My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CITCOM, INC. 2 -2012
Clerk
>
Contracts / Agreements
>
C
>
CITCOM, INC. 2 -2012
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/28/2014 9:43:46 AM
Creation date
8/27/2012 11:20:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Contracts
Company Name
CITCOM, INC.
Contract #
N-2012-089
Agency
POLICE
Insurance Exp Date
9/15/2015
Destruction Year
0
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• Level of integration between applications and demonstrated interfaces with external <br />systems /devices. <br />• Capability, design, reliability, warranty and expandability of proposed hardware. <br />• Economic feasibility and justification of all costs. <br />• Vendor willingness and ability to negotiate a contract acceptable to the City. <br />• Feasibility, timeliness and quality of software implementation schedule and conversion <br />plans (iFdata conversion is required). <br />• Level of assistance [o be provided to the City by the vendor during the implementation <br />process as part of the contract. <br />• T'he number of hours and extent of user training. <br />• Quality and extent of the documentation to be provided. <br />Additionally, information pertaining to each major area of the specifications would be summarized, <br />evaluated and ranked. 7?he sample illustration, below, is one of approximately 100 such charts <br />produced by our proprietary RFP scoring tool. Cit. Com provides all clients with these illustrations <br />to provide graphic displays oFvendor responses in each proposed module; enabling a visible <br />presentation of vendor contrasts: <br />RMS r..N..r QRUM?r tlbS vo•.W.) <br /> <br /> <br />YG <br />tl r <br />i? s "1 9 <br />to-r <br />ol' <br />n? <br />3 <br />i <br />{ .i <br /> ? <br />]08 yp ? <br />f?+'? <br /> <br /> ?'} " t . <br />f <br /> . <br />n i? <br />k00 ? r ., r <br /> ? <br /> <br /> <br /> ? "may <br />aco ,,: . ,7e <br />.. <br /> ?? ? ti lwi.: <br />yo :'} <br /> Nartn'av Ovn?nen <br />6 N:CME <br />° ?_ GM1iSNlT. <br /> '? ? ? - MY <br /> s s ? ? <br /> _ ? :s <br />Information pertaining to each major area of the specifications would be summarized, evaluated and <br />ranked. Additional information and clarification would be obtained from responding vendors as <br />required. Finalh, the list of vendors would be narrowed to two semi-Finalist vendors who would be <br />further evaluated though vendor demonstrations, operational site visits, reference checks and oral <br />interviews. Based upon the proposal and subsequent analysis, Cit Com would recommend the ei <br /> <br />company whose system(s) and equipment best meet the overall requirements of the City in a Finalist a4 <br />,?-_ <br />Recommendation Report. The Finalist Recommendation Report would be submitted both in <br /> 0 <br />U <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.