Tab 1
Modules
Respond 1 native, 2 third-party, or 3 not provided for each of EAM, Work Orders, and Inspection and Inventory, with comments.
Pre-bid brief · Live RFI · Under NDA 
A prime's pre-bid brief for Parker RFI 26-012.
Town of Parker, Colorado, a Request for Information on Enterprise Asset Management technology. No award comes from this RFI. It is the requirements-setting instrument for a future RFP, and a precise six-tab workbook now is how a prime gets into the Town's evaluation while the RFP is being written. Techtiz drafts the workbook engine behind the prime.
Live · closes Jun 19, 10 AM MST
Awarding body Town of Parker
Jurisdiction Douglas County, Colorado
Status Drafting under NDA
Solicitation
RFI 26-012Information only, no award
Scope
EAM technologySix-tab workbook, SaaS
First reader
BerryDunnTown technology advisor
Techtiz role
Back-officeNDA-first, never agency-facing
Schedule of events
One Mountain-time deadline, portal only.
Questions go through the Euna portal Q&A by June 12, with no email accepted. Responses are due June 19 at 10:00 a.m. Mountain time, electronic via the Euna portal only, and late responses are not accepted under any circumstances.
Published
RFI issued, ref 0000426282
Questions due, 10 AM MST
Euna portal Q&A only. No email
No pre-bid meeting
None specified for this RFI
Responses due, 10 AM MST
Euna portal only. No late responses
The procurement stage
This RFI awards nothing. It writes the next RFP.
No contract, no scoring, no prequalification, no response costs paid. The RFI is explicitly a precursor to a potential competitive RFP, most likely before the end of 2026.
Stage 1, nowRFI 26-012, information only. Vendors complete the six-tab workbook. No award, no shortlist, no commitment, and no response cost is reimbursed.
Stage 2BerryDunn reads, using the six-tab workbook as the implicit framework. No interview, no shortlist at this phase. The advisor may help draft the future RFP scope.
Stage 3The future RFP, the real competition, likely before the end of 2026, scoped partly by what these responses reveal.
Stage 4Contract, awarded from the RFP, not from this RFI.
The differentiator · A scoping instrument in disguise
The workbook's depth shows the Town is writing the RFP now, and the GT.10 to GT.17 security block is where credibility is won.
Specific cybersecurity frameworks, Azure and Entra ID integration, and a 12-category data-migration assessment show the Town already knows what it wants and is using vendor responses to draft the RFP. A precise, narrative-rich workbook is how a prime shapes the RFP it will later bid. The GT.10 to GT.17 security block, Entra ID SSO, MFA, role-based and field-level security, encryption at rest and in transit, audit logging, and alignment to SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, and NIST, is the single most evaluable section and the place a credible response separates from a weak one. The 12-category migration assessment rewards a real conversion methodology, not a claim.
Techtiz drafts the entire technical workbook, including the GT security block and the six-system disposition, so the prime captures the positioning value at low internal cost.
Task allocation
What a remote team drafts, and what stays with the prime.
The boundary that makes a compliant Subcontracting model work on an information-response workbook.
Contractual and operational, not a statutory bar. No statute bars offshore support and the RFI states no residency or offshore restriction. This is a market-information response that can be completed entirely remotely with no on-site work. The limits are prudential: an NDA between the US prime and the support team, alignment to the security frameworks the Town named, and confidentiality of the Town's legacy-system landscape. The prime owns its Euna portal account, every portal interaction, and the final sign-off.
Remote technology & back-office Subcontracting
Workbook drafting, no portal account
Tab 1 module mapping across the three functional areas
Tab 2 the full GT.1 to GT.36 indicators and narrative, the primary deliverable
Tab 3 implementation phasing and Town team roles
Tab 4 indicative cost estimates, draft
Tab 5 narrative, data-migration methodology and the cybersecurity write-up
Tab 6 disposition analysis for the six named legacy systems
Draft portal Q&A questions and document assembly
Techtiz operates only in this column, behind the prime, under NDA, and never touches the Town, BerryDunn, or the portal account.
US prime only
Portal, accuracy, the submission
Owning the registered Euna Procurement portal account
Submitting all Q&A questions through the portal under the prime's identity
The final portal upload and the covering email to Charles Ellis
Review and sign-off on accuracy and commercial sensitivity
Adding and verifying Colorado client references and consent
Gates, stated plainly. A signed NDA must be in place before any Town statistical data or legacy-system detail moves offshore, with a term extending through the potential RFP phase. Offshore security practices align to SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, and NIST. The Town's legacy-system landscape stays confidential, and the offshore team never contacts the Town or the portal.
Where responses fail
Binding price quotes instead of estimates Tab 4
The rule
This is an RFI. Tab 4 figures are indicative low and high estimates, not bids. The RFI prohibits binding quotes.
If you miss it
A binding quote can disqualify a vendor from this and future procurement. Label every Tab 4 figure an indicative estimate for planning only.
Scope & the workbook
Three functional areas, one six-tab workbook.
The response is the CO-Town of Parker RFI Workbook-EAM, six tabs. The Town is consolidating a fragmented environment into an integrated EAM platform, deployed as SaaS, the model the Tab 4 cost structure is built around.
Tab 2 · the hook
Functionality, GT.1 to GT.36
F/G/P/R/T indicators with narrative for every P, R, and T. The GT.10 to GT.17 security block is the most evaluable section.
Tab 3
Implementation
Professional-services model, Town team roles, work-effort split, and phase durations with low and high estimates.
Tab 4
Cost worksheet
Indicative low and high estimates across all categories including recurring SaaS, clearly labeled as estimates.
Tab 5
Informational questions
EAM experience, data migration, cybersecurity, licensing, and Colorado local-government references.
Tab 6
Future systems environment
A disposition recommendation for each of the six named legacy systems, with rationale.
Value model
The Town's eventual project, in three scenarios.
No contract value is stated; the Town's 2025 budget is $328.5M. The ranges below are market estimates for planning only, not a Town figure and not a bid. The ongoing annual SaaS fee is the variable that drives the 5-year total cost of ownership municipal committees model.
Low
$150-250k+ $60-90k/yr
One-time implementation plus annual recurring SaaS.
MidBase case
$300-500k+ $90-150k/yr
One-time plus annual SaaS, mid municipal range. Model under NDA
High
$600-900k+ $150-250k/yr
One-time plus annual SaaS, full enterprise scope.
All figures are market estimates for planning only, not Town figures and not a bid. The annual SaaS fee is the single variable that moves the 5-year total cost of ownership most.
Techtiz back-office pricing is scoped per engagement after NDA and is not part of the public RFI intelligence.
Current estate & consolidation
Six named systems, plus GIS, spreadsheets, and paper.
Tab 6 asks for a replace, retain, or integrate recommendation on each named system. The fragmentation across at least six platforms is what drives the procurement toward a single integrated EAM platform.
Beehive
Public Works work orders and asset tracking, the core system an EAM platform would absorb.
FASTER
Fleet management.
Laserfiche
Document management to integrate or retain.
RoadAI
Pavement-condition assessment.
SmartForce
Police equipment tracking.
Sprocket & more
Facilities maintenance, plus GIS tools, Caselle, spreadsheets, and paper processes.
Agency context
Who is buying, and who reads it first.
The Town of Parker is a home-rule municipality in Douglas County, Colorado, serving 72,147 residents on a 2025 budget of $328.5M. Procurement runs through the Finance Department under Charles Ellis, Chief Procurement Officer, the named contact and signer, at 20120 East Mainstreet. The Town engaged BerryDunn as its technology advisor, and BerryDunn reads the responses and may help draft the future RFP scope, which makes it the first and gating reader. The prime, not Techtiz, handles every interaction.
320 mi
Roads, 44 bridges
30 / 17
Buildings / parks
120
Traffic signals
Mainstreet in downtown Parker, Colorado. Photo by Jeffrey Beall, CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
The competing field
A high-interest field, no full database this time.
No bidder or prime-contractor database was provided for this solicitation, so combined revenue, in-state counts, and revenue bands cannot be computed and are not shown. Only document-sourced signals appear below, labeled as estimates for prime targeting.
38
Downloads in the first 24 hours
8 / to 12
Expected substantive responses
4
Recognized players engaged
n/a
Revenue, no database
The assumed strong responder is Tyler Technologies, given its local-government EAM and ERP position, alongside engineering consultants Tetra Tech, CDM Smith, and WSP. Named under NDA
The named-player read and the prime-targeting shortlist are a document-sourced estimate, shared in the full document pack under NDA. No verified bidder database was available for this RFI.
Before June 12
Four questions worth filing.
Questions the prime should file through the Euna portal Q&A. Techtiz never contacts the Town or BerryDunn. Portal questions appear publicly in the Q&A log.
Question 01
Are T responses with a named integration partner acceptable?
Confirming that a Third-party indicator with a named partner is acceptable shapes how honestly the Tab 2 capabilities can be presented.
Question 02
Does a data dictionary or export exist from Beehive or FASTER?
The migration methodology in Tab 5 depends on what conversion source data is available from the two core systems.
Question 03
Must Tab 6 address all six systems or only EAM-relevant ones?
Scoping the disposition analysis correctly avoids both an incomplete answer and wasted effort.
Question 04
Is general SaaS pricing acceptable in Tab 4?
Confirming the expected granularity keeps the indicative cost estimate responsive without crossing into a binding quote.
How Techtiz fits
The workbook engine, behind your firm.
Techtiz drafts the full six-tab workbook and hands a clean, review-ready package to the prime. The prime owns the Euna portal account, the references, the sign-off, and every word said to the Town and BerryDunn.
NDA before any data
A mutual NDA covering Town statistics and the legacy-system landscape, with a term through the RFP phase, before a single draft moves.
Draft all six tabs
The module mapping, the GT.1 to GT.36 functionality and narrative, the implementation phasing, the indicative cost model, and the six-system disposition.
Validate & package
Your SMEs validate every claim; Techtiz formats the workbook, fully unlocked, and prepares it for the prime's portal upload.
Your firm owns the response
The portal account, the references, the sign-off, the covering email, and all Town and BerryDunn contact stay with the prime.
NDA Prime name, engagement value, and proprietary content stay under NDA. Techtiz never contacts the Town or BerryDunn.
Responding to RFI 26-012? The window is open.
Request the full RFI-decode pack.
The decoded six-tab workbook guide, the GT.1 to GT.36 functionality read, the GT security block, the Tab 4 cost-model structure, the six-system disposition, and the migration methodology. A US partner manager replies within one business day, under a mutual NDA, never agency-facing.
Frequently asked questions
Pre-bid brief & confidentiality
Quick answers about how to use this engagement example and what detail is available under NDA.
Why is the prime contractor name withheld?
Most SLED subcontract work sits under mutual NDA and prime branding requirements. Public summaries describe engagement type, technical surface, and outcomes. Partner names and proposal content are shared only with explicit written permission or under an executed teaming agreement.
Can Techtiz support our bid on a similar pursuit?
Yes. If your pursuit matches this engagement type, email sled@techtiz.co or use the teaming intake form. Within 1 business day a U.S.-based partner manager replies with a mutual NDA template and a calendar slot—never agency-facing.
What do we receive under NDA?
Full RFP-decode packs, compliance matrices, technical volumes, submission runbooks, and named-resume options scoped to your vehicle and timeline. Prime name, pricing, and agency data stay inside the prime boundary.
Does Techtiz contact the procuring agency?
No. Techtiz is subcontract-only and never faces the agency. Your program manager holds the client relationship, sign-off, and all agency communication.