city of tacoma tacoma public utilities - bidnet

Form No. SPEC-230A Revised: 06/30/2017

City of Tacoma Tacoma Public Utilities

Advanced Metering Infrastructure System Integration Services RFP Specification No. PS18-0242F

QUESTIONS and ANSWERS

All interested parties had the opportunity to submit questions in writing by email to Richelle Krienke (amended to Joe Parris) by August 1, 2018. The answers to the questions received are provided below and posted to the City’s website at www.TacomaPurchasing.org: Navigate to Current Contracting Opportunities / Services, and then click Questions and Answers for this Specification. This information IS NOT considered an addendum. Respondents should consider this information when submitting their proposals. Question 1: Whether companies from Outside USA can apply for this? (like, from India

or Canada) Answer 1: Tacoma will consider all proposals that meet the specified requirements per the

RFP. Question 2: Whether we need to come over there for meetings? Answer 2: TPU prefers as much onsite presence for this project as possible while achieving

the best price. It is up to the Respondent to provide details of their onsite and remote participation.

Question 3: Can we perform the tasks (related to RFP) outside USA? (like, from India or Canada)

Answer 3: TPU prefers as much onsite presence for this project as possible while achieving

the best price. It is up to the Respondent to provide details of their onsite and remote participation.

Question 4: Can we submit the proposals via email? Answer 4: No. Submittals must be provided as detailed in the Request for Proposals page

and Section 3.04. Question 5: What is the total estimated cost of the Advanced Metering Infrastructure

(AMI) Program? Answer 5: $60,000,000

Question 6: Has the Department allocated funding for the AMI Program yet? If so,

through which source (budget, CIP, state/federal grant etc.)? Answer 6: Yes. Budget.

Question 7: What is the estimated cost of each solution included in the AMI Program,

MDMS? AMI? MIV? Answer 7: Estimates are not available at this time.


Question 8: How is the Department currently meeting this need? Which vendor

provides the incumbent AMI system? Answer 8: This is a new program. There isn’t an incumbent AMI system.

Question 9: Would it be possible to name the three greatest challenges the Department

is having with the current solution? Answer 9: N/A. See question 8.

Question 10: The Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) System Integration Services

RFP mentions “Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), Meter Data Management System (MDMS) and Meter Installation Vendor (MIV), each of which are being selected under separate procurement efforts as part of the overall AMI Program.” Have the solicitations been released for the AMI, MDMS, and MIV efforts yet? If not, what is the timeline for those solicitations?

Answer 10: The AMI related solicitations are as follows:

a. RFP PS18-0015F Advanced Metering Infrastructure Technology and Services – Submittals were due May 15, 2018, and are being reviewed.

b. RFP PS18-0062F Meter Data Management Technology and Services – Submittals were due June 5, 2018, and are being reviewed.

c. Meter Installation – Specifications are being developed; anticipated release is August 2018.

Question 11: What is the number of Smart Meters anticipated as part of the AMI

Program? Answer 11: TPU has approximately 180,000 electric customers and 100,000 water

customers.

Question 12: Who is the technical contact and/or project manager for the AMI Program? Answer 12: There is no single technical or project management contact. All questions

regarding AMI program procurement efforts must be presented as directed in the solicitation documents.

Question 13: Does the Department anticipate any professional or consulting services

may be needed to accomplish this effort? (i.e. project planning/oversight, PM, QA, IV&V, staff augmentation, implementation services etc.)?

Answer 13: No. The required services are detailed in Section 2 of the RFP. Question 14: Can you tell me if the services of a communications firm would be

beneficial to Tacoma Power on this program? Answer 14: Tacoma Public Utilities is utilizing internal resources for communications efforts

surrounding the AMI program, as well as services of a previously contracted external consultant.


Question 15: What services are included in the project budget? is the budget for services, or does it include hardware and software? Is the budget for external resources, or does it include internal resources as well?

Answer 15: The contract is for services only. These are detailed in Section 2 Project Scope /

Technical and Special Provisions. The budget is referring to external resources. Question 16: Morris and Willner Partners, Inc. (MW Partners) is an approved vendor,

currently doing IT Staffing work at the City of Tacoma. We wish to respond to the AMI RFP, but would like to partner with another firm (joint bid). MW Partners is primarily a staffing company, and our partner does more project based work and is better positioned to respond to this RFP. That said, we can either bid jointly, if this would be acceptable, or we can have our partner alone, submit a bid to the RFP (with us working with them in the background throughout the project, on meeting the requirements of our resource plan). It would be nice if we could joint bid, because we (MW Partners) is already a vendor, we have a good reputation at the City, and we are a certified DVBE company. If not, we can have our Partner sole bid this. Appreciate your response,

Answer 16: See bullet 1.14 Partnerships in the Standard Terms and Conditions (Exhibit C). Question 17: The Contract is anticipated to be a minimum of two years, which can

include and additional period of maintenance and support". Please share the project plan created to arrive at this timeline. (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F, Section No: 1.05 - Contract Term)

Answer 17: As described in Section 2.06.1.B, the selected System Integrator will create a

“Develop and maintain a detailed project plan”. As requested in Section 3.02.F.1, Respondent is requested to “Include a high-level schedule, with milestones and checkpoints”. Your response should provide a best practices schedule which meets these requirements based on your experience.

Question 18: Please give the details of SAP modules implemented. Is Asset management

(MM & PM Modules) integrated with Billing ( ISU) in the same ERP instance? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F, Section No: 2.03 AMI Solution Architecture)

Answer 18: Yes. We run all Asset Management modules including MM, PM along with ISU

in one instance of ECC 6.07 Suite on Hana. We anticipate adding EHP 8 by year end of 2018.

Question 19: Please clarify, whether all the below integrations are part of SAP PI

scope? - MIV ->SAP - MM ->SAP - SAP->MDMS - MDMS -> AMI HES - MDMS -> Data Lake (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F, Section No: 2.03.1 AMI

Solution Release 1) Answer 19: The integration of the MIV to SAP is typically a flat file. The decision to use PI

will be part of the Design Phase. The integration of Meter Manufacturer to SAP


is typically a flat file. The decision to use PI will be part of the Design Phase. The integration of SAP to MDMS uses standard MDUS integration. The integration between MDMS and AMI HES is the responsibility of the MDMS Vendor’s AMI Adapter. The integration of MDMS to Data Lake will use TPU’s Enterprise Service Bus and not PI.

Question 20: Is there an existing Prepay application? If so, could you share the details of

the same? We need to implement SAP based Prepayment solution ( SAP RDS - Rapid Deployment Solution) and do away with existing Prepay solution, please confirm. If yes, it will lead to changes in integrated applications like TPU Online/ Web portal. Does SI scope include changes to those applications? Please clarify. (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F, Section No: 2.03 AMI Solution Architecture and 2.03.1 AMI Solution Release 1 - D Pre-pay service for AMI electric and, in the future, water meters)

Answer 20: TPU has customized SAP to support Prepay. The selected System Integrator

will not “do away” with the existing Prepay solution. Question 21: Is there a plan to introduce new Tariff /Bill plans based on AMI meters.

Could you share the details of proposed plans? How many new tariffs can be expected in Electricity and Water? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F, Section No: 2.03.1 AMI Solution Release 1- C Billing from AMI meters)

Answer 21: No new tariffs will be implemented as part of Release 1 Question 22: Could you indicate, how many new Bill layout ( forms) will be introduced

for AMI billing? How many formats of bill layout are planned ( E.g., PDF,XML, EDI etc.)? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F, Section No: 2.03.1 AMI Solution Release 1- C Billing from AMI meters)

Answer 22: There is no plan to introduce new Bill layouts as part of Release 1 Question 23: Apart from MDUS and MIV, are there any other systems expected to be

integrated with SAP ? If so, please provide details. (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F, Section No: 2.03.1 AMI Solution Release 1 Scope)

Answer 23: No Question 24: Is MIV being implemented newly for work management process for AMI

Meter Installation, Exchange etc. If so, could you explain the current process for Conventional Meter Installation, Exchange, Removal process? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F, Section No: 2.03.1 AMI Solution Release 1 Scope)

Answer 24: The MIV will be doing the mass deployment of AMI meters and will bring their

own Installation Work Management System which will need to integrate with SAP. The existing meter installation, exchange and removal SAP processes are not expected to change.

Question 25: Could you share the future releases planned or indicative releases, post

implementation of Release 1. (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F, Section No: 2.03.1 AMI Solution Release 1 Scope)


Answer 25: TPU’s future application roadmap will be shared with the selected vendor. Question 26: Is the indicated flow from Meter Manufacturer to SAP related to Asset &

Test data, a part of procurement process? Please confirm. (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F, Section No: 2.03.1 AMI Solution Release 1)

Answer 26: Yes. Question 27: Are there any AMI meters already installed, without AMI functions not

activated and billed as conventional meters? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F, Section No: 2.03.1 AMI Solution Release 1)

Answer 27: Presently, no. However, there may be some AMI meters (less than 100) installed

prior to the Go Live of the Integrated AMI Solution which would require migration. Question 28: "Historical data request and display ping results". Could you give some

examples of data in question? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F, Section No: 2.03.1 AMI Solution Release 1)

Answer 28: Historical data is any data that is retrieved from the AMI meter and available in

the MDMS. Ping results are typically Power On or Power Off. Question 29: Please share the existing ISU data models ( Business master and Technical

master) implemented. (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F, Section No: 2.03 AMI Solution Architecture- ISU data model)

Answer 29: This information will be shared with the selected Vendor. Question 30: "Planning by the MIV for the deployment of up to 1,500 AMI meters (electric

and water) per day". Could you explain the existing work management system in place? Will the existing and new MIV system co-exist? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F, Section No: 2.03.1 AMI Solution Release 1- B- Mass Deployment)

Answer 30: TPU does not presently have a work management system and is in the process

of implementing a Mobile Work Force Management System from Clevest. MIV is Meter Installation Vendor and consequently, TPU does not have an existing MIV system.

Question 31: SI Contractor will be responsible for ensuring and documenting all the AMI

and MDMS requirements to be met by the integrated solution, where the AMI and MDMS solutions will be implemented by another Vendor. Is SI expected to take care of overall Program Management in multiple vendor's delivery? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F, Section No: 2.04 AMI Solution Functional And Technical Requirements)

Answer 31: No. The SI Contractor will be aware of all requirements and deliverables and will

report the delivery of such requirements and deliverables. TPU will be responsible for the overall Program Management as well as Vendor Management.


Question 32: There is an ask to provide assistance in the configuration and implementation of a Meter Data Test Tool (MDTT). Could you elaborate on what is the objective of this tool? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F, Section No: 2.06.6 System Integration and Acceptance Testing - Point E)

Answer 32: A Meter Data Test Tool provides sample AMI meter data to the MDMS to

simulate the various test conditions required to validate MDMS and SAP configurations and functionality.

Question 33: There is an ask to leverage the provided test scripts from the AMI, MDMS,

and MIV contractors to develop all test scripts for the testing phases. Please let us know approximately what percentage of test scripts would be provided by these contractors? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F, Section No: 2.06.6 System Integration and Acceptance Testing - Point J)

Answer 33: The AMI, MDMS and MIV vendors are being selected and will be under contract

prior to the start of the Blue Print and Testing Phases. Respondent should use their past experiences to estimate this percentage.

Question 34: Do all the three references need to be from North America or we can

provide global experience as well? Is it mandatory to have at least one reference from a Municipal utility? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F, Section No: 3.02- J- References)

Answer 34: It is highly desirable for all three references to be from North America and at least

one reference to be from a Municipal utility. If Respondent cannot meet these requests, then the Respondent may provide alternative references.

Question 35: Can we add additional rows under each of the 10 tasks mentioned in the

‘Hours by Resource’ tab of the Price Proposal Form? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F, Section No: 3.02- I Price/Value and PS18-0242F Price Proposal Form)

Answer 35: Yes. Question 36: Is there an existing regression suite available that the test team could

utilize? If yes, what is the size of it (test case count) and when was this last updated? What % age of it is automated? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General)

Answer 36: Yes. There are approximately 300 test cases. It was last updated in the fall of

2017 and will be updated again by the end of 2018. None of the test cases are automated..

Question 37: Please confirm if the SAP performance testing is in scope as well? If yes,

please provide the number of concurrent users for each module. (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General)

Answer 37: Performance testing of the new functionality only is in scope. Question 38: Please confirm if test data will be provided to the Performance Testing

team or it needs to be created? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General)


Answer 38: Yes. The Meter Data Test Tool is intended to provide data for performance testing of the MDMS.

Question 39: Please provide the number of APIs/Web Services/XML(Technology Stack

details) in use for integration from SAP to Non SAP System. (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General)

Answer 39: The integration between the SAP and MDMS will use the standard MDUS

integration and Respondent should use their best practices and experience to estimate the number of web services. The MIV has not yet been selected, but typically the integration with the MIV is file-based and is about 5 interfaces.

Question 40: Do we have any batches or independent web services or independent DB

calls that need to be tested (apart from the requests from application UI)? If yes, please help us with the approximate count for each. (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General)

Answer 40: No. Question 41: Please confirm if any dedicated performance test environment will be

provided? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General) Answer 41: Yes. Question 42: What should we consider as future volume growth (%) in terms of users/DB

volume? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General) Answer 42: Volume growth in SAP should not increase. Volume growth in other systems is

handled by that system. Question 43: Please let us know if there are any performance testing tool and monitoring

tool licenses. If yes, please provide details of licenses. If not, please confirm if this RFP scope includes tool licenses procurement as well? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General)

Answer 43: No. Respondent should provide any assumptions and requirements for

performance testing. Question 44: Please share the AS-IS integration architecture (Preferably a diagram

depicting all the systems in landscape and integration points). (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General)

Answer 44: This will be provided to the selected Vendor. Question 45: Please provide the information about SAP PI

- Version and Service pack - Single(Java only) / Dual stack (ABAP + Java) (Ref. File Name: PS18-

0242F General) Answer 45: SAP (EAM, CIS, Work Order Management)

- ECC = 6.07 (Netweaver 7.40, Kernel 7.49 Unicode) - IS-UT 6.17 SP14, 1.00.112.08 moving to 1.00.122.15 in May - BW = 7.40 SPS 18, Oracle 11.2.0.4


- PI = 7.50 SPS 8, Oracle 12.1.0.2 - Portal = 7.40, SPS 15, Oracle 11.2.0.4 - HANA = SPS 9.6

Question 46: Is any middleware technology other than SAP PI a part of our integration

scope? If yes, please provide the details- version / service pack. (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General)

Answer 46: Please refer to Section 2.06.05.C. Question 47: How is exception/error handling done in current integration solution? Is

there any framework in place for managing errors and exceptions? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General)

Answer 47: TPU uses BDEx for business exception handling. Question 48: What is the mechanism used for the secured transmissions in the current

flow? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General) Answer 48: This will be determined during the Blue Print Design Phase. Question 49: Will the existing SAP PI interfaces be re-used? If yes, please provide the

details. (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General) Answer 49: This will be determined during the Blue Print Design Phase. Question 50: Have you used any industry standard/third party adapters? (Industry

standard adapters like CIDX, RNIF which provide format and content specific to particular industry) (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General)

Answer 50: TPU uses BDEx. Question 51: Any pain points and areas for improvement in the current integration

solution? If yes, please list them. (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General) Answer 51: This will be determined during the Pre-Upgrade Assessment. Question 52: MDMS implementation is a major dependency to start SI work, what is the

start date we shall assume for SI? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General) Answer 52: The MDMS Vendor has been selected and contract negotiations will begin. The

Blue Print Phase should start on or before March 1, 2019. Question 53: Please share the following details :

- Existing SAP systems ( like ECC, ISU CRM, PI etc.), version and landscape ( Dev, QA, Prod)

- Any upgrade planned for these systems. - SAP ongoing projects and projects planned for future - IT technical architecture diagram which has all the SAP systems. (Ref.

File Name: PS18-0242F General)


Answer 53: See Answer #45. No upgrades are planned at this time. No ongoing projects or projects are planned at this time. The IT technical architecture will be shared with the selected Vendor.

Question 54: What is the front end system for customer relations? Is it CIC0, SAP CRM

or Salesforce.com? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General) Answer 54: CIC0. Question 55: How many complaints on an average are received with respect to billing?

What is the frequency? Did the business put in any efforts to sub-categorize them? What is the current addressable mechanism? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General)

Answer 55: This information will not be shared as it is not relevant to the scope of services

requested by this RFP. Question 56: Is the business weighing both the options of remote/non-remote

disconnection/reconnection in this RFP? Does business already have a workflow for disconnect / reconnect process and is the new process expected to merge with existing workflow? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F Remote Disconnect/reconnect)

Answer 56: This is covered in the use cases provided in the Requirements Compliance

Matrix. Question 57: What are the current levels of dunning? Is there a dunning level in current

scenario for disconnection by dunning? What process of dunning is followed, dunning by dunning procedure or dunning by collection strategy? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F Remote Disconnect/reconnect)

Answer 57: The current levels of dunning are: Dunning level 1- (Warning bill), Dunning Level

2 (Disconnect notice), Dunning Level 3 (Disconnect). Dunning Level 3 will initiate disconnect. Dunning Procedure is followed. NOTE: The dunning levels apply to most utility dunning procedures. In some cases, the dunning levels do not disconnect, but send a workflow item (i.e. fire service installations).

Question 58: Does business collect security deposits from customers? (Ref. File Name:

PS18-0242F Remote Disconnect/reconnect) Answer 58: Yes. Question 59: Move-out and Move-in for customer change is subject to periodic billing

considerations. Does business have instances where both move-out and move-in were needed on the same day? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General- Remote Disconnect/reconnect)

Answer 59: No. Question 60: Do we need to align our solution with Headend/MDMS vendor? In that case,

our solution/effort would slightly change. (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General)


Answer 60: No. Question 61: Would you be able to provide any existing Missing Meter Reads and

Exception Management pratices, based on these inputs, process of exception handling to be defined for Missing Meter Read and Back Fill. (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General- Meter Red Exception and Back Fill)

Answer 61: No. Question 62: Apart from listed Interfaces for Head End System, would you expect any

other interfaces (Exp: with Outage Management, Distribution Automation- Voltage, GIS -ESRI for Lat /Long) to be established? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General AMI Head System Interfaces)

Answer 62: These are not within the scope of Release 1. Question 63: Are there any phases planned before Mass Deployment ( Like Family

Friends for Stablising the Mesh Network, Application Interface or Customer Class (Residnetial/Small , Medium, Large Accounts)? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General-Deployment)

Answer 63: No. Question 64: Are there any Meter Exchanges Platforms planned through Mobility

Platform by the MIV, which will have to be interfaced with SAP on Real or Near Real Time Basis? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General- Meter Exchnage -Mobility Platform)

Answer 64: TPU is in the process of implementing the Mobile Work Force Management

System from Clevest. Question 65: Any Secure Zone specific integration design consideration to be

considered for Head End System? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General- Head End- Secure Zone- Integration Mechnism)

Answer 65: This is not within the scope of the System Integrator. Question 66: Any Reporting & Real Time Analytics requirements around Head End

/MDMS for Data Quality , Exception, Events /Alarm Communication etc. to be considered? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F General- Reporting & Analytics Requirments)

Answer 66: No. Question 67: The Prime Contractor's Pre-Work Form consists of two tables. As per our

understanding, the first table pertains to corporate level details and the second table pertains to project specific details. Is our understanding right? If not, please let us know what data needs to be filled in the first table. (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F- Appendix A)

Answer 67: The form should only include employees who will be working on this specific

project. If the first table can be used to note your entire work force for this project then the second table can be left blank.


Question 68: In the instructions for filling the Prime Contractor's Pre-Work Form, there

are multiple mentions of “Non-Minority” in the following statement. “The "Total Employees" column should include all those employees listed under "Non-Minority" and "Total Minorities." "Non-Minority" should include all employees not listed in the minority columns.” There is no column for Non-Minority, therefore please guide us where to include these details? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F- Appendix A)

Answer 68: Please disregard the “non-minority” column reference. The “Total Employees”

column should include all minority and non-minority employees. Question 69: The RFP states “Plan for, and schedule, at least one upgrade of the AMI

and MDMS applications during the AMI Integration Project”. Please clarify what is the expectation in this regard for SAP applications – Support Package Stack upgrade to latest N – 1 or even an EHP upgrade? (Ref. File Name: PS18-0242F, Section No: 2.06.6 System Integration and Acceptance Testing - Point N)

Answer 69: The expectation is that the MDMS and/or the AMI HES will require an upgrade of

their system during the term of the implementation and the System Integrator should account for this in their schedule and pricing.

Question 70: In case of Selection of MDM / HES from Single Vendor as well Different

Vendors, what would be the Scope of SI for the Integration Services - Could you please Elaborate?

Answer 70: The SI has no responsibility for the selection of any other technology or services

provider. Question 71: Who is TPU AMI vendor? ITron, Aclara and L&G Answer 71: The selection process is still in progress for the AMI vendor. Question 72: Can TPU provide MDMS system details? Answer 72: The selection process is still in progress for the MDMS vendor. Question 73: Current SAP and SAP PI system release and patch level details. Answer 73: See answer to #45. Question 74: Is SAP ECC/BI Land scape on HANA DB? Answer 74: See answer to #45. Question 75: TPU current meter read process flow. Future billing will be based on 5 days

or 7 days bill need to understand. Answer 75: This question is unclear and cannot be answered. Question 76: How many customers get billed per portion average?


Answer 76: Average number of customers billed per night: 6894 ** The nightly billing is a combination of portions Average number of services in a portion: 20505 Average number of metered (power/water) in a portion: 12896 Average number of customers on a portion: 10316

Question 77: What is TPU front office application SAP CRM or Microsoft Dynamics 365. Answer 77: See answer to Question #54. Question 78: Does SAP ECC/BI, MDMS and Work management reporting needs in-scope

with AMI RFP? Answer 78: No. Question 79: Are there any bill print design in-scope in AMI project? Answer 79: No. Question 80: Will TPU provide resource, support and systems required for SAP ECC

system project landscape for AMI project? Answer 80: Yes. Question 81: Does TPU currently using BDEx application or is it part of AMI RFP? If

BDEx is part of TPU AMI RFP, will cost of BDEx license and deployment is covered by TPU?

Answer 81: Yes TPU is already using BDEx. Question 82: What application is being used for daily batch jobs scheduling in SAP

system? Redwood? Answer 82: Our current batch job scheduling consists of jobs scheduled daily via standard

SAP transactions SM36 and SM37. Daily ISU mass activity jobs are scheduled daily by an operator to run in the evening. The City will be releasing an RFP shortly for the purchase and implementation of an automated batch job scheduler. We intend to implement this job scheduler in Q1 and Q2 of 2019..

Question 83: Are there any other IT SAP projects planned/scheduled in parallel to AMI? Answer 83: No. Question 84: What is down steam system to maintain service WO/notification?

Click/Maximo Answer 84: TPU is implementing an MWFMS from Clevest. Question 85: Shall we assume that there is a "separate" ECC 6.0 EhP8 upgrade project

not included in this scope of work? Is it kicked off already or will be kicked off along with AMI project?

Answer 85: No. TPU will not be upgrading to EhP8.


Question 86: Based on the architecture diagram in 2.03 on p14, we only see MDMS, no

HES. Should we assume that MDMS and HES are in one system from one vendor?

Answer 86: No. There is no integration of SAP to AMI HES, so the HES is not shown. Question 87: Based on the architecture diagram in 2.03 on p14, MDMS is outside of SAP,

can we assume that the MDMS is an external system? Answer 87: Yes. Question 88: If the answer to Question 2 is no and the answer to Question 3 is yes, can

we assume that TPU will implement 3-tier AMI solution, meaning HES (tier-1), MDM (tier-2), and SAP (tier-3) are three separate systems?

Answer 88: See answer to Question #87.. Question 89: Is the water meter going to get reads by piggy-bagging the electricity

meter? Or the water meter is going to be treated as an independent endpoint on the network?

Answer 89: This will be determined during Blue Print. Question 90: Is the OMS integration with HES/MDM in AMI Release 1 scope? Answer 90: No. Question 91: Can we assume that TPU will implement SAP-certified MDM solution? Answer 91: Yes. Question 92: Can we assume that TPU will implement SAP AMI? Answer 92: Yes. Question 93: Continued Q22, do we foresee much customization on SAP AMI enterprise

services? This largely depends on the MDM partner TPU selects. Answer 93: This will be determined during Blue Print. Question 94: Architecture diagram indicates the Prepay application is part of SEW and

Customer Portal. Can we assume that prepay service is a 3rd party prepay solution, meaning non-SAP prepay solution?

Answer 94: No. Prepay has been implemented within SAP and is in use today.. Question 95: Continued Q24 above, can we assume that current architecture diagram

reflects a firm design of Prepay service which along with SEW will be leveraged for both electricity and water Prepay service?

Answer 95: See answer to Question #94.


Question 96: Is Prepay service open to everyone or only those who meet certain criteria? Answer 96: See answer to Question #94. Question 97: Are there any AMR meters that will be retrofitted to be AMI meters? Answer 97: No. All meters will be replaced. Question 98: Any custom fields needed to hold meter firmware, NIC, MAC address, etc.

Information? Answer 98: This will be determined during Blue Print. Question 99: Will there be initial master data sync from backend SAP to MDM and HES?

This only occurs when the smart meters have already deployed out in the field – provisioned but not commissioned.

Answer 99: This will be determined during Blue Print. Question 100: Can we assume existing electric Prepay customers do not have AMI

meters yet (question derived from 2.03.1 (D).1)? If yes, what is their deployment schedule?

Answer 100: See answer to Question #94. Also, TPU already has an AMI solution using the

hybrid fiber coax. This is all designed and implemented by TPU and these meters are used for Prepayment.

Question 101: Will the provisioning status of a meter be reflected in SAP? Or just

the commissioning status reflected in SAP? Answer 101: This will be determined during Blue Print. Question 102: During Mass Deployment, will there be parallel reading period –

remote reading and human reading for accuracy comparison? Answer 102: No. Question 103: What are the criteria to commission a provisioned meter (turn on

AMI billing)? Answer 103: This will be determined during Blue Print. Question 104: How to handle missing reads? Estimated in MDM or SAP Answer 104: This will be determined during Blue Print. Question 105: Is push read from SAP to MDM required for some manual scenarios

such as manual disconnect/reconnect? Answer 105: This will be determined during Blue Print. Question 106: Is EDM currently used for Electric Prepay customers? If yes, what

are other use cases, for example, TOU/RTP?


Answer 106: Yes. No, it is not used for TOU or RTP. Question 107: Can TPU elaborate more on how existing Prepay service works? Answer 107: See multiple answers on Prepay. The Prepay solution is presently working for up

to 1,000 endpoints. Question 108: Is existing Prepay service real-time, near real-time, or batched? Answer 108: Near real-time. Question 109: Is integration with different cash desks, such as Walmart, Western

Union, etc., part of the scope? Answer 109: No. Question 110: Is there SAP enhancement to support load-limiting program? Answer 110: Load limiting is not within scope of Release 1. Question 111: Will all events and alerts be passed back to SAP or just selective

ones? Answer 111: No events and alerts will be passed to SAP. Question 112: Is SAP required to support HAN (Home Area Network) device for the

Demand Response Events, I.e. sending messaging to the HAN or Zigbee devices?

Answer 112: No. Question 113: Is the below the correct understanding of the schedule?

a) Implementation of the sandbox for each of system (HES, MDM, PI/PO, and SAP): Q4/2018

b) Release 1 configuration, integration, and testing will start in Q1 2019 and complete in Q2, 2020.

c) Installation of AMI meters (AMI meter deployment) will start in Q2, 2020 and complete by Q1, 2022.

Answer 113: See answer to Question #17. Question 114: Based on the schedule above, does it mean that:

a) All systems will go live in Q2, 2020? b) When the systems go live, smart meters are already purchased and

received into inventoried but not created as a device nor installed in SAP or field yet? When do we expect the new meters being synched over all the way to MDM and HES? Upon installation or upon creation of the device in SAP?

Answer 114: See answer to Question #17.


Question 115: It appears that TPU is requesting both a fixed price and hourly rates with the inclusion of hours, separate travel and not to exceed? Do responders need to respond with all of these pricing options?

Answer 115: TPU is asking for hourly rates as well as estimated travel expenses to fully

understand the Vendor’s bid. The bid is a non to exceed bid, inclusive of travel. Question 116: Tacoma would like the vendor to conduct a pre-upgrade audit. This

will drive the scope of work. Should we bid a fixed price including the audit and then have the opportunity to re-price the fixed price and/or hours? This would reduce the risk included in pricing.

Answer 116: Yes. However, the scope of the pre-upgrade audit is to better understand if there

are any hidden issues in TPU’s implementation of SAP which would be negatively impacted by the implementation of AMI.

Question 117: Can Tacoma supply documentation of current

enhancements/customizations and integrations? Answer 117: No. Question 118: For post-production support, will Tacoma verify that all Vendors will

be providing post go-live support for the same duration requested of the SI?

Answer 118: No. Each vendor will be providing their own go live support consistent with their

services and technology. Question 119: Have all AMI/MDMS/MIV contractors been requested to provide

access to integration test environments? Answer 119: AMI and MDMS – yes. MIV - no. Question 120: Can Utility share the list of AMI, MDMS & MIV products chosen/

under consideration - to understand the interfaces exposed, as well as the Analytics that SI vendor need to build over and above MDMS tool has?

Answer 120: No. As stated, SAP will not integrate with the AMI HES and the integration with

MDMS will use standard MDUS integrations. The MIV RFP has yet to be issued. Question 121: Assume all the AMI Meters (Electric / Water) are from single

manufacturer and HES also from same manufacturer. Please confirm. Answer 121: No. Question 122: If AMI meter vendor is not finalized; would Utility be able to share

the protocols (C12 / Modbus / DNP3 etc.,) supported by the chosen / under consideration AMI Electric & AMI Water meters?.

Answer 122: See answer to Question #120. Question 123: Assume the chosen MDMS, Enterprise Historian products have an

existing interface with AWS. Please confirm.


Answer 123: No. Question 124: Assume CGI OMS is compatible with chosen MDMS product. Please

confirm. Answer 124: OMS is out of scope for this RFP. Question 125: Assume AMR applications (e.g. walk by, drive by meter reading) are

not planned for Release 1. Answer 125: Yes. Question 126: Please elaborate the intended functionality of “Document OMS”

shown in the Architecture and what is expected from SI perspective. Answer 126: OMS is out of scope for this RFP. Question 127: Would it be possible for TPU to get the protocol pocket details from

the AMI Meter vendor, as it would us to simulate the large volume of Meter traffic by backhaul network protocol simulation using internal solution accelerator, primarily to test the Collector & HES functionality & performance?.

Answer 127: No. Question 128: Assume SI vendor can propose the test automation framework for

AMI Integration testing using in-house test accelerators. Please confirm. Answer 128: Yes. Question 129: Assume AMI vendor would implement the “Meter Authentication” as

the Meter data is encrypted. Please confirm. Answer 129: Yes. Question 130: Assume System Integration testing of “Release 1 project” will be

done using Sandbox environment as the Meter Installations starts only in Q2 2020.

Answer 130: No. A Test environment will be implemented for all testing. Question 131: Understand HP ALM is used only from Configuration Management &

Defect Management. Is TPU has any preference on “Test Execution” Engine?

Answer 131: No. Question 132: Assume the Test Environment & Test Data preparation in SI partner

scope. Please confirm. Answer 132: Yes.


Question 133: Would you be able to share the “Acceptance Criteria” for the “Acceptance Testing” completion?

Answer 133: This should be part of the Test Strategy provided by the chosen Vendor. Question 134: Please provide the SAP landscape and environment details.. Answer 134: See answer to Question #45. Question 135: Is there a plan to create the network devices as serialized assets in

SAP like meters? Answer 135: This will be determined during Blue Print Requirements Phase. Question 136: Does TPU have accounts with electric and water services being

billed at different periods i.e. electric monthly and water bi-monthly?. Answer 136: No. Question 137: Can TPU provide additional information related to the Pre-pay

program both in terms of the high-level business requirements (or program features) as well as how and where (in which systems) the program has been implemented?

Answer 137: No. See answers to above questions on Prepay. Question 138: Is the pre-pay program currently closed to new enrollees? Does

TPU plan to sunset this program, or will you “grandfather” it? Does TPU plan to offer a new program as part of this project, or does TPU expect for the old program to be re-architected in any way as part of this project?.

Answer 138: Yes, because of issues with the existing AMI system, not due to problems with

the prepay program. TPU plans to continue with the existing prepay program using the new AMI solution.

Question 139: Will you require for meter program changes to be initiated out of

SAP (for example, because of a rate change) as part of this phase, or are you requiring that the impact of changes carried out in the head end system be propagated to SAP as appropriate?

Answer 139: This will be decided during Blue Print Requirements Phase. Question 140: Does TPU have complex metering scenarios that must be replicated

/ supported with the SAP and MDUS solution (e.g. totalization metering, etc.)?

Answer 140: All metering scenarios should be implemented within the MDMS. However,

these decisions will be finalized in Blue Print Requirements Phase. Question 141: Does TPU leverage the “CIC0” function in its SAP ECC system to

support call center functions? Please provide an overview of TPU’s use of CRM Dynamics 365, and please clarify the anticipated impact for the AMI project (list the primary use cases)?


Answer 141: See answer to Question #54. Question 142: Have you automated the service order close process to trigger the

automatic / immediate execution of meter removals / installations / exchanges when service orders are completed through Clevest and updated in SAP?

Answer 142: No. Question 143: Please specify the types of network devices (other than the meter

communication modules) that TPU wants the system integrator to implement as serialized equipment in SAP.

Answer 143: This will be determined during Blue Print Requirements Phase. Question 144: Does TPU plan to switch all accounts to monthly billing as part of

this project? Answer 144: No. However, TPU does plan to move to monthly billing at the end of the AMI

meter deployment. Question 145: Does TPU plan to roll out any new rates as part of this project? Answer 145: No. Question 146: Is TPU obligated to present meter reads on all invoices, regardless

of customer class and type of rate (e.g. demand versus non-demand, etc.)? Answer 146: Yes. Question 147: Does TPU plan to switch all accounts to monthly billing as part of

this project? Answer 147: See answer to Question #144. Question 148: Please advise on the required use cases (high-level business

requirements) for the customer portal integration. Answer 148: All use cases are defined in the Requirements Compliance Matrix. Question 149: Do you plan to store the GPS coordinates for the AMI meters both in

GIS and in SAP? Please comment on the desired architecture Answer 149: This will be determined in the Blue Print Requirements Phase. Question 150: Do you plan to integrate the MDMS directly to your OMS (bypassing

SAP) for the passing of meter outage information for outage management purposes?

Answer 150: OMS is out of scope for Release 1.


Question 151: The SAP MDUS solution works best in conjunction with SAP PO component. How adamant or flexible is TPU in terms necessitating that WebMethods broker the information exchange between SAP and the MDMS? Additionally, please clarify the WebMethods-relevant integrations (identify the interfacing systems) that TPU expects the system integrator to implement or update as part of this project.

Answer 151: PO will be used for the integration between SAP and MDMS for all MDUS web

services. WebMethods will be used for all non-SAP integrations. Question 152: Please validate that the information in these sections is intended to

provide context to bidders regarding the overall solution and that they are not conveying specific requirements for items to be implemented within SAP.

Answer 152: Yes. That is the intent. Question 153: These items are traditionally more relevant to the head end system

as well as the MDMS (to a lesser extent). Please clarify the requirement (if any) to have any of these activities either be initiated from or send data to be stored in SAP.

Answer 153: See answer to Question #152. These requirements are for reference as to what

is required from the AMI and MDMS vendors. Question 154: Is TPU planning on executing an SAP upgrade within this time

frame, or does the term “upgrade” loosely refer to the system-related changes to be carried out as part of the AMI project?

Answer 154: No, TPU is not planning to upgrade SAP. Yes, the term “upgrade” is related to

the system-related changes to be carried out as part of the AMI project and the enablement of AMI capabilities within SAP.

Question 155: Can TPU accommodate the execution of this assessment prior to

contracting for the main AMI project? Answer 155: TPU is willing to consider this as an alternative pricing proposal. Question 156: Does TPU expect to receive separate pricing for the assessment

(segregated from the main implementation pricing)? Answer 156: No. But, see answer to Question #155. Question 157: Please clarify the expectations for the Sandbox environment to be

implemented in Q4 of 2018. Does TPU expect basic three-way integration (SAP-MDMS-HES) to be established within this period? Does TPU expect the configuration of a basic set of enterprise services to be completed within this period for use with demonstrations during the design phase?

Answer 157: The SandBox will not be integrated with SAP and is not within the scope of the

System Integrator.


Question 158: Will TPU require the use of the same methodology and artifacts by all vendors to enforce consistency, or will TPU provide leeway to use each company’s own methodology and templates (for efficiency) but require the system integrator to merge all the different approaches and documentation to ensure quality delivery?

Answer 158: TPU will provide leeway, but prefers to use its own documentation. Question 159: Please describe TPU’s internal capability (program/project

management, change management, business subject matter expertise, functional support, technical support, training, and testing) to support the project work. If possible, provide the roles / skillsets, headcount, and budgeted project utilization for the TPU staff that will be allocated.

Answer 159: TPU has planned for all these resources, other than those resources requested

with this RFP. The RFP does request the ability for staff augmentation for WebMethods development if required.

city of tacoma tacoma public utilities - bidnet

Documents