department of procurement services - city of chicago ... · department of procurement services -...

DRAFT AND CONFIDENTIAL – FOR PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

of 17

DEPARTMENT OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES - CITY OF CHICAGO

MARCH 16, 2012

ADDENDUM NO. 1

TO

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (“RFP”)

FOR

ELECTRONIC PAYMENT PROCESSING

SPECIFICATION NO. 97934

For which Proposals are due to be received no later than 4:00 p.m., Central Daylight Savings Time on March 26, 2012 in the Department of Procurement Services, Bid and Bond Room (Room 301, City Hall).

RESPONDENT MUST ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM NO. 1 IN THE COVER LETTER OF ITS PROPOSAL AND SHOULD COMPLETE AND RETURN THE

ATTACHED ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY FACSIMILE TO 312-744-7679 ATTN: ALTHA RILEY, CONTRACT NEGOTIATOR

This Addendum No. 1 includes revisions and answers to questions found relevant as set forth in the RFP:

I. Notice of Revisions and Changes; II. Answers to 115 questions submitted, pursuant to the above referenced Request

For Proposal (“RFP”) III. Addendum Receipt Acknowledgment

The information contained in this Addendum No. 1 is incorporated by reference into the original RFP document issued on February 10, 2012.


of 17


MARCH 16, 2012

ADDENDUM NO. 1

TO


FOR



For which Proposals are due in the Department of Procurement Services, Bid and Bond Room, Room 301, City Hall, 121 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602, at 4:00 p.m., Central Daylight Savings Time, March 26, 2012. The following revisions/clarifications are incorporated into the above-referenced RFP document. All other provisions and requirements as originally set forth remain in full force and are binding.

RESPONDENT MUST ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM NO. 1 IN THE COVER LETTER OF ITS PROPOSAL AND SHOULD COMPLETE AND RETURN THE

ATTACHED ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY FACSIMILE TO 312-744-7679 ATTN: ALTHA RILEY, CONTRACT NEGOTIATOR

SECTION I: NOTICE OF REVISIONS/CHANGES

REVISION DESCRIPTION

1. The due date for receipt of proposals has been postponed. The new proposal due date is Wednesday, March 28, 2012 at 4:00 p.m., Central Daylight Savings Time.

1. poned. The new proposal due date is Friday, bruary at 4:00.m

2. Exhibit 4, Cost Proposal Detail, and replaced as attached:

SECTION II: ANSWERS TO 115 QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE RFP


of 17

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

Question Reference Document

Section Response

1. Would you consider replacing your current cashiering system with an updated thin-client model at no additional cost to the city?

Exhibit 1; section B. sub-section 4 - Payment Processing - Item #3a.

Yes, replacing the current cashiering system would be considered. The Respondent may want to provide both options.

2. Can you please provide a data model of how this would be used?

Exhibit 1; section B. sub-section 5 - Check Verification - Item #10.

Currently, the payer enters check data into a City web application; the web application calls an API from ACH Direct to obtain authorization.

3. What format shall the contractor use to provide the payment data? What type of billing system will it integrate with?

Exhibit 1: section B. subsection 5 - Check verification - Item #12.

Depends on vendor recommended solution.

4. Please expand on this. What is the intention of this requirement?

Exhibit 1: section B. subsection 5 - Check verification - Item #15

If a vendor provided application is required, the City does not expect to pay additional for a license.

5. Please expand on this. What is the intention of this requirement?

Exhibit 1: section B. subsection 6 - Web Payment Capability - Item #16

If a vendor provided application is required, the City does not expect to pay additional for a license.

6. In the reference to Visa Verify is the City referring to Visa's security program "Verified by Visa?" If not, please expand on the mandatory requirement to process PIN credit cards.

Section B. Question 1.3 (p. 23)

Yes

7. What is your policy for cards to be declined?


The City relies on the accept and decline decisions from the network and issuers.

8. Is the City referring to internationally issued Visa, MasterCard, American Express or Discover cards? Or some other internationally issued cards? If other, please explain. Does the City anticipate these cards to be processed in U.S. Dollars or the local currency?


As part of the Response, International cards are identified by the Respondent.

9. Please expand on the specific data elements, formats, frequency and delivery method that the City requires to adjust credits and debits to the consumers account.


The City needs the ability to administratively process a new charge, cancellation or adjustment to a previous charge. Respondent will determine what is needed to support this transaction processing.


of 17


Section Response

10. Is the City referring to Host Capture at the time of authorization, in the requirement to process by direct electronic capture of payments concurrent with each transaction?


Yes.

11. What are the systems that your processor must interface with?

Section B. Question 4.3 (p.25)

Today the City uses Tender Retail, Heartland Link, and Cybersource, as identified in Exhibit 10.

12. Is the City able to provide a file with all data for scheduled and recurring payments to be generated automatically?

Section B. Question 4.4 & 4.5 (p. 25)

The City has not yet implemented any form of this functionality and would be open to a vendor recommended solution.

13. Would the City consider amending this requirement of: Ability of depository bank to interface with Oracle E Business Suite 11.5.10.2? An unknown depository bank's capabilities are outside our scope of capability or control.


Yes.

14. What is your bad check rate? Section B. 5.1-5.15 (p. 25-26)

Items 0.69% Amount 0.12%

15. Are returned checks re-deposited?

Section B. 5.1-5.15 (p. 25-26)

Return reasons "NSF" and "Uncollected Funds" are re-presented twice; all others return reasons are presented once.

16. What is your percentage of declines, by number and dollar value?

Section B. 5.1-5.15 (p. 25-26)

Items 0.11% Amount 10.0%

17. What is the dollar or number of checks returned and set for warranty (guarantee) claims?

Section B. 5.1-5.15 (p. 25-26)

The City does not currently use any warranty services.

18. What is the major reason for non-compliance?

Section B. 5.1-5.15 (p. 25-26)

Given non-compliance means declined checks on the front-end, negative information provided by the City’s third party check verification vendor, ACH Direct. High Risk is the reason for most declines. ACH Direct provides ATMVerify and NCNVerify serivces.

19. What types of checks are accepted and their approximate percentage of tender?

Section B. 5.1-5.15 (p. 25-26)

The City accepts all types of checks, business, personal, cashier, traveller and money orders. Business/Personal - 89.0%: Cashier/Money Order - 11.0%: Traveller - 0.00%. Checks represent 43% of all payment tenders.

20. Are all check types authorized through your current vendor?

Section B. 5.1-5.15 (p. 25-26)

Only business and personal check types are verified by the City’s current vendor.


of 17


Section Response

21. Do you capture and transmit other data other than MICR, such as ID/Drivers license or telephone number?

Section B. 5.1-5.15 (p. 25-26)

Not currently.

22. What is your approximate volume of voice authorization calls to your current provider?

Section B. 5.1-5.15 (p. 25-26)

The City does not have Payment Service Representatives call someone to voice authorize checks.

23. Do you currently accept checks through your Website?

Section B. 5.1-5.15 (p. 25-26)

Yes

24. Please provide an outline of what reports you currently use so we can provide recommendations.

Section B. 5.1-5.15 (p. 25-26)

The current vendor processes all Web, Kiosk and CTI (one of our lockboxes) ACH payments. All rejected payments (including those to be re-presented) are communicated via a “Return Item Detail Report”. The report is sorted by the date the payment was returned, payment method (Web, Kiosk, CTI), date of original transaction, and return reason. Within each return payment record the customer’s name is provided (except for Kiosk), transaction information (receivable id e.g parking notice number, docket number, transaction ref. id), the number of times presented, and transaction amount. For Web and Kiosk transactions, the transaction info/# corresponds to an identifier housed within the City’s Payment Portal which allows the City the ability to locate it easily.

25. Do you use one bank account for check processing or do you require local bank deposits?

Section B. 5.1-5.15 (p. 25-26)

The City currently uses one bank account for each payment channel for eCheck processing.

26. How do you currently collect on returned/bad checks today?

Section B. 5.1-5.15 (p. 25-26)

After representments, the Finance - Revenue Services Division reinstates the debt initially paid then sends a series of advanced collections notices until payment is received. If all else fails, the case is turned over to the City's Law Dept for further collection activity.

27. What is the current annualized check volume, by number of items and dollar value, including checks declined for authorization?

Section B. 5.1-5.15 (p. 25-26)

Business/Personal - 340,609, $1,430,776,331: Cashier/Money Order - 42,109, $34,075,112: Traveller - 7, $500. Declines: Business/Personal - 413, $146,473,376


of 17


Section Response

28. Is it your policy to require: a. Checks to be imprinted with a name (non-starter checks); b. Address to be included on the check, either imprinted or written; c. Phone number, either imprinted or written; d. Driver license number recorded on check.

Section B. 5.1-5.15 (p. 25-26)

Yes except for DL#.

29. Do you accept business checks for payment and if so, do you know the percentage of items, by number and dollar amount that are business checks?

Section B. 5.1-5.15 (p. 25-26)

The City does accept business checks for payment. However the City does not segregate and track business checks separately from non-business checks.

30. What is the total volume, by number and dollar amount, of returned items?

Section B. 5.1-5.15 (p. 25-26)

eCheck: total returned: 1,289; $1,100,858 Paper: 5,276; $2,316,897

31. Can you break down returns by return reason code, such as NSF/Uncollected, Stop Payment, Refer to Maker, etc.?

Section B. 5.1-5.15 (p. 25-26)

For eCheck processing: NSF 626, Corporate Customer Advises Not Authorized 238, No Account 192, Account Frozen 68, Invalid Account Number 49, Customer Advises Not Authorized 44, Uncollected Funds 11, Misc Other Codes 61.

32. Are checks returned to a consolidated return account or to the banks at which they are deposited?

Section B. 5.1-5.15 (p. 25-26)

The checks are returned to the accounts in which they were originally deposited.

33. What percentage of returned checks (by number and dollar amount) that are submitted for collection are collected?

Section B. 5.1-5.15 (p. 25-26)

The City does not track this information.

34. What is your deadline for overnight investments?


The City seeks to have all gross collected funds deposited directly into the City's bank account no later than 1pm CST following the day the transaction occurred and the Contractor has received funds from the respective Network for such transactions.

35. Please expand on the requirement of a monthly report of revenue by card type. Should this actually be dollar volume since revenue is not a processing data element?

Section E. Question 2.9 (p. 35)

Yes, revenue would be the dollar amount paid.


of 17


Section Response

36. Your requirements for references are very extensive, however, there is some information that we are not allowed (because of the secrecy act) to share. If we cannot provide all of the information that the City is requesting will we be deemed disqualified?

Exhibit 3 Not necessarily. Your proposal will be evaluated based on the Evaluation Criteria outlined in the RFP.

37. Is the MBE/WBE a direct or indirect participation?

Exhibit 5 MBE /WBE participation goals can be achieved through both direct and/or indirect participation utilizing MBE/WBE firms currently certified by the City of Chicago. Please refer to Exhibit 5, Special Conditions Regarding Minority and Women Owned Business Enterprise (M/WBE) Commitment, Section V. Regulations Governing Reductions to or Waiver of MBE/WBE Goals.

38. Is the City's intention to continue using all Third Party Vendor Applications it uses today?

Preferred, but not mandatory.

39. Payment Site: Please provide the Tender Retail version currently used through the Central Cashiering application.

Current Organization and Communication Approach (p. 1)

3.3.9.49

40. Payment Site: Does the City own, rent, or lease the 29 Verifone terminals that are deployed and used today?


The City owns these terminals.

41. Airport Parking Garages: Does the City own, rent, or lease the 39 Verifone VX570 terminals used at O'Hare Airport Parking Garages?


The City owns these terminals.

42. Kiosk: Who were the IT resources that developed the interface between the Kiosk application and the third-party vendor SecureNet?


Pay-Ease, Inc., the kiosk vendor. SecureNet is their vendor.

43. Web: Who developed the interface between the Web and third-party vendor Cybersource? Is the interface via a hosted payment page or an Application Programming Interface (API)?


A vendor contracted by the Department of Innovation & Technology developed the interface.

44. Web: Who developed the interface between the Web pages and the third-party vendor Heartland Link? Is the interface via an API?


IBM developed the interface via API.


of 17


Section Response

45. Web: Is the payment cardholder data collected from the consumer within the City's Web pages or within the third-party vendor's gateway?


The data are collected within the City's web applications pages.

46. Web: Does the City have IT resources to reconfigure to our API or Hosted Payment Page interfaces?


Yes.

47. Lockbox: How are transactions entered into the third-party vendor Heartland Link by the Lockbox? Manually keyed to a Virtual Terminal, interfaced from an API, other? If other, please describe.


Manually keyed.

48. Please expand on how the City defines common PIN-credit cards.

Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover credit card programs that support PIN processing.

49. 1-Can you please clarify the primary business drivers behind the RFP initiative? The RFP Exhibit 1 indicates that the ...”city seeks a comprehensive solution to ensure that Consumers are offered an expanded choice of payment options and to improve operational efficiency….” Is that the primary reason for the RFP initiative? Is the existing contract expiring? What other reasons may be involved?

The City seeks a comprehensive solution as discussed in the RFP Section 1.1 Purpose of the Request for Proposal.

50. 2-Can you indentify the incumbent credit card payment processing supplier(s)? Have they been afforded the opportunity to participate in this RFP?

Fifth Third Bank. Yes. RFP responses from all qualified Respondents will be evaluated.

51. 3-Do you envision multiple providers across your payment channels (including MBE, WBE, and potentially other providers)?

Traditionally, the City has always had one provider. MBE WBE participation is expected, however subcontracting is not allowed for financial processing.

52. Can you provide a breakdown of volume by card brand (i.e. Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express)?

Visa: 2,235,370; $224,122,155: MasterCard: 1,082,588; $113,166,611: Discover: 110,683; $11,927,604: American Express: 837,230; $89,791,123.47

53. Can you provide a breakdown or estimated volume and average payment for your check acceptance?

Walk-In: 382,725: Avg $3,827: eCheck: 77,415; Avg $2,624


of 17


Section Response

54. You mentioned Heartland payment link. Is that a software gateway or provider? If software, what is the version? Where is this used within the City of Chicago? ( i.e. web , face to face, kiosk)

Heartland is a provider and a subcontractor to 5/3 Bank. Heartland provides credit card authorizations for Parking ticket web payments and Parking ticket mail-in payments.

55. What is the anticipated monthly volume of checks to be verified and processed through the requested Check Verification and Electronic-Check Processing services?

B.5: Check Verification and Electronic-Check Processing Capability

Walk-In: 32,000; Web: 5,300; Kiosk: 1,100

56. What is the average dollar value of checks to be verified and processed through the requested Check Verification and Electronic-Check Processing services?


Walk-In: $3,800; Web: $3,100; Kiosk: $200

57. What is the percentage of checks returned of those verified and processed electronically?


1.67%

58. Of the checks verified and electronically processed, what is the approximate percentage of business and consumer checks?


Today the City processes check payments electronically on the web and through kiosk, and most business checks are not eligible to be converted for processing.

59. Are you currently using a web-based tool for reporting or paper based?

E.2: Reporting Web

60. Are you receiving any raw data files today?

E.2: Reporting Not currently.

61. Is your web processing activity processed in a batch mode or in real-time for each transaction?

E.2: Reporting Web eCheck processing is done via a nightly NACHA file. Web eCheck verification is real-time.

62. Is the City PCI compliant with all current solutions?

E.2: Reporting The City of Chicago is PCI compliant for current operations/processes.

63. Which channels of your business are processing with Oracle e-business suite application 11.5.10.2 and newer releases?

E.2: Reporting No channels. The Oracle e-business suite application does not process payments. It is used for some billing and for cash management/treasury functions.

64. Do you currently own your terminals?

E.2: Reporting Yes

65. Please provide software name, if any, and version number for Federal APD POS.

E.2: Reporting The Federal APD software is ScanNet version 6.1.

66. Please provide software name, version number and web site for your SecureNet solution.

E.2: Reporting Securenet V2.XX www.securenet.com

67. What version number of Cybersource are you using?

E.2: Reporting The currently used version is 6.4.0, service pack 10.


of 17


Section Response

68. Do you currently receive and respond to chargebacks via a paper method (fax/mail) or electronically?

E.2: Reporting Currently, chargebacks are received electronically; however they are responded to via Fax.

69. Please provide a web site for Heartland LINK software.

E.2: Reporting www.heartlandpaymentsystems.com

70. How many digits are requested for the City Defined Payment Reference or Number?

E.2: Reporting Transaction ID (receipt number) is NUMBER (10).

71. Can you share a sample of the custom designed report that you are requesting?

E.2: Reporting Whether the City needs a customized report is contingent on the vendor provided defined reports. The vendor should have the ability to generate a customized report from the data maintained by the vendor.

72. Do you have any tokenization for your web processing business today?

B.6: Web Payment Capability

No.

73. Do you have any recurring or deferred billing online today and/or is it something that would be useful?

B.6: Web Payment Capability

The City has not yet implemented any form of this functionality and would be open to a vendor recommended solution.

74. Please provide software name and version number for Tender Retail.

Airport Parking Garages

Tender Retail is not used at the airports. Otherwise 3.3.9.7.9

75. Please clarify question # V: Are you able to decline Card transactions outside of a defined dollar limit? Does this mean that if the City sets a maximum dollar amount, you wish all transactions in excess of that threshold be declined?

Question B.1.v: Are you able to decline Card transactions outside of a defined dollar limit?

Yes, to clarify the City does not want these payments to be accepted by the vendor as opposed to being declined by the network.

76. Can the City please clarify what constitutes "Interchange Fees"? For example, is this in reference to ONLY the discount rates, dues and assessment's, and per transaction fees charged by the credit card companies, or does this also include the per transaction gateway fees assessed by backend processors, gateways, and payment engines?

IV. Preparing Proposals: Required Information; Sub-section 6. PG. 14

Interchange fees are considered to be the discount rate, dues and assessments, and fees charged by the credit card companies and do not include fees assessed by backend processors, gateways and payment engines.

http://www.heartlandpaymentsystems.com/


of 17


Section Response

77. Respondent is proposing an end-to-end electronic payment processing service that will include having agreements with various backend processors, merchant service providers, and 3rd party device manufactures. Since the City is requesting to be the Merchant of Record, the City would need to sign a merchant service agreement with the processor that the Respondent proposes. Please confirm that the City is willing to sign appropriate merchant agreements with the Respondent’s processor in order to meet the requirements of being the Merchant of Record.

Exhibit 1, Sub-section C3; PG. 30

For the City to enter into any agreement, the City will require a full review, understanding, and agreement of the terms of the entire contents of the agreement, therefore confirmation of the City's willingness to enter into an agreement without first seeing the agreement in question is not possible with the information provided here.

78. Respondent is proposing an end-to-end electronic processing service that will include having agreements with various backend processors, merchant service providers, and 3rd party device manufacturers such as VeriFone. Respondent will be the single point of contact for all of these providers. Under this proposed solution, does the City consider these providers as "subcontractors", and if so, does this disqualify all proposals that are proposing an enterprise Payment Engine solution?

Exhibit 1, Sub-section C7; PG. 30

All proposals will be evaluated based on the Evaluation Criteria as set forth in the RFP.

79. Respondent is proposing a per transaction model where it will serve as a single-point-of-contact for the management of all aspects of payment processing for the City. This includes coordinating with 3rd party device manufactures and merchant service providers. Under this model, if the only charge to the City is a per transaction payment engine gateway fee, there will be no need to contract with MBE's/WBE's. Would the City be willing to grant a waiver to the MBE/WBE policy if this model was proposed?

Exhibit 5; PG. 41 See response to Question 37.


of 17


Section Response

80. Can the City provide additional detail surrounding this mandatory service, including what departments require this type of support?

Exhibit 1; B. Solution Details 1.5

The City has various dollar limits for different payment channels.

81. Can the City provide additional detail surrounding this mandatory service, including what departments require this type of support?


Provide the City the ability to cancel a transaction before it settles.

82. Does the City own it’s IVR or does the City contract with a third party?


Yes, the City owns an IVR used for processing water/sewer billing payments.

83. Can the City provide a list of standalone dial units currently being used by department?

Exhibit 1; B. Solution Details 3.2.a

Exhibit 10

84. Can the City provide an overview of how transactions are processed directly to their current contractor?

Exhibit 1; B. Solution Details 3.2.e

Exhibit 11

85. Can the City provide the name of the cashiering system being used?

Exhibit 1; B. Solution Details 4.3.a

Payment Manager, provided by Active Network

86. Can the City provide a list of third party service providers currently being used by department?

Exhibit 1; B. Solution Details 4.3.b

Exhibit 10

87. Can the City provide a list of third party software currently being used by department?

Exhibit 1; B. Solution Details 4.3.c

Exhibit 10

88. Does this requirement apply only to reconciliation reporting received from the card processor and or bank or does the City process credit cards through this platform?


Credit cards are not processed through this platform; this is for reporting only.

89. If processing credit cards, can the City provide the departments currently using the Oracle e-business suite application and the volume of transactions?


N/A; see answer to Question 88.

90. Does the City wish to retain all check items accepted for payment in a face to face environment or return them to the consumer?

Exhibit 1; B. Solution Details 5.

Depends on vendor recommended solution.

91. Can the City expand as to the type of transactions that may apply here? (I.E. are these payments that are the result of a bill received from the City department)

Exhibit 1; B. Solution Details 6.

Yes these payments are the result of a bill received from a City department.


of 17


Section Response

92. Can you provide an example as to when a constraint may be necessary?


The City may impose a limit to the dollar amount or the number of times a single credit card will be accepted on a given day, or a receivable payment may be allowed or not depending on a status.

93. Is the receivable description and ID required? If yes, what are the length and the content for each of these?


Yes. Charge ID (receivable ID number e.g. parking ticket number) is VARCHAR2 (256). Receivable Description (Item Name) is CHAR (40).

94. The card associations will not allow a merchant or acquirer to block a cardholder’s right to dispute a transaction. Does the City expect that the acquirer will absorb any and all chargebacks disputed by the card holder?


The City will abide by merchant and industry requirements regarding chargeback processing. Disputes beyond those requirements will not be supported. Payment disputes will have no bearing on the validity of the receivable. The City does not expect the vendor to absorb any chargebacks. The City is not adverse to the contractor proposing an alternate solution to any of its requests. However the response should also provide the mandatory requirements to be considered responsive.

95. What is the time frame in which the City will guarantee a dispute will be resolved?


Disputes in this context refer to receivables not payments. For example if the customer disputes the validity of water bill, not the payment itself. The City will abide by merchant and industry requirements regarding chargeback processing. Disputes beyond those requirements will not be supported.

96. Can you confirm that the term "network" refers to card association such as VISA, MasterCard, Discover or American Express?


Yes

97. Is the City currently storing signatures that are captured at a point of collection or using a third party?


Yes the City is currently storing signatures and not using a third party.

98. If using a third party, who is that third party?


N/A

99. If not using a third party, does the City want the contractor to present its own solution?


The City is not adverse to the contractor proposing an alternate solution to any of its requests. However the response should also provide the mandatory requirements to be considered responsive.

100. Is the City using any point of sale terminal devices such as those manufactured by VeriFone, Hypercom, Ingenico etc?


Exhibit 10


of 17


Section Response

101. If yes, does the City have a list of the models being used and in what departments?


Exhibit 10

102. Can you confirm that the City needs the contractor to provide installation services for the connections required to support the equipment or software?


To clarify, the City will provide the physical connections to the equipment, such as phone lines and network access. It is the vendor's responsibility to establish needed accounts and to ensure provided equipment is operational and transactions are processing as intended.

103. Please confirm that the City requires this level of detail only if the contractor is selected to provide services to the City.

Exhibit 1; D. Implementation and Maintenance

Yes as stated.

104. Will the City be providing Exhibit 10 on their Procurement Services website in the near future?

Exhibit 1; D. Implementation and Maintenance 3.5

Refer to Exhibit 10 of the RFP. The RFP is downloadable from www.cityofchicago.org/bids.

105. Can you define what the analysis entails?

Exhibit 1; E. Service Levels, Reporting and Support 2.8

A detail invoice providing sufficient information for the City to verify amounts charged.

106. Are these reports to be received in hard copy or can they be provided as part of an online report solution?

Exhibit 1; E. Service Levels, Reporting and Support 2.6 -16

On-line is preferred.

107. Can you define "routine transfers" and if the hard copies are in addition to any online reporting solution?

Exhibit 1; E. Service Levels, Reporting and Support 2.18

A routine transfer refers to a transfer of funds from one account into another.

http://www.cityofchicago.org/bids


of 17


Section Response

108. Page 6 - Fees for the Submission of Proposals - Is there a particular bidder asset level whereby if the Respondent meets this level the City would be willing to accept some sort of bid / performance bond in lieu of a cashier’s check, money order, etc.? To clarify, the portion of merchant card transaction fees that the Contractor would actually retain for providing the services in question would only be a small fraction of the overall fees. Interchange and Assessment fees make up the bulk of the transaction charges (typically 90% or greater) and are ultimately charged by and paid to the card associations (Visa, MasterCard, etc.), meaning they are not retained by the merchant processor. The fees that the merchant processor would end up retaining would be less than $1 million dollars, even over the course of an 8 year term.

Page 6 - Fees For The Submission Of Proposals

No.

109. Page 14 - Financial Statements - Would it be acceptable for Respondent to provide web links to financial statements, rather than in hard copy?

Page 14 - Section 7. Financial Statements

For lengthy financial statements, one copy on CD ROM marked with Respondent Name & Financials Statements by Year should be sufficient. If applicable, include reference to the CD – ROM attachment in your Proposal and attach hardcopy of Auditors Statement. References to the website may not clearly indicate which documents apply to which audit period.

110. General Question - Were there clarifying questions / answers provided during / following the pre-bid conference, if so can the City provide this information? (we went online but were unable to locate)

No. All questions and answers are included in this addendum.


of 17


Section Response

111. General Question - To what financial institution(s) does the City intend to deposit its merchant card transactions to?

The City currently utilizes Fifth Third Bank for merchant card transactions. The City has an approved list of municipal depositories, all of which theoretically could be utilized: http://www.chicagocitytreasurer.com/finance/municipalDepositories.htm Of those, the City would expect some of the smaller banks not to realistically have the functionality/technology to properly handle this operation.

112. General Question - Merchant card transaction fees are generally auto-debited from the merchant's designated bank account(s). Is this billing method acceptable to the City, or would the City require that the fees be invoiced monthly?

RFP for Electronic Payment Processing (Specification No. 97934)

The City requires that the fees be invoiced monthly and not be auto-debited from any bank account.

113. Transaction History - regarding the Web piece, is Cybersource required or are other transaction gateways available, if so please specify.

Transaction History

Cybersource is the only gateway the City uses at this time. The City is open to other options depending on who performs the work to implement.

114. Transaction History - regarding the reference to the twenty-nine VeriFones for Satellite Payment Site, what is the model of these VeriFone units?

Transaction History

Exhibit 10

115. Transaction History - can the City please provide its contact information for its contacts at Federal APD and SecureNet, so that we can reach out to verify payment gateway options / network compatibility?

Transaction History

SecureNet: Keri Dunlap [email protected] SecureNet Payment Systems 9715 Key West Avenue Suite 330. Rockville, MD 20850. Phone 888-231-0060 ext 1003. Fax 888-231-1162 The contact person at the application development company "Federal APD" is Jim Masseso - Mobile# 248-797-2130

CITY OF CHICAGO JAMIE L. RHEE DEPARTMENT OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER


of 17


MARCH 16, 2012

ADDENDUM NO. 1

TO


FOR



Consisting of Sections I - III including this Acknowledgment.

SECTION III. ADDENDUM RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGMENT I hereby acknowledge receipt of Addendum No.1 to the RFP named above and further state that I am authorized to execute this Acknowledgment on behalf of the company listed below.

Signature of Authorized Individual Title

Name of Authorized Individual (Type or Print)

Company Name

Business Telephone Number

Complete and Return this Acknowledgment by facsimile to: 312-744-7679, Attn: Altha Riley, Contract Negotiator

department of procurement services - city of chicago ... · department of procurement services -...

Documents