RFP-26-00262 Eval Comm Meeting for Customer Billing, Payment, and Engagement Solution- 09.29.26

good morning committee members and other parties of interest this is the evaluation committee meeting for rmp 2600262 customer billing payment and engagement solutions my name is joe wright and i'm the buyer assigned to this project this meeting is being held in part by means of communication media technology and has been publicly noticed active participation will be for committee members only provisions have been made for any member of the public desiring to have access to the meeting the recording will also be available after the meeting has ended if you are watching online today please make sure to mute your microphone and turn off your camera for the duration of the meeting please be advised that the cone of silence is still in effect all meetings and correspondence must include me again for the record this meeting is being recorded and has been publicly noticed at the time i will ask each committee member to introduce themselves for the record beginning with the committee chairperson good morning my name is jerry durden i'm the committee chair i am the billing manager with water resources i'm jonathan rushnik i'm senior business analyst with enterprise solutions and quality assurance here at hillsborough county and i'm joran singleton i'm a senior business analyst with the water resource department good morning my name is marisol garcia i'm the group manager for water resources department i'm sharon rohr manager of the contracts administration team and just an observer diana davila rossalens contracts manager with the contracts administration team good morning my name is blake frau and i'm a network architect for the i.t department good morning my name is josh carnegie i'm the manager for accounting and payments thank you on august 33 2026 the county received a total of 19 proposals in response to rfb 2600262 the evaluation committee will discuss proposals received in alphabetical order each proposal is to be evaluated based only on the information provided in the proposal as it correlates to the requirements and evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation the committee will then agree on a consensus score for each criteria the evaluation committee chair jerry durden will lead today's discussion jerry i'll turn it over to you to discuss our first proposer which is 360 s2g i agree so we'll go around and we'll start from my left and we'll sit around the room and come back to me well if we wanted to start off too i guess one more thing sorry let me just remind everybody of the criteria that we're voting certainly just just for the record uh so we have which i'll refer to as criteria one is the quality of the proposed system and its ability to achieve the county's objectives which has a total max points of 35 criteria two is going to be the proposer's organization and staff qualifications and experience providing the solution which also has a max points of 35 and then the proposer's understanding of the scope and objectives technical approach and work plan presented had a max score of 20 points and then fourth and finally in which the committee won't be scoring because there was a formula that was provided in the terms and conditions was the uh score for the quote or total cost which had a max score of uh 10 or i'm sorry a max score of 20 points so with all that being said we wanted to go ahead all right we'll start all right thanks for the clarification so criteria one which is we're starting with 360 s2g would be quantity of the proposed system and its ability to achieve the cap objectives yeah i gave it a 24 and some of the others we just go around the room and then discuss um just based on just some of their samples they provided um not able to see them on the lap as much okay uh for criteria one i scored a 26. um their util 360 in every platform covers the majority of the uh payment solutions we're looking for um it also uh mentioned by chat chatbot then let's see um and it also looks like they were able to support real-time payment posting and reconciliation so that's why i scored a 26. well my screen just went frozen on me so if you can go to the next one until i can get connected please first one i scored on the 27. i thought it was a capable software in the util 360 platform it checks a lot of technical boxes the the web app payments the uh printing bills uh the cis integration uh sort of a 25. uh no means it wasn't a little bit higher i thought they were very comprehensive with their information um but i didn't see the ability for retail paying and that's one of the things that we're kind of looking at as well all right and i scored for this criteria i scored 25 i thought they gave a full explanation of the different components that we were trying to hit uh use though 360 again was seemed like a good solution um so it looks like we're pretty much if we look at the numbers here that would be a consensus of 25. it wouldn't except we had not heard my assault yet sorry we have to go back to that mine is 26. um looking at all the items that we listed in the rfp and what we were expecting of them to provide they they did list that they they can actually provide those services all right so again we're ranging from 24 to 27 i think 25 is a good consensus all right we're going agreement right criteria number two is proposals organization and staff qualifications and experience providing the solution i gave that a 33 um just reviewing everything it looks like they're um with their web development and their app development um as well as you know their clients and service i i just see it as a very um i scored a 28 they they demonstrated substantial organizational capacity and the personnel seemed qualified um it did not seem like there was a majority of it is a large scale utility implementation so that's why i scored 28. all right thank you marisol i actually gave them a 25 for that one um they didn't state any subcontractors in there they did put um live agent transfer they put some other stuff there but i didn't i didn't think that they actually provided all the specifics that were asked i gave them a 31 i thought they had a strong team depth they gave 13 resumes um they had 25 25 from four to 25 years of experience i need um between them um 16 years plus in business 800 employees zero lawsuits no subcontractors that they were all right i give them a 30. um i know in this day and age being international is not a big deal i saw a lot of their staff and a lot of the parts that they were working on was international um it's still a pretty good rating because in the light they do have everything in the place i gave them a 30. all right all right now i also gave them a 30 you know based on the um the number of employees that have the key uh the key uh players i guess the um seems like they have the experience and then they also have a relevant experience so we've got on our low side we've got 25 on our high side we've got 33. so let's uh talk about where are we who who ranked at 25 that would be that was me that was you okay so additional feedback that i have here um some of the features that they listed on here that they can provide are stuff that's already incorporated in our ccs system um they mentioned so this is what it's mixing features um the meter reading software to dashboard solutions for example the leader's data management to dispatch accounts for reading that was listed on their proposal that's already something that we already manage from a separate system uh so i found it a little bit confusing what they were proposing on their solutions uh because they're actually offering things that we already have available okay so i think we weren't necessarily asking for and then the 33 that was you jumping right out okay did you get your case again because i mean i could i've definitely come down because i'm not knowing you know the background of what was already there so if we uh if we look at the information provided and the scores if we went from really if we went to a 27 or 28 what is the group of those i could see a 27 27 27 it's okay all right so we have consensus of 27 yes 27 okay right the third criteria um proposers understanding of the scope and objectives technical approach and work plan presented i gave that a uh 15 um and it was just because i didn't see a lot of detail on some of the the fail plans from failure or the the qa piece i scored this one a16 they provided the detailed implementation of testing training go live um but it did look like the um transition details um were going to be finalized during implementation that's why that's part of 16. all right i gave them a 10 for the approach and plan um yes they provided details that they're available 24 7 365 days for support okay they did say 10 to 15 staff members but again their their approach and the plan for it it's a little bit confusing because they're incorporating things that we already have in place um and i i kept on noting more that they're they're offering um to feel field mobile devices to be part of it and dispatching which we know is going to be provided separately from ccf so that's the plan implementation that they have it's a little bit confused all right i scored them at 13. i thought they had an implementation plan they had a go live bay target um although i did um dock them a couple points because there was some math on 275 by the core text that they had there was some math inaccuracies in which i found so it actually the original table uh calculated the daily transactions instead of the monthly and the hourly transactions so it was a little off from what their their yearly was all right uh at sort of 15 i found a couple gaps that were mentioned uh in their plan as well um from the implementation plan i didn't feel that they fully understood exactly what we were looking for and left a couple things off the table including the redundancy of a couple things that i saw in the proposal 15. all right all right i give them the 12. um and again because of things that were lacking in the implementation plan some uh most of that so all right so we've got uh so it looks like we're uh if we look at our consensus there we're probably about the 13. are we good with that uh i can agree with that all right what was that one more time 13 13 okay second and for the fourth and final criteria uh i believe um i misspoke and i said it was worth 20 points where it's actually worth 10 points so i just wanted to correct uh what i said in the intro um so for that we had a total score of 1.22 points for the quote and total cost which brings the total uh point of valuation for 360 s2g to 66.22 points and at this point we're going to move on to the next vendor which is uh abj on inc so if you wanted to get one off all right so criteria one again is quality of the proposed system and its ability to achieve the county's objective i gave it a 30 and really everything seemed to check a lot of boxes but i just couldn't quite see the mobile app but that provided right criteria one squared a 29 um like you just mentioned they they did check a lot of boxes but um it looks like they're going to rely on multiple platforms and subcontractors so that's going to cause a lot of additional inspirations and complexity but all right i gave them a 25 and i noted the additional subcontractors um they did provide details for the other utilities that they're they incorporated the experience from but i didn't see anything local or within the florida spectrum so i gave them a 25. i gave them a 22. i just thought with the three vendor software um they don't seem to own any build anything single end end systems themselves there's a lot of different vendors involved so third party vendors etc so right great same i gave them a 25 they're too modular depending on the third party all right i also gave them a 25 for the same reason just the fact that they're um well you guys already said with their workforce they're with people that are solving the bomb storm are kind of scattered out so so uh our range there is from 30 to uh to 22 but i think a good consensus on this would be 25. all right criteria number two proposals organization and staff qualifications and experience provided a solution i gave that one at 26 and really my breakdown was i know that they i know that they could probably do the web development the app development um i just didn't see quite a lot of the overall company experience um i saw the the team members experience but not so much the company overall i also squirted 26 for basically the same thing um yeah it's majority of the experiences um that separated out between each of the vendors and not beyond itself 25 for me um and it's pretty much staying consensus with the comments that they already shared it's similar work with what i have as well all right i thought they were capable i gave my 20 um just because four of the five of their uh references were overseas and i didn't seem to track record on you doing any u.s governments all right uh i gave the 28 which i feel was a little bit high a little bit generous uh going about the documentation but i didn't notice the same thing uh so there's with especially with the references there was one that was u.s based i think like i said the other four were international 15. um again it was because there was only one one u.s project noted and again the uh the key uh the key um um executive staff um seemed good but again everything else is kind of spread out so i am willing to go up i'm willing to come down yeah yeah i felt a little i was going from 17 to 20 at one point yeah okay so uh so those were willing to go lower where are we looking at well mine was 25 so i i can go 20 or even lower than that yeah yeah i'm comfortable with 20. i think 20. all right criteria number three proposers understanding of the scope and objectives technical approach and work plan presented i gave it a 13 and i guess it's my background of just not seeing a lot of meat on the quality assurance piece well criteria three i scored with say 14. um they hadn't built implementation approach but um it looks like a lot of things were not defined so it's best for 14. okay i gave a 10. they provided a plan but it has no specific information on fla for the support so very big all right i was in the same spot i was a nine i just didn't think they had any firm dates or scheduled timelines um scored all right okay uh yeah again i rated them high against uh 15. uh and even that that was was minus five because of the the implementation plan had a little bit of vagueness in there to see as much detail as i thought i would see um so i'm definitely going to come down with that score but i had a 15. okay i had a 10. um things were not well defined that was my reasoning for that uh looking at this numbers i would say probably a consensus would be about would be 13. um do we agree on that yeah i agree all right so i'd say it's 13. now for the quote and total cost uh they had scored a 2.96 points uh which brings their total score to 60.96. the next vendor we're going to be discussing is aci payments incorporated all right so again um criteria number one is quality of the proposed system and its ability to achieve the county's objective criteria one i gave it a 25 and uh they they checked a lot of boxes they just didn't have a lot going for their um examples really i couldn't quite see their bill examples for criteria one is for the state 27. um they had a solution addressing a lot of the county's payment um checkbox sorry um but it looks like there's a lot of these solutions that require coordination between multiple platforms instead of a single identified platform um i gave them a 25. they stated 50 years of experience but it was very limited specs on their key staff for experience purposes all right i give a 24. i i thought that the joint partnerships with the multiple vendors um makes it more complex uh 25 multiple platforms and in one of the documents or one of the pdfs there was actually a note from the vendor uh questioning something that they're waiting on with regards to information from vertex so this shows a heavy heavy dependence on vertex for a lot of stuff so we have an issue with them we're also going to have the issue with them going to verdict saying hey what's going on here they're getting information and bringing it back to us so it just seems like a lot of complication on there versus a unified solution that we're trying to look for i rated them zero oh because of this statement um they said they don't use any subcontractors uh vertex one does not intend so aci doesn't use some contractors vertex one does so we've already talked we're already talking about two different solutions we are we want one contract and then they said specifically the specific payment processing print mail delivery partners for this engagement are still being finalized and with each contact directly so basically that's aci telling me they cannot provide solutions so i recommend zero what do you think there but yeah that's much lower than everyone else so we need to chat no i agree i mean i saw that the vertex one and you know obviously they're in a separate um but yeah i i was concerned with some of that as well you know i just thought that you know they they did a good job at delivering what they were saying but again i must have missed that and that i i had that back of my mind as well some of that so i would i'd lower my score because of that that's great for sure yeah all right folks so we need to come up with a number here and it needs to be uh back based on the consensus so well you laid out a good example of what they're not providing it's a key thing that we need right so i have no problem ignoring my story yeah there's a 10 too high for you jerry i i would go with the tab yeah if you guys are going to do that yeah let's go towards it all right it says yeah all right criteria two proposals or organization and staff qualifications and experience provided the solution it's going to seem fine so it's mine 33 just based on what they provided on the organization and the staff qualifications they seem to have a lot of the abilities that it's looking i scored to say 27 again they demonstrated extensive paying utilities experience public sector experience um yeah i gave a 30. um and one of the things that i pointed out here was part of that litigation question that we have um and their response was not clear regarding the preceding five years they pretty much offered us a link for us to go search it ourselves instead of providing it now mind you i understand if there's a non-disclosure but to send us off to go find it yourself i did i didn't sell to it i gave them a 20. uh i think that they you know they're an enterprise that they're they're out in 1975 i believe it was um with a lot of expertise but that joint partnership with the vertex one um just showed me that you know they're not providing that 100 you know delivery model so that's why i scored them a little lower what's your number again i gave it 25 again the information looked good but back to the multiple platforms and the support and the heavy reliance on vertex one i ranked them zero for the same reason they are not providing a solution they are saying and there's piece of the solution they said that they expect us to contract with others and then they're part of the vertex one there's not a single point of conflict that's that's laid out so i they're not providing the solution um so their experience experience they don't have experience in the full solution so i gave a zero yeah that's how it's higher than the ten what are the numbers since the numbers are 33 27 30 20 25 and zero five okay you make good points yeah well i name it over the ten just because i do believe that they have someone has experience it right all right so no consensus attack everybody in agreement yes yes yeah criteria number three proposers understanding of the scope and objectives technical approach or work plan presenting i i gave it an 18 i i felt like everything that was there but again if it's based on other companies doing it i don't know but i gave it uh for this one eight 14 they had a developed implementation and transition approach but there were um some county specific details that were not finalized during uh discovery even an 18 um they provided a plan but when it comes to the training part of that plan that's going to be provided uh for they actually said it would be provided as needed so we would have to ask for it it's not something that comes but we would expect it to be part of it with a new implementation that would be this big all right i think about 14. uh i thought they had a clear maintenance schedule but they lack some of the implementation timelines um and so i gave 15 overall overall it looked good but when you get down to the details there's lacking i rank them as zero of course for the for the reasons stated before and they're not uh they're not providing um you know when you think about scope executive technical approach and work plan they haven't finalized who's actually going to do that work plan so so a 12 on this so we're going to have consensus of 12. and for the quote in total cost uh they had a score of 0.91 which brings their total score to 32.91 the next vendor we're going to be discussing is adelaway.com right the first criteria is quality of the proposed system and its ability to achieve the county's objectives may be generous i gave it a two and and literally it just lacked a lot of detail um i'm not going to say any more too as well there was she said there was not a lot of detail i was not generous with this this was zero it was very poor submission provided nothing at all yeah i gave it a zero as well just it lacked any technical depth or anything um that zero i can speak for the room maybe a little bit i have zero going across but i don't do orders i i gave zero as well because uh no details so i i said consensus either zero or one that's a good site okay zero zero zero i could go with this beginning okay so that is zero okay okay um second criteria proposers organization and staff qualifications and experience providing the solution i gave that one a zero it did give it a zero zero yeah i gave it a zero if you even look at their website they're at delaway.com moving the transport companies something's going on okay but that's not for this meeting zero okay and i also write the zeros no real details provided so consensus is zero thank you criteria number three proposers understanding of the scope and objectives technical approach and work plan presented okay i gave it a one generous honestly i also gave it a one because they gave a yeah an implementation it's basically it was that they didn't provide an implementation okay gave zero and what did you give them a zero because they can provide an implementation plan both on what if they gave nothing else for all the other criterias there's no implementation plan really at all thank you yeah i gave it a zero there's no clear work plan no project schedule no timelines nothing that zero zero yeah any of the criteria we were looking for on the matrix all right and i gave it a zero as well because there's no there there are more real details um in that either so i can we agree the consensus of the zero on this one then as well yes okay and for the quote for cost i came in at 0.76 points uh which brings their their total score so this is a 0.76 uh the next vendor we're going to be discussing is air links international llc all right criteria number one is quality of the proposed system and its ability to achieve the county's objective i gave it a 25 and really it's just i couldn't open any of their reports i don't know of any of those there was one yeah i did yeah i swear to say 21 um they were able to describe the functionality for most of what was being requested um but it looks like the solution that they were describing was um there's mostly descriptions that demonstrating it as a solution we are talking about air to try yes that's correct and the experience no we are talking about quality of the process to answer that's the ability to achieve the kind of objectives yeah this is the next one i gave them a one okay and you're reasoning about that so the details that i have for this one company let me go down my list they have no proven record of even providing the service so that's a concern for me all in a nutshell all right yeah i gave them a 19. uh i think on paper they kind of put in all the featured feature boxes they put in that they could provide everything but it was improving and it didn't have any enterprise track record for them to be actually say that the platform i gave it 25 uh the data looked good the information looked good but yeah it was like of uh actually showing what they've done with regards to the criteria that we established all right i gave them i gave them an 18 based on uh based on it seems like they could provide it but again i didn't see you know evidence of that occurring so all right so we've got a range here from one um um and then we go 18 to 25 so our middle ground would be 20 but let's talk about the one a little more are folks willing to come down more or not going to go up definitely willing to come down yeah just due to the fact that i couldn't identify some of their you know criteria okay yeah so so basically yeah go ahead okay no i'm willing to come down all right so so based on that you said you were 19 before right so based based on that we would come down maybe to a well our kind of our middle ground there would be about an 18th so are we from here with an 18 or do we want to go a little more 15. let's see with that i love my parents all made some good points so yeah so maybe uh 18 to me is a little bit too high yeah maybe a 12 for 12. i'll be fine with the 12. do we have a consensus on that yes so we're at 12 consensus all right criteria number two proposers organization and staff qualifications and experience providing the solution at 23 and i just couldn't see any examples uh or with similar size clients um some of their experience uh with web development and app development i i just didn't see a lot there to go on uh so there's an 18 yeah they had some experience but there wasn't a whole lot of evidence of uh any full utility implementations my numbers are nowhere closest to you i have a one here um and my comments are has been in service um for a long time staff experience could be 20 years but overall experience of an organization is very limited they only have nine employees and no pool and record of utility implementation all right i gave them a 12. i mean they they claim that they had a lot of individual experience but the company was founded in 2023 um which is with the i believe there's nine people and so it's just same thing 15 i thought the support staff looked totally inadequate for what we're going to need post rfp okay um i gave a 20s um some things that impressed me were their uptime with the portal you know so that would that would impress that um but i do agree um i may have ranked them higher you know because i'm concerned also about the number of staff that would actually be supporting us i'm willing to go down we have that conversation um so again our middle ground here looks like well our one is very stupid yeah but so again we look to me it looks like we're a good consensus would be a 12 on this or anywhere from 12 to 10 to 10 to 13 is what i'm looking at but how do you guys feel with the cloud well sounds fair i was at 12 i'm fine with that one okay so we have a consensus of 12. criteria number three proposer's understanding of the scope and objectives technical approach and work plan presented i gave it a 14. um there again i didn't see a lot as far as their you know plans for failure qa um i just didn't see a lot of detail there to go on um i scored this a 13 they had an understanding of the scope but um portions of their plan um relied on future architecture decisions that they did not mention wait me because i did it fine okay and it's part of all the other reasons that i gave you could provide some documentation but does it really serve what we're looking for and does it is it appearing where it'll be successful for what we need i've got over 13. um i did see that they had an approach they had some understanding of that they seem to have understanding of the scope um i saw that silly uh as well um and uh they were specific on their or their go live date but i scored a 10. scored a 10. scored a 10. and i do apologize my notes are vague on their regard but um all right so that's that means i'm sure all right and i scored them a little bit higher instead of 15. um um but i well i feel like they could do it but again the reason why i didn't give the full points was because some of it seems like a future bill that they would do so so that would it i'm i'm definitely persuadable to bring that down um looking at the uh what our general um statements and numbers are here look i i think a consensus would be a 10 on that but i don't want to entertain your thoughts 10 12. but 10 is fine i mean it is out of 20. so um yeah 10 would be okay okay i can go to all right so we have a 10 with the consensus for that it's nice to score over time everybody in agreement and for the fourth criteria which is the quote in total cost they had a score of 0.48 which brings their total points uh for as a uh 34.48 the next firm that we're going to be discussing is blue herring consulting corporation you want to kick off criteria number one all right criteria number one quality the flow system and its ability to achieve the county's objectives i gave it a 33 it looked like everything all right i also scored a 33 um they were able to provide the integrated solution very comprehensive um and they had a lot of support examples yeah all right very good i gave them a 35 um based on what i read they provided the specs on self-service the options for customers to request water services um which is a biggie for us and other services i think they laid it out really well for us to see that they could provide the services that we're looking i gave about 27 um it looked like there's we had four different vendors that were going to integrate in the system uh with multiple handoff uh risks so that's why i actually gave them a 35 i looked through it at that point in time everything looked like it was in place uh everything i covered on the matrix was in place i thought they did a good job all right great good i gave them a 35 um again looking at the electronic bill presented a payment across every channel um all of the uh the key components we're looking for they hit they explicitly stated that they're a single point of contact for all of all of the the different um entities involved with the solution um and so it would be one contract they would be our point of contact so i thought it was very comprehensive um i thought the mirror testing and disaster recovery solutions were both solved well so all right so we've got we've got a range here of uh it looks like the middle ground there um or actually a general a good consensus would be 33 um because our lowest is 27 or 35 so do we have consensus 33 33 or higher i mean that everything i provided was good is that i'll agree with 33 this one yeah all right consensus 33 all right criteria number two proposers organization of staff qualifications and experience provided so let's see see i gave that a 33 as well everything looked pretty good i didn't have any objection i see the web development the app development it's all seems to be there that's for the 33 as well they were able to provide extensive utility focus organizational experience um but it looks like some of the experiences attributed to their subcontractors rather than phc i gave them a 34 um based on the experience and they've actually added things about ccs in there um which is our biggest billing it's a big billing system anyways um but i did i give them 34. um i i gave them a 25 and it's a little off than everybody else um i thought that bhbhc had a lot of experience i think it was like 27 years with a lot of staff but it was heavy subcontractor dependencies and um uh also they were they disclosed on one of the invoiced cloud i believe it was had a debit collection of litigation so it kind of added to some of the uh my score or debit debt sorry right that's like my bad you know i'm not getting i'm just saying i'm over there sorry i realized that what i said uh i had about 35 um some great points brought up here though in order to look at that i gave a 35 that was very detailed very comprehensive yeah um i also had a well i ended up with a a 33 um i kept going back honestly between 35 and 33 when i was scoring um but um again it seems like they have plenty of experience though they they do have subcontractors but again because they explicitly pointed out that they will be the single point of contact that that was a selling point and then when they talked about their previous implementations implementations they didn't only talk about the successes they talked about lessons learned and what how they will use that for our success so that was a big selling point for me um it looks like our consensus on this would again be a 33 um if you're willing to come back to that but you have a consensus of 33 i'm good now okay um criteria number three proposers understanding of the scope and objectives technical approach and work plan presented i gave them an 18 out of 20 and everything seemed good looking at the data flow and you haven't seen seems good so i'm good with 18 at that 20. okay i scored this a 19. they were able to demonstrate a thorough understanding of our existing environment um they were able to provide uh immigration requirements transition risks the deadline as well if 19. i gave them a 19. they provided clear slas for resolving issues of 24 7 emergency support which we appreciate that i'll tell you um and they did provide a list of possible error types and how they will handle those it seems like they have a they have a plan in place all right uh i gave them 18. i think uh they it was very strong the way they provided their um description on this one um they did actually in this one they actually uh talked about their awareness of multi-vendor failure mode nope excuse me um the the awareness of having multiple vendors integration and they had a great schedule um they had target dates and you know with this ccs well uh yeah i gave a 20 on everything i was looking for all right i like what you have a 20 and again because it seemed like they hit all at once everything so it appears the consensus on this would be a 19th court agreement i'm good with that yeah right so if it's the 19th is solid yeah okay and for the fourth criteria which was the quote and total cost they had a score of 1.92 which brings their total points awarded for this uh to 86.92 points the next vendor we're going to be taking a look at is broadridge all right criteria number one quality to post system its ability to achieve the county's objectives i gave it a 31. um from what i could see they had they have a lot of the items there um just looking at their samples and their data it seemed to be there uh i swear to say it's one to eight they did propose a comprehensive uh on the channel thing um but it looks like there was some functionality that was dependent on their subcontractor and uh some of these capabilities were more general and specific to oracle ccs i gave them a 19. um i couldn't determine similar scopes of implementation had been done before which that threw me off um and they provided most specs on customer similar services that they provided me anyway 26 uh i thought they had a strong enterprise foundation um but they did have a split partnership with their uh digital versus prints uh yeah i gave it 25. most of the information was there but there was a lack of detail in some of it i also gave it 25. um they they did um spell out that they have a single point of contact so even though they have a subcontractor or partner in there to be the main point of contact um i think some in the detailed direction so that's why i'm not for a point second 25. um so we have a range here um it looks like our uh it looks like a good consensus on this will probably be well we'll let marisol make her case a bit below but probably 27th would be a good consensus on this but are you willing to come up some or are we good with 27 of the general consensus all right all right criteria number two proposes organization and staff qualifications and experience providing a solution i gave it a 29 out of the 35 and um one of the things that they didn't get a 35 on or one of the main things was again the similar client like like she brought up is the fact that yeah everything seems like it's there but um can they handle this that was my concern um i swear to 27 um basically for the exact same reason yeah yeah i gave it a 25 and it's pretty much the cons that i gave before they they list 50 years of experience with bill print right but what else it's like it only more on that one service instead of like the overall meat yeah i gave it 25 as well it was a large corporation uh 50 years of experience it but again in print so that's where i kind of i scored it yeah 27 same reason okay all right and um i gave them a 25 so so it looks like we are at a consensus of 25 26. i'm good with that all right 25 25 yeah sounds like we all have kind of the same concerns yeah all right criteria number three proposers understanding of scope and objectives technical approach and work plan presented i gave it a 14 and again my background i just didn't see a lot of going on with the quality assurance oh i scored this a 15th they had a structured implementation but their scheduled target go out was a general date of february um and they weren't able to clearly demonstrate that they would be able to hit the february first decline i gave it a 15 a very clear plan later um yeah i gave them a 16. uh they gave an implementation plan targeting the february date um i did get the phase implementation schedule uh starting to be posted work uh 15 same thing the implementation plan and timeline sit in quite well 15 as well same same thing timelines implementation so it looks like we have a consensus agree yep right right because that's the 15. all right and for the fourth criteria which is the total cost at a score of 0.83 which brings their total score to 67.83 points the next vendor we're going to be discussing is catalyst payments llc all right criteria number one quality of the proposed system and its ability to achieve the county's objectives what i could say i gave it a 33 um everything seemed to be there when i was looking they provided good samples uh let's see uh i swear to say 30 they had a comprehensive um on-channel payment again portal communications uh but it looked like a significant proportion of the solution depended on um sew and tc delivers i gave it a 30 and the reasons for that some of the samples that they provided on the bill launcher were not clear um their sample of the portal wasn't clear for the functionality for the customers and that's our main target so it's not clear for them not that a function i scored on 28. they provided a lot of information about their digital portal their payment engine but it is split across some vendors yeah i i scored them a 30. um i thought they were very comprehensive though i was looking at 35 when i first looked through them end up changing it but even when we talk about the settlement uh files that we get at the end of every day uh in the presentation it pointed us to a portal where we were going to have to go in and grab those files out versus those files being sent out i didn't see anything about them delivering that information to us so that we can just pass it when we receive those and do what we need to do so i gave it to 27. um they do have multiple vendors but they explicitly indicated that they'll be a single point of contact so i'm okay with that um otherwise i might have ranked them a little bit lower because of um again some of the the customer present isn't right exactly where i want it to be so um so we've got it looks like we've got uh i mean 30 probably is the consensus here because the lowest is me and that's 27 i can i can come up um so if it agrees because that's 30 i'm good yeah okay that's 30. all right criteria number two proposals organization and staff qualifications and experience providing a solution i gave it a 23 and i just didn't me personally when i was looking through i wasn't seeing a lot of the web development and have development experience there uh squibus a 25 um they had some strong public sector and florida experience um but it looks like a lot of that was distributed across a few subenders i gave it a 33 they listed 20 years of experience in tampa they weren't specific about sew um but one of the things that caught my attention is that they listed city of clearwater as one of their customers city of clearwater has another vendor so it's thrown off as to why they would list them in their proposal as one of their customers but it's on somebody else's you understand what i'm saying yeah right we're not talking proposal proposal then right through some criteria well so i'll explain it this way yeah in their proposal they're listing city of clearwater as one of their customers providing the services clearwater has another vendor that provides that service so it threw me off that it's listed on their proposal as one of their customers when i know they get services somewhere else can make a comment about that i don't want to stray from protocol um the uh both of the vendors she was talking about getting a similar reference for clearwater as well the person reach out so if you see the references that were returned you may see the same the same person returning a reference okay i think because they at some point partnered with solution okay so yeah yeah they should clear that up yeah i gave them a 30 return okay i gave them 30. uh they did they were a large public sector scale and a lot of florida footprint um they had a lot of uh corporate credentials um government clients etc and i talked to slightly because the three vendor multi the three vending delivery model um rather than just native software but again um i still i gave them 30. uh staff resumes look great their organization look great the local presence was fantastic um so 30 overall okay i went back and forth between the 34 and 35 i gave them a 35. um again i think they they hit um everything that we're looking for as far as their experience multiple experience here in the state with similar utilities that's what we're looking for the uh the when we talk about some countries multiple vendors that does not concern me as much because they get explicitly said single point of contact they will they will be our contact to resolve any concerns with any of the subcontractors so all right so we've got a range from 23 to 35. that's the lowest all right so let's discuss i'm willing to go up i mean the the experience obviously within you know other entities was there you know everyone else obviously you know more on an it side so you see the web development also i'm willing to go up if everyone's comfortable all right so uh it looks like we probably did it 32 which is kind of what i was going to say an odd number that's a even number but do we have a consensus 32 all right all right all right all right criteria number three proposers understanding of the scope objectives technical approach and work plan presented plan presented i give up 14 and again my my criteria just what you know i'm trying to look at the flow of data and some of the qa pieces that was based on what i basically i suppose they do 15 they're able to provide detailed implementation but um there was some concerns with their portal and customer experience implementation um which was estimated between 32 to 34 weeks um against our go live scope 18 i had concerns regarding their implementation plan i gave them a 15. uh they actually addressed the the multi-bender where they said they're the single prime accountability and they gave a very detailed plan but i think it did um fail to have some specific dates i had an 18 the same thing there was something in their plan where they didn't have a date noted or a couple dates noted it's a little unclear yeah and i went with a 17 again some of the specificity was was missing there so that's what i'm with so it looks like we're probably solid um with a consensus of 16. oh good are we going to say 16 all right 16 is the consensus okay and for the criteria number four which is the equivalent total cost they had a score of 2.86 points which brings their cumulative total to 80.86 points the next firm we're going to be discussing is this dachshund all right criteria number one quality of the proposed system and its ability to achieve county's objectives i gave it a 34 out of 35 um everything seemed pretty good with everything they provided um i scored some 28 they were able to provide a broad in-house solution um but it does not look like there is a mobile app or live chat maybe solution i gave them a 25 and mine had the same thing and they did not develop nor maintain mobile apps um and the other features are what we asked for yeah i gave them a 26 for the same reason uh they explicitly state that they don't have a native mobile app um they did demonstrate some of the other um criteria uh but i scored 25 say they touched on the other issues they did address those but the mobile app sounds like we're hitting the same place i gave them 25 as well i mean some of the things they could hit like are really dynamically updating bills with self-serving that sort of thing it's great but missing them a lot because it's a big piece so 25 also so uh if we're to reach consensus on this i think it would probably be we come down a little from in 34 and probably about 26. and that's fine because that was my one my one comment i shouldn't support it lower based on that yeah so we're just saying 26 is the consensus 26 thank you yes we all agree all right um criteria two proposers organization and staff qualifications and experience providing a solution i gave that one a 16. um and the reason is again i'm just not seeing a lot of the development there um experience with epa i just didn't see a lot from uh yeah let's say 25 they were able to demonstrate utility experience um but it looks like some of the key implementation personnel or not assigned i gave it a 25 and they 25 years of experience but not much provided on their chase um payment tech which they listed as the payment provider um yes they have experience with the whole watering utility or authority and all that but i'm based on that in the limited i gave them over 25. i gave my 26 uh then being in business 25 years uh with the extensive utility experience um uh had some direct work force they had some they talked about some of their project management team like sandra like i did see some i gave a 20 for docs on my head issues with the you know back to the implementation timeline and the details and how they presented there i gave it the 20 also the reason it was different different um mostly because they um they do have an integrated partnership with with chase um but they but i didn't have the details for that so i'm not as comfortable with what's going on there so all right so we've got if we look at our range here and look at the the justifications provided it looks like we're probably at a 23 for consensus so good with that i can agree with that all right 23 is consensus okay okay criteria number three proposers understanding of the scope and objectives technical approach and work plan presented even a 17 um and just some of the technique from what i can see on the technical side i just didn't see some pieces there um that i would have looked for some of the data flow models so uh square say 16 um pretty similar to that um the implementation schedule seemed pretty high level i gave it a 15. uh the plan was not clear or us slas to address errors or issues um i didn't see the the samples that they provided to they didn't provide like unserved availability on that and i know we have that as one of the key things so i gave them a 15 based on what i saw them provide i gave them 15 as well well i thought that they did have some points in their outline but they did not um any concrete um part of schedules or explicit confirmations of the local updates uh 15 as well wasn't specific on there all right and i gave 15 as well because they were lacking details but it sounds like the consensus on this would be a 15 yes all right all right uh the score for criteria number four which of the quote total cost was 0.58 points which brings their cumulative total to 64.58 points at this point that was nine nine out of the 19 firm uh we're about hour into the meeting if you guys wanted to take a break or we can keep uh you know trucking through it whatever one you prefer i think i'll raise my hand when i'm ready for a break i'm speeding i'm sure jerry i'm still good for sure unless you want to break on this i'm good yeah but when i need a break i'm like let's go all right perfect we'll keep pushing that the next vendor we're going to be taking a look at is influx media incorporated right criteria number one quality of the proposed system and its ability to achieve the counties of jackass i gave it a 28 um materials provided seem good um some of the electronic pieces uh global lab i i dinged them on that just because they they it didn't have what i was looking at other people could have a different opinion as far as the 29 um they did have a pretty comprehensive solution um i did mention a local ccs uh but it looks like a lot of the components relied on partners i gave them a 15. um the specific details on services were limited in school for you i gave a 20. uh i thought they have a comprehensive feature list but i didn't see some of that visual proof with the screenshots there was some heavy uh um subcontractive subcontractive model as well i gave a 20 of some minimal information but yeah i gave them a 10. i thought their details were very light you know it's not really making me confident in their solution so that's a range yeah i mean disagree yeah and i'm willing to come up to a 15 or 17 on mine but uh but we have some high ends the 20 and the 29 so what are your thoughts i can come down that's good come down to visit a lot of the things you mentioned or so 17 are we comfortable with that consensus company 17. oh it's gonna say 15. how do we feel about this team i'm good with that i i have very specific pieces that i put number based on so and i'm seeing that they're they're low in some of those spots so i'm good with the 15. yeah right consensus all right 15 for criteria one yeah excuse me criteria number two proposers organization and staff qualifications and experience providing the solution i gave it a 19 um reason is it's just some of the concern with um similar size clients uh and no real i just i i have a note on here no real utility experience so 19 basically the the same thing notated there's limited past performance let's say 19 or 18. uh 19 19. okay thank you you all went way high i went way low i put five 16 years in service but the scope of water utility appears to be very limited right let's go to 16. uh i just thought the team depth was not there i scored a 20 which is apparently high i was being generous you do i can definitely have diversity yeah on these points lower than yeah yeah yeah and mainly i might i might have gone too low at a zero wow um just because it's similar i don't see similar experience right yeah so i'm definitely willing to that way to bring that up so uh so um if we're looking at a consensus here we probably would be about a 10. i'm good with that because it sounds like we all had that concern of yeah the lack of utility experience in particular okay all right that's just ten everybody in agreement i agree thanks all right criteria number three proposers understanding of the scope and objectives technical approach and work plan presented hey but 12 out of 20. um but i i wasn't seeing a lot of meat and some of the plans for failures and that sort of thing so that's that really weighed on my score uh i gave it 15. again um somewhere they they had a very aggressive 17-week schedule i gave it a five specific details of services are limited in scope the implementation plan is not in depth slas are not specific or noted in handling errors and issues not identified i gave him a 13. i think they did uh specify dates uh but there were some things that were just weren't clear yeah i gave it 12 and i gave a five again for the same reasons the details i don't think we're really there right um so our consensus on this would it looks like it would be a 10 or 11 or 11 11 11 census on that that is there i'm going to say 10. you're going to say 10. yeah and i'm going to go 10 and well absolutely all right because that's 10. uh the quote and total cost for criteria number four was 3.05 points and that brings influx media incorporated uh combined uh points to 38.05 next vendor we're going to be taking a look at is kubra data transfer all right criteria number one quality of approval system its ability to achieve accountings objective i gave it a 33 the materials provided it seemed like i had a lot of the criteria i scored to say 30. they did have a pretty comprehensive solution but um it looks like the customer engine portal are threaded through a partnership rather than with their own native platform i gave it a 30. i had concerns about their portal my expectation of looking at what they listed as provided is that they would have more end-depth providing that service as opposed to just leaving it free willy-nilly i gave them 30. yeah i gave it 32 uh enterprise system um i felt like they had uh good examples 30 as well about the purple system was it was solved overall okay um i gave them a 30. again my concerns were the hometown hub um you know exactly what the the partnership is there on that um and some of the presentation on that but it was 30. so it looks like we're probably at a 32 as far as our consensus okay all right criteria number two proposes organization of staff qualification i mean and experience providing a solution i gave it a 24 and just um and i didn't make a note on this but just some of the similar size clients i scored a little bit lower um as well as some of the experience i looked through um i scored it a little bit lower i scored it 28. um they did have utility industry experience um but it looks like portions of the solution were based on their partner again i gave it a 30. yeah they listed 30 years of experience 250 utilities experience but they were not specific on their subcontractor again i don't have any issues in their subcontracting them but i would have liked to hear a little bit more of the experience of that subcontractor i gave it 32. uh they have you know a lot of experience um 600 plus employees utility clients uh i i noted that they they put in there there was zero subcontractor dependencies but again if you didn't find that then i might i don't know if i missed that so yeah it's called hometown oh hometown okay well i i had the hometown hub on there but i wasn't sure that was actual subcontractor they indicated that they said there was no subcontractor they've used explicitly in it i gave it 25. i love the structure and the organization and the flow all look great uh i found it odd though that they said that they couldn't give personal give resumes because it was personal information for their employees i just today's world i've never heard of that so i gave them a 25. that's my main reason too when i have the loaner scores or their experience i'm like how do we have them like yeah it's a work experience why is that so private i gave them a 20. again part of it was because um they say they have a lot of right a lot of experience and a track record you know how much of that is verifiable around but i put them as a 20 so i was the low man of stuff um right so we've got it looks like we've got we would have a consensus on this uh would be 27. are we comfortable with that folks want to go a little higher lower i want to go higher okay just for that reason that it seemed like just because you say you have experience but don't demonstrate it it's a concern for me so you want to go higher no no no i mean what what was your 27 27 27 no no 27 is good i wouldn't go higher oh would you go higher i can search you okay um so did the group is 27 i'm just right yes all right so 27 is our consensus on that okay criteria three proposers understanding of the scope and objectives technical approach and work plan presented i gave it a 17 out of 20. um everything seemed pretty good there the qa piece could have been a little bit more detailed but i could i swear to 17 as well they seem to demonstrate a strong understanding of the technical and operational requirements i gave them an 18. they provided a plan they did give um example a timeline and they gave samples of what they would provide i gave me 18 as well i felt like they gave a detailed input input detailed plan and uh proof of concept testing and so i scored an 18. 18 as well i thought they probably understood the scope and a couple gaps but they what they were proposing i give them the 19. i thought that they did a good job of explaining what they're going to do so it sounds like our consensus then would be an 18 on this that works all right 18 consensus for criteria number four which is the equivalent total cost uh kubra data transfer had a score of 0.91 points which brings their cumulative total to 77.91 points uh the next vendor we're going to be discussing is neuma want to kick it off uh criteria number one quality of the proposed system and its ability to achieve the county's objectives i gave it a 17 and it was just some of the materials they provided didn't didn't provide a lot to me just say that much so i wasn't as confident it must have been there materials uh squared it's 23. they did provide rod functionality um but it lacks the normal app yeah i gave it a 15. um they provided like samples of one sample out of the several samples that we asked for uh and i did have concerns with the app not being available which is something that we wanted that's cool i started with 20. i think they gave a you know multi-channel suite um but it did lack the the native mobile app actually we have a 25 but for some reason my notes i missed the that they about the mobile app support so definitely nothing i just i gave them a minute oh sorry oh i i gave them 20 i thought they'd provide some dissolutions but again there were things missing yeah okay um so it looks like uh if we're gonna resist on this we probably would be 18 to 20 range so what are your thoughts i mean i would be at the lower end of that and only because yeah my notes here are the mobile app is one of them and the fact that i'm sorry it's pretty basic when you ask a question to say provide two samples of this and provide a sample of that and you don't it just means attention to detail is lacking so i agree so we have a consensus of 18. all right yes right criteria number two proposers organization and staff qualifications and experience providing the solution i mean for that i gave it a 29. everything seems there i was a little concerned with some of the years of experience as well as similar clients which is one of my best score now from a very fine i swear this is 26. we did have inherited public sector experience but um it is really consolidated right gave it a 20. um based on this yes they provided these of the sarasota county and some of the other locations and providing service um it was a little bit big when it came to the service stuff that they were providing uh i don't know it's not good i gave it 22. um they talked about a real high volume um but there are some there was a merger that went on recently and it's it's just you know stuff about 25. that's a good one 25 again um seems like that is the screen but how much of that is there all right so um we've got we've got a low of 20 i have 29 and then our general range here is 26 to 25. it looks like a consensus would be 23 but i think i know you were low there it's also what's your thought i'm fine with the 23. okay i'm willing to go down to the 23 and only because it sounds like we all had that concern and the fact that i even had it noted on there with numbers number of value um i think we're willing to go down consensus to 23. all right criteria number three proposers understanding of the scope and objectives technical approach and work plan presented i gave it a 13 out of the 20. um and again just i i feel like i always need more details on some of the plans for failure quality assurance that's what i think uh i gave it a 16 they did have a demonstration of understanding the environment um but their implementation plan was pretty aggressive i gave them a five provided a plan that was limited so provided one sample of a bill it does not reflect uncircum uh compatibility um the slas with uh timing to address errors or issues was not visible yeah i gave them a 16. uh i did think that they did give a structured milestone on the work plan but there were some things that were lacking there um uh 15 percent and i gave them a 10 again i brought them down because i thought they were lacking in some of the details in the queue so it looks like uh now our five and our 10 are our low ones um but it looks like our consensus with them are probably about 12. with that i mean it sounds like we all had an issue with just the lack of detail and some of the money yeah right are you going with 12. yes the word of 12. uh for the quote and total cost criteria number four uh for pneumo was a 0.61 and that brings their cumulative total to 53.61 points uh the next vendor we're going to be discussing is origin utility incorporated okay criteria number one quality of the proposed system and its ability to achieve the county's objectives criteria one i gave it a 33 out of 35 um materials provided all seem to be there the the connection with oracle was there let's go this a 30. um they had a strong ccf immigration um but it looks like their bike chat is still in beta i'm sure when that would actually be going planned i gave it a 20. the payment channel does not mention pay by sex or other specific channels um so that was a little bit limited considering that we're trying to increase it for our customers um they reference sure bill as a current provider but does not provide specifics on the requirements listed in our rfc i gave them that 20. okay oh yeah i gave them 32. uh i felt like they had a fully integrated enterprise platform and they gave a lot of visual proof uh 25. i wasn't confident with again the second one with the reconciliation files they don't want to deliver uh the user the user must go grab those and pull them from them it just creates a hitch for us on our on our side as the customer so 25. um i give them a 25 i brought them down some because um again so they they have a proposed solution but it's not it's not ready it's not where we need it to be um that was one of my main things that some other um we're kind of missing election 12. so the 20 was our low um putting putting that aside we would be at probably a consensus of 27 but marisol how what are your thoughts so it's 27 you said 27 but i'm willing i'm willing to say it's just 25. i'll be fine yeah i'm okay with 25 and hearing the clear points definitely yeah i'm okay obviously that's a sticking point so i'm i'm good with that all right because that's the 25 okay criteria number two proposers organization and staff qualifications and experience providing the solution i gave it a 21 out of the 35 um and again i just some of their development pieces scored a little bit lower for me i scored this one a 28. they had oracle specific experience um it does look like their payment volume was pretty modest i gave them a 20. um yes they provided two decades of experience but the specifics of the vendor being used and all that and and other specifics on their experience was not their 20. they were 29. uh showed that they were a large operation in 2004 had a lot of uh county utility clients um and they didn't mention any type of subcontractors yeah 25 i believe when we look through the references they didn't have anyone uh as large as we are or close to it so i was a little skeptical about their abilities to deliver what about um i gave it a 25 just based on what they had laid out for their experience um so it looks like our consensus there we're everyone's in the 20 so and looking at this it would be a 25 i think would be a good consensus on this great great okay i agree criteria number three proposers understanding of the scope and objectives technical approach and work plan presented i gave that one a 12 out of 20 and again i i just like more detail on some things and um plans for failure um kind of seemed a little bit low okay i swear to say 15 it had a strong oracle focus implementation but the schedule itself was pretty basic i gave it a 10 they provided a plan but the information was pretty much generalized um they reference sure bill which we know is our current vendor um but some of the stuff that they provided it's reflecting on what we currently have not reflecting on the additional stuff that we're asking yeah i gave them a 15 um i felt like they they addressed a lot of the directly on some of the requirements but it was kind of vague as well uh 15 as well uh for all things there being all right i also gave them 15 same reasons there was there's detail so um we do have some variation but i think it looks like a good uh consensus on this would still be at 15. what was the low to high if the low was 10 the high was 15. we do with 15 is consensus i'm i'm good with 15. yeah i'm good with 15. all right consensus for criteria number four the quote the total call say a score of 1.20 so for origin utility incorporated their cumulative score was 66.2 i think i'm going to break now okay all right sounds good uh with that being said uh we'll go ahead and we'll meet at 10.02 so we'll give you a five minute break all right thank you all for holding uh everybody can see us all right so taking a look at this we just got done uh scoring origin utility incorporated so the next vendor that we're going to be uh discussing is paymentus corporation so we're going to kick off with criteria number one and continue same way we have them criteria number one quality of the proposed system and its ability to achieve accounting's objectives i gave that a 23 out of the 35 um just some of the things i saw were their electronic samples didn't seem to really catch my attention they seemed a little bit lacking uh scored a 25 similar to that they also um mentioned that live chat is currently a roadmap functionality i gave them a 25 um examples of pretty much the self-service portal mentions nothing on service requests customers can submit for water services it doesn't include a mobile app instead of the browser-based portfolio mobile device um so i gave them that score yeah i i gave them uh 23 uh technically there was some pieces missing yeah 25 they did not get all the objective that we had laid out uh the majority of them um i gave them a 23 some of the details i mean like for example they said they had build a redesign but i didn't see details about it you know other things as well they said confirmed but not the details regarding that um so it looks like we're at a consensus of 25 good with that yeah okay 25 okay consensus to 25 criteria number two criteria criteria number two proposers organization of staff qualifications and experience providing the solution i gave that one a 30 out of the 35 um one concern i had i don't know if anyone else caught this is just their experience a lot of their experience seems to be based with smaller utilities not a larger scale utility such as hillsborough uh scored at 829 but the exact same thing yeah the same thing 29 yeah i gave it 29 for the same reasons 25 same reasons and i gave them the third before the same reasons okay so our consensus there looks like it would be a 29 i'm good with that you agree 29 criteria number three proposers understanding of the scope and objectives technical approach and work plan presented i gave that one a 17 out of the 20. um everything seemed good for me they had a good plan for failures or at least in my opinion um their qa but there again i think i scored a 17. they did have a pretty strong implementation plan um but the schedule itself was it was deferred he gave it an 18 they provided a plan but the timeline was very vague for the number of features being implemented yeah yeah it was 16. uh i felt like they provided an implementation plan but they were submitting uh yeah 18 implementation timeline detail latin all right it looks like i scored in the highest i gave him a 19. um but again i'm willing to go down but i think they hit most of the points just so um so it looks like we're at 17 or 18. what's the consensus here because we're we're pretty solid at the same place we've got 17 and 18 is where most of us are at i was close to that score so whatever the consensus yeah i'm good with that 17. okay we'll go with that consensus consensus 17. okay uh for the quote total cost they had a score of 4.1 and for paymentus corporations uh cumulative score they have received a 75.1 points in total the the next vendor we're going to be taking a look at discussing is sierra lustra uh llc go ahead and go all right criteria number one quality of the proposed system and its ability to achieve the county's objectives i think that one is 16 out of the 35. uh honestly it was hard to follow their samples it seemed like screen this sounds weird it seems like screenshots were not aligned with the descriptions so if i had to dig and find what their their details are it it knocks it down in my opinion because i just couldn't find some of them i scored to say 14 they had a a pretty broad solution but it seemed like substantial functionality was going to be developed during implementation and some of the subcontractors have not even i gave them a five because of the contractors um and the limited on the scope of that but i also added in here for example the bill sample provided is very plain the consumption graph history is unacceptable because they look like they just put something in there with no numbers or anything no visual color or even on cert availability yeah i think in the tooth i just died a functional enterprise platform um and it was relying completely on subcontracting for everything i just there was it just wasn't very clear to me yeah i gave them 10 build the presentment of everything all the samples were just uh acceptable even zero the attention to detail is lacking the bill samples are set back from where we are instead of going forward um and again it doesn't seem like they have a solution built um they refer more to professional certification rather than platforms that are already available so i gave them a zero so we've got a range but it's all low i guess i was generous yeah i mean i i would be willing to go up to a five but i i'm open for conversation i will not go any higher than a five yeah five is fair five is fair five is fair based on what i saw did you give them a zero i'm willing to do a three i had a five but i'll need it in the middle so i've been i was at a two so are you okay to go up to a five so we'll have a consensus on the code with depth right criteria one score of five criteria two proposers organization and staff qualifications and experience providing the solution again i gave that one a 16 out of the 35 i don't know if that's generous um some of their experience and especially the similar client experience is lacking for me um that that was a huge one plus it was just really difficult to find the details in there most whatnot i give this one a 12 um pretty pretty similar um there was a lack of uh individual technical experience i'm sorry john oh sorry that was uh it was a 16 okay i didn't write it down that's 16 12 okay thank you they gave it a 10. they listed 10 years of experience with software development 12 years of aerospace and no specifics on water utility um and then the other part that that hit here they listed intents to partner with established credit card authorization services and payment processing providers to deliver the full scope of this rfp then they put proposed subcontractor relationships will be disclosed in the qualifications section it wasn't even provided for me i give it two uh it looked like it was a single person developer with uh no utility experience and i just there's no real organization that aren't there you know that really wasn't very clear yeah i gave it 10 but that was generous i gave a zero um for the reason statement and also a big red flag for me was when they listed their references their first reference was himself um then after that the other references they had they had names and what they had achieved but um it's it looked like they they did placeholders and then they're not finalized before they sent it over to us they had things such as manager name and email app and then company name that attention to detail is a big red flag for me so that is a zero but so we've got a range from 16 to zero and i'm not willing to go about zero no i will go ahead well i am definitely willing to come down from my generous 16 um it sounds like everybody spotted the same things i spotted so um but the lack of detail um you know when you have to dig for information and it's not clearly presented i you know it's a it's a lot all right so what's the number of folks would be comfortable with this five i'm i'm good with five based on my notes i'm good with a five all right consensus of five yeah criteria two all right criteria number three proposers understanding of the scope and objectives technical approach and work plan presented i might be generous i did say a 10 out of the 20 um again no real details there were items there that you know they provided details but not enough i think the score is more i guess uh 10 as well for the exactly exactly to give a five implementation plan lack scope and process yeah i give it a two again uh i just didn't think anything was clear and digging through i i don't need to dig through a bunch of generic information right it was nothing was specific yeah yeah uh very generic generally gave my 10 to open to lowering again the zero again the reference for ability to build solutions but more so than existing solutions so i get i give them a zero so i'm willing to move on a five which would want to i'm willing to go down just it just seems like everybody had the same consensus that there's just not a lot of detail there's a lot of a lot like we have consensus of five yes all right all right consensus five all right uh for criteria number four the equivalent total cost uh sierra lustra llc a score of 2.2 which brought their cumulative total to 17.2 points the next vendor we're going to be discussing is smart energy water criteria number one quality of the proposed system its ability to achieve the county's objectives given a 24 out of 35 um just some of their samples seemed a little mixed up to me um and again attention to detail they only provided one paper sample as opposed to the two that we asked for so you know following directions is as big in my score is a 27 um they had a a comprehensive platform um that did look like it relied on third-party influence and additional cost for reporting functionality i gave them a 25 um the sample bill of they provided was a parse and the others they do not show any on-site availability um specifics about the customer portal does not include self-service for water services or anything like that or even mentioned consumption water details i gave them a 24. um i think they indicated they had like a robust feature set but there was a lot of marketing jargon i was like all right you know and and again they talked about some of these other vendors yeah i gave a 25 on first look through i thought it was very comprehensive but then going back to the executive summary was even lacking some of the information that that was supposed to be conveyed through that part um but yeah 25. okay um they did mention that they were a single they were receiving appointment contact so i didn't give them i gave them credit for that um but again some of the the details that i was looking for were lacking so i gave them a 25. so it looks like i have a pretty cell phone that's 25 for this very good it says 25 yes okay right here number two proposers organization and staff qualifications and experience providing the solution i gave that one a 26 out of the 35. um the one concern i had or at least from my notes is i did i didn't see any similar size clients in their presentation i gave this a 28. um they had some utility industry experience um but it looks like the majority of the solution relies on their subcontractor i gave them a 30. um it provided like staff experience but it was pretty much vague for the rest of it i gave them a 26. uh it felt like they had a large global footprint that i guess they were establishing that in 2012 had a lot of utilities um but they're some of it was just lacking some of the things as well yeah i gave a 30. i thought the bay the organization had the qualifications that it needed but it's looking right i gave them a 25. again they have some pieces that appear to be missing so um we've got some highs of 28 um to 30 lows of 25 to 26. so i think a general consensus would be 27 but what is the correct thing i'm okay i'm okay with that yeah yeah 27 consensus thank you criteria number two criteria number three proposers understanding of the scope and objectives technical approach and work plan presented i gave that one an 18. everything i saw i checked my glasses i also scored this in 18. um they didn't provide a detailed implementation it looks like the county specific schedule was subject to confirmation i gave them a 15. they provided a plan um a visual of a timeline but it's pretty much simple yeah i gave them a 14. i think they they gave an implementation plan but there's all that fluff in there they just had to read through and just try to figure it out 16. big implementation plan big sauce um i gave them a 15. kind of the same race i have a note here that their analytics seem strong but um so that was maybe i might sort of lower that one there i don't know but i gave them i gave them a 15 overall so it looks like we're hitting a general consensus here of 15 or 16. so i would probably propose a 16 for that to the group that's fair i can break the consensus okay 16. okay and for criteria number four the quote total cost uh smart energy water had 0.62 points which brings their cumulative total to 68.62 points the next vendor we will be discussing is sprite getting with criteria number one criteria number one quality of the proposed system and stability to achieve the countings objectives i gave that one a 32 out of the 35 uh everything seemed everything in my opinion seemed pretty good i looked at their mobile app i thanked him a little bit on that but um everything was pretty good uh again a 31 similar um they had an utility focused customer engagement solution and with a strong Oracle integration us gave them a 33 um they provided multiple options which i really like because they looked like they were touching separate things to meet whatever the needs were so they're giving us options um and then they provided several water customer examples with high accounts in florida it was 33. yeah okay i thought their course offer them spring engage um but there was a lot of multi-amended complexities so same i gave a 28 relying on multiple partners you can tell me your score again correct 32 okay i can't read my handwriting so um i gave them a zero i gave them a zero because they um specifically for their wording sprite one is proposed in a partner approach we anticipate that each selected vendor will contact contract directly with accounting so and we're looking for a single contract we're not looking for uh different different points of contact so yeah so we can have the conversation but oh it definitely does we're not going to separate contractors yeah i can i can go down to zero on this point the RFP clearly identifies that we don't have a problem with subcontractors as long as there's one entity that's responsible for that agreement that's the question that question was also answered in the q&a period it was asked and answered and our intention is one contractor and we reiterated the language and our fee about subcontractors so my stand is still a zero but did they answer that on a multiple spots or what's that i don't recall but this is the exact language that they that they put we anticipate that selected vendor will contract into like that each selected vendor will contract directly with accounting yeah i was really concerned about that as well i mean i didn't specifically what you would say like you know the whole multi-vendor complexity again you know once i hear that especially with their response to it that puts it down i mean how do you score of anything at that point if you're not that you wouldn't request it right right so i'm saying zero but i'm you have consensus zero or do we want to move on the number you can move to a zero yeah yeah at that point absolutely i can't say that yeah if i'm if i'm requesting they follow direction yeah zero all right consensus is zero yeah yeah all right so zero on that okay criteria number two proposers organization and staff qualifications and experience providing a solution well if we're going just by that description i gave a 32 based on criteria number two back that question just because a lot of the details are there for them i can't answer for their contractors okay i gave this a 31 because the utility industry experience i gave them a 33 um they provided staff experience and provided details about the experience in general i gave my 20 um i thought sprite point themselves were established in 2008 with some decent experience but again there it was confusion on their account management and who's ultimately responsible like if something breaks like that was really confusing to me 25 so i didn't have a clear structure with all the vendors and all the partners and i scored them to zero because we're talking about their organization experience providing a solution and they're expecting us to contract with underbenders they are not providing a solution so i scored them to zero yeah let's just have a discussion there because you have to be a bit of a spread yeah yeah so i guess if i'm looking at criteria two i still stay high because it's proposers organization and staff qualification so their proposed organization to me meets that criteria whether or not you know when you look at question one being you know do they have the ability to achieve the county's objectives if our objective is a single vendor then yes that would be the zero and then in my opinion criteria two doesn't specify do they need to kind of it's just do they have basically the qualifications which according to their proposal they do you know separating that from the from the other ones all right well my thought based on that is i'm willing to come up to maybe a 20 which is very high from a zero but it's right but i'm not able but i'm not i'm not going to go up into the up in the 30s or some of them the 20 was exactly where i was at i mean to your point you know spreadplay themselves right our established company right and you know i'm just experiencing that like from criteria right so right we're talking specifically about correct i can move to 20. i can go to a 20. 20 is good because that's the 25. please don't schedule that thanks criteria number three proposers understanding of the scope and objectives technical approach and work plan presented grows a new branch into do they understand but i in that one and i'll just skip what i had which was a 16 out of the 20 and it was just really the qa piece not being detailed enough for me the quality assurance i scored a 16 as well um they had a structured implementation but it was going to require coordination between multiple partners i gave them a 19 provided specs and training transition i gave 11 uh i i thought it was kind of generic kind of marketing text and um some of the responses be smart and clear for me uh i had given them a 16. um i had given them a zero for the reason stated before um however looking through it i i did see that they had um you know it looks like they they have the ability but they're working but they're saying that they're working with their partners so again if they tell me that those partners are not selected and we'll have to contract with them i'm not going to be concerned but i am going to change mine from a zero to a 15 off the front here based on the statement of criteria yes based on the statement i think that's fair so it looks like our consensus then would would be a 16 are we 16 as a consensus all right 16. okay for criteria number four the equivalent total cost uh they had a 2.82 points which brings spy points cumulative total to 38.82 points the second to last vendor we're going to be discussing is tyler technologies incorporated beginning with criteria number one criteria number one quality of the proposed system and its ability to achieve the county's objectives i gave that one a 32 out of the 35 um everything was pretty much there um a little bit lower on their mobile app i swear to say 29 they were able to provide a ccs integrated platform but it does look like live chat was not i gave them a 30 live chat is not included in there um they have no app mobile the mobile browser option there and they reference apple pay and nothing else along with no no live chat yeah i gave a 31 i didn't get the live chat part of it but i i did see that they are well suited for a ccs integration um and i felt that technically they were for sure uh 25 in the live chat and uh uh no retail bank ability yeah and i gave it 25 for the same reason uh some of those payment options are missing and they specifically said that black channel is not included so i gave them 25. so um we've got we do have a range here it looks like um it looks like our consensus would be 30 but we've got a few highs and lows in that do we agree or do we want to talk about that more um i'm willing to go down and even lower than the 30 based on the payment options because obviously that's literally what this rfp is so i mean if that's a concern with the payment options like i said email being on the payment side and hearing it hearing your concerns uh definitely good so do we move it down farther to uh 25 27. i'm going to go to the type i'm going to have an incident census thank you all right criteria number two proposed organization and staff qualifications and experience providing the solution i gave that one a 25 out of the 35 um just some of their development experience i wasn't seeing it um that may just be my opinion but that and then also um similar similar clients i i scored it a little bit lower i scored a 28 for the same reason i gave it a 25 and i noted the same reasons yeah i have a 30 uh large company with uh large public sector banking um 7 600 employees they said they claimed 1000 government uh clients but you know there was a there was a minor uh litigation that they had that i gave them a 25 because it's already synceded i gave them a 25 also for the experience that we've already discussed um so we've got our hot we've got several 25s we've got have our highs of 28 and 30. 25 all right consensus of 25 okay criteria number three proposers understanding of the scope and objectives technical approach and work plan present i give that a 14 out of the 20 um just based on the overall it was it was there but um some of the details could be better let's go say 16. they had a good understanding of the ccs environment but the uh the implementation timeline was it doesn't look like it's further committed i gave it a 13th provided a plan but needed a little bit more of me to be specific with the implementation process yeah even the 16th um they talked about the target dates but there were some minor things that scoreless that's 16. no there you're good right yeah and uh 15 also target dates on the implementation so um so if we're looking at these we're pretty solid at a 16th or consensus agree with that and great 16th for criteria for their quote and total cost was a score of 1.27 points which brings tyler technologies incorporated uh cumulative total to 67.27 plus uh last but definitely not least is vertex one beginning with criteria you know criteria one quality of the proposed system and its ability to achieve the county's objectives i give that one a 28 out of the 35 but i mean pretty much everything that they showed me was pretty good other than i i didn't see any print examples so again you know if they if they don't provide what we ask it brings it down in my opinion uh square said 28 they had a pretty robust customer engagement platform looks like it had strong work deliberation as well um but for the exact reason even though i give it a 30 same exact reasons they provided details of services or anything but key and specific to what the need is i didn't see that's not oh yeah i'll give them a 30. i hope they have a strong strong strong points and which was using as well 25 it was good overall but i think a lot of uh a few of the specifics that we were looking for before missing i i ranked them a zero in this criteria um we had some conflicting statements about their their subcontractors and specifically vertex one does not intend to use any subcontractors for the pro solution the specific payment processing and print now delivery parties first engagement are still being finalized and with each contract and directed with the county we're not looking for separate contracts so we need so i guess they're not delivering a solution based on that and that is part of our school yeah i do have a note here that says that they were you know they were relying and they're not going to need and then um solutions so yes i did just make sure that as well so they specifically mentioned contracting with the carrier that's it yeah i'm sorry vertex one does not intend to use any subcontractors for the proposed solution the specific payment processing and print made mail delivery partners for this engagement are still being finalized and we each contract directly to the cabinet so print so payment it's a three-piece solution and print a mail that's two-thirds of the solution right and we would contract with someone separately for that so this is a zero that's the reason for a single yes for example single contract to cut touch all the lagging i have no issue going to that just based on literally do they have the ability to achieve the county's objectives if they don't so i'm still saying a zero do we have a consensus order if we're using that if we use that for what's a sprite point yeah it's only all right so zero the consensus on it great big criteria number two proposed organization and staff qualifications and experience providing the solution based solely on right here i gave it a 30 out of 35. based on everything i saw i believe that they definitely have the qualifications they were just a couple a little bit with um some of the epay but i do believe that they 30 out of 35 based on criteria two i scored this a 30. um they had some some good utility sector experience but it does look like the exact implementation team would not be confirmed until afterwards i gave it a 30 based on what they provided for experience and the list of the different utilities that they've implemented services for but dinged them on the other parts that were missing yeah i gave a 31. uh it's probably they had a water utility presence and experience 30 years of business uh they talked about 75 million customers nationwide okay uh 25 yeah and see information on the support team i was um inclined to go with a zero again but i will automatically change my score now i will go with the 30 based on simply this criteria and what they're presenting as far as experience so it looks like we have a consensus of 30. i'm okay with that i can do that that's all okay 30 consensus criteria number three proposes our understanding of the scope and objectives the technical approach and work plan presented i gave that a 19 out of the 20 independent of criteria one just their understanding of the scope and objectives technical approach 19 out of 20. i think that they pretty solid in some of their i swear i would say 16. they did have a structured implementation but their final schedule um was reliant on county and third-party resources they gave it an 18. they provided a plan um details in there but again some other details were missing and a part of what we need for the implementation they gave a 16. um i think that they had a track runner of um they did say no they're again the dependency that third-party payment vendor selection would be uh 17. we're playing with solid but the uh yeah the support structure i will give them the 16. um and yeah they there's some pieces missing but all right so it looks like um if we're looking at a consensus we would be at 17. okay with 17. i'm good with seconds right all right 17 for that all right 17 for criteria three uh now for the quote and total cause vertex one didn't have the lowest quote uh so that gives them the maximum score of 10 points for the criteria number four uh this brings their cumulative total amount of points to 57 points and at this time that was the the last uh proposal that we're going to be discussing today so i just like to go back through of the committee score and you know after i provide that subtotal for each of the firms and i'll just say agree um you know whether or not you do agree with the final scoring or not and uh starting with the very first firm we discussed today which was 360s2g uh we had a total of 66.22 points which gives them a rank of eight we all in agreement that was three great great okay the second firm we were looking at was uh abjr inc uh which had a total score of 60.96 we all agree much yes all right and that brought their rank to 11th uh thirdly we had eci payments uh which had a total score of 32.91 going agreement yes right and their rank was 17. yeah uh then we had adelaway.com uh which had a total score of 0.76 points which came from their total cost uh that ranked them 19th are we all in agreement yes uh air links international i had a total score of 34.48 we own agreement all right that uh brought their rank to 16. then we had blue herring consulting corporation uh they had a total score of 86.92 points on agreement yeah their rank is number one uh then we had uh broadridge uh broadridge had a total cumulative score of 67.83 points we own agreement yes all right and then that brought their rank to sixth then we had catalyst payments llc their cumulative total score cumulative total score was 80.86 points we own agreement yes thank you it's uh their rank would be second catalyst we had doxum doxum had a cumulative total score of 64.58 points we own agreement yes and that brought their rank to 10th and we had influx media incorporated their total score was 38.05 points you know agreement yes thank you that's uh brought their rank to 15th during influx media we had cubra data transfer ltd their total cumulative score was 77.91 points in agreement yes that brought their rank to third now we have uh neumo neumo had a total cumulative score of 53.61 points in agreement yes uh their rank was 13th okay then we had origin utility uh incorporated their total total cumulative score was 66.2 points so we all in agreement yes uh their rank was ninth um then we had paymentus corporation uh their total cumulative score was 75.1 points we all in agreement yes uh their rank was fourth then we have sierra lustra llc which their total cumulative score was 17.2 points we all in agreement yes okay and then that brought their their rank to 18th uh next we have smart energy water smart energy water had a total cumulative score of 68.62 points we all agree with there and i brought their rank to fifth after smart energy water we have sprite point sprite point had a total uh cumulative score of 38.82 points we all agree with that yes all right and that brought uh their rank to 14th uh place now we have tyler technologies incorporated uh they had a total cumulative score of 67.27 points so we all agree with that yes and then that brought their rank to seven and black but not least is earth tax one which had a total cumulative score of 57 points we all agree with that yes and that uh brought their rank to 12th so with all that being said uh thank you all for tuning in today and proposers please monitor you know for future updates related to this solicitation if there's nothing else that will conclude the evaluation committee meeting for rfp 2600262 customer billing payment and engagement solutions so with that being said have a great day