13856 Heritage Hub Notice of Interest DOJ Approved.pdf

Heritage Hub Opportunity Notice (Phase 1)

1 Purpose The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) is conducting a competitive procurement process to identify a vendor solution for Heritage Hub – a SHPO cultural resource management system that supports a production-ready Initial Release and allows OPRD to add Optional Modules over time through a modular, scalable approach.

This Phase 1 Notice invites vendors to submit a Notice of Interest (NOI) to demonstrate solution fit, implementation capability, and pricing approach.

2 Overview of the Opportunity Heritage Hub is designed to support core cultural resource management functions, including external intake, internal review workflows, records and file management, controlled access to sensitive information, GIS and spatial workflows, reporting, integrations, and ongoing support.

OPRD anticipates an Initial Release, with the option to add Optional Modules over time.

3 Procurement Process Summary OPRD intends to conduct an Alternate Procurement Process in two phases:

• Phase 1: Heritage Hub Opportunity (this Notice): Vendors submit an NOI that responds to the content requirements in Section 7.

• Phase 2: Discussions, Demonstrations, and Negotiation (as needed) OPRD may invite one or more vendors to participate in Phase 2 activities, which may include discussions, solution demonstrations, and negotiations toward a near-final contract.

OPRD may select a vendor at any time during Phase 1 or Phase 2, consistent with the competitive process described in this Notice.

4 Schedule

• Opportunity Notice posted: May 14th, 2026

• Deadline for vendor questions: May 21st, 2026

• Online Q/A session: May 21st, 2026

• NOI submission deadline: May 28th, 2026

• Anticipated Phase 1 evaluations complete: June 8th, 2026

• Anticipated Phase 2 invitations (if any): June 8th, 2026

5 OPRD may adjust the schedule by a written addendum posted at Open Market Bid S-63400- 00016957 on OregonBuys

6 Communications, Questions, and Addenda All vendor questions and requests for clarification must be submitted in writing to:

Joshua.a.herron@oprd.oregon.gov

OPRD’s responses, including addenda and official answers, will be posted at: Open Market Bid S- 63400-00016957. Vendors are responsible for monitoring this posting location for updates.

7 NOI Submission Instructions

• Submission method: Submit attachment to the OregonBuys request. If you have any questions after trying, contact single point of contact for support.

• Submission deadline: May 28th, 2026 at 5 PM Pacific Time

• Submission subject line: “Heritage Hub NOI – {{Vendor Name}}”

• File format: One (1) searchable PDF

Late submissions will not be accepted.

8 NOI Submission Requirements

8.1 File and organization requirements

Vendors must submit one (1) searchable PDF that includes:

• Table of contents

• Clearly labeled sections corresponding to each NOI content requirement (NOI-1 through

NOI-12)

• Page numbers

8.2 Narrative page limits (required; scored content)

• The NOI response consists of twelve (12) required sections (NOI-1 through NOI-12). Each required section is limited to one (1) page, for a total of twelve (12) pages.

• A “page” includes all text, tables, and graphics contained within that page.

• Vendors should use bulleted, direct statements and avoid marketing prose.

Strict enforcement: Content beyond the stated page limit for any scored NOI section will not be reviewed or evaluated. Evaluators will score only the content within the page limit.

8.3 Appendix (optional; unscored; limited)

Vendors may include an optional Appendix limited to four (4) pages maximum, in addition to the thirteen (12) required pages for NOI-1 through NOI-12.

• The Appendix is not scored and is provided for the evaluator's convenience only.

• No new claims: The Appendix may illustrate or support statements in the scored narrative, but it may not introduce new responses, commitments, exceptions, or required information. If information needed to address a requirement is provided only in the Appendix, it will be treated as if it were not provided.

• Additional Appendix pages beyond the limit will not be reviewed.

Examples of acceptable Appendix material:

• High-level architecture diagram(s)

• High-level security/compliance overview summary

• Representative screenshots or workflow illustrations

8.4 Writing expectations

• Use direct, verifiable statements. Marketing language is discouraged.

• Be concise, use bullet points where possible, and avoid repeating the requirement text.

• For each major capability referenced, clearly indicate whether it is:

o available out-of-the-box, o available via configuration, o requires custom development, or o planned/roadmap (not currently available).

9 NOI Content Requirements (NOI-1 through NOI-12) Each NOI section below must be addressed in one (1) page maximum, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

NOI-1 Cover Letter (Required)

Provide a one-page maximum cover letter. The cover letter must be informative and specific (not a marketing narrative) and must help evaluators understand who is responding and why the proposed solution is a strong fit for Heritage Hub. NOI-1 will be evaluated on clarity, specificity, and relevance to Heritage Hub, including the extent to which the vendor’s cover letter conveys solution fit and implementation readiness without relying on generic marketing statements.

Include, at minimum:

• Vendor legal name and headquarters location

• Primary point of contact (name, title, phone, email)

• Identification of any proposed partners/subcontractors (if applicable) and their role (high level)

• Confirmation of interest and availability to participate in Phase 2 activities if invited

• Any known conflicts of interest (if applicable)

• Statement that the NOI submission is accurate and authorized

Vendors may include additional bullets that they believe best demonstrate overall fit and readiness for Heritage Hub. Examples of topics vendors may choose to address include (not limited to):

• Why the proposed solution is well-suited for a SHPO / cultural resource workflow and records environment

• Key strengths related to phased delivery (Initial Release first, Optional Modules over time)

• Approach to protecting restricted/sensitive information (high level)

• Approach to GIS/spatial workflow support (high level)

• One or two brief proof points from comparable implementations (client type, go-live year, and relevance)

NOI-2 Platform Overview and Current Product Maturity (Required)

Provide:

• Brief product overview and deployment model(s).

• High-level architecture summary (conceptual is fine)

• What is available today vs. planned/roadmap (clearly labeled)

• 1–2 brief examples of comparable case/workflow/records deployments (high level)

NOI-3 Initial Release and Optional Modules Delivery Approach (Required)

Provide:

• How the vendor will deliver a production-ready Initial Release (what is out-of-box vs.

configuration vs. development)

• Approach for adding Optional Modules over time (modularity, sequencing, dependencies, release management)

• Key assumptions, risks, and mitigations that could affect delivery

NOI-4 Security and Confidentiality Controls (Required)

Provide:

• Role-based access control approach (internal vs. external users)

• Protection of sensitive and restricted information (including restricted archaeological information, as applicable)

• Audit logging approach (access/change history)

• High-level security posture summary (no proprietary details required at NOI)

NOI-5 GIS/Spatial Capabilities and Workflow Integration (Required)

• Spatial capabilities supported (e.g., map visualization, geometry entry/drawing, spatial queries)

• How GIS/spatial information is linked to records/cases and decision workflows

• Integration approach with typical GIS platforms (high level), if applicable

NOI-6 Implementation Approach, Proposed Timeline, and Staffing Model (Required)

Provide:

• Proposed implementation approach and phases (configure, validate, train, go-live, stabilization)

• Timeline drivers and what OPRD must provide (SMEs, test users, data access)

• Proposed staffing model and roles (vendor and client)

• Approach to training and Organizational change support (high level)

• Partnering Approach and Lessons Learned, which may include:

o How you collaborate during implementation o An example that contributed to success on a comparable implementation and what you did to enable it.

o A challenge encountered and how it was resolved, including what you changed/learned.

o Why these lessons matter for Heritage Hub.

NOI-7 Data Migration / Transition Approach (Required)

• What data types you typically migrate (cases, records, documents, contacts, spatial)

• Migration approach (extract/map/validate/cutover) and validation method

• What you would need from OPRD to refine estimates in Phase 2 (inventories/samples)

If data migration is not part of the implementation, briefly explain why.

NOI-8 Integration Approach (Required)

• Integration methods supported (APIs, webhooks, SSO, file-based, etc.)

• Core entities typically supported via integration (e.g., records/cases/files/metadata)

• Security approach for integrations

NOI-9 Support Model and Service Level Approach (Required)

• Support hours and channels

• Escalation approach

• Service level approach (high level) and maintenance/upgrade cadence

• Approach to post-go-live stabilization and ongoing admin support

NOI-10 Development Roadmap for Planned Capabilities and Optional Modules (Required)

Provide:

• High-level roadmap items relevant to Heritage Hub (clearly labeled as planned vs.

committed)

• How the roadmap is governed and communicated

• How Optional Modules are supported long term (versioning, upgrade impacts)

NOI-11 Pricing Model and Cost Methodology (Required)

Vendors must provide a Planning Estimate (Cost Range) and supporting detail. Pricing is a key evaluation consideration.

Provide:

• Pricing basis and units (e.g., per named user, per module, per environment, per transaction, tiered)

• What drives cost changes over time (user growth, modules, environments, storage, usage, support tiers, etc.)

In addition, provide a Planning Estimate (Cost Range) by scenario:

Definition: A Planning Estimate (Cost Range) is a non-binding cost range intended for planning and comparative evaluation. It must be based on stated assumptions and the information available at the time of submission. It is not a final price quote or offer.

Provide both one-time and recurring annual cost ranges for each scenario:

• Scenario A (25 internal users):

o One-time cost range: $___ to $___ o Recurring annual cost range: $___ to $___

• Scenario A (75 internal users):

o One-time cost range: $___ to $___ o Recurring annual cost range: $___ to $___

• Scenario A (150 internal users):

o One-time cost range: $___ to $___ o Recurring annual cost range: $___ to $___

If pricing depends on external/public usage, transaction volume, storage, or other drivers, the vendor must:

• identify the cost driver(s), and

• state the assumption(s) used for the Planning Estimate (Cost Range).

Pricing model Assumptions, inclusions, and exclusions

• Key assumptions used (environments included, migration included/not included, integrations included/not included at a high level, support level assumptions)

• What is included vs. excluded from one-time and recurring ranges (e.g., custom development, complex data cleanup, advanced integrations)

Completeness requirement: Planning Estimates that omit required components, assumptions, or scenario pricing may be considered non-responsive for NOI-11.

NOI-12 Vendor Experience and References (Required)

• 2–4 comparable implementations (preferably SHPO/heritage/cultural resource management)

• For each: client type, high-level scope, go-live year, and relevance to Heritage Hub

• Reference contact information

10 Evaluation OPRD will evaluate all vendors based on their responses to NOI-1 through NOI-12. The evaluation criteria are listed as follows.

Evaluation Criteria

Inadequate Grade F

Developing Grade D

Proficient Grade C

Accomplished Grade B

Exemplary Grade A

NOI-1 Cover Letter

(Total Points 100)

Missing required information or largely generic.

Little to no clear indication of Heritage Hub fit or readiness.

Includes basic required information but remains largely generic and/or unclear; limited specificity regarding fit or readiness.

Meets required elements with generally clear bullets and some Heritage Hub-relevant specifics;

indicates basic readiness.

Clear, specific, and highly relevant.

Demonstrates strong fit and readiness through concise, concrete statements

Exceptionally clear and specific;

demonstrates compelling fit and readiness with strong, relevant proof points and no fluff.

and proof points.

0-6 7-

14-

21-

28-

35-

41-

48-

55-

61-

68-

75-

81-

88-

95-

Evaluation Criteria

Inadequate Grade F

Developing Grade D

Proficient Grade C

Accomplished Grade B

Exemplary Grade A

NOI-2 Platform Overview and

Product Maturity (Total Points 75)

Platform description is unclear or inconsistent;

maturity is not evident; heavy reliance on roadmap or unsupported claims.

Provides a basic overview but omits key details about maturity, deployment model, and what exists today vs.

what is planned.

Clearly describes the current product, deployment model(s), and what is available today vs the roadmap;

adequate evidence of maturity.

Comprehensive, well-organized overview with credible maturity indicators, clear boundaries between current and planned, and strong fit signals.

Exceptional clarity and maturity;

architecture and operational model are strong and well-explained, with compelling evidence of readiness.

0-5 6-

11-

16-

21-

26-

31-

36-

41-

46-

51-

56-

61-

66-

71-

Inadequate Grade F

Developing Grade D

Proficient Grade C

Accomplished Grade B

Exemplary Grade A

NOI-3 Initial Release and

Optional Modules Delivery

Approach (Total Points

500)

Does not present a credible approach for delivering a production-ready Initial Release; the optional module approach is vague or unrealistic.

Provides a partial or high-level approach with gaps in scope realism, sequencing, dependencies, risks, or how modules are added safely.

Presents an adequate, credible approach for Initial Release and modular growth, including assumptions and basic risk mitigation.

Strong, low-risk approach with clear modular strategy, sequencing, dependencies, release management, and practical mitigation for key risks.

Exceptional delivery approach with high confidence: clear, proven modular model, strong controls, and well-articulated path to production readiness.

0-

34-

68-

101-

135-

168-

201-

235-

268-

301-

335-

368-

401-

435-

468-

Inadequate Grade F

Developing Grade D

Proficient Grade C

Accomplished Grade B

Exemplary Grade A

NOI-4 Security and

Confidentiality Controls

(Total Points 225)

Security response is vague, incomplete, or does not address the protection of sensitive/restricted information and auditing needs.

Addresses some security elements but lacks depth, clarity, or credibility;

limited detail on RBAC, auditing, or confidentiality controls.

Adequately addresses RBAC/least privilege, auditing, and high-level protection of sensitive information;

demonstrates reasonable security posture.

Strong, credible controls with a straightforward approach to restricted data protection, auditing, and security practices appropriate for government use.

Exceptional security maturity and clarity;

demonstrates best-practice controls and governance, with high confidence in protecting restricted information.

0-15 16-

31-

46-

61-

76-

91-

106-

121-

136-

151-

166-

181-

196-

211-

Inadequate Grade F

Developing Grade D

Proficient Grade C

Accomplished Grade B

Exemplary Grade A

NOI-5

GIS/Spatial

Capabilities and Workflow

Integration (Total Points

150)

GIS/spatial capabilities are unclear, minimal, or not meaningfully integrated into workflow/records use cases.

Provides basic GIS/spatial functions but with gaps in workflow integration, usability, or linkage to records/cases.

Adequately describes core GIS/spatial capabilities and how they connect to records/cases and review workflows.

Strong spatial capability and workflow integration; clear patterns for data linkage, usability, and integration with common GIS platforms.

Exceptional spatial capability, integration, and workflow fit;

clearly demonstrates mature patterns and strong alignment with HH use cases.

0-

11-

21-

31-

41-

51-

61-

71-

81-

91-

101-

111-

121-

131-

141-

Inadequate Grade F

Developing Grade D

Proficient Grade C

Accomplished Grade B

Exemplary Grade A

NOI-6

Implementation

Approach, Timeline, Staffing, and Partnering

(Total Points 500)

The implementation approach is vague or unrealistic; it lacks clear phases, roles, client responsibilities, or evidence of delivery readiness.

Provides a basic approach but with gaps in timeline drivers, staffing clarity, training/change approach, or lessons learned.

Presents a credible implementation approach with phases, staffing/roles, key assumptions, and basic partnering/lessons learned.

Strong implementation plan with transparent governance, roles, timeline drivers, training/change approach, and meaningful lessons learned that reduce risk.

Exceptional implementation readiness; highly credible plan, strong partnering model, and demonstrable lessons learned that directly mitigate HH risks.

0-

34-

68-

101-

135-

168-

201-

235-

268-

301-

335-

368-

401-

435-

Inadequate Grade F

Developing Grade D

Proficient Grade C

Accomplished Grade B

Exemplary Grade A

NOI-7 Data Migration / Transition Approach

(as applicable)

(Total Points 75)

No viable migration/transition approach; omits data types, method, validation, or required inputs to estimate/plan.

Provides a high-level migration concept but lacks detail on validation, cutover, risk handling, or required OPRD inputs.

Adequately describes migration method (extract/map/validate/cutover) and validation; identifies key inputs needed to refine estimates.

Strong migration approach with clear validation, risk controls, and pragmatic expectations for data cleanup, sampling, and cutover planning.

Exceptional migration capability;

well-structured approach with strong validation, risk controls, and clear plan to refine scope efficiently.

0-5 6-10 11-

16-

21-

26- 30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-

51-

56-

61-

66-

Inadequate Grade F

Developing Grade D

Proficient Grade C

Accomplished Grade B

Exemplary Grade A

NOI-8

Integration Approach

(Total Points 150)

The integration approach is unclear or does not credibly address APIs/webhooks, security, or supported core entities.

Provides basic integration methods but lacks clarity on scope, security approach, or how integrations are governed and supported.

Adequately describes supported integration methods and high-level security concepts;

identifies core entities and reasonable patterns.

Strong, mature integration approach with clear patterns, security concepts, and operational considerations that reduce downstream risk/cost.

Exceptional integration maturity and clarity;

demonstrates robust, scalable patterns and strong alignment to HH integration needs.

0-

11-

21-

31-

41-

51-

61-

71-

81-

91-

101-

111-

121-

131-

141-

Inadequate Grade F

Developing Grade D

Proficient Grade C

Accomplished Grade B

NOI-9 Support Model and

Service Level Approach

(Total Points 75)

Support approach is missing or inadequate;

unclear hours, channels, escalation, or ongoing service expectations.

Basic support description provided but limited detail on escalation, service approach, or post-go-live stabilization.

Adequate support model with clear channels/hours and reasonable escalation and stabilization approach.

Strong support model with clear escalation, service approach, and proactive practices suitable for a production government system.

Exceptional support maturity;

demonstrates robust service approach, clear accountability, and strong fit for HH operational needs.

0-5 6-

11-

16-

21-

26-

31-

36-

41-

46-

51-

56-

61-

66-

Inadequate Grade F

Developing Grade D

Proficient Grade C

Accomplished Grade B

Exemplary Grade A

NOI-10

Development

Roadmap (planned capabilities and optional modules) (Total Points

50)

The roadmap is vague, marketing-oriented, or does not distinguish between planned and available; it has limited value for risk assessment.

Provides a high-level roadmap but lacks governance detail, prioritization clarity, or relevance to HH needs.

Adequate roadmap summary with a clear distinction between current and planned, and a basic governance/communication approach.

Strong roadmap governance and clarity; clearly relevant to HH and describes how changes are managed without destabilizing production.

Exceptional roadmap transparency and governance;

demonstrates reliable planning and controlled evolution aligned to HH priorities.

0-

4-

8-

11-

15-

18- 20 21-24 25-27 28-30 31-

35-

38-

41-

45-

48-

Inadequate Grade F

Developing Grade D

Proficient Grade C

Accomplished Grade B

NOI-11

Pricing:

Planning Estimate

(Cost Range) and

Pricing Model

(Total Points 500)

Pricing response is incomplete or non-responsive (missing scenarios, assumptions, inclusions/exclusions, or pricing basis); low credibility.

Provides some pricing information but lacks required scenario detail and/or clear assumptions;

cost drivers and units are unclear.

Provides required scenario cost ranges and a clear pricing basis with stated assumptions and inclusions/exclusions;

reasonable transparency.

Strong pricing transparency with clear model, cost drivers, unit pricing/tiers, and credible ranges supported by explicit assumptions.

Exceptional pricing clarity and credibility; highly transparent model and assumptions with well-supported ranges and clear

TCO

implications.

0-33 34-67 68-

101-

135-

168-

201-

235-

268-

301-

335-

368-

401-

435-

Inadequate Grade F

Developing Grade D

Proficient Grade C

Accomplished Grade B

Exemplary Grade A

NOI-12 Vendor Experience and

References (Total Points

100)

Little to no relevant experience provided;

references are missing or not comparable;

claims are not supported.

Some experience provided, but limited comparability or detail;

references provide limited confidence.

Adequate comparable experience and references;

demonstrates reasonable capability to deliver HH-like implementations.

Strong, directly comparable experience and references;

provides high confidence in delivery capability and relevant domain knowledge.

Exceptional, highly comparable experience with outstanding references;

demonstrates deep expertise and proven success in similar environments.

0-6 7-

14-

21-

28-

35-

41-

48-

55-

61-

68-

75-

81-

88-

95-