Loading...
Agenda 06/14/2011 Item #16A25 . . . 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to waive formal competition, approve and authorize the Chairman to sign Change Order #2 to Contract #08.5009 with Sire Technologies, Inc. in the amount of $129,150, and authorize a budget amendment from the Development Services Building Permit Fund 113 reserves for $112,000, with the "remaining balance of $17,150 to be expended from current Fund 113 operating expens.es, for the purpose of extending the County's Electronic Content 'Management (ECM) system for the implementation of ActiveReview, an Electronic P.lan Submittal and Review system (EPSR) designed for land use and building : Permit applications, and for enterprise management of capital project plans. GBJECT1VE: Dramatically improve the land use and building permit application processes as well as improve enterprise management of capital project plans by ~xtending the County's Electronic Content Management (ECM) platform via implementation of Electronic Plan Submittal and Review (EPSR). CONSIDERATIONS: The purpose of this implementation is to offer an internet accessible, easier, and more efficient plan submittal process (24/7) as has been long- demanded by our customer base. This is an approved element of the County Manager's Work Plan. On July 22, 2008, Agenda Item 16E4, the Board approved the acquisition of an ECM system from Sire Technologies, Inc. for $232,727.00 which covered software licensing and implementation services. This software was selected to be the enterprise platform for all electronic content in the agency, much like SAP is our enterprise platform for all financial transactions and record keeping. The contract anticipated that additional services would be added as provided in Section 21. ADDITIONAL ITEMS/SERVICES "Additional items and/or services may be added to this contract upon satisfactory negotiation of price by the Contract Manager and Consultant." Additionally, Section 15C of the Purchasing Policy grants the Board broad discretion within the limits of the law to approve changes to contracts "without requiring further competition". During staff review for this item it was noted the originating RFP that preceded the contract did not clearly state that Collier County reserved the right to add additional applications to the software platform, though with the purchase of the ECM platform, that was the intent. In light of this, the Office of the County Attorney is recommending that the Board formally waive competition pursuant to the approval of this change order under Purchasing Policy Section V.A.4. It is staffs position that this in the best interests of the County to do so. The Sire ActiveReview module is a specialized ECM application that leverages the underlying ECM platform technology for the purpose of electronic plan submittal. Change Order #2 is consistent with the contract provisions and covers the cost of software licenses for the ActiveReview modules as well as professional services for implementation. PacketPage-1252- . 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. The purchase of ActiveReview is recommended and in the best interest of the County for the following reasons: . Sire ActiveReview meets all business, technical and customer requirements . Implementing Sire ActiveReview builds upon the enterprise platform selected by the Board in 2008. The agency already has committed technical and business level staff resources familiar with Sire's technologies which reduces additional staff workload and future labor costs . Sire has been an exemplary vendor providing excellent responsive and trustworthy support . If we select another vendor we would have to build/maintain interfaces to our enterprise Sire document management system which would incur additional up- front and long-term cost and effort. Working with existing infrastructure and an existing vendor significantly reduces risk, time and effort and increases the chance for a timely and efficient implementation (as compared with selecting a new vendor/partner). This recommendation follows the outcome and recommendation of a joint team of industry representatives and Collier staff that studied the need and available systems for electronic plan review. The attached report titled "Rationale for Recommending Sire ActiveReview" outlines the actions and recommendations of the team. . Below are the benefits anticipated from this purchase and software implementation. Key Benefits From Customer < . From Staff Perspective .'__ Perspective. '- ' . .' "'; ': :J~ffJclency/ Access Efficiency . Efflciency/$ Efficiency . Quality/Efficiency Secure remote application submission and 24/7 Access View status changes on website Paperless and better version control Clearer comments (visual) Parallel reviews and potential for shorter review c cles Easier retrieval of approved plans Collaboration opportunities improve Packet Page -1253- Simpler intake process Version control/easy to see changes No more paper (eliminates routing, storage, scanning); auto status updates; supports telecommuting option; central repository including capital project plans Mark up where comment relates Parallel reviews, and potential for shorter review cycles and easily view all comments Easier retrieval of approved plans and seamless integration with existing ECM system Simpler collaboration and improved customer service 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. Capacity Less staff time in handling paper = more staff time in reviews or service Provides for less staff time on paper handling, ability to work remotely, ability to utilize contract employees as the need may arise IT CONSIDERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS: The IT Department recommends this software product because it represents the lowest technical risk, the lowest impact to staff support resources, and will enable IT to provide the highest level of service at the lowest cost. ActiveReview builds on our existing investments in the Sire ECM platform. A platform is an underlying computer system (hardware / software / database) upon which application programs can run. Limiting the number of technology platforms in a company I agency is an IT industry best practice for cost savings. All computer systems require some amount of maintenance which includes but is not limited to planned upgrades, security patching, bug fixes, monitoring, access control, etc. Once the underlying platform is in place and supported, the second, third and fourth applications on that platform leverage a good portion of the support resources already dedicated to the platform. This makes the cost of incremental applications on a given platform lower. With more users on any platform, the quality of service and availability of the platform is likely to be higher because downtime will have a higher impact on the organization. . The BeC uses several systems which meet the definition of a technology platform: SAP, GIS, SharePoint, and Sire. We know that no other platform that we own supports the functionality of Sire ActiveReview as an off the shelf product. If we chose a new vendor, we would need to establish new servers, new databases, new support contracts, new vendor relationships and would have to train staff on the new technologies. New servers and new databases require license costs, and additional behind the scenes processing (monitoring, technical support resources, etc.). While it is hard to quantify the cost differential, it is evident that as long as Sire ActiveReview's features and functions meet GMD's requirements, it is the choice that will give us the lowest acquisition cost, the lowest life cycle costs, and the most affordable way to achieve high service levels. Sire has been an exemplary vendor providing excellent responsive and trustworthy support. Selecting an application that is supported by an existing technology platform complies with agency policies and procedures for software selection. - Barry Axelrod, IT Director FISCAL IMPACT: . Imolementatlon Costs - Fund 113 Vendor (Sire) ** Software and Licenses Professional Services 79,800.00 25,650.00 PacketPage-1254- . . . 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. Professional Travel (est.) (in compliance with Ch. 112, Fla. Stat.) 5,600.00 Training 8,100.00 Allowance for other implementation services 10,000.00 129,150.00 AnticiDated Infrastructure and Hardware Costs* Hardware and Storage 24,650.00 Monitors/Desktop Hardware 20,000.00 44,650.00 Total Implementation Costs (estimated FY 11 & FY 12) $173,800.00 Operatin~ Costs (Estimated)* Annual Software Maintenance $16,800.00 *professionallT Staff Hours/Storage/IT Support/Server Maintenance shall be budgeted separately within the County Manager's Agency. **Matches proposal/quote Funds sufficient to execute this change order will be made available from Fund 113 reserves in the amount of $112,000, with the remaining balance of $17,150 to be expended from current Fund 113 operating expense. A budget amendment transferring $112,000 from reserves to the appropriate expense code is necessary. Although the benefits of this implementation are shared throughout the enterprise, for the reason that the building and land use industries will be the major user of this application, GMD/P&R has agreed to fund implementation as the initial and primary benefactor. On..going use of the system by other departments throughout the Agency will be on a "he who benefits pays" approach that will be defined once use begins, with internal funds transfer collected to offset initial and recurring costs associated with the use and operation of this application. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact associated with this Executive Summary. LEGAL CON!)IDERA TIONS: Pursuant to the Purchasing Policy, Section V(A)4, the Board of County Commissioners has the discretion to waive the competitive threshold when it is in the best interest of the County to do so. The original contract was competitively solicited in compliance with the Purchasing Policy, however this specific application was not. The Board may find that staff has provided sufficient evidence to prove that this purchase is in the best interest of the County. This item is legally sufficient for Board action and requires majority vote - CMG ~E:<::OMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners: 1) Waive formal competition, 2) Approve and authorize the Chairman to sign Change Order #2 to Packet Page -1255- . . . 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. Contract #08-5009 with Sire Technologies in the amount of $129,150, using Fund 113 funds for the purpose of extending the County's Electronic Content Management (ECM) system for the implementation of an Electronic Submittal and Review application for land use and building permit applications as well as capital project plans, named ActiveReview, and 3) Authorize the necessary budget amendment. Prepared by: Kim Grant, Manager Corporate Planning and Performance Improvement (Project Manager) on behalf of Leo Ochs, Jr. County Manager (Project Sponsor) and Nick Casalanguida (System and Process Owner) Attachments: Rationale for Recommending Sire ActiveReview Software Acquisition Flowchart Packet Page -1256- . . 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 16.A.25. Item Summary: Recommendation to waive formal competition, approve and authorize the Chairman to sign Change Order #2 to Contract #08-5009 with Sire Technologies, Inc. in the amount of $129,150, and authorize a budget amendment from the Development Services Building Permit Fund 113 reserves for $112,000, with the remaining balance of $17,150 to be expended from current Fund 113 operating expenses, for the purpose of extending the County's Electronic Content Management (ECM) system for the implementation of ActiveReview, an Electronic Plan Submittal and Review system (EPSR) designed for land use and building permit applications, and for enterprise management of capital project plans. Meeting Date: 6/14/2011 Prepared By Name: GrantKimberley Title: Manager-Corp.Planning and Perf Improv,Office of Management & Budget - 6/2/2011 3:26:27 PM Approved By Name: GrantKimberley Title: Manager-Corp.Planning and Perf Improv,Office of Management & Budget Date: 6/3/2011 1 :22:46 PM Name: AxelrodBarry Title: Director -Information Technology,Information Technology Date: 6/3/2011 1 :54:35 PM Name: FrenchJames Title: Manager - CDES Operations,Operations & Regulatory Management Date: 6/3/2011 4:15:21 PM Name: WoodLyn Title: Contracts Specialist,Purchasing & General Services Date: 6/6/2011 1 :03:23 PM . Name: Carnell Steve Packet Page -1257- . . . 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. Title: Director - Purchasing/General Services,Purchasing Date: 6/6/2011 1:09:28 PM Name: GreeneColleen Title: Assistant County Attorney,County Attorney Date: 6/6/2011 2: 1 0:59 PM Name: MarcellaJeanne Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning Date: 6/6/2011 2:50:59 PM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 6/7/2011 9:07:54 AM Name: Isackson11ark Title: Director-Corp Financial and Mgmt Svs,CMO Date: 6/7/2011 11 :24:28 AM }Jame: IsacksonMark Title: Director-Corp Financial and Mgmt Svs,CMO Date: 6/7/2011 1 :56:11 PM Packet Page -1258- 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. . Rationale for Recommending Sire ActiveReview as the Electronic Plan Submittal and Review (EPSR) Application for Building Department Permits, Land Use Planning Applications and Capital Project Plans Brief History (prior to Summer 2010) For several years staff at the former Community Development and Environmental Services (CDES) Division [now called Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulatory (GMD/P&R)] have been learning about and considering an electronic review and permitting system. This has been largely in response to customer demands, but also from a desire to improve productivity and become more efficient in delivering their critical services. In 2008, the Board of County Commissioners approved purchase of the County's Electronic Content Management System, which was a competitively procured product. The intent was that this would become the Agency platform for electronic content management, much like SAP is our financial platform. Consistent with that approach, a second module from Sire, Technologies was purchased in 2009 and is now our Agenda Central system. A module for electronic plan submission and review is also available from Sire Technologies. . With the implementation of the CityView system, the GMD/P&R division has not been able to seriously pursue EPSR due to limited human and financial resources. As the end of that project began to be seen on the horizon, the administration decided to more seriously pursue the plan to shift to electronic plan submission and review. In preparation for this eventuality, the GMD/P&R division had conducted two rapid process improvement events in order to develop streamlined processes that could be readily adapted to this technology, and has even piloted a "poor man's version" of electronic plan submission and review in the building department using email and .pdf files in order to simulate life in an lIelectronic world". On January 8,2010, several business and IT staff from Collier travelled to Cape Coral to learn about their implementation of EPRS. Also, in January, 2010 Commissioner Coletta arranged for a team of staff and industry representatives to visit with the Miami-Dade Building Department to learn of their electronic submission and review processes. The team spent a day there and learned a tremendous amount about the tools and methods employed. These visits eventually led to the creation of a study team in the Summer of 2010 to . more fully evaluate alternatives. 1 Packet Page -1259- 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. . Preparing for the Software Review n the summer of 2010 a team was assembled to more carefully look at available systems and options for EPRS in order to be ready to take action once the CityView imp,emlentation was primarily concluded and resources could be applied to this endeavor. The focus Ot this team was on the building review and permitting functions, and included staff from the bus:rness areas and IT as well as interested members of the industry. The objective of this team 1as to evaluate current business processes and needs against available software for electrotc plans submittal. Jlt is important to point out that the Agency has adopted a strategy for evaluating softwa'le suitability by whether it could be an addition to an existing platform or,a new Platforr/system. The attached flow charts illustrate that essentially we will evaluate capabilIties of any additional system components that are on existing platforms as a fast track solutiO~, unless there is a compelling reason to select another platform/system (Le. specialized, cost, implementation costs and timing, etc.). There are several reasons for this strategic approa~h: I. I I. Implementing additional components of an enterprise platform capitalizes on the technical and business level resources that have been applied to learning the platform which streamlines all future implementations. Working with existing infrastructure and an existing vendor significantly reduces risk, time and effort and increases the chance for a timely and efficient implementation (as compared with selecting a new vendor/partner). The ability to develop expertise over time reduces future costs for consulting and other similar engagements. . . I Study Team Activities I IThe team created the following high level set of business and technical requirements to use as r basis for evaluating any available options. I ' Security/Access / I Application . Tech ical Ent!"YL$ Create profile Complete On-line Application' I Workflow/Storage of electronic files Route for initial Sufficiency review Review Ca abilities Track review status . 2 Packet Page -1260- . . . Web front end Upload and download digital .pdf's View status/com ments Security by sign-in or pin Must be on Microsoft SQL Server framework/ Cannot be on Oracle (IT will not support) Attach-.pdf of Plans Accept other attachments per checklist requirements .pdf Calculate or display fees. Accept credit card payment . Assign reviewers (auto or manual) Track review status 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. Track review - comments Version control by - page/layer Use layers for markup Allow digital seals Allow digital plan sign-off Compare prior to current version for differences Sophisticated and easy to use mark-up tools The team decided to query Florida jurisdictions for what, if any, electronic systems were in use in the State of Florida. To do so, two industry forums were queried: the Florida Local Government Information Systems Association via FLGSIAnet, and the building officials in the State of Florida. In addition to these queries, we considered the systems being used at Cape Coral and the City of Miami-Dade based on our site visits. Based on prior work that led to the selection of CityView we were also aware that Accela, a large government software provider, asserts an electronic review system. The team looked into each ofthese potential systems and the results are summarized in the chart below. From the review, only two systems met the requirements - ProjectDox and Sire ActiveReview. Version control of documents and mark-up layers Approved plans stored separately from in-process plans Final record copy available for use by public Submitand initial system sufficiency check Route for final review or any other non-parallel step required Manage plans in revisions process with all capabilities Allow printing of final copy or translate to digital .pdf format for electronic transmission 3 PacketPage-1261- 6/14/2011 Item 1 System I Meet Meet Software IT$ Hard Comments business Technical and Impl. ware reQmnts? Reqmnts? Hard Cost Costs AutoVne Some N I I (Cimm6trvl .. ... ProjectDox Y Y $142,000 + TBD TBD I IT I Hardware Activefeview Y Y . $114,000 TBD TBD Already have licenses for 350 ; concurrent users and (Sire) +IT experience with this product; I I Hardware is ECM Jor document I management for Collier County Accelal I Some N I I BlueRevu Some N/A Miami+Dade Y N 3-5 Unkno 5 integrated systems proprirtary FTE including their own wn mainframe to make this work Set of + additional system for e- Syst;nls permitting small permits Oldsmar I N N/A (prop~ietary 1 : Sumter N I N/A I I I CountY 6.A.25. . . I I fince Sire ActiveReview was the lowest cost alternative reviewed, met all requirements, and war a module that could be added to the existing ECM platform selected by the Board in 2008, tr team recommended pursuit of ActiveReview. Activitiis since the Study Team Recommendation in August 2010 I Iln November 2010, the results ofthe study were presented to the Information Technology Executive Committee, a technology governing body in the County Managers Agencyl and they approved the recommendation to further pursue Sire ActiveReview as an enterp1ise system for any plans being submitted (building, land use/planning and capital projects). I In FY 11, the County has also gone "Iive" with an additional module of the Sire system called Agenda Plus (we call it Agenda Central). The project has been a tremendous success. It met all defined business requirements, and came in on budget. The team managing the imple entation reports exemplary experience with this vendor, and remains committed to the chosen ECM platform. This experience provided additional encouragement for suggesting purcha e of an additional module for the EPSR system. . 4 Packet Page -1262- . . . 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. Sire was invited to do a proof of concept demonstration at Collier County on April 15, 2011. In attendance were staff members and management from the building department, planning/zoning department, fire department, public utilities project management department and information technology. The goal was for all affected departments to see a demonstration and ask any and all questions about the product as it related to their use of EPSR. Everyone in attendance was satisfied with the proof of concept. Existing contract terms and purchasing policy were reviewed extensively to assure recommending a change order was allowed. The contract does allow for the change order, and following normal purchasing policy, the board has discretion to accept such a change order, or require the initiative to go out for bid. The approach has been discussed with members of the industry on May 26, 2011 and they are in support of the system recommendation. Benefits of the Project Action Efficiency Secure remote application submission and 24/7 Access View status changes on website Paperless and better version control No more paper (eliminates routing, storage, scanning); auto status updates; supports telecommuting option; central repository including capital project plans Mark up where comment relates Parallel reviews, and potential for shorter review cycles and easily view all comments Easier retrieval of approved plans and seamless integration with existing ECM system Simpler collaboration and improved customer service Provides for less staff time on paper handling, ability to work remotely, Version control/easy to see changes Efficiency/$ Quality/Efficiency Efficiency Clearer comments (visual) Parallel reviews and potential for shorter review cycles Easier retrieval of approved plans Efficiency Quality/Efficiency Collaboration opportunities improve Less staff time in handling paper = more staff time in Capacity 5 Packet Page -1263- 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. reviews or service ability to utilize contract employees as the need may arise . Why tt recommendation is the best value solution fhe study team recommends implementation of the Sire ActiveReview system for Electro~~.c Plan Submittal and Review for the following reasons: . eets business requirements (including those of the applicants) . eets technical requirements . IExpands on the existing selected ECM platform . Fast was the lowest ofthe two viable options located based on a search for systems being used in the state of Florida . IFollows our IT decision process and realizes these benefits: o Implementing additional components of an enterprise platform capitalizes on the technical and business level resources that have been applied to learning the platform which streamlines all future implementations. o Working with existing infrastructure and an existing vendor significantly reduces . risk, time and effort and increases the chance for a timely and efficient implementation (as compared with selecting a new vendor/partner). o The ability to develop expertise over time reduces future costs for consulting and I other similar engagements . IFollows existing Purchasing policy I . ISire has been an exemplary partner . !System will be used enterprise wide and seamlessly integrated with the existing ECM Isystem for all document storage and retrieval Attach ents: Software Acquisition Flowchart . 6 Packet Page -1264- Customer>, . (End User Group) Develop Functional. Requirement. Customer Sign Off on Functional. ..- . Requirements Buy + IT.oCustomefr< . - '. -_._ '.-_- .c., '-"';'."<_-- . .?,.~~j..._.,..__,_ Relati()nshfp~ Mg~. Develop Technical Recommendations . an~ wo Study Yes, V Standard Platform Fast-Track .- /. Page2~ I .... IT Mgmt Charter Approval._.. Build Packet Page -1265- 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. IT Deyelopn1e~t ;-- ,::-: .;.~.:::.~{{:~:tti~~~-\::i.~~i~-,;!l--;.\,~' '.'i:-) _'j ~oftwim~.D~v~loP!T1ent. · .~: ..,programPlan . - _.-, 1 SoftWare DeveI6jm;ent . .. Process' I j. Standard Platf9rm Fast-Track i .. I Custol11~r. (End User Grqup ) . . , fI LL I I t.. 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. IT. Customer R~lationstilp Mgf ITEC. . I Yes ... Technical Arc:.hitectuni~ . ,ReVie~~,:;;,~:r:~, .. . Packet Page -1266- ..../<;/..6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. Competitive Acquisition Process - Standard vs. Non-Standard platform . " ',_.;' .. '._'_'", .. .. ',,'_,: .,"":..,..>;:,,' ..:_._;.~'.., ~.:_,_'.. _""":.:','~'.,,':'_',, ,,0', Customer .. nd User Group) IT Cy~tqmec; Relationship Mgr Yes No I "'" x~i;r;,.iclf~)c%;J~f~~WI8~ft~~~~~~;Rii~. - , 'If No <l NJ No ITEC- ~~:, Contract #:08- 5009 ~roject #: N/A I I I I I clt i ~~ M I ~ iil~\l8 SefYibes [lvision . ~-+ X d~ntract Change Request 1 I Mod#: 2 I I I Project Manager: Kim I Grant I 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. Purchasing Department Change Modification Form o Work Order Modification POlWork Order #: Project Name: Active Review Department: County Mana er ContractorlFirm Name: SIRE Technolo ies Origi~al ContracWIork Order Amount Current BCC Apprdlved Amount I Current Contracf!".'f.ork Order Amount Dollar Amount of t~is Change Revised New ContractIWork Order Total Cumulative Chan !3s I Original BCC Approval Date; Agenda Item # Last BCC Approval Date; Agenda Item # Change from Current BCC Approved Amount Original notice to proceed date: NYi+ Number of days a~ded (if extension, must a#ach current insurance certifiCC\te(s) from SAP or obtain from vendor : X Add new task(sf Change task(s) Delete task(s) Other (specify): 1. Provide a de~i1ed and specific explanation of the requested change(s) to the task(s): Purchase and install an additional module of the Enterprise Content Management (ECM) system for purposes of electronic plan submittal and review. I 2. Provide deta~led rationale for the requested change: Customers have been demanding increased service in the areas of plans review and permitting functions of the County. This is also an element of the County Manager's approved work plan. 1;lplementing the Sire ActiveReview module radically transforms the process of plan submission and approval by e iminating the paper; thus allowing for submission, review, mark-up and revision of permits, land use plans, and capital p ~ect plans all electronically. This eliminates trips to the County to drop off plans, enhances communication between appl,cants and reviewers. provides for better version control of related documents, and is expected to have the affect of decreasing review times. More information about the business case is provided in the executive summary for this change rruest. _ 3. Provide explanation why change was not anticipated in original scope of work: Technically, the answer to this is N/A, as this i~ a new project However, .in fact, adding this module to our existing Enterprise Content Management system has always been viewed as a potential change per our electronic content management strategy. 4. Describe the impact if this change is not processed: The bottom line is that this implementation is a low cost approach to dramatically increasing service and quality in our plans review processes, while also decreasing effort to complete reVIews. We can continue doing business the way we have been doing it via paper. However, this system enables a tremendous amount of flexibility in terms of customer interactions (24n), ability for employees or contracted employees td work remotely, etc. It also dramatically reduces time, effort and cost to deal with routing and storing paper associated wrh these processes; allowing us to be much more efficient in general. I I Packet Page -1268- I 04. Correction of error(s) ID 5. Value added' 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. LD 6. Schedule adjUstment I '~:ft'-!o...,,:.. Approved by {Name and Titl . Date: 3 ( LI Date: . . Revised: 1/1212011 2 Packet Page -1269- I I i I I I I I CHAN1E ORDER NO. 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. CHANGE ORDER 2 CONTRACf NO._08-5009_ BCC Date: _7/22/08 Agenda Item: _1684 TO: SIRE Technolosries. [nc. ! 3676 W. California Avenue. Unit B 100 I Salt Lake City. UT 84104 I DATE Mav 27. 20Il PROJECT NAME: Active Review - Electronic Plan Submittal and Review Svstem Under our AGREEMENT dated July 22 .2008_. You hereby are authorized and directed to make the following change(s) in accordance with terms and condit ons of the Agreement: See attached Exhibit A FOR lHE Additive Sum of: _One hundred twenty-nine thousand one hundred fifty ($]29,150.00). j . OrIginal Agreement Amount $ 232.727.00 Sur of Previous Changes S ]89.575.00 This Change Order adds S 129.150.00 pr~1 nt Agreement Amount $ 551.452.00 Your ccptance of this Change Order shaIl constitute a modification to our Agreement and will be performed subje t to all the same tenns and conditions as contained in our Agreement indicated above, as fully as if the same were repeated in this acceptance. The adjustment, if any, to the Agreement shall constitute a full and final settle ent of any and all claims of the Contractor arising out of or related to the change set forth herein, including claims for impact and delay costs. I Accefkd: ,2011-. CON~RACTOR: SlRE1 Te::hnologies, Inc. I~~ ~..h~ By: I David Reeder I I OWNER; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ Klm G , ... .oct........, · ~T2 By "Z- /t..... Ni asalanguida Packet Page -1270- 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. . . CONT~1ALIST ) ~ By: . )Yl a/ n-Jl Lyn M. d Date: ArrEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA Dwight E. Brock, Cleric. BY: BY: Fred W. Coyle, Chairman Approved As To Form and Legal Sufficiency: Print Name: Assistant County Attorney ! i . . 08-5009 - Enterprise Content Management Software Solution - Change Order #2 2 Packet Page -1271- I I I I S'RE- I TECHNOLOGIES Document Managemelt & Agenda Automation for State & Local GOV1mment I I Kimberler Grant Collier C~unty FL 3301 Ta~iami Trail, East Naples F arid a 34112 239-25-6287 To: 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. Quote ACTIVE REVIEW Date: Expiration Date: Account Manager: May'll, 2011 August 27, 2011 David Reeder I tm' DESCRIPTION . llNITPRlCE . EcrENDED=?RICE ll1A1NTENANCE 'PART # , EDFTWARE SllB:r.oTALSOFTWARE ,S :B4,DDD.110 $ 1fi,BDD.llD EERVlCES SUS:roTAL5ERVlCES : oS 35,1350.1l0 o SIRE SERVER CORE ...' . Enterprise siRE SelVer Core - This is a one ti~ cost for any size customer that provides the1pDF, FTR and other needed capabilities. This is required for all clients. ThiSlis a required component for EDMS and/or Agenda Plus. Includes the followingl modules: SIRE Administrator, SIRE FileCenter I WebCenter, SIRE OCR I FTR, SIRE Retention Manager, SIRE Office Add-in Module, SIRE Reports (Re~uires MS SOL), SIRE Web Pubnshing, and SIRE Worldlow.SelVer Cores are n+ inluded on Hosting and Active Review only Proposals. Is included on EDMS ar Agenda Proposals. SIRE Act REVIEW LICENSES Active Re . I Workgroup Active Revi~ Enterprise: (Includes selVer software for active review, workflow, forms, 10 E~MS licenses, Active Review web portal) (Portal and unlimited number ofi1temal users) Active Revi~ Client (1-25 Concurrent Users) Active ReviJw Client (26-50 Concurrent Users) Active ReviJw Client (51-100 Concurrent Users) Active Revi'w Client (101-150 Concurrentusers) Active ReI Client (151-200 Concurrent Users) Active Re . I w Client Enterprise 34,000.00 50003 6,800.00 50004 50005 50006 50007 50008 10,500.00 County already purchased 40050 o 25,000.00 $ 50001 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 10,000.00 50002 700.00 $ 680.00 $ 660.00 $ 640.00 $ 620.00 $ 130,000.00 $ o 50 o o o o 7 4 8 1 Project Ma~agement (Per Day Cost) Inslallation,llmplemenlation, & Testing days (Per Day Cost) 1 Workflow Drfinition and Configuration (Per Day Cost) A1lowancel for other implementation services 120063 120051 120053 1,350.00 $ 1,350.00 $ 1,350.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 9,450.00 5,400.00 10,800.00 10,000.00 Packet Page -1272- 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. SIRE Active Review Administrator Training - Cost per day. SIRE Active Review End User Training - Cost per day. 130059 13L1B:rDTAL IRAINING 5 11,1DD.DD 4 16 EXPENSES .. 600.00 $ 200.00 $ Travel: Airfare (per trip) Per Diem: Daily expense for Lodging, Car, meals (per day) 2,400.00 Billed as Incurred 3,200.00 Billed as Incurred SlJB:rDTALJ:XP.ENSES :s 3juOO.no r;oST DVERVIEW T alai Cost for Software $ 84,000.00 Tot3l Cost for SeNices $ 35,650.00 "~." Total CoSt for Training . $ 8,100.00 T ot3ICostfor Expenses $ 5,600.00 GRAND TOTAL $ 133,350.00 PURCHASE INCENTIVE. $ 4,200.00 '.-.";.-':-"~<' .. . TOTAL SYSTEM COST $ 129,150.00 ANNUAL SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE $ 16,800.00 . cxt!~ ~ Quotation prepared by: This is a quotation on SIRE Technologies software, subject to the conditions noted below: SIRE T ecl1nologies Standard Payment Terms: 100% of Software Fees due at signing, Professional SeNice Fees due upon mutually determined Milestones and Maintenance due at final project acceptance. Proposal is valid for 00 days from Proposal Date unless otherwise specified in writing, 'Travel Expenses will be bir.ed as incurred. To accept this quotation. sign here and return: Thank you for your businessl 2211 West 2300 South, West Valley Cit)", iJT 84 i 19 - 30"1.977.0608 Phcne 801.977.8875 Fax inic@siretechnoicgies.ccm Packet Page -1273- 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. Attachment A SIRE Technologies, Inc. Active Review Payment Schedule I Mileston~ I Execute qhange order - purchase 25 licenses Travel I Develop~ent Services I. I Purchaseladditionallicenses, if need is determined Training I Allowance for other implementation services I Payment amount $39,900 (25 licenses less purchase incentive) As billed per contract terms $12,825 (or 50%) when Collier Project Manager agrees 50% has been completed; remaining $12,825 upon completion of User Acceptance Testing $39,900 (25 licenses less purchase incentive) $8,100 once training is completed Up to $10,000 (only as agreed to in writing and upon written sign off of the Collier project manager that services have been provided). Packet Page -1274- . . Date: A TIEST: Dwight Eo Brock, Clerk BY: Approved As To Fonn @,::~d~~ Assistant County Attorney 08-5009 - Enterprise Content Management Software Solution - Change Order #2 2 6/14/2011 Item 16.A.25. . C~PECIAL1ST ) ~ By: )Yl a/ frk/ Lyn M od BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA BY: Fred W. Coyle, Chairman Packet Page -1275-