9053_HMIS Solution RFP_FAQ_final version.docx

Oregon Housing and Community Services Department 725 Summer Street NE, Suite B Salem, OR 97301 Telephone: (971) 433-7914 Email: amanda.king@hcs.oregon.gov Date: October 19, 2026

To: #S-91400-00016584 Proposers

From: Amanda King, Senior Contracting Officer

Re: #S-91400-00016584, FAQ No. 4 (Final Version) HMIS Solution Software

This document is not a Bid Amendment to the subject RFP and does not change the requirements of the RFP. Answers given to the below questions that were submitted by prospective Proposers are for clarification purposes only.

Questions Received:

1. Can we break up the Attachment A and submit them in individual PDFs by section?

Response: Yes, please organize and upload the sections of Attachment A as necessary for organization. OregonBuys does not have a limitation on attachments. Please label the individual PDFs accordingly so that we know which PDF applies to corresponding sections.

2. Do you only want one reference or can we provide more?

Response: Proposer may provide more than one reference but must limit it to two references.

3. For Attachment C [Requirements Traceability Matrix], there is a section where we can leave comments with our responses to each item. In the section for comments, do you want us to leave responses or clarifications on all line items or as it seems necessary to clarify a particular response?

Response: We are asking for each line item on Attachment C to be filled in with a response on whether the proposed Solution meets the requirement and how. The scoring methodology for the RTM includes a score based on the response given for each line item. If a Proposer leaves the response column blank, that will result in a lower score for that line item. We are hoping for a thorough explanation on each line item, so we fully understand how a Proposer plans to meet the requirement.

4. With regard to 9053_AttF_State of Oregon IT Security Standards, please confirm that proposers should complete only columns D-l on the Standards tab, in addition to completing the Solution Description tab for submission of the proposer's response at this time. If this is incorrect, please provide instructions about which other columns would be completed.

Response: Attachment F, State of Oregon IT Security Standards, will be due with Round 2 submittals by the Shortlisted Proposers. This attachment does not need to be submitted with Round 1 Proposals and has only been provided for awareness and transparency during Round 1. The anticipated instruction for this attachment is that Proposers will fill out columns D through L in the Standards tab for each row that applies to the proposed Solution and the Solution Description tab. More instructions will be submitted with a Bid Amendment that details Round 2 requirements and how to fill out the IT Security Standards attachment.

5. Regarding Att C, Column I: Proposer Response on the "Requirements" tab only offers the following responses: "The solution fully meets the requirement statement," "The solution partially meets the requirement statement," and "The solution does not meet the requirement statement. How should the vendor respond if the vendor organization will meet the requirement with enhancement to the solution during the proposed implementation period?

Response: We recommend Proposer responds with the option of "The solution does not meet the requirement statement" and then provide in the response comment field to details of the enhancement note.

6. [Under Section 3.3 (Round 1 Proposal Requirements)] Section 3.3.1 Executive Summary, including 3.3.1.1 and 3.3.1.2, can this be included in the Technical Proposal or does it need to be a separate document?

Response: Proposers may provide a response to this section where they best see fit, if it is labeled accordingly and easily found. The intent was to have the Proposal package open with this information; however, that is not a requirement. Proposers can attach it as its own document or include it in either the Administrative Proposal or Technical Proposal.

7. How many system administrator users do you have?

Response: There is one System Administrator for the site and acts as the single point of contact with the HMIS Vendor. The System Administrator has two internal OHCS staff members supporting the site administration. Each CoC has a data leads and coordinated entry leads that performs certain administrative moves within the System on behalf of the individual CoC needs and in alignment with the agreed upon site governance.

8. How many total users will need access to the system?

Response: There are approximately 836 End Users in the System with the availability to have 860 Users currently.

9. How many participating agencies are in the system?

Response: Response: There are approximately 218 Agencies participating in the implementation.

10. How many will need to create custom reports?

Response: There are currently 173 Users that will need access to create ad-hoc custom reports.

11. How many users will need to create dashboards?

Response: Many end users currently use canned dashboards that allow them to easily customize what is tracked to manage data entry and case management. Approximately 20 ad-hoc report creators regularly create dashboard visualizations within the advanced reporting tool. All CoCs create external dashboards with data extracted from HMIS, either through standard canned HUD reports or custom reports.

12. How many CoCs are a part of this implementation?

Response: There are 4 CoCs participating in our implementation.

13. For the data migration, how many legacy systems would you need to migrate data from--would it be from a single HMIS or also other systems?

Response: Data will be migrated from a single HMIS system.

14. We have developed a centralized system and a digital hub for service providers who offer services to unshelled individuals in recovery and released from incarceration. Could you please provide us with the additional steps required beyond submitting a formal bid to Oregon Buys?

Response: The RFP posted in OregonBuys contains several attachments that detail all necessary steps required. Be sure to follow the directions of the requirements when submitting a formal bid to OregonBuys and be aware of the Schedule under Section 1.2 that would lead to a Round 2 where additional steps will be required for Shortlisted Proposers moving on to that second round. During Round 1, there are no further steps required of Proposers than to follow the instructions and ensure all documents and requirements are submitted as part of the formal bid.

15. I noticed that the proposal submission deadline is October 29th. Could you please clarify if it is due the 29th or opens for submission on that day?

Response: The Bid Opening date of October 29, 2026 at 4:00 PM PT is the last day to submit Proposals. Please ensure we have received your submission by this time, as the bid will close at 4:00 PM sharp.

16. Will we be invited to submit it through a link provided by Smartsheets, I have not seen that outlined in the instructions?

Response: Under Section 3.2.2, Proposal Format and Quality, the RFP requires Proposers to submit directly through OregonBuys by the Bid Opening Date/Time. Smartsheet will not be used as a formal submission process under this RFP. Under Section 1.5, OregonBuys Assistance, the RFP details how you may receive help for navigating OregonBuys by directly emailing the SPC at amanda.king@hcs.oregon.gov or contacting the OregonBuys Supplier Help Desk directly at support.oregonbuys@das.oregon.gov or 1-855-800-5046.

17. In this bid, does the software need to be fully developed and functional (meeting all the [priorities]: Must Have) on the day of the award, or could it be functional to meet the essential requirements and to continue the development by adding functions and enhancing the existing platform?

Response: Under Section 3.3.4, Requirements Traceability Matrix Response, and Section 4.10.3, Requirements Traceability Matrix Evaluation Framework and Criteria, the RFP details the requirements and how they will be scored by the Evaluation Committee members. A System that may not meet all “Must Have” requirements is subjected to possibly receiving lower scores based on the Proposer’s description of how/why the requirements is/is not fully met. Individual scores of that description are dependent on Evaluation Committee members and their subject matter expertise.

18. Could you please clarify…that [Proposers] can submit redacted documents via OregonBuys, but [Proposers] still need to provide the unreacted documents? Do we submit them to you directly?

Response: Yes, Proposers should submit all documents that need redactions via OregonBuys as part of the Proposal package that they submit in response to the RFP. Proposers are also required to submit unredacted copies for scoring purposes. Only the redacted copies provided will be used for Public Records Requests, and all unredacted copies will stay confidential. Documents submitted directly to the SPC (Amanda King) will not be considered as responsive due to the requirement of submitting everything through OregonBuys directly.

19. [Proposer has] a question about state or federal contracts within the last five years. We have a subcontract with OHA [Office of Recovery and Resilience at OHA] and a contract with the county. Would these contracts be considered state contracts?

Response: Yes, Agency will accept the subcontract with OHA to fulfill this requirement.

20. Please provide the anticipated numbers of Continuums of Care, provider organizations, programs, named and concurrent users, client records, annual transactions, and stored documents or attachments that proposers should use for solution sizing and subscription pricing.

Response: There are 4 Continuums of Care, with up to 250 provider organizations (with potential for additional organizations added in the future), up to 900 End Users, up to 700,000 service transactions and up to 300,000 attachments currently in the System. These numbers could increase or decrease.

21. Please identify each current application or HMIS from which data must be migrated, including the incumbent vendor, approximate database and attachment volumes, available export mechanisms or APIs, years of history to be converted, known data-quality issues, and the external systems that must be integrated at go-live.

Response: Data must be migrated from one current HMIS System. Agency will need to purge certain data and history prior to migration; therefore, approximate years is hard to calculate prior that occurring. The current database size is roughly 30GB. Agency will not provide any APIs. The rest of the requested information is too difficult to calculate at this point in time and would need to be discussed further during negotiations. Agency’s incumbent Vendor and Contract can be requested via a formal Public Records Request.

22. Please identify the required HUD HMIS Data Standards version, mandatory federal and state reports, coordinated-entry requirements, and any formal certification, validation, or parallel-report comparison the Solution must complete before production use.

Response: FY 2026 HMIS Data Standards (effective October 1, 2025), as jointly issued by HUD, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), that supports federal reporting through the Sage HMIS Reporting Repository and the Homelessness Data Exchange 2.0 (HDX 2.0) Repository, including the Annual Performance Report (“APR”), the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (“CAPER”), the Longitudinal Systems Analysis (“LSA”), the System Performance Measures (“SPM”), Point in Time Count (“PIT”) and the Housing Inventory Count (“HIC”). HMIS Solution must create a valid CSV export per the current HUD CSV Specifications and supports up-to-date federal partner reports for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (“SAMHSA”), HHS’ Runaway and Homeless Youth (“RHY”), and the VA.

23. What is the anticipated contract execution date, and will the Agency permit a phased production rollout by CoC, provider group, or functional module while maintaining continuity through the September 2, 2027 target date? Please also clarify the measurable criteria for authorizing go-live and completing the 90-day Stabilization Period.

Response: Agency anticipates a Contract execution date by May 24, 2027. A phased approach could be permitted and must be detailed within the implementation approach portion of the RFP to determine scoring by Evaluation Committee. The criteria and stabilization period depends on the implementation and would be refined in coordination with the chosen Vendor.

24. Please confirm the initial contract term, renewal options, pricing-evaluation period, and whether proposers may waive one-time implementation charges and recover standard implementation, migration, and training costs through a fixed annual SaaS subscription.

Response: The initial Contract term is negotiable but anticipated to fall within a range of 3-5 years. The Agency has the option to negotiate an indefinite number of renewals of varied durations. The initial Price evaluation period is during Round 1 evaluations and conducted by the SPC, per Section 3.3.5, 4.10.4 and 4.11 of the RFP. Round 1 evaluation of the Price Proposal is currently scheduled to take place the following days after Bid Opening date of October 29, 2026. Proposers should include all waivers of pricing and subsequent inclusions within their Price Proposal to be evaluated accordingly.

25. How many total users will access the system? Please provide a breakdown of internal users, external users, and administrators.

Response: There are up to 900 End Users. Around 850 external Users – 16 of which are System Administrators currently. Around 20 internal End Users – 8 of which are System Administrators currently (24 System Admins in total). These numbers may increase or decrease.

26. How many CoCs, service provider organizations, and Tribal Nations will use the system?

Response: 4 Continuums of Care, up to 250 provider organizations (with potential for additional organizations added in the future), and 9 tribal nations. Not all tribal nations participate currently.

27. What are the estimated annual volumes of client records, intakes, assessments, referrals, and service activities?

Response: There are up to 700,000 service transactions currently in our System. Annual volumes can change drastically over time and are therefore not able to be quantified. Some of the other requested information cannot be quantified at this time due to the current data purge and clean-up taking place.

28. How many intake forms, assessments, and workflows need to be configured in the new system?

Response: With 4 CoCs, there will be 4 workflows for coordinated entry that would need to be configured. There would need to be a workflow configuration per project type needed with any unique local requirements to be considered. For each CoC, there may be an adult or family coordinated entry workflow, plus one for unaccompanied youth. Not all CoCs have a youth workflow.

29. Apart from the current Community Services HMIS, are there any other systems from which data needs to be migrated?

Response: No, there is just one System that data needs to be migrated from.

30. How many years of historical data need to be migrated, and what is the approximate volume of records, documents, and attachments?

Response: Agency must purge data from certain years prior to migration but anticipate at least 7 years of historical data migration but could include more years. There are up to 300,000 attachments in the current System - it ranges from client notes, pdfs, excel documents and other items.

31. Will OHCS provide data exports from the existing system, and who will be responsible for data cleaning and removing duplicates?

Response: Agency is currently engaged in data purge with incumbent Vendor that allows us to assess data cleaning and duplicate needs. The assessment will be done after the data purge is completed. Currently, Agency Admins merge records when duplicates are found and data cleaning is sent to Agency if data quality needs to be addressed. Agency expects a chosen Vendor will need to have the capability to identify duplicates and the capability to purge or merge data as necessary.

32. Which external systems need to be integrated, and for each integration, will data exchange be one-way or bidirectional, real-time or scheduled?

Response: Agency would like the functionality of integration to exist in the future, should a need for integration arise. Per TF.004.02, Agency is asking that Proposer has the capability to interface with the list, and Agency is not asking for existing interfaces. Agency will not provide any APIs.

33. Will OHCS provide the required APIs, technical documentation, and test access for these integrations?

Response: No, Agency does not currently have APIs.

34. Is integration with an existing Single Sign-On (SSO) system required? If yes, which system?

Response: Yes, Microsoft Entra ID.

35. How many custom reports and dashboards are required in addition to the standard HUD reports?

Response: Both requirements this pertains to (Attachment C, Requirements Traceability Matrix: Rep.002.02 and Rep.043.02/Attachment E, Exhibit A – Task 2) are asking that the functionality exists, not that Proposers are being asked to configure reports on our behalf.

36. Which specific system functions must be available offline?

Response: Street Outreach and Point-in-Count activities are expected to be available during System offline periods.

37. How many users need training, and how many training sessions are expected?

Response: Around 900 End Users will need to understand how to use the new System; however, Agency does not anticipate Proposers to train every End User and encourage Proposers to provide a method that makes sense for their System. Training methods and sessions are scored under the Technical Proposal. Agency anticipates working out final training details with chosen Vendor during negotiations based on the response given in the Technical Proposal.

38. What are the expected monthly support-ticket volumes, and which support responsibilities will be handled by OHCS versus the selected vendor?

Response: Expected volumes depend on the deployment model of the software. Agency preference is for the Vendor to support the entirety of the software provisioning and hosting. Internal system administration for the software will be handled by Agency staff post-implementation. The current OMC governance structure requires CoCs to self-manage technical and training requests from End Users within their CoC. If CoC Data Leads are unable to remedy the issue or answer the question, Data Leads elevate the issue to Agency, and if needed, Agency may elevate to the Vendor for additional support.

39. Does experience implementing an HMIS system for a single CoC meet the minimum requirements, or is experience with multiple CoCs mandatory?

Response: Experience with multiple CoCs is required.

40. The RFP asks for State or Federal level references. However, the typical client for an HMIS implementation is local/county government or non-profits. Will OHCS accept a local/county government or nonprofit reference in lieu of a State or Federal level reference?

Response: Agency will accept local/county government or nonprofit references. Agency will release a Bid Amendment to the RFP to update the requirement to include these references as acceptable.

41. [In response to Attachment C, Requirements Traceability Matrix, CM.004.02 CM.006.02] These items appear to be duplicates. Should the wording of one be changed?

Response: There is a one-word difference that is intentional. Agency needs functionality for notifying a specific User when their supervisor assigns a new case and a functionality for notifying a program when a case management referral is put in that is applicable to them.

42. [In response to Attachment C, Requirements Traceability Matrix, GF.074.02] Please provide more content about the type of actions that need to be scheduled.

Response: Agency is looking for standard HMIS scheduled actions such as triggered reminders, running automated audits, System maintenance tasks, periodic quality checks, and generating compliance reports.

43. [In response to Attachment C, Requirements Traceability Matrix, GF.083.02] Please provide more information about what a defined group of Participants in in this context.

Response: Agency views an HMIS participant as any organization, agency, or individual user that enters, manages, or views client-level data inside a local electronic database designed to track individuals and families experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

44. [In response to Attachment C, Requirements Traceability Matrix, GF.122.02] This item is classified in the GF category but appears to be related to Portal. If this is not for Portal, please provide more information about the type of communication.

Response: Agency is looking for a System that has electronic management of data sharing of Release of Information (ROI) forms. This is more a general functionality piece and not exactly related to portal functionality.

45. [In response to Attachment B, Technical Proposal, Section 2.1.e.a] Please provide more content or more information about this item “If there is a need for the Solution to transform from a federal program administration system to a state-managed system only, describe how Proposer will update and change the system as Agency needs change.”

Response: HMIS is currently administered under federal HUD program guidelines. If there is a scenario where HUD no longer administers or funds the federal program and requirements, the State may wish to administer the program under State management and requirements. In this scenario, Agency is asking Proposers to detail how the System can be updated and changed to abide by State administration and regulatory requirements outside of HUD regulations.

image1.jpeg