REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
June 2, 2016
FROM: JENNIFER CLARK AICP, Director
Development and Resource Management
THROUGH: MIKE SANCHEZ AICP, Assistant Director
Development and Resource Management
BY: BONIQUE EMERSON AICP, Planning Manager
Development Services Division, Development and Resource Management
SUBJECT
Title
Authorize the City Manager or designee to sign the Consulting Services Agreement with Accela, Inc. effective June 27, 2016 to June 30, 2020 for licensing, implementation and maintenance of a new land management system.
Body
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager or designee to sign the Consulting Services Agreement between the City of Fresno and Accela effective June 27, 2016 to June 30, 2020 to provide $3,612,478 in funding from the General Fund for licensing, implementation and maintenance of a new land management system.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2013, the Mayor launched a major initiative called “Business Friendly Fresno (BFF)” to promote business growth and private investment in Fresno by conducting a thorough examination of existing interdepartmental development processes with the aim of improving customer outcomes. Improved technology was identified as a key element needed to fully streamline the development process. Thus, the process for procuring a new land management system (LMS) began in May 2015 with a Request for Proposals (RFP) released in September 2015. Vendors were shortlisted in November 2015, and in January 2016 each of these vendors provided a proof a capabilities demonstration. After follow-up demonstrations by the two top-scoring vendors, Accela’s Civic Platform LMS was selected as the finalist by the in-house evaluation committee.
The total value of the proposed Accela agreement is approximately $3.6 million for a term of four years. The costs identified within the agreement include software licensing and maintenance fees as well as implementation costs. Software license fees and implementation costs will be one-time costs, while maintenance fees will be annual ongoing expenses. The system implementation phase, which includes documenting business processes, configuring the Accela product, converting data, testing, and training users, is anticipated to take up to 16-18 months.
BACKGROUND
The Business Friendly Fresno initiative identified the need for a more streamlined development process. In order to fully implement a streamlined and transparent development process, the land management system must allow staff to easily manage a project and must allow public access to more information. In January of 2015, staff attended a 4-day training session with representatives from SunGard, the City’s existing land management system, in an attempt to enhance the utilization of the existing system. Prior to this, Planning staff primarily used the land management system to create a numbering system for projects and to cashier projects. Although staff did implement some process improvements through SunGard (Naviline), staff was not able to fully realize the envisioned streamlined process and functionality because of the system’s limitations. For example, Naviline is not GIS based and results in the need to convert tabular data into location based data which makes searching for and storing information more difficult. Secondly, Naviline does not have the capability for electronic plan review which would allow for easier processing and review of building plan checks and development applications. Finally, the reporting function within Naviline is difficult to use and results in the need for custom reporting by technical staff rather than allowing staff in Planning, Building, and Code to generate their own ad-hoc reports. Given these limitations, it was determined that the City needed to begin the search for a new land management system that would meet all of its needs.
Project Scope
This project will replace the SunGard Public Sector Building and Permitting, Planning and Zoning, Land Management, Code Enforcement and Miscellaneous Receivables system (HTE/Naviline) that the City implemented in 1996. The intent of the new system is to provide the following features and functionality (all of which were included in the RFP):
• Permit Lifecycle Management
o System management from application pre‐submittal through multi‐department and external approval process, conditions, rejections, resubmission, notes, fee assessments and attachments
o Ability to track compliance with the conditions of approval
o Track and manage application inactivity
o Track and manage permit expirations
o Track the expiration of temporary Certificates of Occupancy
o Centralized repository for all project records
• Workflow
o Ability to identify the required application and plan reviewers and track the date received, routed, review completion due date for internal and outside reviewers (i.e. Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District)
o Ability to identify why and when internal review is delayed while waiting for additional information from the applicant
o Easily view the comments and conditions of approval following review
o Ability to automatically notify an applicant their plans are ready for pickup
o Incorporate a project dashboard to display project review status including assigned reviewers, date due, delays, etc.
o Create a final signoff for all required project approvers that will prevent the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until all Departments/Divisions have signed off that the conditions of approval have been met
• Customer Access - Web Portal
o Online self‐service to view status of planning applications, permit applications, request inspections, view inspection results, report code violations, and make payments
o Ability to view the conditions of approval
o Ability for contractors to submit applications for simple permits (i.e. water heater)
• Mobile Access for City Staff
o Support smart phones, notebooks, laptops or other devices
o Access the applications, update information, view GIS in the field
o Provide dropdown menus for ease in entering inspection results
• Project Tracking and Reporting
o Provide approval status for each Department/Division (reviews assigned, completed and pending)
o Provide project review activity reports including calculation of the number of days in review and the number of days awaiting applicant reply or action
• Reporting and Query Tools
o Flexible ad hoc query for non‐technical users with the ability to download to Excel
o Ability to create custom reports
o Repository of standard reports
o Generate reports for current status and comparisons with previous periods (i.e. same month last year/this month this year)
• ESRI GIS Integration
o Ability to view land management information from ESRI GIS while working in the application
o Ability to link to ESRI GIS from the land management system
o Ability to enter a Planning application and link it to an area in GIS without a specific address or a specific parcel (i.e. half of a parcel, two or three parcels)
o Ability to identify development in the City’s growth areas identified in GIS by finaled building permits; track the value of the investment and generate reports by growth area with a date range
• Electronic Plan Submittal
o Ability to accept plans electronically, allow reviewers to make corrections and return the reviewed plans to the applicant
Selection Process
In May of 2015, with the help of NexLevel (a California-based management consulting firm with a singular focus on helping California public sector clients procure, implement and use information technology) the City began an assessment of the land management needs of various city departments and divisions including Current and Long Range Planning, Building and Safety Services, Code Enforcement, Fire and Public Works-Traffic and Engineering Services Division. Interviews were held over the course of several weeks to determine needs and priorities. Out of this thorough analysis came a needs assessment document which formed the basis for the Request for Proposals (RFP) that was released in September of 2015. A copy of the RFP is attached as Exhibit 1. The entire Land Management procurement timeline is provided in the table below.
Five responses to the RFP were received. Proposals were submitted by SunGard Public Sector proposing their CRW system, Computronix proposing POSSE LMS, Infor Public Sector proposing CDR, Tyler proposing Energov, and Accela proposing Civic Platform. An evaluation committee comprised of staff from various departments reviewed the 5 proposals. The following is the evaluation committee’s summary of the 5 proposals:
SunGard CRW
After the initial proposal review, the evaluation team agreed to eliminate SunGard CRW as a finalist because the proposal lacked detailed information, the references were smaller jurisdictions than the city of Fresno, and the report writing did not provide a security limitation.
Infor
The proposal from Infor lacked detailed information. The functionality of the mobile solution is limited, i.e. the inability to integrate with the City’s GIS, there is no ability to store and release information if a Wi‐Fi connection is not available, and the types of devices supported are limited. Infor has plans for future releases to enhance the mobile solution. However, mobile access is an important driver in the LMS project to increase efficiency for the field staff. The lack of available features in the mobile solution does not support the required functionality in the new system.
Accela
The proposal from Accela provided detailed information including screen shots. The proposal supports the desired integration with GIS, supports mobile requirements, and provides a customer portal. Accela provides the City’s “FresGO” application. Accela’s references include Oklahoma City (population 610,613), City of Sacramento (population 479,686), the City and County of Denver (population 649,495). These references are similar in size or larger in population than Fresno. These references were contacted and they reported a high level of satisfaction with Accela. Accela did not provide pricing for the number of user licenses that were requested in the RFP, yet Accela’s cost is the highest of the five proposers. The cost is a consideration. The evaluation committee agreed to invite Accela to participate in the proof‐of‐capabilities demonstration where the features and benefits of the Accela system can be compared with other solutions.
Tyler EnerGov
The EnerGov proposal provided detailed information including screen shots. The mobile solution is robust and the application supports the desired integration with GIS. EnerGov did not provide city references that are similar in population to Fresno. Their city references are Clovis (population 99,769), Redding (population 91,119), and Cambridge, MA (population 105,162). The Clovis and Redding references were contacted, and not all of the information provided was favorable. Although EnerGov did not provide the desired references, EnerGov was the finalist when the City of Fresno previously issued an RFP for a Land Management System and the committee was pleased with the quality of their proposal. The evaluation committee agreed to invite EnerGov to participate in the proof‐of‐capabilities demonstration.
Computronix
The evaluation committee noted that the quality of the Computronix proposal was not as comprehensive as the proposals from Accela and EnerGov. However, their references included the City of Dallas (population 1.3M), City of Vancouver (population 603,500), City and County of Honolulu (city population 374,000; County population 983,249). The largest client is Edmonton, Alberta with more than 3,500 internal users. Their references were contacted and they provided favorable information about Computronix. Primarily due to the references, the evaluation committee agreed to invite Computronix to participate in the proof‐of‐capabilities demonstration.
Based on the analysis of the proposals, Accela, Tyler and Computronix were invited to participate in a proof of capabilities demonstration. In order to provide a fair evaluation of each vendor, and in order to ensure that each vendor was able to meet the City’s needs, each vendor was given the same script to follow during the demonstration. After the demonstrations, Computronix was eliminated as it was unanimously determined by the evaluation committee that they did not meet the City’s core needs in a land management system.
Following the demonstrations, each Division that participated was asked to provide their vendor of choice and the reasons for their choice. The following is a summary:
|
Department or Division |
Preference |
Reasons |
|
Building and Safety Services |
Energov |
Features and functionality of both Accela and EnerGov are both excellent and would be a vast improvement to achieving a more efficient environment; however, discussions on costs weighted the decision. Cost savings can be applied towards hardware needs and upgrades. |
|
Public Utilities |
Accela |
• They run 50% of the market share. (Everyone else was 10% or less) • Adobe plan check process • Already provide Fres(GO) • System can be tailored to the role of the user • Has similar functions to iView |
|
Fire |
Accela |
Flexibility within the Electronic Plan Review (having options of which program to use was the big reason) and that the mobile app and the administration component appear to be the most user friendly. |
|
ISD |
Accela |
• Accela makes the most sense from a feature set and from the back end support/systems. • The reporting in Accela was far superior making it possible for staff to easily create reports within the product, reducing the need for assistance from other staff. The reporting module is built into the system and doesn’t necessarily require an SME in Crystal Reports. Crystal reports is still an option in Accela but using it would be the exception and not the rule. • Staff using the system will be able to complete basic GIS functions up to and including doing basic spatial analysis and creating presentation quality vicinity maps. This reduces the need to hand the work off to GIS staff and frees up GIS staff from handling routine GIS work to focus on larger, more complex tasks. • The mobile apps were superior. Energov’s inspection module was good but Accela was better at providing options specific to certain tasks such as Code Enforcement vs Building inspection. • Creating workflows was a lot more intuitive in Accela because it is graphical. This will be a great benefit during the implementation phase because it is easier for staff to see the flow rather than reading through a sequence. It should be easier to spot bottlenecks at design time rather than finding them when the workflow is in production. • From a technology standpoint, ISD found Accela to be more in line with the current state of technology. They offered better options to support the product in the way of open API’s, a strong user community, and product design. |
|
Code Enforcement |
Accela |
• Robust reporting tool w/ ability to work across and pull data from other modules and integrated apps. • Extensive Mobility features • Extensive Case Maintenance options • Robust DMS server and app • Seamless integration between all modules and peripheral apps |
|
Current Planning |
Accela |
Innovative and mobile device centered, operates FresGo App., highly customizable dashboards, more robust and user friendly ad-hoc reporting tool, easy to use electronic plan review, can create and customize maps easily (will not have to rely on GIS staff), business process/workflows are more robust, reference checks most positive. |
|
Long Range Planning |
Accela |
GIS capability (including retention of parcel history) and public interface possibilities to keep citizens informed of planning processes. |
Although Accela was the most expensive vendor by a significant amount (see Exhibit 2 for the initial price comparisons), the features provided by the Accela system are far superior in the eyes of almost every Division on the evaluation committee. In addition to this, every single Accela reference check was positive (including references checked that were not included in their proposal). For these reasons, Accela is the recommended vendor.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
By the definition provided in the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15478, this item does not qualify as a “project” for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.
LOCAL PREFERENCE
No local vendors responded to the Request for Proposals.
FISCAL IMPACT
The contract itself will cost the City approximately $3.6 million over 4 years. Additional staffing and needed hardware will bring the total cost of implementing this land management system to just under $4 million over 4 years. The project cost over 4 years is attached as Exhibit 3.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1-Request for Proposal (RFP)
Exhibit 2-Initial Pricing Comparison
Exhibit 3-Project Costs over 4 Years
Exhibit 4-Consulting Services Agreement