Res-2016-093 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A more detailed description of the evaluation process, comparative costs, and team recommendations can be found in the Permit Tra cking Software Project Plan presented to the BOCC on Ap ril 23, 2015 . Initial recommendation After completing an evaluation comparing purchasing with developing in-house, and considering the related costs and resource requirements, the team recommended the BOCC reject all RFPs and direct staff to build the application in-house. Commissioner's direction On April 23, 2015, the BOCC considered the team's recommendation and approved the following: 1. The RFPs would remain open; 2. IT may proceed developing permit tracking software; but first 3. The team must provide an acceptable response to the following questions: Changes 1) Who is accountable for settling disputes that might arise over design, content, and functionality ofthe application? 2) Provide a plan B in case the development of the application cannot be completed or cannot meet the needs of the users. 3) Come up with 3 alternative names to Sasquatch. 4) There is a statement that hiring the web developer will save 60 calendar days of development, is that accurate and if so does hiring the web developer provide additional benefit to justify the $138,OOO? 5) Are there alternatives to hiring a web developer, and if so, what are they and what is the cost? 6) Who in the departments will be assigned to work with IT in designing the application and how will we ensure it is part of their job duties? IT staffing and priorities After April 2015, staff began to work on answers to the BOCC's questions posed. In the meantime, the IT department's web developer resigned requiring other staff to shift priorities, and a higher priority was given to the county's Laserfiche implementation. These factors all lead to a delay in follow-up on the questions posed in April. When the group started to reconvene in October 2015, there were concerns raised about the fact that we were far behind the initial timeline proposed and that IT staffing issues had not yet been resolved. Additionally, CDS was under more and more of a time crunch for getting a fully functioning system in place. Exploring a new plan Because of these concerns, staff no longer had a unified Plan A. It was proposed that we start pursuing more aggressively our Plan B option which was to reexamine the off-the-shelf permit software products . Paladin's SMARTGov software was of particular interest for several reasons . CDS staff had spoken to Page 2 of 10