 16 members’ time dedicated to your project, Management Response –vendors should we expect the same commitment are asked to provide from city staff? recommendations.

38 01/17/13 01/23/13 What interface requirements are desired No interfaces to internal 3rd party (if any) to internal 3rd party city software city software has been identified (GL, permitting)? other than the systems of record and the payment systems. 39 01/17/13 01/23/13 Is one or are twelve cds required? “The We would like 12 CD’s or USB City also requests one (12) CDs or USB containing the entire vendor drives containing the vendor’s entire response. response.”

40 01/17/13 01/23/13 Solicitation Schedule No. The City will release the final Deadline for Questions responses by the week of February February 1, 2013 @ 2:00 p.m. 11, 2013.

Does the City have a publish date for See response #1 Page 11 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

answers to questions? There are only 7 business days between the deadline for questions and the due date for proposals. 41 01/17/13 01/23/13 Will all participants receive a copy of all The City will attempt to notify the questions and the City’s answers? participants when an addendum is issued, however the City cannot guarantee email service, therefore it is up to the Vendor to obtain the Addendum from the City’s Purchasing web site: http://thebuyline.seattle.gov/2013/0 1/11/multi-city-business-license- and-tax-portal-solution-rfp-fas- 3102/ 42 01/17/13 01/23/13 Index of Attachments The City requires the responses in 8 Functional Requirements Workbook Excel. 9 Technical Requirements Workbook 10 Payment Requirements 11 Security Requirements

Does the City intend for the proposal responses to be provided in Excel, particularly with regard to Attachments 8, 9, 10, and 11? 43 01/17/13 01/23/13 Index of Attachments Yes 8 Functional Requirements Workbook 9 Technical Requirements Workbook 10 Payment Requirements 11 Security Requirements

Is it acceptable to provide full descriptive Page 12 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

responses to each requirement in a separate document that will be referenced from the Excel file? 44 02/08/13 NA Question has been withdrawn by Vendor. 45 01/17/13 01/24/13 Attachment 9, Other Technical There is no separate translation Requirements effort for this requirement. The City #360 The proposed solution will provide and Vendor will work together on the ability to support multiple languages the actual translation – the at the general information level such as: requirement is that the proposed English system be able to support multiple Korean languages. Mandarin Russian Spanish Somali Vietnamese

Will the successful vendor be responsible for translating content to the languages stated (Korean, Mandarin, Russian, Spanish, Somali, Vietnamese) as part of this RFP, or is the requirement to be able to support the languages but the translation is a separate effort? 46 01/17/13 01/23/13 Attachment 9, Other Technical The knowledge base content will Requirements only be required to be translated if #360 The proposed solution will provide it falls under the general the ability to support multiple languages information content. at the general information level such as: English Korean Mandarin

Update 02/14/13

Russian Spanish Somali Vietnamese

Will the knowledge base content need to be provided in multiple languages under this RFP? 47 01/17/13 01/23/13 Attachment 9, Other Technical The requirement is for the ability to Requirements add notes - the successful vendor #312 The proposed solution will provide will work with the cities to further the ability for city personnel to add notes design the requirement and the or documentation to a business record. viewing levels.

Should notes added by City personnel be visible to the taxpayer/business owner?

48 01/17/13 01/23/13 Attachment 9, Other Technical This would be a preference but it Requirements also is a design decision which will #356 The proposed solution will provide be part of the implementation the ability to minimize vertical scrolling. project. The requirement is to provide the ability to minimize the Does the City prefer a design that seeks vertical scrolling. to keep all the information onscreen “above the fold”?

49 01/17/13 01/24/13 Costing. In the Cost proposals (Attachment 17 & 18) a vendor may document Will the city consider separately any assumptions which would yield documented contract options that could cost savings or additional benefits. yield cost savings or additional benefits?

Update 02/14/13

50 01/17/13 Pending On the minimum qualifications you Pending stated that :"The vendors project manager must have had prior experience implementing the proposed solution to a government agency similar in size to the City of Seattle". Does that mean that this proposed solution is a current product on the market and is being used by other government entities? Since the drawing says this is a conceptual picture it leads me to believe that this product needs to be developed or customized to a large extent to meet this solution. 51 01/17/13 01/23/13 Does the City currently have the budget Yes approved for this project? 52 01/17/13 01/23/13 Requirement number 340 states that These requirements are in tandem. “The proposed solution will provide the The City wanted to pull out the ability to use a standard recognized mobile requirement for Safari protocol to secure the communication separately. channel (for example, Secure Socket Layer (SSL)) using TLS 1.1 or higher.” Since the only browser that supports TLS 1.1 is Mobile Safari, are customers restricted to using iPhones or iPads? This appears to be in conflict with Requirement number 354 which requires multiple device and operating system support. Which is the actual requirement? 53 01/17/13 01/23/13 Requirement number 375 states that The cities are asking for 24x7x365 “the proposed solution will provide the for most of the portal services. ability to provide 24 x 7 X 365 availability Anything that requires direct Page 15 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

of the system but may not include the interaction with city staff (web chat, same time availability for all services email, etc) may not be required to with the system. Can you explain? What be 24x7x365 given city hours and services are not required to be 24 x 7 x holidays. 365? See SLA – Attachment 23 54 01/17/13 01/23/13 Requirement number 540 requests the For example, if we need to initiate a respondent to “Describe the vendor's service request, how do we contact client operational service request model; you to do so? After that contact is e.g., sharing estimated response time, made, what steps are taken on use of tracking indicators, escalation your side to understand the issue, steps).” Can you provide your definition identify the problem, provide of a “client operational service request resolution, communicate model” and its intended use? throughout and ensure we are satisfied with the solution? Please also describe your escalation process. Please also describe your normal service level commitments associated with service requests. 55 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 542 requests the Security policies – how are they respondent to “Describe the documented and who has access documentation and control of policies to them particularly as they apply to and their accessibility to employees and the system. customers.” Please document the policies to which you are referring and would like described.

56 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 554 requests the If we are having an issue that respondent to “Describe how remote requires you to provide user user support is handled, e.g., use of 3rd support, how is that handled? party tool, disabling by user, enabled Something like WebEx? How only when necessary.” Given that the would sessions like that be

Update 02/14/13

portal is intended to run in a web-based administered and managed? environment, can you describe how this requirement applies? 57 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 561 asks “Which industry- It’s more of an open-ended inquiry standard certifications (e.g., BITS, Common Criteria/EAL) have certified the application?” What is the intent of this question given that BITS is intended for financial services and for the common criteria/EAL, to what level are you requiring?

58 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 564 asks “Is the application You can be compliant with both. compliant with the X.509 certificate standard?” Since PKI is specified, what is the rationale for X.509? Is this a different requirement as requirement number 480? 59 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 565 asks “Is the application Not necessarily though it would be compliant with the PCKS11 key useful to know if smartcards are distribution standard?” Given that this supported. standard refers to Smart Cards, is there an expectation that Smart Cards will be supported? 60 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 577 asks to “Describe the Requirement 475 is not mandatory. application's fire wall capabilities.” Since Given that, what are the firewalls are typically separate devices applications’ firewall capabilities? and Requirement 475 includes “Operate boundary or perimeter firewalls on a platform specifically dedicated to firewalls" can you clarify which is the actual requirement? 61 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 606 asks to “Describe the We are seeking to determine if you Page 17 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

solution's compliance with required adhere to a standard messaging messaging format(s).” Could you format – something like XML document which messaging format is Schema, etc. required? 62 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 553 asks to “Describe how Logs typically track activity – in this support activities can be traced to the case changes made by users to the specific individuals performing them.” Is items noted in 392 and 393. 553 this different than requirements 392 and speaks more to transaction logging 393? that would be inclusive of the above. 63 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 556 asks to “Describe They overlap where 396 speaks to approach to visibility into security the ability and 556 asks for a vulnerability data, as it applies to the description. solution.” Is this different than requirement 396? 64 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 568 asks to “Describe the The requirements in the 3xx range application's password control speak to ability, 568 asks for a management; e.g., timeout, complexity, description. reuse.” Is this different than requirements #341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353. 65 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 570 asks “Are passwords yes stored in encrypted format?” Is this different than of requirement 342? 66 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 572 asks “Can the They are different requirements. application enforce complex Complex passwords are at least 8 passwords?” Is this a different than characters long, contain at least 1 requirements 342 and 350 and can you lower case character, 1 upper case define “complex passwords?” character, 1 numeric character and 1 symbolic character. 67 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 573 asks to “Describe the 573 speaks to unused account de- application's user account lifecycle provisioning. The others speak to management; e.g., automatically Page 18 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

disabling unused accounts.” Is this password policy and administration. different than requirements 350, 352 and 353? 68 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 574 asks to “Describe the Yes application's handling of user session inactivity, e.g., automatically logs off user.” Is this different than requirement 352?

69 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 575 asks to “Describe the Yes – 575 speaks to how and by user provisioning function; e.g., whom user provisioning is done. delegated administration capability.” Is 253 et al asks if a business owner this different than requirements 253 and can create accounts. associated requirements?

70 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 576 asks to “Describe the Yes – 576 asks if users are application's access model and role assigned to roles and roles are management function.” Is this different given permissions. 255 et. al than Requirements 255 and associated speaks to user provisioning. requirements? 71 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 578 asks to “Describe the 398/399 speaks to OWASP virus & spyware detection and minimums. 401/402 speaks to elimination solution; e.g., integrated on compatibility with standard anti- the software.” Is this different than malware environments. 578 asks requirements 398, 399, 401 and 402? about virus and spyware detection methods that are used. 72 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 579 asks “Network Peer They are related but 467 says that Entity Authentication: Do both users and a trusted connection must be used. processes identify and authenticate 579 asks about what occurs on themselves prior to the exchange of both sides for identity and data?” Is this different than requirements authentication. 467 and associated requirements? 73 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 581 asks to “Describe the They could be related but are Page 19 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

solution's capability for high-availability.” different. 581 speak to high Is this different than requirement 390? availability capability. 390 talks about failover ability. 74 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 582 asks to “Describe the They are completely different solution's capability to sync/replicate to a requirements. 388/389 talk about remote site.” Is this different than physical backups. 582 talks about requirements 388 and 389? data replication.

75 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 583 asks to “Describe the They are different. 387 talks about solution's built-in backup function.” Is this “what” gets backed up. 583 talks different than requirement 387? about the backup solution used.

76 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 586 asks to “Describe the They are different. 325/326/327 solution's alerting capability; e.g., via speaks to what triggers alerts and email or snmp trap.” Is this different than how they are reviewed. 586 asks requirements 325, 326 and 327? for a description of the alerting process and methods. 77 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 587 asks to “Describe the They are different. 338 specifies application’s logging of READ access that those functions need role activity.” Is this different than restrictions. 587 talks about requirement 338? specific logging of read access activity. 78 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 588 asks to “Describe the They are different, 588 speaks to application’s logging of WRITE access logging of WRITE access activity in activity.” Is this different than the application and 338 speaks to requirement 338? storing backups in a secured secondary location. 79 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 589 asks to “Describe the They are different, 589 speaks to application’s logging of MODIFY access logging of MODIFY access activity activity.” Is this different than in the application and 338 speaks requirement 338? to the storing backups in a security secondary location. Page 20 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

80 01/17/13 01/24/13 Requirement 591 asks to “Describe the They are different, 591 speaks to application's handling of activity logs, the handling of activity logs in e.g., rotate and archive.” Is this different terms of how they are rotated and than requirement 394? archived. 394 speaks to records retention schedules and adherence to them. 81 01/17/13 02/05/13 Requirement 594 asks to “Describe the They are different, 395 speaks to solution's control of audit and log files; the ability to protect logs and 594 e.g., from unauthorized alteration from asks for a description of the control system users and/or by the vendor methods used. support staff.” Is this different than requirement 395? 82 01/17/13 02/05/13 Requirement 604 asks to “Describe the They are different, 395 speaks to application's use of encrypted activity the ability to protect logs and 604 logs.” Is this different than requirement speaks to the application’s ability to 395? encrypt activity logs. 83 01/17/13 02/05/13 Requirement 597 “Describe the They are different, 597 asks for a application's capability to manage digital description of the capability to transaction signatures.” Page 11 of manage digital transaction Attachment 5 Technical Requirements signature. 400 says the application Report specifies: "Digital Signatures— must provide the ability to use a Rather than using Digital Signatures, the combination of authentication, Portal will use a combination of disclaimers and log reports. They Authentication, Disclaimers, and Log Reports" as also expressed in are both correct. Requirement #400. Which is the correct requirement? 84 01/17/13 02/05/13 Requirement 598 asks to “Describe the They are different, 598 asks if the application's capability to utilize an application can use an external external certificate authority.” Page 11 of certificate authority. 400 says the Attachment 5 Technical Requirements application must provide the ability Report specifies: "Digital Signatures— to use a combination of Rather than using Digital Signatures, the Page 21 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

Portal will use a combination of authentication, disclaimers and log Authentication, Disclaimers, and Log reports. They are both correct. Reports” as also expressed in Requirement #400. Which is the correct requirement? 85 01/17/13 01/23/13 There are a number of requirements that There are no requirements missing appear to be missing. Are there – this is the final list of requirements for the following numbers: requirements. The Requirement ID 001-096, 099-101, 115-116, 120, 122, number is an internal tracking 128, 137-139, 143, 147-148, 153-155, number for the City. 161, 167, 175-176, 178, 180-181, 186- 187, 191-193, 195-196, 200, 204-205, 208, 211-213, 226-227, 230-231, 233- 234, 237-238, 241, 245, 250, 254, 262- 263, 265, 272, 288-295, 298-299, 301, 303, 310, 314, 328-329, 336, 339, 347, 364-371, 373-374, 379-380, 382-383, 412, 435, 441-442, 481, 483, 488, 495- 496, 505, 511? 86 01/23/13 01/24/13 The minimum qualifications require at Yes. Revise – Minimum least five years experience providing tax Qualifications – Section 5 solutions similar in scope. As the For context, our subcontractor has STRIKE solicitation calls for a licensing and tax an established licensing COTS The vendor must have at least solution, would the City be willing to product with a more recent tax five years experience providing amend the qualification to “at least five component built into the solution.” tax solutions similar in scope to years experience providing business government agencies of licensing or tax solutions similar in comparable size to the City of Seattle. scope”? For context, our subcontractor has an established licensing COTS REVISE: product with a more recent tax The Vendor must have at component built into the solution. We least five years experience believe that our proposal would be of providing business licensing immense value to the cities but the or tax solutions similar in Page 22 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

requirement, as originally worded, scope potentially precludes us from submitting a proposal.

87 01/23/13 01/24/13 Does the prime need to be able to meet The prime is ultimately responsible, the minimum qualifications or would the and with the combined experience qualifications of the subcontractor be the qualifications of the acceptable? subcontractor are acceptable. 88 01/24/13 01/24/13 a) Did a vendor or a consultant help a) See response 32 the Cities with the requirements and b) See response 32 do the feasibility study, etc. in c) Project Corp preparation for this RFP? b) Is that vendor allowed to respond to the RFP? c) Who is that vendor or consultant? 89 01/24/13 01/24/13 What is the purpose in including HIPPA These are standard security for the payment processing? There does requirements for any payment not appear to be any HIPPA related data processing for the City. identified for use within payment processing through the Portal. 90 01/24/13 01/24/13 What is the intent in including Regulation These are standard security A? requirements for any payment processing for the City.

91 01/24/13 02/13/13 Points are awarded for minority Delete Attachment 19 in its entirety Revised City Inclustion subcontracting. Why are points not and replace it with Attachment 19A Form 19A awarded for the prime to be a minority – City Inclusion Form business? In the current inclusion plan, a minority prime that does not subcontract with another minority firm receives no

Update 02/14/13

points for inclusion. This does not appear to meet the intent of the inclusion plan. Attachment 19A_CityInclusionForm.doc

DELETION/REVISION: Section 13 – Evaluation Process

Inclusion Plan – Total Possible Points: delete 50 02/14/13 Sections 11 and 12 have been Revise to 100 points. For a revised: grand total 1050 points.

Section 11, Instruction To Vendors, DELETE paragraph Women and Minority Subcontracting in its entirety and REPLACE with the following paragraph:

Women and Minority Opportunities. A Woman and Minority Inclusion Plan is a mandatory submittal with your RFP response, and is provided for you in the Submittal Instruction section of this RFP document. The City requires all vendors to submit an Inclusion Plan. Failure to submit a plan will result in Page 24 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

rejection of your RFP response. The plan will be scored as part of the evaluation. The Inclusion Plan is a material part of the contract. Read the Inclusion Plan carefully; it is incorporated into the contract. At City request, vendors must furnish evidence of compliance, such as copies of agreements with WMBE subcontractors. This plan seeks both WMBE business utilization as well as recognizes those companies or respondents that have a unique business purpose for hiring of workers with barriers

Section 12 Proposal Format and Organization, paragraph #9: Delete paragraph in its entirety and replace with the following paragraph:

9. Inclusion Plan – Mandatory Response: Read carefully and submit with your proposal Attachment 19A – Inclusion Plan. 92 01/24/13 02/05/13 In the requested proposal format, Each section in attachment 8 – 11 Page 25 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

Section 5, Mandatory Functional, has a mandatory response page Technical, Payment, and Security which is required to be completed. Requirements – Mandatory Response appears to be the same as Section 7, Functional, Technical, Payment, and Security Response – Mandatory Response. Which is the correct section for the response? 93 01/24/13 02/06/13 Requirement 562 asks, "Describe any This is an additional security application security assessments that question to describe any have been performed by an objective application security assessments third party. Under what circumstances that have been performed by an would the results be available?” Is this objective third party. Requirement the same requirement as requirement 523 is the actual requirement for number 523? the providing the report. 94 01/24/13 02/06/13 Requirement 566 asks, "Describe how This is an additional security application integrates with enterprise question for a description of how identity management systems; e.g., the application integrates. Directory Services." Is this different from requirements #341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353? Or is there a specification to use one of the Cities or DOR's directory services? 95 01/24/13 02/06/13 Requirement 585 asks, "Describe how This is an additional security unsuccessful authentication attempts are question for a description of how handled, including but not limited to and 352 is the requirement to logging." Is this different from provide the ability. requirement number 352? 96 01/24/13 02/06/13 Requirement 601 asks, "Describe the This is an additional security solution's use of encryption in storage; question for a description of how e.g., the algorithm model." Is this and 455 is the requirement to different from requirement 455? provide the ability.

Update 02/14/13

97 01/24/13 02/06/13 Requirement 602 asks, "Describe the This is an additional security solution's use of encryption in transit question for a description of how e.g., the algorithm model." Is this and 455 is the requirement to different from requirement 455? provide the ability. 98 01/24/13 02/06/13 Requirement 603 asks, "Describe the This is an additional security solution's use of encryption in transit question for a description of how e.g., the algorithm model." Is this and 455 is the requirement to different from requirement 455? provide the ability. 99 01/22/13 01/22/13 Minimum Quals – First Bullet: Could The City is seeking a vendor with you elaborate on the “similarities on the prior experience providing business scope” is it: license or tax solutions similar in - Transaction volume? scope to the City (see #86). It is - Population size of the five Cities? the vendor's responsibility to - Etc.? explain to the City how their prior experience is relevant to this RFP. Both population size and transaction volume are appropriate metrics that a vendor may draw upon to explain their prior experience. 10 01/22/13 02/14/13 Minimum Qualifications – Can these Yes. These qualification s can be 0 qualifications be met through a sub- met through a subcontractor as contractor? long as the prime contractor and the subcontractor work as a team. 10 01/22/13 02/05/13 Will you be looking to have all 5 City After an Intent to Award 1 business licenses at the time of announcement. See RFP - Section proposal or before the contract is 7 – Mandatory Participating Cities signed? Business License & Associated Taxes.

The vendor needs to meet all licensing requirements that apply to Page 27 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

its business immediately after contract award or the City may reject the vendor 10 01/22/13 02/08/13 Do you need to have a nexus in all five It is highly likely the Vendor will 2 cities and a City business license for all establish a nexus while working five cities? with each of the Cities, therefore the awarded Vendor will need to obtain a business license for all five Cities. 10 01/22/13 01/22/13 Is the Prime Vendor the only one who Yes. 3 needs to have a business license with the Cites? 10 01/22/13 02/08/13 Will the Cities be able to turn around the See response #101 4 approval of the business license within the timeframe the RFP? 10 01/22/13 01/22/13 Is the City looking for resources that are This project has to be up and 5 fully dedicated to this project and will running by Q2 of 2014, the City is the Vendor need to be devoted 100% to looking for a dedicated Vendor. this project? 10 01/22/13 01/22/13 Will the City and staff be dedicated as Yes 6 well?

10 01/22/13 01/22/13 Does the City have a specific date in No 7 mind for the Q2 2014? The City will be reviewing the Vendor’s proposed project schedules. 10 01/22/13 01/22/13 Is Q2 December for the City? No. The City is on a calendar year 8 - end of July .

10 01/22/13 01/22/13 Does the City have a preference for The City does not have a 9 onsite personnel? As a local company preference as long as the work can we would have personnel work out of be completed. The City is trying to Page 28 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

our own office. utilize new technology and acknowledges some work can be done virtual, however believes a majority of the work will be done onsite.

11 01/22/13 01/22/13 The City is expecting an implemented The City is looking to the Vendor to 0 system by Q2 2014. Is that for all five propose an implementation plan. cities? Attachment 16 addresses the implementation strategy and seeks Vendor’s recommendation on how to implement the solution. 11 01/22/13 01/22/13 Do all five Cities use the same system The cities use different systems. Clarification: The cities do 1 or different systems? Refer to Attachment 5 and not intend to replace their Appendix B. back-end systems. 11 01/22/13 01/22/13 If we are able to provide the 5 client The answer is yes and no as the 2 based applications, but not able to requirements become clearer there interface with back-end systems will you will need to be an interface to the be able to manually enter the back-end systems of record. information they receive on the online system? All five cities have some capability to enter the information (e.g. csv files) . 11 01/22/13 02/04/13 Equal Benefits Contact Information Attachment 14: Equal 3 Benefits –If you have any questions how to comply with the City’s Equal Benefits please contact Steven Larson – 206-684-4529 or via email [email protected]

Update 02/14/13

11 01/22/13 02/04/13 Insurance Requirements: Can the Refer to paragraph 2 in the 4 vendor provide evidence of insurance at Insurance Requirement form – the time of award of contract? Attachment 21A (Response #2) 11 01/22/13 01/22/13 Is there any information available as to In 2004 a bill was introduced to 5 who or what is behind the engrossed bill codify the standards by which the that was produced in 2004 that started cities administer the local Business this whole project? and Occupation tax through what is Was there a corporation encouraging called the Model Ordinance. In people to work together? May of 2010 the participating cities began working with key lawmakers to further streamline local B&O reporting and collection which then lead to the Feasibility Study in 2011. 11 01/22/13 01/22/13 It’s stated in the RFP that you don’t The City is looking to see as much 6 believe that a system currently exists in as the Vendor has so the City can the format you can use. determine if the Vendor is What kind of demonstration is the City proposing is a viable solution. looking to see from the Vendor? 11 01/22/13 01/22/13 Mandatory Requirements: If the City The City is looking for a solution 7 does not believe there is a system that that closely matched the exists today; how can Vendor’s meet requirement needs. The City is not the requirement for a PM who has looking for a PM who is just implemented this system or a similar experienced in implementing system? accounts payable solutions. 11 01/22/13 01/22/13 If we have a system that works and Yes. 8 does a lot of the things the City is looking for, but might not have the phone integration or other simple things, then is the City open to a license solution which pretty much functions but needs some modifications.

Update 02/14/13

11 01/22/13 01/22/13 In the RFP, it states you must have a 3- Yes. 9 tierd solution and then it is left open. There are a variety of solutions. Is this what the City meant? The City is looking to the Vendor to provide their solution and tell the City how it best meets the requirements. 12 01/22/13 01/22/13 Are you looking for a system that has The City prefers to have a system 0 already been implemented or are you that is in existence and is working looking for newer systems with newer today, however the City recognizes technologies and a company that has that not all of the requirements may expedience in implementing these be in production. The City’s technologies? preference is not to have an entirely customized system. 12 01/22/13 01/22/13 Of all the functionality listed, what is the The Mandatory Requirements are 1 City’s highest priority that they would like the highest priorities. to see in existence today? 12 01/22/13 01/22/13 Other than the desires for the There are five systems of record. 2 integration for the local general ledger The data will need to be at the local and other permitting systems. What do control of the five Cities. you see as the future roll of the legacy business tax systems? The portal will be a communication hub to those five systems of record.

The Cities have their I.T. behind them who will be working with the successful Vendor on those integration points. It’s important the five Cities still have the data at back end at the end of the day. That includes tax data, business license data and payment data.

Update 02/14/13

12 01/22/13 01/22/13 Is it possible that at some point the No. 3 Cities might be open to using the main system, which can basically function as their system, because there is only one integration at that point. 12 01/22/13 01/22/13 a) Basically you are asking for a full a) Yes as well as a business and 4 blown business licensing system. occupation tax reporting system. b) How is this system going to be utilized and will any single b) Think of it as a data flow jurisdiction be utilizing or managing between a business and a this as a back office solution? system of record. It’s the business process, workflows, and it’s the rules. This solution will be communicating to those back ends.

12 01/22/13 01/22/131 When you refer to the “back end”, are Yes. It is the system of record. 5 you referring to those individual jurisdictions? Refer to the Feasibility Study and the Feasibility Study Appendices. Attachments #2 & #3. 12 01/22/13 01/22/13 Is it anticipated that the actual tax We are looking for a tax calculation 6 calculation will occur at the City level? formula by city. Our preference is for all tax calculations to occur on the portal itself and the data to flow back into the systems of record. 12 01/22/13 01/22/13 Is there a copy of the multi-jurisdictional No. 7 tax form available? Each of the Cities have their information on their own web sites.

Update 02/14/13

The Appendices and the Taxonomy (Attachments 3 & 7) has all of the data.

12 01/22/13 01/22/13 Will you be creating a new multi- No. It is not a form. 8 jurisdictional tax form as a result this We are looking for one set of data project? that goes back to the system of record to obtain the appropriate city or cities business licenses.

Refer to the Taxonomy (Attachment #7) 12 01/22/13 01/22/13 If a Vendor comes up with a proposal Refer to RFP, page 25 – 9 that states our recommendations and Proprietary Proposal Material and how to proceed, can the Vendor label the Vendor Questionnaire this proprietary? (Attachment 14).

13 01/22/13 01/22/13 a) Will the vendors be notified to a) Yes 0 changes in the forms via b) Yes amendments?

b) Will you replace the forms in their entirety to make it less cumbersome and less risk of missing something? 13 01/22/13 01/22/13 Attachment 8 – Functional Requirements The City does not have a 1 preference for Mandatory Please elaborate on the mandatory requirements between "Standard requirements. Is there a particular Feature" and "Configurable response that could only meet the Feature" (see instructions on the

Update 02/14/13

requirement in terms of standard feature, first worksheet of Attachments 8 - configurable feature or modification 11). required or can you answer either of those and still meet the requirement? To further explain the differences between the two terms by example: In Microsoft Excel, the "Auto Sum" function would be a Standard Feature; the "Count" function would be a Configurable Feature (since it requires the users to develop an expression to perform the calculation). The City does not have a preconceived opinion that a requirement could only be satisfied as a Standard Feature. 13 01/22/13 01/22/13 What is the configuration of the There will be representatives from 2 evaluation committee? the five cities and the Washington State Department of Revenue. (DOR) 13 01/22/13 01/22/13 Are there any plans to have Washington Through the requirements, the 3 Department of Revenue distribute cities are working with DOR to licenses through this system? create a seamless transaction between systems. There will most likely be some back end APIs 13 01/22/13 01/22/13 Functional Requirements – The Yes. 4 numbering for Mandatory Requirements The requirement ID numbers are begins at 503 through 506. Are there an internal City Control number only 3 mandatory requirements for this only section? For Attachments 8, 9, 10 & 11 the Page 34 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

first tab of every requirement list the city’s mandatory requirement, which must be met. 13 01/22/13 01/22/13 If the City considers phasing this project, The city has a list of priorities; B&O 5 what would be the most valuable work taxes, business licensing, etc. first? i.e.would you do the work that fulfills 90% of all the cities and also try to This RFP also includes a request implement unique requirements, such as for regulatory and other taxes. a finger printing system?

The City expects a long term relationship with the Vendor and therefore has provided a thorough list of requirements the city anticipates needing. 13 01/22/13 01/22/13 Does the City expect a percentage or a Refer to Attachment 16 - 6 portion of what you determine is critical Management Response for to be up and running by 2Q 2014? implementation approach.

13 01/22/13 01/22/13 Does the City expect every single No. The City is prioritizing their 7 requirement to be completed by 2Q requirements. 2014? 13 01/22/13 Pending Is the City accepting ACH Credit We currently accept ACH – credit; 8 payments? which the City also calls e-checks. We do not take ACH-debits which are similar to bank to bank wire transfers.

13 01/22/13 01/22/13 Attachment 10 – Payment The City is looking for the flexibility 9 Requirements. Can you clarify #607? for those cities that do not have real time access to the payment system. They may need another Page 35 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

approach, like nightly uploads to the payment information. 14 01/22/13 01/22/13 The successful vendor has 100% Yes. 0 responsibility to have an Interface from the portal to the SOR and the other The Vendor will need to understand direction. the SOR’s solution to create the interface. The Vendor will be That means the Vendor has to be working with City staff who involved in the SOR’s solution, learn it understands system of record and and understanding it to create the work with the Vendor to create the interface. Is that the City’s APIs. understanding as well? 14 01/22/13 01/22/13 Are there any Vendors who supply APIs Depends on the backend system. 1 that currently exist? Refer to the Appendices.

14 01/22/13 01/22/13 Do you expect the cost proposal to be No 2 packaged separately for the rest of the RFP? 14 01/22/13 01/22/13 Are we proposing for four (4) or five (5) The initial proposal and cost 3 Cities? proposal is for five (5) cities.

14 01/22/13 01/22/13 Could there be additional cost per other Yes. 4 Cities who join the portal?

14 02/01/13 02/06/13 In Attachments 8 through 11, we are See explanation for #131. 5 requested to define how our solution supports the requirements as a “Standard Feature” or a “Configurable Feature.” If, for example, our solution supports square footage calculations as a standard feature that the Cities can configure to support Bellevue’s calculation method as well as Seattle’s Page 36 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

calculation method, is that a “Standard Feature” or a “Configurable Feature”?

14 02/01/13 02/06/13 Tax Portal Functional Requirements See Attachment 6 – Appendix C 6 Req #: 103, 104, 105, 110, 111 Use cases for specific examples.

Tax Portal Technical Requirements Req #: 304, 305

Is additional clarification available on what is needed and intended by the requirements that pertain to "modify city specific workflows"?

For example, does this refer to what happens with registrations, returns, and correspondence after these actions are initiated by the taxpayer, based on various city’s parameters?

An example would be helpful, if possible. 14 02/01/13 02/06/13 Addendum Q &A: 01/25/13 See responses #1 & #2. 7 Questions/answers 2 and 3

Answers to questions 2 and 3 indicate that there will be a replacement to attachments 21 and 22 that will be called, 21a and 22a, respectively.

Should responses be based on the existing attachments, or will new versions be forthcoming? 14 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 6 The columns to the right are the

Update 02/14/13

Transaction Volumes by City total documents filed annually.

Is it possible that data is incorrect or a label is missing in Attachment 6?

It appears that cities are duplicated in columns with differing results for the same row. For example, it appears that Seattle has 19,082 Quarterly Filers for B&O Taxes in cell C6 but cell I6 also shows Seattle has 76,330 Quarterly Filers for B&O Taxes.

Additionally, it appears that the city of Bellingham only appears once (column G), but the others cities appear twice.

14 02/01/13 02/06/13 What are the repercussions should the Please refer to Attachment 16 - 9 implementation go past your stated Attachment 16 addresses the deadline due to either vendor or city staff implementation strategy and seeks delays? (The answer may help us better Vendor’s recommendation on how determine implementation priority to implement the solution. The factors). portal must be functioning at a mutually agreed upon level by Q2 2014. 15 02/01/13 02/06/13 Given two of the five group members are The cities are embarking on this 0 currently using the WA state website: effort to provide a single place for How is the state's portal inadequate? our business customers to register, (What improvements are needed beyond file and pay. We have asked in the that model?) requirements that there be the What are the highest pain points of the ability to send data back and forth state's existing portal? between the portal and the Dept of Revenue sites in order to share Page 38 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

agreed upon data in an effort to provide a seamless transaction between the systems. 15 02/01/13 02/06/13 Is the state's Business & Occupation Tax We currently do not have a 1 automation web model preferable? (as preference for anyone’s particular viewed on the states website). tax site and are looking for a vendor to provide us the best possible business license and registration tax portal that meets our requirements.

15 02/01/13 02/06/13 Does the group desire something more We currently do not have a 2 similar to the Seattle web model? If the preference for anyone’s particular preference is for a Seattle-like website, tax site and are looking for a please note that Seattle website vendor to provide us the best processes appear "linear" (enter possible business license and information, click, next web page loads, registration tax portal that meets enter more info, click, etc). For the our requirements. Portal, are you open to an 'Amazon' like alternative that requires fewer clicks? (Or should the existing 'feel' of Seattle's website be used as a model?)

15 02/01/13 02/06/13 Does the group plan to accept a similar Please see question 36. 3 formula as the state for a processing/convenience fee? (For example, a recent charge of $135 assessed a $15 convenience fee on the state portal). 15 02/01/13 02/06/13 Is active NAIC use already implemented No it is not, that is part of the data 4 & standardized at all 5 cities? cleanup work the cities have identified that will need to be done.

Update 02/14/13

15 02/01/13 02/06/13 Have all 5 cities already defined The scope of the initial 5 licensing requirements based on NAIC implementation would be business coding (such additional license registration and Business approval/permits). To the degree and Occupation tax filing. requirements do not align might it make Regulatory licenses would come sense to implement those as a later after the initial phase has been phase? Would a proposal that completed. specifically recommends that approach be considered?

15 02/01/13 02/08/13 In an attempt to meet your aggressive No. REVISE- Section 14 Award 6 contract time constraint requirements The City will negotiate its own and Contract Execution (15 days), might the city be open to contract. The City understands 15 Instructions: piggy backing on (accepting the terms days is an aggressive schedule for of) a very recent agreement a successful this large project and has revised The City has provided no vendor has entered into for very similar the number of estimated days. The more than 15 45 calendar days procurement at a large Washington City does not say they will County? to finalize such discussions. If terminate negotiations if mutual mutual agreement requires agreements require more than the more than 15 45 calendar estimated days, but states it “may” terminate negotiations. days, the City may terminate negotiations, reject the vendor and may disqualify the vendor from future submittals for these same products/services, and continue to the next highest ranked Proposal, at the sole discretion of the City. 15 02/01/13 02/06/13 It was stated at the pre-bid conference The City does not envision a 7 that unpublished priorities have been separate contract for a Fit/Gap determined. All requirements (technical Analysis. If material changes to the & functional) may not be financially project scope, schedule, or budget practical or may require too much time. are identified as a result of the Page 40 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

As most large projects typically begin Fit/Gap Analysis (or other project with a gap/fit analysis, how would you activities) a contract amendment prefer to accomplish completion of a will be negotiated with the vendor. written gap/fit document within your 15 day contract execution window? 15 02/01/13 02/06/13 Accomplishing the Gap/Fit requirement See Response #157 8 often exposes less costly alternatives. Are you willing to agree to first create a complete Gap/Fit document with the selected vendor before a Portal agreement is executed? 15 02/01/13 02/06/13 Many requirements and deadlines (for The cities will be cooperating to 9 example: "Having business license have the portal operationally by a registration and the collection of mutually agreed upon timetable. Business and Occupation tax Refer to Attachment 16 – operational by Q2 2014"), require the Management Response where the vendor to bear all of the risk for both city cities ask the vendor to provide a and vendor performance. Given the timetable and options for go-live stated lack of flexibility in your proposed approaches. agreement, can we expect any resulting agreement to require city to cooperate to the level necessary in order to achieve an operational Portal by Q2 2014? 16 02/01/13 02/06/13 [Referring to Q&A #25] What level of Please refer to Attachment 16 – 0 assistance/resources should the vendor Management response section 1.7. expect a given city to provide, to complete any required interfaces (the portion out of the vendor's control) in a timely fashion? 16 02/01/13 02/06/13 Upon completion of the vendor web This will be part of a service level 1 services at each participant site, will agreement between the vendor and each city accept responsibility for uptime the cities. of both the 3rd party city hosted systems Page 41 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

of record (SOR) and the project created web services? 16 02/01/13 02/06/13 [Referring to Q&A #26] You answered: This will be an integral part of the 2 "Most of the systems are built in house project charter which will be a and will be not be at risk for major mutually agreed upon deliverable changes during this project". Given your between the vendor and the cities. answer, will each city (rather than the vendor) accept responsibility for this risk? 16 02/01/13 02/06/13 [Referring to Q&A #27]- Will the steering See Response #162 3 committee or a designee be able to make a decision on the project within 24 hours? 16 02/01/13 02/06/13 [Referring to Q&A #35]- Would you like This is not a stated requirement 4 to insert human review/approval of and is something that can be payment dispersals to participating detailed further in the design phase cities? If so might you wish to make the of the project. dispersals weekly?

16 02/01/13 02/06/13 As the portal may allow collection of See Response #164 5 more transaction detail than the existing custom systems (SOR), would the successful vendor be allowed to create summarized transactions from payments/credits that originate from such 3rd party (SOR) systems? 16 02/01/13 02/06/13 RFP Addendum #1 dated 1/25/2013 - See Response #164 6 Item #25 Can you please confirm that the responsibility for creating APIs from the backend applications is that of the Cities' IT staff? Is the City's response saying that there may be the possibility that a Page 42 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

City Jurisdiction will not be able to create these APIs?

16 02/01/13 02/06/13 RFP - p. 34 References Please refer to question 88. 7 Has the City worked with any vendor in the past who submitted a Letter of Intent for this RFP? If so, which one(s)? 16 02/01/13 02/06/13 RFP -p. 11 "Mandatory Participating Yes, the new one should be 8 Cities Business License & Associated provided once received by the City Taxes" of Seattle.

Is a 2012 City of Seattle license sufficient proof of license? We have not yet received the 2013 Seattle Business license. 16 02/01/13 02/06/13 RFP -p. 11 "Mandatory Participating Please see Response #101 9 Cities Business License & Associated Taxes" It is clear that a business license for each participating city must be obtained prior to contract signing. However, it is not clear when one must show proof of business license application. During the pre-proposal conference, a question was asked and it was stated that proof of application must be provided at time of proprosal submission, but this clarification did not make it into any update, so we are still not clear if proof of application is required at time of proposal submission or if only needed after the successful vendor is

Update 02/14/13

announced and prior to contract signing. 17 02/01/13 02/06/13 RFP - p. 16 Payment Schedule Yes, this is provided for in 0 Attachment 17. The City has asked for a SaaS solution which is typically a subscription based service. Is the City willing to accept a payment schedule that is aligned with a subscription service or paid on a monthly or annual basis? 17 02/01/13 02/06/13 RFP - p. 30, Proposal Organization Each section in attachment 8 -11 1 has a mandatory response page Specifically how are sections 5 & 7 which needs to be completed. different? Both instruct the vendor to respond to attachments 8, 9, 10 & 11. Item 5 instructs the vendor to include narrative in the worksheets for the attachments and so does item 7; therefore, what do you want to see and how do they differ? 17 02/01/13 02/06/13 RFP - RFP Updates for Attachment 21A Yes. For Attachment 21A and 22A 2 & 22A the deadline for questions is February 13, 2013 @ 2:00 pm. Will the City extend the Q&A period for vendors to address questions regarding the pending Attachments 21A -2013 Tax Portal Insurance Requirement and 22A - 3012 SaaS Agreement? 17 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 6 - For licensing purposes, This information is unavailable. 3 can you extrapolate the number of "general" & "super-users" per city along with the anticipated number of unique public portal users? Using the license volume numbers would overstate the Page 44 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

numbers as the premise is that the same business licensee is licensed in multiple jurisdictions. 17 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement We do not have this information 4 106 available.

How many users need to be able to a) access and b) update articles in the knowledge base? 17 02/01/13 02/06/13 How many users will be accessing the We do not have this information 5 system in each City? available.

17 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 9 - Technical Requirement As stated in the RFP, the City's 6 527 preference is for a SaaS solution. However, in order to provide the This requirement does not appear to broadest range of viable solutions, apply to a SaaS delivery. Is the city sure the City is also open to alternative they want SaaS? Some requirements solutions (see RFP p. 8). If the seem to be written for a non-SaaS requirement (such as Technical proposal - will those not be scored if a Requirement #527) is not SaaS-proposal is delivered? appropriate for the vendor's SaaS solution, please so note in the Description field. 17 02/01/13 02/06/13 Supported Payment Methods Please refer to Attachment 10 7 Payment Requirements mandatory Which payment methods should the requirements. portal offer (ACH/ECP, PayPal, CC)? 17 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 9 - Supported Payment The requirement is outlined in 8 Methods Attachment 10.

Should the portal restrict the citizens use of Credit Cards for tax or other payments Page 45 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

due to transaction fees? 17 02/01/13 02/06/13 Supported Payment Methods This is not a stated requirement 9 and is something that can be Should the portal allow citizen to update detailed further in the design phase credit card information and process one of the project. time payments with additional payment information other than information saved on file? 18 02/01/13 02/06/13 Renewals This is not a stated requirement 0 and is something that can be Will licensing be setup on automatic detailed further in the design phase renewal where the citizen is of the project. automatically charged and payment is attempted after a pre-set time or will the citizen initiate the renewal? (email prompting from billing system required?) 18 02/01/13 02/06/13 Late fees / discounts Each city has a defined process 1 which would need to be Does each city charge late fees in the incorporated into individual city same manner with the same rates? Or business rules and workflows. does each jurisdiction differ? 18 02/01/13 02/06/13 Late fees / discounts This is not a stated requirement 2 and is something that can be Do the cities plan to offer any incentives detailed further in the design phase for licensing purchase? of the project. 18 02/01/13 02/06/13 Late fees / discounts Each city has a defined process 3 which would need to be What is your process for handling late, incorporated into individual city failed or delinquent payments? business rules and workflows. 18 02/01/13 02/06/13 Late fees / discounts Each city has a defined process 4 which would need to be Is there a defined incorporated into individual city escalation process to be followed, or are Page 46 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

you seeking recommendations? business rules and workflows. 18 02/01/13 02/06/13 Late fees / discounts This is not a stated requirement 5 and is something that can be Do you wish to continue doing it the detailed further in the design phase same way, or are there enhancements of the project. you'd like to make to the process in the future? 18 02/01/13 02/06/13 Late fees / discounts This is not a stated requirement 6 and is something that can be How will each city be notified of a detailed further in the design phase successful payment? Does each city of the project. need a data feed for reconciliation or is only one joint feed required? What types of information would be required by each city (address, payment info, what was purchased or what taxes were paid, additional information?) 18 02/01/13 02/06/13 Late fees / discounts The cities do not allow reoccurring 7 payments. For recurring payments, how is the city notified that a business/citizen has failed their payments? 18 02/01/13 02/06/13 Product offering - Will tax payments ever If a taxpayer is determined to have 8 allowed to be paid with installments underpaid their tax liability, they will (recurring billing)? be sent an “invoice” and will be able to pay that invoice on the portal. 18 02/01/13 02/06/13 General – Please see Attachment 3 – 9 Does the city have a common Feasibility Study Appendices. spreadsheet available that maps the following in a single location a. License and License fees, with thresholds for payments (at what rates Page 47 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

are the license fees increased/decreased), and whether partial 6 month payments are allowed b. The B&O tax classifications for each city, and corresponding rates. c. A listing of regulatory/or additional licenses that are required for each city, and corresponding incremental costs d. Tax Thresholds, at one point is tax owed/not owed by a filer based on gross reciepts e. Deductions by city f. Exemptions by city. g. A listing of how state processing fees are currently applied, and a listing of exceptions, by city. 19 02/01/13 02/06/13 General - Is it possible to get all the tax The form data for all participating 0 return forms for each city, (currently cities is contained in Attachment 7. these can only be obtained if a business registered in each city)? 19 02/01/13 02/06/13 NAICS - Does the city have NAICS to No, this is currently not available. 1 Regulatory Licensing Mapping for each Not every city uses NAICs code city? If so please provide. currently. 19 02/01/13 02/06/13 NAICS - Can a company have more Not every city uses NAICs code 2 than one NAICS code, and therefore pay currently. multiple B&O taxes? 19 02/01/13 02/06/13 NAICS - Are tax calcs done on primary Not every city uses NAICs code 3 NAICS, or primary and secondary currently. NAICS? 19 02/01/13 02/06/13 Changes to Tax Returns - Are return Amendments are part of the 4 amendments within the scope this RFP, requirements but they are not part if so, please provide amendment return of the implementation phase for the instructions and forms for each city. Q2 2014 rollout. The vendor Page 48 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

should demonstrate the ability (per the requirement) for amendments to be processed through the portal solution. 19 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 9 - Technical Requirement The scope of the initial 5 308 implementation is for business Please clarify. Elsewhere it was stated licensing and Business and that Misc Taxes are not within the scope Occupation Taxes. However the of this RFP long term goal of this portal is for additional taxes and additional cities and the requirements reflect the long term goal. 19 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 9 - Technical Requirement Integration with existing IVR 6 421 & 422 systems is in the scope of this project. Can you clarify whether providing an IVR system or integrating with an IVR system is within the scope of this RFP. Will the winning bidder also need to procure the phone number, or will the city procure the phone number? Will there be a common phone number for all cities - or will IVR route appropriately? 19 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 9 - Technical Requirement This requirement speaks to the 7 468 need from the business community to provide an upload capability from Can you please clarify the intent around accounting software (such as this requirement. There are multiple quickbooks) to process a tax return. feature sets listed. Two are related We would also expect (from focus directly to quickbooks, upload and group research) that a printable download. The third is printing from the form with the data filled out might portal. What type of data do your foresee be required by businesses who being uploaded from quickbooks to the want to retain a paper version for Page 49 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

portal, and vice-versa. Please define the their records. This will be detailed use cases. further in the design phase of the project. 19 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 9 - Technical Requirement The cities want to be able to 8 471 & 472 migrate customer account data to Can you clarify what each city might the portal so that existing want to migrate to the portal. Is it customers do not have to reenter contact info and email, or complete customer data when they first begin business information, or is also a to use the portal. The cities will complete historical account dating back begin this effort prior to the vendor to the origin of the business. What coming on board. expectation does the joint group have around the migration of potential duplicates to the portal. Please also clarify expectations around the joint effort to migrate such data upon launch so that proper data transformation and QA.QC might take place.

19 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 9 - Please clarify this No, the vendor is not responsible 9 statement. Are you proposing that the for internal city email servers. vendor is responsible for internal city email servers? 20 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement The requirement states the 0 499, 248, and others information will be coming from the In general please clarify whether the systems of record. proposed system needs to incorporate penalities and interest calculators to overdue amounts, or whether this is to be acquired via webservices from each system of Record 20 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement Please see question 197. 1 097 Page 50 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

Please clarify the term snapshot in this requirement. Is this simply asking to store data from previous filings, is it a pdf, or some other desired format? 20 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement Yes, this is true that sometimes the 2 098 filing for B&O tax would be done at Please clarify “at once” in some cases, separate times. However the filing periods might be different due to requirement is for the ability to file revenue in each jurisdiction, so some for all pertinent jurisdictions at the filings might be done later, or separately. same time and have to be done in separate transactions. 20 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement The requirement speaks to being 3 109 able to query a system of record Please clarify the extent at which and retrieve existing information “previous filings” information will be and then ask a series of “what’s available electronically, by jurisdiction. changed” questions to update the This type of flow is best supported when information. this information is in the portal, or is this going to have to be obtatins from systems via webservice calls. 20 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement At this point this is the stated 4 113 requirement. In relation to amended returns, will the cities current backend be used to handle actual amendments, and the portal to be used only as data transfer mechanism? 20 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement The requirement is for the ability to 5 226 send a contextual email based on Please clarify, “have the ability to have information entered on a web page. data entry web page contextual email inquiries available”. Requirement intent is unclear. 20 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement Yes, a gotomeeting type capability Page 51 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

269 to be able to troubleshoot with a Web conferencing, are you refering to business customer if they are gotomeeting type capability, or is it web- having trouble with a web page. telephone call. Do you want the vendor to provide a teleconference line for meetings as part of this? 20 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement Yes. 7 270 Would you like business users to have an environment where they can ask quesitons and have direct exchanges with other business users, and to look up answers from other business users to similar questions? 20 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement Requirement 121 speaks to the 8 121 & 124 ability for a business user to As per requirement 113 above, is the request an amendment. portal doing the amendment or bridging Requirement 124 speaks to the communications where the amendments data from amended returns to be are done off-portal? available via the portal and come from the system of record. 20 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement If a bill comes in outside of the 9 125 portal, the City staff will ensure the What if city systems are not available? information is updated in the Will each city be ok with submitting system of record and the portal. overdue amounts? If a bill in the portal is paid offline, will city staff update the portal and the local city system? 21 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement Exemptions would be done 0 132 separately for each city with In regards to Exemptions, for instance in business rules and workflows. Seattle and Bellingham for "Farm Where there is a common definition Animals, Edibles Raised" - can we it could be feasible that two cities Page 52 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

assume the definitions are the same? would use the same definition. 21 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement The idea of this portal is to keep 1 132 local control and flexibility so the Are the cities considering moving to a portal must be able to have common exemptions/deductions model business rules and workflows that within the scope of this product? Has allow the cities to have different there been any discovery done on this exemptions and deductions. that can be shared? 21 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement The requirement is that the solution 2 140 to have the ability to prompt if there What differences will generate prompts? are differences. This can be Or any difference, such as a difference detailed further in the design phase in earnings. This could be burdensome of the project. on the users, but each rule prompt requires additional workflow and cost. 21 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement The requirement is that the solution 3 134 to have the ability email reminders Do you want to disclose amounts of for any unfiled returns. What this overdue payments, or just that it is means will be detailed further in the overdue? design phase of the project. 21 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement This data is available in the 4 144 systems of record for each city. Where do we get the ununsed credit amounts from? Is this a webservice, or is this loaded in by cities somehow? 21 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement Not every city currently uses NAICs 5 166 code. Is there any connection between NAICS and deductions/Exemptions? 21 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement The Department of Revenue 6 172 assigns the UBI and the portal Is the UBI provided as a service, or is project will continue to work with UBI assigned manually? Page 53 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

DOR on how the portal and the DOR systems can work together to get a UBI for a new business. 21 02/01/13 02/06/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement No there is not. 7 198, 199, 202 Is there currently an established matrix to provide the connection between NAICS and regulatory licenses. Can the city provide this? 21 02/01/13 Pending Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement This is to show the holistic view of a 8 184 customer’s balances. There are Please clarify “transmits” in this other requirements defined for data statement. Is this a report on data failures. transfer with failures? 21 02/01/13 02/05/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement This is in the Payment requirement 9 185 and it reads as it should. Are you refering to a shopping cart? 22 02/01/13 02/05/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement These are the credits that are 0 492 & 188 currently in place for all Cities. We Multiple Income Tax Credit, Service will need the capability to set up Income Apportionment, Multiple Activites additional credits that might apply Tax Credit. Are these the only tax credit to one or more cities. calculators included in the scope? 22 02/01/13 02/05/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement This is in the Payment 1 189 requirements and reads as it This requirement reads as if SOR’s are should – at time of payment the providing late fees, penalties at time of portal will use the system of record payment. Is this happening via to find any interest, late fees and webservices, what happens if the city credits to use for the final total does not have webservices, or if the amount. How that happens and system is unavailable at time of what happens if the system is not payment? available is part of the design

Update 02/14/13

phase of this project. The requirement is for the solution to provide this ability. 22 02/01/13 02/05/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement A possible condition would be a 2 257 walk-in customer who does not Under what conditions will a city create have access to a computer and will an account for the user? only use a kiosk at a City. 22 02/01/13 02/05/13 Attachment 8 - Functional Requirement There will need to be a service 3 251 available to the portal. Some cities Is the USPS service already in place, or may already have this in place for is this something the vendor needs to their existing systems. provide? 22 02/01/13 02/05/13 Attachment 8 – Functional Requirement This requirement is for the cities to 4 498 track where licenses and taxes are Are you asking for an ESRI integration, being paid for reporting purposes. or simply to plot the address on a map? It is a separate requirement from Is there validation here that is different 251. than the USPS validation? Do the cities have BING, GOOGLE or other map interface licenses? 22 02/01/13 02/05/13 What is the number of users from each We do not have this information 5 city who will field live chat questions? available.

22 02/01/13 02/05/13 What is the number of users who will We do not have this information 6 1) access and available. 2) update information via the portal at each city? 22 02/01/13 02/05/13 Are there planned or pending upgrades There are no pending upgrades to 7 to the cities' backend systems that may backend systems that will impact impact the project schedule? the schedule. This will be an integral part of the project charter which will be a mutually agreed

Update 02/14/13

upon deliverable between the vendor and the cities. 22 02/01/13 02/05/13 Attachment 9 - Technical requirement Any current identity management 8 509 solutions are internal to an The proposed solution will manage user individual city. accounts (adding, copying, removing, assigning rights, resetting passwords, controlling security locks. Are there any current identity management solutions in use (Active Directory, for example)? Would there need to be an integration to any identity provider? 22 02/01/13 02/05/13 Attachment 9 - Technical requirement The proposed solution needs to be 9 500 secured through some controlled The proposed solution will include a encryption model. secure internal built-in email feature, where messages would remain contained within the solution and only notification of messages would be emailed outside the solution environment. Please describe the term "built in email". Does this mean a messaging tool that can allow information to pass back and forth within a secure portal? 23 02/01/13 02/05/13 What expectations do you have This will be an integral part of the 0 regarding how to measure success of project charter which will be a the portal? What metrics will be involved mutually agreed upon deliverable and how do you expect to have access between the vendor and the cities. to them? 23 02/01/13 02/05/13 What kind of data and transactional We do not have this information 1 volumes are you expecting daily, weekly, available. monthly, annually? What specific time Page 56 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

periods are expected to have peak volumes and how large will those spikes be? 23 02/01/13 02/05/13 What kind of post-production monitoring We do not have this information 2 and alerting are you expecting? available.

23 02/01/13 02/05/13 Have you established technology We do not have this information 3 metrics around system health and available. performance? If so, what are they? 23 02/01/13 02/05/13 will you publish a list of which vendor No. 4 asked which question Only the questions and answers will be published. 23 02/01/13 02/05/13 How do the cities anticipate funding the The funding for the acquisition and 5 acquisition, implementation, and on- implementation has been fully going costs of this system? budgeted by the City of Seattle. The ongoing costs and reimbursement for the acquisition and implementation is part of the Interlocal Agreement the cities are in the process of developing and are scheduled to have in place by Fall 2013. 23 02/07/13 02/07/13 Revise – Section 1: Future 6 Contract Assignment The City of Seattle reserves the right, and fully expects to transfer assign any contract resulting from this RFP to a municipal non-profit corporation formed by the cities. The five cities have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding covering Page 57 of 58 City of Seattle Request For Proposal (RFP) # FAS-3102 Multi-City Business License and Tax Portal Solution Addendum

Update 02/14/13

this effort (see Attachment 1). In addition, additional cities in Washington State may join the municipal non-profit corporation. They may also use the Tax Portal and pay appropriate then-current subscription charges.