2026-0391-CMO RFP Agenda, Meeting and Document Management Software Addendum No.1
| Bidders ID: | NBD14263146146830693 |
|---|---|
| Due Date: | Aug 7, 2026 |
| Posted Date: | Jul 22, 2026 |
| Level of Government: | State & Local |
| State: | New Mexico |
| Agency: | Santa Fe County |
| Category: |
|
| Source: | Members Only |
|
rfp |
2026-0391-CMO RFP Agenda, Meeting and Document Management Software Addendum No.1 2026-0391-CMO Agenda Meeting and Document Management Software Addendum No.1.pdf |
Attachment Preview
Justin S. Greene
Commissioner, District 1
Lisa Cacari Stone
Commissioner, District 2
Camilla Bustamante
Commissioner, District 3
Adam Fulton Johnson
Commissioner, District 4
Hank Hughes
Commissioner, District 5
Gregory S. Shaffer
County Manager
July 23, 2026
SANTA FE COUNTY
RFP No. 2026-0391-CMO
Agenda, Meeting and Document Management Software
ADDENDUM NO. 1
Dear Proponents,
This addendum is issued to reflect the following immediately. It shall be the responsibility of interested
Offerors to adhere to any changes or revisions to the RFP as identified in this Addendum No.1. This
documentation shall become permanent and made part of the departmental files.
Attachment A: Pre-Proposal Agenda and Sign-In Sheet
___________________________________________________________________________________
Clarification No. 1: Software solution must be made available in English and Spanish.
Questions and Answers
Question No. 1: Section 3.e references compliance with ADA accessibility requirements and WCAG 2.1
Level AA standards for public-facing content. Can you clarify whether this requirement applies only to
the public agenda portal itself, or whether the County also expects the published agenda packet PDF and
all content contained within it to meet those accessibility requirements?
Answer No. 1: The accessibility requirements apply to the public-facing agenda management platform
and any content generated or published by the software under the contractor’s control. The County
recognizes that agenda packet documents are prepared and uploaded by County staff or originating
departments. Accordingly, the contractor is expected to support the publications of accessible documents
and preserve the accessibility of content created by third parties. The County will remain responsible for
the accessibility of documents it prepares and uploads.
Question No. 2: Can the County provide an estimate of the volume of historical records to be migrated
(number of meetings, years of history, number of PDF’s/videos files)?
Answer No. 2: The County anticipates migrating approximately 6 years of historical meeting records for
multiple boards and commissions. Historical content includes meeting agendas, agenda packets (primarily
PDF documents), minutes, supporting attachments, and less than one year of video recordings. The
County estimates that the migration will include several thousand meeting records and associated
102 Grant Avenue · P.O. Box 276 · Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0276 · 505-986-6200 · FAX: 505-
995-2740 www.santafecountynm.gov
documents. Because records vary by board meeting type, exact quantities of meetings, documents, and
video files cannot be guaranteed. Proposers should base their proposals on migrating all available
historical records, with the understanding that the final scope will be confirmed during contract
negotiations and implementation.
Question No. 3: Does the County have a target implementation timeline or desired go-live date following
contract award?
Answer No. 3: The County’s goal is to complete implementation and begin using the new agenda
management system as soon as practicable following contract award. The proposed implementation
schedule, including data migration, configuration, testing, training, and go-live will be developed
collaboratively with the selected contractor during contract negotiations and project kickoff.
Proposers should include a recommended implementation timeline in their proposals and identify any
assumptions, dependencies, or resource requirements that may affect the schedule.
Question No. 4: Has the County established an anticipated budget for this project?
Answer No. 4: The County has budget for purchase and implementation; however, a specific amount is
unknown. Costs will be negotiable with the selected Offeror.
Question No. 5: Evaluation Factor 2 (§V.B.2) asks Offerors to address compatibility with Microsoft 365
and “any other County enterprise systems,” Does the County use Microsoft 365, and are there other
systems (ERP, financial, records management, HRIS, or Chambers A/V production/ voting hardware) the
solution should integrate with at go-live?
Answer No. 5: The County currently uses Microsoft 365. We are also in the initial implementation of a
new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system for financial, records management, HRIS, and other
systems. The main hub of the new ERP will be Workday, Avaap, OpenGov, OneSource, CanAm, and
Sprypoint,
Question No.6: Scope of Work §4. d requests the ability to “back up all records locally,” while §1. e
requires a SaaS solution with no County-hosted servers. Can the County clarify what “local backup”
means (what technology is in place for local system of record) in this context?
Answer No. 6: The County’s intent to ensure that it can maintain independent copies of its records and is
not requiring an on-premises or County-hosted backup system. The proposed solution shall be a cloud-
based Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platform. The system should provide the ability to export and retain
County records, including agendas, agenda packets, minutes, attachments, metadata, and other associated
records, in standard, non-proprietary formats for archival, business continuity, or records management
purposes. Offerors may describe the export, backup, and disaster recovery capabilities of their proposed
solution.
Question No.7: How many years of historical agendas, minutes and recordings must be migrated from the
County’s current Diligent Community environment, what is the approximate total data volume, and in
what format(s) is the data currently stored?
Answer No. 7: See response to Question No.2 above.
Question No.8: Does the County require a persistent test/training environment maintained after go-live
(for ongoing staff training and testing future releases), or only during implementation?
Answer No. 8: The County prefers a persistent non-production test/training environment that remains
available after go-live for ongoing staff training, workflow testing, configuration changes, and evaluation
of future software releases. However, if a persistent environment is not included as part of the standard
offering, Offerors should describe the availability of temporary or on-demand testing environments, any
associated costs and any limitations.
Question No.9: Since you’re using Diligent Community, do you use their approval routing capabilities,
and can the county share the existing and/or desired approval routing sequence definitions so that we can
better understand the simplicity or complexity of your routing requirements (by role? By department? By
type of item, etc.)
Answer No. 9: At this stage of the procurement, the County will not provide its existing approval routing
sequence or workflow definitions, as the sequence may change with the new ERP system implementation.
More detailed information regarding the County’s approval routing and business processes will be shared
with the shortlisted Offerors, as appropriate.
Question No.10: Although not required by the RFP, would the County have interest in multilingual portal
or agenda support (e.g. Spanish), should that be available as an optional feature?
Answer No. 10: By this Addendum 1 the proposed system must be made available in both English and
Spanish. If a proposed solution can offer additional multilingual portal or agenda capabilities beyond
those requirements, Offerors are encouraged to describe those features as optional functionality in their
proposals.
Question No.11: Per the RFP, the contents of the proposal are limited to a maximum of 20 pages,
excluding only certificates and licenses. Could the County please clarify whether the following are
excluded from the proposal page count: required appendix responses, Cover pages and Section divider
pages used for organizational purposes. If these items are included in the 20-page limit, would the County
consider increasing the maximum proposal length to 25 pages to allow vendors to provide complete
responses to all requested sections?
Answer No. 11: Appendix responses, cover pages and Section divider pages are excluded from the 20-
page limit and will not be counted. The 20-page limit applies only to the Offeror’s narrative response to
the evaluation criteria and evaluation factors in the RFP.
Question No.12: On page 6, Item 1 (c), the RFP states that the solution must be “customizable to Santa
Fe County business processes and operational needs.” Could the County provide additional details
regarding which business processes or operational needs they expect the solution to accommodate and
the level of customization they envision?
Answer No. 12: The County intends this requirement to refer to the solution’s ability to accommodate the
County’s operational workflows, user roles, approval processes, meeting management practices,
document management, public meeting requirements, and other business processes associated with
administering agendas and meetings for multiple boards and commissions. The County is seeking a
configurable solution that can be adapted to its operational needs primarily through system configuration
rather than custom software development. Offerors should describe the configurability and flexibility of
their proposed solution, including any limitations.
Question No.13: Will Santa Fe County consider a custom-developed, cloud-hosted SaaS solution that
meets all mandatory functional, security, migration, implementation, hosting, support and service-level
requirements?
Answer No. 13: Yes. The County will consider a custom-developed, cloud-hosted Software-as-a-Service
(SaaS) solution, provided it satisfies all applicable, functional, technical, security, hosting,
implementation ,migration, support, maintenance and other requirements set forth in the RFP.
Question No. 14: If so, may the requirement for three current governmental references using the proposed
software in production be satisfied through references for comparable custom-developed government
software systems implemented and supported by the Offeror?
Answer No. 14: Yes. If proposing a custom-developed solution, the required references may consist of
governmental clients for whom the Offeror has successfully implemented and supported comparable
custom-developed software systems. References should demonstrate the Offeror’s experience delivering
solutions of similar scope, complexity and functionality to the system proposed for Santa Fe County.
Question No. 15: May a working prototype or substantially complete demonstration environment be used
for the finalist software demonstration?
Answer No. 15: Yes. The County will provide more specific demonstration requirements to the finalists.
The County expects a live demonstration of the proposed solution that accurately reflects functionality
and capabilities being offered. If a demonstration environment is used, Offerors should clearly identify
any functionality that is not yet fully implemented or available.
Please add this Addendum No. 1 to the original proposal documents and refer to proposal documents, as
such. This and all subsequent addenda will become part of any resulting contract documents and have
effects as if original issued. All other unaffected sections will have their original interpretation and remain
in full force and effect. Responders are reminded that any questions or need for clarification must be
addressed to John Anthony Peperas, Procurement Specialist Senior at jpeperas@santafecountynm.gov
ATTACHMENT A
PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE
RFP No. 2026-0391-CMO
Agenda, Meeting and Document Management Software
July 14, 2026, at 10:00AM
Contracting Agency: Santa Fe County
• John Anthony Peperas
• Sara Smith
• Bill Taylor
• Amanda Patterson-Sanchez
Procurement Specialist Senior
Operations Manager
Procurement Manager
Procurement Planner Analyst
Purchasing Division
Manager’s Division
Purchasing Division
Purchasing Division
Project Information
Santa Fe County Manager’s Office (CMO) and the Information Technology (IT) Division seek proposals
for a secure, cloud-based agenda, meeting and document management software solution to support the
creation, routing, approval, tracking, publication, and archival of agenda items and related documents for
public meetings, boards, commissions, committees, and internal meetings.
The solution shall support efficient workflow management, records management and retention, public
transparency, meeting administration, and public access to agendas, minutes, supporting materials, and
archived records while providing flexibility to meet Santa Fe County’s current and future operational
needs.
Proposal Information
• Carefully read the Request for Proposal for requirements, terms & conditions including the sample
contract.
• Sequence of Events are listed on page 11.
• Proposal Organization – Proposal should be organized as outlined in the RFP on page 21.
• Selection of finalist(s) – the most qualified proposal received based on the evaluation factors
outlined in the RFP (pages 23-24) will be scored by a three to four-member evaluation committee.
• Preferences -
1) N.M. In-State Resident/Native American In-State Preference Certificate 80 points total
of all evaluation factors added to score.
OR
2) N.M. Resident/Native American Veterans Preference Certificate, 100 points total of all
evaluation factors added to score or Native American Preference. For more information
on State Preference visit www.tax.newmexico.gov
AND
3) Santa Fe County Preference, 50 points total of all evaluation factors added to score. For
more
information
on
County
Preference
visit
https://www.santafecountynm.gov/finance/purchasing-division/current-bid-solicitations
You are viewing the opportunity summary page, which includes a brief overview and a preview of the attached documents.
Disclaimer: The details regarding bids, requests for proposals (RFPs), and requests for qualifications (RFQs) on this site are provided for convenience and do not represent official public notice. To respond to or inquire about bids, RFPs, or RFQs, please contact the appropriate government department.
TRY FOR FREE
Not a GovernmentBidders Member Yet?
Get unlimited access to thousands of active local, state and federal government bids and awards in All 50 States.