Addendum No. 4 - OJD RFP No. S-19800-00014589_Final.pdf

RFP No. S-19800-00014589 – Digital Accessibility Audit – OJD Public Facing Content – Addendum No. 4

RFP S-19800-00014589

DIGITAL ACCESSIBILITY AUDIT – OJD PUBLIC FACING CONTENT

ADDENDUM NO. 4

SECTION 1: PURPOSE

The purpose of this Addendum No. 4 is to provide perspective Proposers with the questions and requests for clarification or requests for change received in response to the RFP and OJD’s response to those questions and requests.

NOTE: Written questions/requests for clarification or requests for changes of a particular provision contained in this Addendum No. 4 must be received by the SPC no later than 3:30 PM Pacific Time on Thursday, November 13, 2025, or they will not be considered.

SECTION 2: Questions and Requests for Clarification or Requests for Change

RFP and General Process

1. Is pricing expected to be fixed fee by deliverable, hourly rate with a cap, or another structure?

OJD Response: Please refer to the second paragraph of Subsection 3.3.12 of the RFP, which states:

“The Cost Proposal shall specify the proposed fixed price for each of the 5 phases identified in Exhibit A of the Sample Personal and Professional Services Contract attached as Attachment A and a total not-to-exceed for all phases. Proposer's fixed price for each phase shall be inclusive of all labor, goods, services and materials necessary to complete the required services.”

For providing the fixed price for each of the 5 phases, OJD is flexible on the pricing structure. A fixed fee per deliverable, an hourly rate with a cap, or another structure is acceptable as long as Proposer identifies a fixed price for each of the 5 phases as required under the RFP.

2. For the Attachment E Reference Check Forms that are required to be sent directly to the SPC (you), are these to be emailed, while the rest of the proposal is to be mailed on USB?

OJD Response: Please refer to the third paragraph of Subsection 3.3.11 of the RFP, which states:

“Proposer shall send the Reference Check Form (Attachment E) to its references.

Reference forms must be completed by the reference and sent directly to the SPC by the reference. Reference forms need to be received prior to Closing. Reference forms received after Closing may not be scored.”

References should be emailed by the reference directly to the SPC.

3. When will addenda be issued in response to Requests for Clarification and Requests for

Change? The timeline between the questions deadline and mailed submission is quite short, and we will need some days to adjust our response following addenda and also allow a few days for shipping.

OJD Response: Addendum No. 3 was issued on October 28, 2025 extending the date of Closing to November 26, 2025.

4. Could you please let us know if there’s a budget limit we should keep in mind for this work?

OJD Response: A budget has not been identified for this project.

5. Section 1.2 of the RFP - Would OJD consider extending the deadline to give bidders enough time to adjust based on OJD's answers to questions?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #3 above.

6. Section 4.10.3.2 of the RFP - (evaluation criteria for Prior Experience) references samples.

Are samples required, and if so, what kind of samples is OJD looking for?

OJD Response: No. Samples are not required. You may respond to the Prior Experience section without submitting samples.

7. Section 6.1 of the RFP - Does the DEI language in section 6.1 comply with current federal laws and regulations?

OJD Response: Yes, it does.

8. Section 3.1.1.1 of the RFP - What types of licenses/certifications does 3.1.1.1 refer to?

Business licenses, or professional certifications of staff?

OJD Response: There are no licenses or certifications required under the RFP.

However, if your firm holds licenses and certifications required to perform the services called out in the RFP, copies must be provided as part of your firm’s proposal.

9. Has the Department identified a budget for this project? Will OJD disclose the anticipated not-to-exceed amount to ensure pricing is scaled appropriately to scope and asset volume?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #4 above.

10. RFP Section 3.2.2 - We request OJD to allow an email submission of the response addressed to the SPC directly. This will enable us use the full time period for proposal preparation and avoid any logistical delays.

OJD Response: OJD approves this request and has revised the RFP issued with this Addendum No. 4 to require submittal via email.

11. RFP Section 3.3.11 - We request OJD to change parts of the reference requirement:

o Given many public-sector clients have a cap on issuing references, can OJD bring down the number of references required, if the reference(s) span over 5 years of work experience, as stated in section 3.3.4.2.

OJD Response: OJD will not revise the reference requirements. However, please note references do not have to be from the public sector.

o Given that many public-sector clients do not prefer communicating on behalf of the vendor, could OJD allow the vendor to get the reference form signed by the client, and submit the same to the OJD as a part of the response, instead of the client emailing the SPC directly?

OJD Response: OJD denies this request.

12. Can the vendor submit its suggested modifications to the sample contract clauses with the response, which can be discussed during the negotiation phase?

OJD Response: Please see Subsection 5.4 of the RFP.

13. Could OJD please share the estimated budget for this RFP?

14. Evaluation Weighting – The RFP provides point allocations but not scoring distribution among technical vs cost. Can OJD confirm whether cost will be weighed equally to technical evaluation (i.e., 100/500 = 20%)?

OJD Response: Correct. Cost is weighted per the points allocation identified in Subsection 4.1.2. Cost, therefore, is 100 possible points out of a total of 500 possible points.

15. Reference Submission – Must references return the Reference Check Form (Attachment E) before proposal submission, or is acknowledgment of request sufficient?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #2 above.

16. COBID Participation – Is there any scoring advantage or requirement for COBID-certified firms or subcontractors?

OJD Response: There is no scoring advantage for COBID certified firms.

17. Team Composition – Can a prime contractor include subcontracted specialists (e.g., accessibility engineers, usability testers), and how should they be identified in the staffing plan?

OJD Response: Yes, your firm may propose subcontractors as part of your firm’s proposal. Any proposed subcontractors must be clearly identified as subcontractors in the Staffing Plan portion of your firm’s proposal. All such proposed subcontracts would be subject to OJD’s prior written consent in accordance with Section 21 of Attachment A – Sample Contract.

18. Contract Term – What is the anticipated duration of the resulting contract and any optional renewal periods?

OJD Response: The initial term is anticipated to be completed late spring to early summer 2026.

19. Insurance Requirements – Will OJD specify minimum insurance coverage amounts (e.g., professional liability, general liability) in the sample contract?

OJD Response: The minimum insurance amounts are specified in Exhibit B of the Attachment A – Sample Contract.

20. Pay Equity Certification – Can an out-of-state firm without Oregon operations be exempt from DAS Pay Equity Certification?

OJD Response: Prospective Proposers should review the applicable sections of the Oregon Revised Statute to determine applicability.

21. Business Registry – For non-Oregon entities, is registration with the Oregon Secretary of

State required prior to award or post-notification?

OJD Response: The first paragraph of Subsection 5.3.3 reads: “If selected for Award, Proposer shall be duly authorized by the State of Oregon to transact business in the State of Oregon before executing the Contract. The selected Proposer shall submit a current Oregon Secretary of State business registry number, or an explanation if not applicable.”

22. Exhibit A – Scope of Work – The RFP references Exhibit A in the sample contract for the complete SOW. Could OJD provide that document for review prior to proposal submission?

OJD Response: Attachment A – Sample Contract, complete with Exhibit A Statement of Work and Consideration was posted in OregonBuys along with the RFP and other associated attachments.

23. Compensation Structure – Are payments structured per deliverable, per milestone, or on a time-and-materials basis?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #1 above.

24. Subcontracting Authorization: Is subcontracting permitted under this RFP? If yes, are there any limitations on the percentage of work that may be subcontracted?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #17 above. There is no limitation on the percentage of work completed by an approved subcontractor.

25. Use of Subcontractor Experience and References - If subcontracting is allowed, may the prime proposer utilize the experience, resources, and references of proposed subcontractors to demonstrate compliance with the minimum or preferred qualification requirements?

OJD Response: If prospective Proposers are seeking approval to use subcontractors, they should clearly indicate what portions of the work the subcontractor will complete and include sufficient information to demonstrate the proposed subcontractor’s compliance with the minimum, and if applicable, the preferred qualification requirements. Please also see OJD’s response to question #17 above.

26. Subcontractor Identification - If subcontractors are proposed, should their roles, key personnel, and relevant certifications be included within the staffing plan and qualifications section of the proposal?

OJD Response: Yes.

27. Commercial Project Experience - May proposers include commercial or private sector projects (outside of state or federal government work) as part of their qualifying experience and references, provided that the work is similar in scope and complexity to the services described in this RFP?

28. Proposal Formatting Standards - Please confirm whether OJD has prescribed requirements for font size, font style, margins, spacing, and page limits for the proposal submission. If no formal limits are defined, are there any preferred formatting guidelines to support consistency across submissions?

OJD Response: The complete Proposal format requirements are outlined in Subsection 3.2.2. OJD has no preferences beyond those requirements.

29. Joint Ventures and Bid Participation Rules - Are joint venture proposals permitted under this solicitation? If allowed, should both entities sign the proposal and jointly meet the qualification requirements, or will OJD evaluate the combined experience of both firms?

OJD Response: Joint Ventures are allowed. Both entities should sign the Proposal.

OJD will evaluate the combined experience of both firms to confirm whether or not the Joint Venture meets the required qualification requirements.

30. Multiple Roles (Prime and Sub) - Can a firm participate as a prime proposer and simultaneously be listed as a subcontractor on another proposer’s submission for the same RFP? If not permitted, please clarify OJD’s policy regarding such dual participation.

OJD Response: Yes. Dual participation is not prohibited.

31. Proposal Binding and Packaging - For USB submission, does OJD require proposals to be organized in a specific digital structure (e.g., labeled folders for technical and cost volumes), or can proposers submit all materials in the USB root directory? Should a printed index or “table of files” be included on the USB drive to facilitate review?

OJD Response: OJD does not have any preferences beyond what is outlined in the last two paragraphs of revised Subsection 3.2.2.

32. Printed Copies - The RFP mentions submission by USB in a sealed envelope but does not reference printed copies. Could OJD confirm if printed (hard copy) proposals are required in addition to the USB version? If printed copies are not required, will electronic submission via USB alone suffice?

OJD Response: The only requirement is that Proposer submit its proposal as an electronic copy via email.

33. File Locking or Security Settings - Should proposal files be unlocked (fully editable/searchable) for accessibility and evaluation, or secured to prevent modification?

34. Page Limit Clarification - Could OJD confirm if there are page limits for the overall proposal or for specific sections such as the project plan, methodology, or staffing plan? If no formal limits are stated, does OJD have a recommended range for concise proposals (e.g., 25–35 pages for technical content)?

OJD Response: There is no Proposal page limit.

35. Items Counted Toward Page Limits - If page limits do apply, please confirm whether items such as cover letter, table of contents, resumes, or attachments are included or excluded from the count.

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #34 above.

36. Proposal Section Order and Structure - The RFP (Sections 3.2.2 and 3.3) instructs proposers to “follow the format and reference the sections listed in the Proposal Content Requirements.” Could OJD please confirm whether proposers must strictly follow the same numbering and order (e.g., 3.3.1 through 3.3.13) as headings in the proposal, or whether a logical reorganization of content (e.g., grouping related sections such as Qualifications, Experience, and Staffing) is acceptable as long as all required content is addressed?

OJD Response: No. Proposer must strictly follow the same numbering and order as outlined in Subsection 3.3.

37. Cross-Referencing Content - May proposers include cross-references between sections

(for example, referring to content in “Section 3.3.7 – Assessment Methodology” from “Section 3.3.10 – Project Plan”), or must each section be entirely self-contained?

38. Attachments and Appendices- Can required attachments (e.g., Attachments B–G) be placed in an Appendix section of the technical proposal, or must they be submitted as separate files on the USB drive? If they can be placed in an appendix, should they be numbered and labeled according to the attachment references in the RFP?

OJD Response: Yes, they can be attached in an appendix and must be numbered and labeled in accordance with the attachment references in the RFP.

39. File Separation and Volume Structure - The RFP requires submission of the Cost Proposal as a separate file. Could OJD clarify whether the rest of the proposal (technical, attachments, certifications, resumes, etc.) should be combined into one complete PDF, or organized into multiple files or volumes? If multiple volumes are acceptable, should proposers follow any specific labeling convention?

OJD Response: Multiple files or volumes are acceptable. Please see OJD’s response to question #31 above.

40. Folder and File Naming on USB Submission - Is there a preferred folder structure (for example: “Technical,” “Cost,” “Attachments,” “Resumes”) for files on the USB drive? Does OJD have a specific file naming convention to ensure consistency in evaluation?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s responses to questions #31 and #38 above.

41. Required Proposal Content and Response Format - The RFP includes several sections, particularly Sections 3.2 (Minimum Submission Requirements) and 3.3 (Proposal Content Requirements), that contain detailed instructions and multiple subsections which appear to function as questions or response prompts. To ensure our submission is fully compliant and properly structured, could OJD please clarify exactly which sections and items proposers are required to address in their proposal narrative, and confirm the preferred format or structure (for example, whether proposers must respond to each subsection individually or follow a specific proposal outline prescribed by OJD)?

OJD Response: Please refer to revised Subsections 3.2.2 and 3.3 for this information.

42. Would OJD consider a brief extension to the proposal deadline if necessary, to ensure vendors can submit realistic, fixed-price proposals?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #3 above.

43. Is holding a COBID certification considered a minimum requirement for this RFP?

OJD Response: No.

44. Page 10 of the RFP, section 3.3.11, states: “Reference forms must be completed by the reference and sent directly to the SPC by the reference. Reference forms need to be received prior to Closing.” Can we assume that OJD expects references to submit these forms by email rather than by mail?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #2 above.

45. Sample Deliverables – Is submission of prior accessibility audit samples mandatory or optional?

OJD Response: Optional.

46. Are there any budgetary constraints or caps for this engagement that proposers should be aware of?

47. Key Personnel – Will OJD require background checks for all proposed staff, or only those with system access?

OJD Response: Background checks may be required for any staff performing services under the resulting contract.

Technical – Training Category

48. Will all trainings in Phase 3 (Exhibit A, Section 2.3) be remote, or is there an expectation for any in-person sessions?

OJD Response: All required training will be conducted remotely.

49. How many attendees are expected for training? Please specify the roles (e.g., developers, designers, content authors, procurement staff, policy team).

OJD Response: 12 – 15 attendees per training from a mixtures of roles.

50. What is the preferred training format: live virtual sessions, in-person sessions, or self-paced modules?

OJD Response: All training will be virtual with live sessions preferred.

51. Phase 1 (Exhibit A, Section 2.1.1) mentions the training plan as part of the assessment plan, while Phase 2 lists it separately. Should we consider the training plan as part of Phase 1 or Phase 2?

OJD Response: As part of the assessment plan, the contractor will need to consider the training needs. However, the training plan is a separate deliverable under a separate phase.

52. We understand, the training plan in Phase 2 will guide the type of trainings needed in

Phase 3 (Exhibit A, Section 2.2 & 2.3). Do you anticipate needing specific types of training, such as basic accessibility foundations, document accessibility, or web accessibility? This will help us include the descriptions of the most relevant training content.

OJD Response: Topics to be covered in the training will be guided by the assessment. Also, OJD does not have a preference if separated topics are covered in separate trainings.

53. (Exhibit A, Section 2.3) The maximum training hours in Phase 3 are 80. Should these hours cover unique training courses and workshops only, or can they include repeated sessions across teams?

OJD Response: 80 hours total over all training, including repeated sessions.

54. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.2-2.3 - Should training be live, recorded, or a mix?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to questions #49 and #51 above.

55. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.2-2.3 - Must training cover all roles (e.g., developers, content authors, procurement staff)?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to questions 50 and 54 above.

56. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.3, Phase 3 – Could OJD specify the number of staff members to be trained?

OJD Response: Not more than 100. Please see OJD’s response to question #49 for the total number of OJD staff per training.

57. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.3, Phase 3 – How many staff members does OJD prefer to be trained in a single session? How many such sessions does OJD require?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to questions #49 and #56.

58. Which topics should be covered (content authoring, design best practices, development techniques, procurement policy, ongoing monitoring)?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #51 above.

59. Are multiple sessions preferred for different groups, or one comprehensive session for all roles?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to questions #49, #51, #53, and #56 above.

Technical - Document Category

60. Please estimate the total number of documents (PDF, Word, etc.) that require review, including average page length and file types.

OJD Response: Approximately the following:

• 84,500 State of Oregon Law Library PDFs;

• 5,600 other PDFs;

• 200 Microsoft Word Documents;

• Less than 10 Microsoft Excel documents;

• Less than 8 Audio Files; and

• Less than 15 Video Files.

61. The DOJ’s 2024 ADA Title II rulemaking provides an exemption for certain archival documents and older content that is not actively used.

o Does OJD want the vendor to include an analysis of which existing documents or pages may qualify as archival under these rules?

OJD Response: OJD would expect the assessment to note what, if any, content qualifies under an exception including the archival exception.

Depending on content, OJD may want contractor to conduct an analysis of one or more of the content artifacts that qualify for an exception.

o If yes, should the analysis include recommendations for remediation prioritization or removal of non-essential legacy content?

OJD Response: Yes.

o Will OJD provide a list of content retention requirements, or should the proposer recommend a policy framework for archival designation?

OJD Response: OJD would expect contractor to propose a policy framework.

62. The RFP notes that 5% of content must be tested by users with disabilities.

o How does OJD define the 5% sample (e.g., by number of templates, pages, documents, or user flows)?

OJD Response: 5% of pages, 5% of documents and 5% of videos.

o Does OJD intend to select this sample or should the proposer recommend a representative set?

OJD Response: Contractor will recommend a representative set.

o What level of diversity in disability type (screen reader users, magnification users, switch users, cognitive disabilities) is expected?

OJD Response: A variety based on contractor’s recommendation.

63. What specific form of certification or conformance documentation does OJD require at project close?

o Letter of Conformance o Public-facing Accessibility Statement o VPAT/ACR (and if so, which version and standards)

OJD Response: OJD is not requiring a specific form of certification or conformance documentation beyond what is required under Attachment A – Sample Contract.

64. The introduction paragraph for Phase 1 (Exhibit A Section 2.1) mentions document accessibility, however, no details about the scope of work for documents are provided.

Could you clarify the types of documents that need to be evaluated, their content, quantity, and file formats?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #60 above.

65. For document accessibility in Phase 1 (Exhibit A), should the contractor only assess document accessibility, or are they also expected to perform remediation?

OJD Response: There is not remediation services required in Phase 1. Under Phase 4, contractor is required to provide OJD with remediation support services.

66. Regarding the 15% of content (Exhibit A, Section 2.1.2, Step 2), does this refer to 15% of all web pages and document pages? Approximately, how many pages would this be? (For example, around 500 web pages and 100 document pages.) This will help us provide a more accurate cost estimate.

OJD Response: 15% of pages, 15% of documents and 15% of videos. For quantities, please see OJD’s response to question #60 above.

67. Can you confirm that Attachment A fully defines the required deliverables and that no other attachment or OJD policy document expands that scope?

OJD Response: Confirmed. Attachment A contains the entire scope of work.

68. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.1 - For the “document accessibility” portion of the audit, approximately how many PDFs and Office documents are expected to be reviewed?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #60 above.

69. Sampling Methodology – Does OJD expect full coverage of all pages/documents, or is a statistically representative sample acceptable?

OJD Response: Please see Section 2.1.2 of Exhibit A to Attachment A – Sample Contract. Please also see OJD’s response to questions #60 and #66.

Technical - WCAG Category

70. (Exhibit A, Section 2.5) Phase 5 mentions “certification of conformance.” What form of certification do you expect from the contractor? Would a deliverable confirming resolution of Phase 1 issues along with a written conformance claim specifying the standard (e.g., WCAG 2.1 AA) suffice, or do you require a separate Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR)? Understanding your expectations will help us avoid unnecessary work and remain competitive in cost.

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #61 above.

71. RFP Section 2.3.3 - Would you be able to share the reasoning behind choosing to follow WCAG 2.1 guidelines instead of the more recent WCAG 2.2?

OJD Response: OJD is following current federal requirements.

72. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 4 - For the Phase - 4 "Remediation Support", would you recommend to upgrade to the more recent WCAG 2.2?

73. WCAG Standards – The RFP references WCAG 2.1 A & AA; should proposers also assess for 2.2 (if applicable by early 2026) for future-proofing?

OJD Response: No.

Technical - Testing Category

74. What is OJD’s preferred timeline for user testing? We recommend conducting usability testing after key remediations are in place, to ensure that users can meaningfully interact with the content rather than being blocked by known critical barriers. Would OJD prefer:

o Testing to occur in phases (e.g., after high-priority templates are remediated) o A single round of testing at the end of the remediation cycle o Multiple rounds of iterative testing (e.g., early baseline + post-remediation validation)

OJD Response: OJD does not have a preference, but rather contractor will provide their recommendations.

75. Are there reporting format requirements for findings from user testing (e.g., formal usability report, anonymized session notes, executive summary for leadership)?

OJD Response: Section 2.1 of Exhibit A to Attachment A – Sample Contract, contractor must use the WC3 Conformance Procedures.

76. Do you currently have any automated testing licenses, for example, SiteImprove?

OJD Response: No.

77. For user testing (Exhibit A, Section 2.1.2, Step 2, bullet point #7), how involved will you be in recruiting participants with disabilities? Would your team handle recruitment, collaborate with us, or expect us to manage it entirely?

OJD Response: OJD expects contractor to manage user testing entirely.

78. To ensure transparency in service delivery and alignment with emerging legislation such as the proposed HIRE Act, which may impose financial penalties on offshore outsourcing, would OJD request that offerors disclose the geographic distribution of their testing personnel (e.g., U.S.-based vs. international)?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to questions #17, #48, and #77 above.

79. Attachment A – Sample Contract, Section 2.1, Phase 1 – Assessment Report of the Statement of Work references assessment of mobile accessibility. Does this mean mobile responsiveness (testing using a mobile browser or responsive design) or testing native mobile applications?

OJD Response: Mobile responsiveness.

80. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.1.2 - The Department requires that at least 15% of Content must be manually tested. As all vendors will be required to provide a price estimate, can the Department provide a specific number of pages that this manual testing should include? Otherwise, it is impossible to develop fixed cost pricing as requested by the

RFP.

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to questions #62, and #66 above.

81. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.1.2 - The Department requires user testing by “users with disabilities to test real-world usability.” Are there specific disability user groups (e.g., blindness, limited mobility, cognitive disabilities, etc.) that the Department would like to see represented as “real world” users?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #62 above.

82. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.1.2, Step 2 - Does the manual testing of 15% content and user testing of 5% content include testing of 15% and 5% of all pages/screens, or 15% and 5% of those test elements and common components finalized in section 2.1.1 Step 1?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to questions #62 and OJD’s response to question #66.

83. Are there any flows which need authentication? If yes, could OJD please share test credentials to verify the scope elements?

OJD Response: Yes, there are flows included in the scope. No credentials are needed to access the flows.

84. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.1.2 - The Department requires that at least 5% of Content must be subject to user testing. As all vendors will be required to provide a price estimate, can the Department provide a specific number of pages that this user testing should include? Otherwise, it is impossible to develop fixed cost pricing as requested by the

RFP.

OJD Response: For quantities, please see OJD’s response to questions #60 above.

For more details on the user testing requirement, please see OJD’s response to question #62 above.

85. RFP Section 2.3.3 - Does OJD require accessibility testers to be physically located within the United States or is remote testing from outside the U.S is acceptable?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #78 above.

86. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.1 - What types of documents are included in the accessibility testing scope (e.g., PDF, Word, Excel)? Please also specify the number and average size of these documents.

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #60 above.

87. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.1 - How many native mobile applications are expected to be included in the accessibility testing scope?

OJD Response: OJD has approximately 3 native applications. Please also see OJD’s response to question #79.

o How many applications are iOS-based and how many are Android-based?

OJD Response: OJD does not develop applications for specific platforms.

However, OJD expects the assessment to include common web browsers and both platforms.

o Can OJD specify the number of screens for each application?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to questions #60, #79, and #104.

88. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.1.2, Step 2 - For user testing involving individuals with lived experience of disabilities, will OJD be responsible for recruiting these users, or is the vendor expected to recruit them?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #77 above.

89. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.5, Phase 5 – Can OJD specify the level of efforts it requires in reassessment?

o Re-testing for issues documented during Phase 1, not looking for any newly introduced issues.

o Carrying out full-fledged assessment just like Phase 1 (Recommended).

o Any other?

OJD Response: Level of effort will depend on the results of the initial assessment.

However, the level of effort for re-testing should not exceed the level of effort that was used for the initial assessment.

90. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.1.2, Step 2 - For the user testing, does OJD has a preference on the location of the users with disabilities, i.e., within US boundaries?

OJD Response: No. See also OJD’s response to questions #77 and #78.

91. Confidentiality – Will OJD provide sample or redacted examples of internal content for testing, and what level of access (temporary, sandbox, or read-only) will be granted?

OJD Response: No, OJD is not providing samples. However, the information is currently publicly available.

92. Mobile Content – Is mobile accessibility testing expected for both native apps and responsive web content?

OJD Response: Yes

93. Remediation Guidance – Should the contractor only perform the audit or also provide detailed remediation recommendations and validation testing?

OJD Response: Yes, please see Section 2 of Exhibit A on Attachment A – Sample Contract.

94. Testing Tools – Are there any preferred or required automated testing tools (e.g., AXE, Siteimprove, WAVE) or manual review protocols OJD expects?

OJD Response: No. Contractor should use its expertise in determining which automated testing tools, if any, to employ.

95. Accessibility Compliance Verification – Will there be a post-audit verification phase or acceptance testing led by OJD staff?

OJD Response: Yes, OJD will have acceptance testing for all deliverables required under the contract. Please see Section 5 of Exhibit A on Attachment A – Sample Contract.

96. Offshore Work - Is any portion of the work under this contract permitted to be performed offshore, from locations such as the Philippines or India? If not allowed, could OJD clarify whether exceptions exist for offshore technical support or testing activities where no sensitive data or systems access is involved?

OJD Response: See OJD’s response to questions #77 and #78.

97. Can you confirm what exactly about the YouTube (www.youtube.com/@OregonCourts) is to be tested?

OJD Response: Contractor is expected to test videos developed and posted by OJD at the above YouTube link.

98. Two of the listed properties: web.courts.oregon.gov (web application layer), and websvc.courts.oregon.gov (web services and integrations) are currently not accessible or not loading reliably. As these appear to support court-related interactions and integrations, they are likely to contain dynamic or complex components that would significantly affect audit effort and testing scope.

OJD Response: Please disregard both websvc.courts.oregon.gov and web.courts.oregon.gov. Section 2 of Exhibit A to Attachment A – Sample Contract has been updated to remove the obsolete references.

Technical - Website/Link Category

99. Would you be able to provide more details on the scope of target content that needs accessibility assessment in Phase 1? Ideally, a list of websites and mobile applications would be most helpful, including the “externally shared SharePoint Online sites” mentioned in Exhibit A, Section 2.1.1, step 1, second bullet point. At the very least, an estimated total number of websites and their size would give us helpful context.

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to questions #60, #79, and #87.

100. Can you provide a full inventory of all public-facing digital properties included in scope (websites, subdomains, applications, microsites)?

http://www.youtube.com/@OregonCourts http://websvc.courts.oregon.gov/

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #60.

101. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.1.1 - Can the Department provide a resource to assist vendors in scoping this project in terms of the number of websites? For instance each of the 36 circuit courts, 27 judicial districts, or tax court have separate websites. Can we assume the scope of websites to be evaluated will be all of the court websites that link from the Find a Court webpage (https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/Pages/default.aspx)?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #60.

102. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.1.1 - Does the scope include all digital content listed — including sub-domains like soll.libguides.com, ojd.contentdm.oclc.org, and YouTube channels — or only OJD-hosted websites? What about content that is managed by a separate Oregon agency?

OJD Response: Scope covers only OJD managed content that is available to the public. See also OJD’s response to questions # 60 and #98.

103. RFP Section 2.3.2 - Do the website & mobile applications have any multi-media content, e.g., PDF, ePub, Videos, etc.?

OJD Response: OJD’s response to question #60.

104. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.1 - Could you please provide details on:

o the total number of websites in scope.

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to questions #60, #79, and #87.

o size of each website, in terms of number of pages and common components and elements.

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to questions #60, #79, and #87.

105. We noticed that the link provided in Exhibit A, Section 2.1.1 (step 1, second bullet point) directs to https://websvc.courts.oregon.gov/, which currently displays only the OJD logo.

Could you confirm if this was intentional, or is there an updated link we should be using?

OJD Response: OJD’s response to question # 98.

106. Attachment A, Exhibit A, 2.1.1: There are issues with accessing some of the URLs given.

Can you confirm that all URLs provided are correct?

107. When you enter web.courts.oregon.gov in the browser, it redirects to www.courts.oregon.gov.

https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/Pages/default.aspx https://websvc.courts.oregon.gov/ http://www.courts.oregon.gov/

108. websvc.courts.oregon.gov only displays the Oregon Judicial Department seal/logo, with no active navigation or content. It is essentially a placeholder/landing page without functionality.

109. Additionally, the RFP refers to “externally shared SharePoint Online sites”, but it is unclear:

o Whether these are public or require guest access

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to questions #91.

o How many unique sites or libraries are involved

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to questions #60, #79, and #87.

o Whether they include custom forms, workflows, or dynamic content

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to questions #60, #79, and #87.

110. Attachment A, Exhibit A, 2.1.1: There are issues with accessing some of the URLs given.

Can you confirm that all URLs provided are correct?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #98.

111. When you enter web.courts.oregon.gov in the browser, it redirects to www.courts.oregon.gov.

112. websvc.courts.oregon.gov only displays the Oregon Judicial Department seal/logo, with no active navigation or content. It is essentially a placeholder/landing page without functionality.

Technical - Applications Category

113. For each property, please provide:

o CMS or platform (e.g., Drupal, WordPress, custom build)

OJD Response: Custom Build.

o Hosting environment and any major integrations

OJD Response: Hosted by NIC-USA, YouTube, State of Oregon Law Library, and OCLC, Inc.

o Approximate number of pages, templates, and unique layouts

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #58 above.

http://www.courts.oregon.gov/ o Whether there are single-page applications, web apps, or dynamic content areas

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #60 above.

114. Are there any mobile applications or kiosks that are part of this audit?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to questions #79 and #87 above.

115. Are your applications RWD based (responsive web design)?

OJD Response: Partially; some are, and some are not.

116. Audit Universe – Please specify the approximate number of web pages, PDFs, videos, and applications to be included in the digital accessibility audit.

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #60 above.

Technical - Support Category

117. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.4 - What types of support are expected (e.g., consulting calls, code reviews, ticket responses)?

118. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.4 - Is the “180 days of support” consecutive calendar days or business days?

OJD Response: Consecutive calendar days.

119. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.4 - Should we assume the support is a full-time position?

OJD Response: Contractor is expected to be available to provide the required mediation support to OJD Monday – Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Pacific Time.

Proposer should determine its own staffing plan as part of its response to the RFP.

120. During OJD’s remediation phase, what is the expected response time for developer support or consulting questions? (e.g., 24–48 hours for critical blockers)

OJD Response: OJD’s expected response time is 24 hours for critical blockers and two business days for other issues.

121. Is there a preferred communication channel (e.g., ticketing system, email, standing calls) for support during remediation?

OJD Response: The preferred method of communication will be agreed upon by the parties to the contract as part of the assessment plan.

122. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.4, Phase 4 – Does OJD have a preferred method of communicating for remediation support, e.g, mails, chats, meetings?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #121 above.

123. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.4, Phase 4 – What is the level of engagement, hours per week, OJD expects to use for remediation support phase of work?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #119 above.

124. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.4, Phase 4 – Assuming that the work in remediation support phase will be ad-hoc and request-based, does OJD have a preference on response times, e.g., within 1 business days?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #120 above.

125. Will OJD require any hands-on support with remediation efforts, e.g., fixing the code, or

OJD's internal teams are equipped to do that?

OJD Response: OJD will primarily handle remediation efforts directly. However, on certain issues, OJD may require hands-on support.

126. Can OJD provide further context, access, or representative screenshots to support accurate scoping?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to questions #60, #79, #87.

Technical - General Category

127. Are third-party tools, plugins, or externally hosted systems included, or only OJD-controlled content?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #144 for scope exclusions.

128. Please provide the number and types of multimedia assets (audio, video, podcasts, livestreams) to be evaluated and any transcription/captioning expectations.

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to questions #60, #79, #87.

129. Will OJD handle recruitment and compensation of users with disabilities, or should the proposer include this in the cost proposal?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to question #77.

130. Are there requirements for a public report or dashboard summarizing accessibility progress for stakeholders?

131. Will OJD allow proposers to propose optional services (e.g., ongoing monitoring, automated scanning subscriptions)?

OJD Response: Yes, but they must be clearly labeled as “optional” and separate from Proposer’s base proposal.

132. Does all work have to be performed in the U.S.?

OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to questions #17 and #78.

133. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 3 - Changes impacting cost or time must be signed by both parties. Will OJD consider equitable adjustments if significant new digital content is added after the award?

OJD Response: Yes, if scope expands beyond the content identified as part of this RFP. However, OJD has made an effort to identify all the content and scope.

134. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 6.1 - This paragraph ties payments to phases. Will each phase be billable upon acceptance (paragraph 5.2), or will payment be held until project completion?

OJD Response: Payment parameters will negotiation as part of contract negotiations.

135. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 6.3.1 - Attachment A, paragraph 6.3.1 leaves reimbursable expenses blank. Should contractors assume no travel will be required, and work is fully remote?

OJD Response: Yes. OJD anticipates all work will be fully remote and no travel will be required.

136. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.1.1, Step 1 - Could you share the list of preferable browser versions and mobile operating systems that should be covered during audit?

OJD Response: No. Contractor should use its expertise in determining which browser versions and mobile operating systems should be covered.

137. Attachment A, Exhibit A, Section 2.5, Phase 5 – Does OJD intend to extend the program to further phases in case all issues are not resolved by the end of Phase 5?

OJD Response: No. OJD does not anticipate further extension at this time.

138. Has OJD previously conducted a web accessibility audit for its digital assets? If so, when was the last audit performed, and are the results available for review?

OJD Response: Yes, but the last accessibility audit for OJD was conducted over 10 years ago. No, prior results are not available.

139. Does OJD have a preferred format for reporting accessibility audit results (e.g., Word, Excel, Jira)?

OJD Response: See OJD response to question #75 above.

140. What Languages or localized versions of content are in scope?

OJD Response: Language is primarily English but will include content in Spanish, Russian, and Vietnamese, and possibly other languages.

141. Scope Confirmation – Could OJD confirm whether the audit scope includes both internal and external (public-facing) content, or strictly external-facing materials?

OJD Response: See Section 2.3.3 of the RFP – the scope is limited to public facing digital content.

142. Excluded Systems – The RFP mentions exclusion of “third-party contractor-managed content.” Could OJD clarify which platforms or systems fall under this exclusion?

OJD Response: Any OJD content on platforms or systems that is not publicly accessible and is not directly managed by OJD.

143. Remote Performance – The RFP anticipates that work will be performed remotely. Are there any anticipated onsite meetings, workshops, or system access requirements?

144. Deliverable Format – Could OJD confirm the preferred reporting format for audit results

(e.g., Excel, PDF narrative, WCAG-compliance tool output)?

OJD Response: Proposer to recommend format. Any such proposed format must use the W3C Conformance Evaluation Procedures (see Section 2.1 of Exhibit A in Attachment A – Sample Contract).

145. Content Platforms – Which content management systems (CMS) or technologies are currently used to manage public-facing content (e.g., Drupal, WordPress, SharePoint, etc.)?

OJD Response: Technologies primarily include SharePoint, NIC USA, YouTube, State of Oregon Law Library, and OCLC, Inc. However, there may be other publicly accessible platforms.

146. Timeline – Are there specific deadlines or milestone expectations for each of the five phases referenced in Exhibit A?

OJD Response: No, there are no specific deadlines. OJD anticipates the Project will take approximately six months and would expect the phases to conform to this timeline. Please see also OJD’s response to question #18.

147. Project Duration – What is the anticipated project start date following award and expected completion date?

OJD Response: OJD anticipates project start date to be not more than 30 days after award. Please see also OJD’s responses to questions #18 and #146.

148. Deliverable Review – Will OJD provide feedback after each phase, and should proposers include revision cycles in their pricing?

OJD Response: Yes, OJD will provide feedback after each phase. Yes, proposers should include revision cycles.

149. Meetings – What is the expected frequency of project meetings (weekly status, bi-weekly updates, etc.)?

OJD Response: While OJD anticipates virtual weekly meetings during the Assessment Phase, the meeting schedule and cadence will be set as part of the developing the Assessment and Training Plans.

150. Offsite Work - Is offsite work within the United States permitted under this RFP (for example, remote performance from contractor or subcontractor facilities)? Are there any restrictions requiring key personnel to be physically located within Oregon or to attend in-person meetings during the project?

OJD Response: Yes, offsite work is permitted. No, there are no restrictions on key personnel. OJD anticipates all work under this contract will be completed remotely.

Please also see OJD’s response to question #135.

Attachment A – Sample Contract

151. Section 11(a)(9) - Requests that a “knowledge” qualifier be added.

OJD Response: OJD denies this request.

152. Section 11(a) - Requests the following language be added to the end of Section 11(a): THE

WARRANTIES STATED IN ABOVE ARE THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE WARRANTIES

OFFERED BY CONTRACTOR. THERE ARE NO OTHER WARRANTIES OR

CONDITIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, THOSE OF

MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-

INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS.

153. Section 13 - Requests that the acceptance testing period be five business days and that failure to notify Contractor of a rejection prior to the end of the testing period shall be deemed OJD’s acceptance of the Deliverable.

OJD Response: OJD denies the request to modify Section 13. However, OJD modified Section 9.

154. Section 14 - Subject to Oregon Public Records laws, requests that Section 14 be made mutual.

OJD Response: Section 14 has been modified to include Contractor Confidential Information.

155. Section 16(b) - Requests the following be added to the end of Section 16(b) “Excluded from the above indemnification obligations are claims to the extent arising from (a) use of the items/ services / deliverables after Contractor notifies OJD to discontinue use because of an infringement claim, (b) any claim relating to any OJD provided materials, (c) modifications to the items/ services / deliverables made other than by Contractor (where the claim would not have arisen but for such modification), or (d) the combination, operation, or use of the items/ services / deliverables with software, materials or equipment which was not provided by Contractor, to the extent that liability for such claim would have been avoided in the absence of such combination, operation, or use.

OJD Response: Revised Section 16(b) to address substance of this requested change.

156. Section 17 - Requests the following new sentence be added to the end of Section 17:

To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law and unless prohibited by the Constitution of the State of Oregon, the total cumulative liability of Contractor to OJD for any and all claims and damages under this Contract, whether arising by statute, contract, tort or otherwise, will not exceed the fees paid by the OJD to Contractor hereunder during the twelve (12) month period immediately preceding the event giving rise to the claim.”

157. Section 18(a)(3) - Requests that the cure period be changed from 14 days to 30 days.

158. Section 21(c) -…