Answers to Questions Clarification 1_WCB RFP S-DASOBO-00014853.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 18 KB Posted
- Attached to
- RFP for Litigation Case Tracking Solution
- Solicitation number
- S-DASOBO-00014853
- Issued by
- Oregon
About this file
This document is a Clarification Answers sheet for the Oregon Workers' Compensation Board's (WCB) Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Litigation Case Management System (LCMS), identified as S-DASOBO-00014853. The RFP seeks a comprehensive case management solution to replace WCB's existing systems for the Hearings Division and Board Review Division, handling approximately 11,000 active cases annually with an average of 5 parties per case. The target implementation timeline is mid-to-late 2028, with WCB preferring a single statewide go-live approach to minimize business disruption. WCB will provide dedicated subject matter experts for requirements validation and user acceptance testing. The agency anticipates approximately 80 staff members will access the system daily, though concurrent user numbers are unknown and will fluctuate. The LCMS must support robust data export capabilities for sharing with the Oregon Court of Appeals, Oregon Supreme Court, and other agencies, and proposers are not responsible for physical document scanning but will recommend migration approaches for importing existing agency data.
Key technical and security requirements include exclusive U.S.-based data residency with no overseas access or storage permitted, Microsoft Entra ID integration for workforce authentication using Single Sign-On with multi-factor authentication, and vendor-provided identity management for external users including attorneys, claimants, and employers. The solution must achieve WCAG 2.1 Level AA accessibility compliance and support modern integration standards such as REST APIs using JSON and SAML 2.0 or OAuth 2.0 authentication. WCB does not require integration with specific cloud providers, Microsoft 365 services, enterprise document repositories, or centralized state monitoring platforms; instead, vendors must provide comprehensive monitoring and logging capabilities within their own solution compliant with Oregon Statewide IT and Information Security Policies. The vendor will be responsible for managing its own CI/CD processes and secure development practices, and WCB does not currently have electronic data exchange standards or schemas with the Oregon Judicial Department, as all current exchanges are handled through paper-based processes.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment A - Sample Contract 3.23.26.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment J eis-css-oregon-standards-spreadsheet-S-DASOBO-00014853.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Addendum_1_WCB_DASOBO-00014853.docx | DOCX document | |
| Answers to Questions Clarification 2_WCB RFP S-DASOBO-00014853.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment H Solution Requirements S-DASOBO-00014853.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment E Price Proposal Form_S-DASOBO-00014853.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment I - Accessibility Compliance Report Cover Sheet S-DASOBO-00014853.docx | DOCX document | |
| Addendum_2_WCB_DASOBO-00014853.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP_WCB Litigation Tracker 4.16.26 - As Posted.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| S-DASOBO-0014853 | |||||
| LITIGATION CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (LCMS) | |||||
| S.No | Question | Page | Section | Paragraph Number | Response |
| 1 | Can WCB provide detailed process flows for the Hearings Division and Board Review Division, including case transitions, decision points, and exception handling? | 6–9 | 2.1 | Overview & Objectives | WCB has existing high‑level process documentation, including swimlane diagrams that outline the major steps, roles, and case transitions for both the Hearings Division and the Board Review Division. These materials reflect our current processes but do not capture every detailed decision point or exception path. |
As part of implementation, WCB expects to work collaboratively with the vendor to refine and document detailed workflows, decision logic, and exception handling. The goal is not to replicate our current manual or paper‑driven processes, but to define optimized future‑state workflows that align with the capabilities of the new LCMS.
2 How are multi-level appeals currently tracked, and what specific challenges should the new LCMS address in preserving historical appeal data across appeal levels? 8–9 2.1 Objectives WCB currently tracks appeal activity at a high level, including when a case is appealed and to which appeal level. However, the existing system stores appeal information in a single, non‑relational table. As a result, when a case is remanded or appealed multiple times to the same level, the system requires staff to overwrite the previous appeal data. This prevents WCB from preserving a complete historical record of all appeal cycles and remands.
A key requirement for the new LCMS is the ability to maintain a full, chronological history of all appeal events across multiple levels, including repeated remands or appeals. The solution should support a relational or event‑based model that captures each appeal action as a distinct record, ensuring that no historical appeal data is lost.
3 What specific integration mechanisms are expected with the Oregon Judicial Department (OJD) eCourt system (e.g., APIs, file transfer, manual processes)? 11–12 2.4 Implementation The LCMS must support robust data export capabilities (documents, case files, structured data, and reports) to enable information sharing with:
- Oregon Court of Appeals
- Oregon Supreme Court
- WCD
- OSHA
4 Are there existing data exchange standards or schemas defined for transmitting case records and receiving judgments from OJD? 11–12 2.4 Implementation WCB does not currently have any electronic data‑exchange standards or schemas for transmitting case records to or receiving judgments from OJD. All exchanges with OJD are currently handled through paper-based processes (print and mail).
As part of modernization, WCB anticipates the need to export case data and documents in standard electronic formats (e.g. PDF) for electronic transmission (e.g. email) to OJD.
| 6 | Does WCB expect the Proposer to perform physical document scanning, or only to support ingestion of already digitized records? | 12–13 | 2.4 | Data Conversion & Migration | The proposer will not be responsible for physical document scanning. WCB curerntly has both physical documents and digitized records that will need to be migrated to the new LCMS. Active paper-based case files will be digitized into the LCMS. The proposer will recommend the conversion and migration approach required to import current Agency data into the proposed LCMS |
| 7 | Are there existing metadata standards or indexing structures currently used for case files that should be retained or mapped during migration? | 12–13 | 2.4 | Data Conversion & Migration | The new LCMS should preserve all essential case and document metadata during migration and support the development of a more consistent and modern indexing structure going forward. WCB will provide existing metadata fields and examples from current systems, and detailed mapping will be completed collaboratively during implementation. |
| 8 | Can WCB provide examples of current reports and desired future reports, particularly for attorney fees, case disposition metrics, and public transparency reporting? | 7–8 | 2.1 | Background | Report examples can be provided upon request. WCB will work collaboratively with the selected vendor to develop and customize desired future reports. WCB's preference is for proposers to provide examples of reports available in their LCMS system. |
| 9 | Are there expectations for public-facing dashboards or open data access for external stakeholders? | 8–9 | 2.1 | Objectives | Proposer will describe available data-visualization capabilities, including dashboards, charts, and other graphical displays that support monitoring, analysis, and decision-making. WCB does not have specific use cases defined for public-facing dashboards or open data access. |
| 10 | Does WCB require integration with the State’s identity provider (e.g., Microsoft Entra ID) for workforce and/or external user authentication? | 10–11 | 2.4 | Security / Access | Workforce authentication is performed through Microsoft Entra ID, using Single Sign-On with MFA and least-privilege access. External/public users do not authenticate through Entra ID. The vendor’s solution must provide its own secure authentication mechanism for external users, including account creation and login. This external authentication must support MFA, enforce security controls such as lockout thresholds and session timeout, and comply with all security requirements defined in the RFP and the Oregon Statewide IT and Information Security Policies. |
| 11 | For external stakeholders (attorneys, claimants, employers), should the solution provide identity management, or will the State provide a federated identity approach? | 10–11 | 2.4 | Security / Access | The State does not provide a federated identity service for external stakeholders. The vendor’s solution must provide identity management for external users, including account creation, authentication, MFA, password resets, and all required security controls. |
| 12 | Are there any existing accessibility audit reports or known accessibility gaps in current systems that should be addressed as part of this implementation? | 13 | 2.4 | Accessibility | The current systems are being fully replaced as part of this project, so existing accessibility gaps are not in scope for remediation. The vendor’s solution must meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA as specified in the RFP. No accessibility audit reports of the legacy systems are required for this implementation. |
| 13 | Does WCB require accessibility validation by a specific third-party vendor or standard beyond WCAG 2.1 Level AA? | 13 | 2.4 | Accessibility | WCB does not require accessibility validation by a specific third‑party vendor. The solution must meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA, and the vendor is responsible for ensuring and validating compliance. |
| 14 | What is the Agency’s target timeline for implementation and go-live of the LCMS solution? | 5 | 1.2 | Schedule | Mid-to-late 2028. |
| 15 | Will WCB provide dedicated subject matter experts for requirements validation, testing, and user acceptance testing? | 10–11 | 2.4 | Project Management | Yes. |
| 16 | Does WCB anticipate a phased implementation (e.g., by division or functionality), or a single statewide go-live approach? | 10–11 | 2.4 | Implementation | WCB prefers a single statewide go-live approach with minimal disruption to agency business. |
| 17 | Are there any constraints or requirements regarding data residency, geographic hosting location, or use of U.S.-based cloud regions? | 15+ | 3 | Security Requirements | Yes. WCB requires that all Agency data be hosted, stored, processed, accessed, and transmitted exclusively within the United States or its territories. This includes all production systems, backups, disaster recovery environments, and any maintenance or support activities. No overseas access, storage, or transmission is permitted. The SaaS solution and all associated data must reside entirely in U.S.-based cloud regions, and Agency data must be physically separated from other vendor clients. |
| 18 | Does the State have any preferred or approved cloud hosting environments (e.g., Azure, AWS, 15+ 3 Security Requirements or other providers), or is compliance with State cloud security policies sufficient regardless of provider? | 15+ | 3 | Security Requirements | WCB does not require the solution to be hosted in a specific cloud provider such as Azure or AWS. Any hosting environment is acceptable as long as it complies with all State cloud security requirements, including U.S‑only data residency, no overseas access or storage, and adherence to the Oregon Statewide IT and Information Security Policies. The SaaS solution must meet all security and data protection requirements defined in the RFP and sample contract. |
| 19 | Beyond workforce authentication via Microsoft Entra ID, are there expectations or preferences for integration with other Microsoft 365 services (e.g., Outlook, Teams, SharePoint)? | Attachment H | Req. 315 | — | WCB does not have any required use cases for integration with Microsoft 365 services such as Outlook, Teams, or SharePoint. The core solution must operate fully without relying on Microsoft 365 integrations. If the vendor offers optional features that integrate with Microsoft 365 or use Microsoft Graph API, those integrations may be considered, provided they are strictly optional and comply with statewide least‑privilege requirements and do not request elevated permissions. |
| 20 | Does WCB currently utilize any enterprise document repositories (e.g., SharePoint or other systems) that the LCMS should integrate with, or should document management be fully contained within the solution? | 6–8 | 2.1 | Background | WCB does not require integration with existing document repositories such as SharePoint or our in‑house document management system. Document management should be fully contained within the vendor’s solution. If the vendor offers optional capabilities to publish or export documents to external repositories (e.g., SharePoint for public posting of final orders), those features may be considered, but they must be optional and not required for core system functionality. WCB must retain full access to all documents stored within the solution. |
| 21 | Does the Agency currently utilize any enterprise reporting or analytics platforms (e.g., Power BI or similar) that the LCMS should integrate with? | 7–8 | 2.1 | Background | WCB does not require integration with existing reporting platforms such as SSRS, Actuate, or Power BI. The vendor’s solution should provide comprehensive reporting and analytics capabilities within the LCMS. WCB does require the ability to export data for analysis in external tools (e.g., CSV, Excel, or API access). If the vendor offers optional capabilities to connect with external analytics platforms, those may be considered, but they must be optional and not required for core reporting functionality. |
| 22 | Are there preferred integration standards, middleware platforms, or API governance frameworks that proposers should align with? | 11–12 | 2.4 | Implementation | WCB does not maintain a formal middleware or API governance framework beyond standard statewide security requirements. For system‑to‑system integrations, WCB prefers modern, widely adopted approaches such as REST APIs using JSON. Authentication integrations must align with Microsoft Entra ID using SAML 2.0 or OAuth 2.0, and SCIM may be required for user provisioning. Additional technical requirements, if any, will be defined during solution design. |
| 23 | Are there any State-imposed requirements or constraints related to CI/CD pipelines, deployment practices, or release management for SaaS solutions? | 10–11 | 2.4 | Ongoing Services | WCB does not impose specific CI/CD pipeline requirements, deployment tools, or release‑management frameworks for vendor‑hosted SaaS solutions. The vendor is responsible for managing its own CI/CD processes. WCB requires that all releases follow secure development practices, comply with statewide IT and Information Security Policies, and include appropriate change‑control communication, testing, and coordination to avoid service disruption. No specific CI/CD platform or methodology is mandated. |
| 24 | Does the State require integration with any centralized monitoring, logging, or security tools (e.g., SIEM platforms), or should the solution provide its own monitoring capabilities? | 15+ | 3 | Security Requirements | WCB does not require integration with any centralized State monitoring, logging, or SIEM platforms. For vendor‑hosted SaaS solutions, the vendor is responsible for providing comprehensive monitoring, logging, audit trails, and security alerting within the solution. These capabilities must comply with the Oregon Statewide IT and Information Security Policies, and the vendor must provide access to logs or reports upon request. No specific State monitoring or SIEM integration is mandated. |
| 25 | To provide accurate pricing in Attachment E, what is the anticipated number of concurrent and total internal users (staff, ALJs, Board members) and the projected number of active external users (attorneys, insurers)? | 14 | 2.1.2 | RFP Litigation Tracker | WCB has approximately 80 staff, most of whom will access the new LCMS daily. Additionaly, WCB handles apporximately 11,000 active cases per year. Each case averages 5 parties per case. Concurrent users are unknown and will fluxuate. |
| 26 | For the Statewide Security Standards Spreadsheet, if a control is marked as "Shared," what level of detail is required in the description to satisfy the Business Security Advisor's (BSA) pass/fail review? | 20 | Section 3.2.1.14, | Attachment J Instructions, Phase 1 Bid Response | Proposers should provide as much detail as they are able, or explain how it is shared, e.g. what they are responsible for versus what the agency is responsible for. |
| 27 | Since the dates for Round 2 demonstrations and interviews are currently listed as "To be determined," does the agency have a target month for these activities to assist with Proposer resource planning? | 5 | Section 1.2 | RFP_WCB Litigation Tracker, | DAS SPS intent is to conduct the Round 2 demonstrations and interviews as soon as reasonably possible following completion of the initial evaluation phase. However, the specific timing will depend on evaluation outcomes, scheduling availability, and coordination with Proposers, so the dates are still being determined at this time. |
_x000D_&1#&"Aptos"&10&K000000 Level 3 - Restricted
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .