6/13/1994 BOARD OF SELECTMEN Minutes

Home Browse Search

do DATE:June 13, 1994 TO: 1 lashpee Board of Selectmen Executive Secretary Robert whritenour FROM: Deirdre Greelish, Computer Consultant R : Municipal Data Processing System RFP Draft #4 is being presented to the Board ofSelectmen this ening for them- approval. l r . Whrit n ur has incorporated two major improvements which both Mr. Pucci and I recommended.mended. n addition there are other points which, I believe, should be corrected prior to your approval of this RFP. The RFP contains many 2rammatical and ra hical errors. Some impact the content of the RFP. page 31 "Proposed Implementation Schedule section (B " states all modules must be completely operational by 11/1195, while section (A), Phase III implements Assessing 1/1/96. • page 37 repeatedly mentions Section v regarding comparative evaluation criteria but Section v is "Proposed Implementation Schedule." page 38, section 15 ..."recommendation to the Mayor..." not "Board of Selectmen" • page 40, and mentions "Section IVY Business Specifications" - it does not exist Some don't impact the legal content, but require correction nonetheless: • page 19, "Coastal Resources Database Fields" • page 3 1, "BVI Contractual Requirements C " _ There are features listed under Section 1H "System Technical Secificati ns and Minimum Re uir•ements" which are not labeled "minimum" later in the- 'P. For example, • water District Billing on Page I 1 shows "Optional for "Town to purchase", but is listed onl a e 39 under Section IX.1.6 "Minl'murn Requirement Technical Questions". • Coastal Resources Management Database on page 19 appears to be minimum requirement. But on page 40 under "Nfini urn Requirement Technical Questions," there is a note that says the lacy of this module will not disqualify a proposal. Some of the "must" minimum rc uirem nts seem to be vendor-siDecific. For example, the general ledger program budget feature "must allover user-defined formats and levels of budgeting." This is a very specific "must,," even though the general ledger/budget capabilitydoes not require it to be successful. Page 7, "Treasurer/Collector, Property Tax Billing and Receivables Processing Payments section e is another example. The treasurer will need to apply payments to iinterest, principal, p , p betterments and taxes n a certain hierarchy, but to require it be "user-defined'" is excessive as a num um requirement. I hope that this partial list serves to exemplify the need for further eitting prior to yourapproval. Both Tom and I have offered to assist Bob with the work. Respectfully submitted, Ifz4ldlkr Deirdre Greelish i