Answers to Questions_Clarifications_v2 - WCD RFP S-DASOBO-00014972 - INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 66 KB Posted Sep 19, 2025

Attached to: Dorris Ranch Orchard Management Services
Solicitation number: S-R20810-00014971
Issued by: Lane County, Oregon

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Mar 9, 2026

This document is a Questions and Answers compilation addressing clarifications submitted by prospective vendors in response to the Workers' Compensation Information System (WCIS) Request for Proposals (RFP) S-DASOBO-00014972 issued by the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS). The RFP solicits a comprehensive modernization of the state's workers' compensation claims and information management system, requiring the selected contractor to design, build, implement, and maintain a replacement for legacy .NET and Oracle-based applications currently supporting claims processing, employer reporting, dispute resolution, and benefit administration. The project scope encompasses data migration of approximately 6 million records across 800 tables totaling 65 gigabytes, integration with 34 internal WCD-to-WCD systems and multiple external agency interfaces, user story refinement for both internal and external stakeholders, and phased implementation with configuration-based solutions prioritized over customization. The anticipated system will support approximately 175 internal users and hundreds of external users representing employers, insurers, healthcare providers, attorneys, and injured workers, with annual claims volumes expected to increase from 25,000 to 65,000 as non-disabling claims reporting becomes mandatory. The Division anticipates 3–4 sprints per release cycle, with a phased or incremental go-live approach considered acceptable, and no statutory deadline for initial release has been mandated.

Pricing for this engagement is not fixed; the Division has not established a budget ceiling and will not disclose budget thresholds at this time, with price evaluation conducted only on proposals advancing to Round 2 evaluation. The project governance structure involves collaboration with Deloitte LLP providing project management, business analysis, change management, and data support, and Public Knowledge providing independent quality management services, with the selected contractor responsible for system design, build, testing, and training material development under the oversight of an 8-person dedicated Division modernization team (5 business, 3 IT). The Division will provide onsite workspace in Salem, Oregon, requiring core project management and team leads to be present at least four consecutive days monthly, and will supply current-state process maps, future-state models, and a completed current-state data dictionary by project commencement; data cleansing responsibility will be determined during contract negotiation. All services, agency data access, and help desk support across all tiers must be performed by personnel physically located within the United States or its territories, with encryption of all database data required and artificial intelligence components subject to Division authorization. The contract term and renewal options were not explicitly specified in the questions and answers document.

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
2025-09-19_RFP for Dorris Ranch Filbert Orchard Management.pdf	PDF	Sep 19, 2025

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

By reference

S-DASOBO-00014972

WORKERS' COMPENSATION INFORMATION SYSTEM RFP

RFP QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question No.	Solicitation Reference	Question	Response
2		What criteria is reviewed in claims ?	The Division does not process claims. Claims are reported to the Division and the Division stores the information. Currently, paper forms are submitted to the Division and then data-entered into the legacy claims application. The State Accident and Insurance Fund (SAIF) submits claims on pdf via the SFTP server, which are data-entered into the CIS application.
3		Do you do audits to review claims randomly or set criteria trigger a review?	No. The annual audit uses a program to identify a sample set of claims. Then the Division works with claims processors to get access to their internal systems and they audit several data sets to determine compliance with various performance and reporting requirements.
4		Can you elaborate on reimbursements - is it for policy premium or claims?	Reimbursements are paid based on several programs that are claim-related such as Employer-at-injury-program (EAIP) or the Retroactive program which reimburses insurers for paying workers and/or dependents, the difference between the state average weekly wage on the date of injury and the current state average weekly wage. The Division does not reimburse policy premium.
5		What systems are used for document management and document production?	Legacy .NET systems. Documents are stored in the Division's network drives; teams channels (if applicable), and there are 2 program teams that utilize Content Manager (f/k/a HPRM). Some teams manage their work on spreadsheets and documents are stored in file cabinets.
6		Would it be possible to get an extension into January given the complexity of the request?	See Addendum 4.
7	Bid Opening	Was this Pre-Proposal conference call recorded?	No, but the slide deck from the pre-proposal conference is posted on OregonBuys. It is for INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT CHANGE THE RFP.
8	3.3.1.3 (2) & Attachment K - Reference Checks

Can the references be emailed directly to the SPC instead of sending them in the mail?	Yes. See Addendum 4.
	9	Attachment A, Exhibit K	Exhibit K mandates that all Agency Data must not be accessed from, transmitted, or stored outside the United States or its territories, and all Services must be performed by staff physically located within the United States or its territories. Please confirm that this restriction applies equally to all tiers of Help Desk Support Services (L1, L2, L3 Support), ensuring all personnel supporting the Solution have a physical location within the U.S. or its territories.	Yes, the mandate applies to all tiers of Help Desk Support Services.
	10	Attachment H, Section 2.c & Exhibit K, Section 1.2.5	If the proposed solution incorporates Artificial Intelligence (AI) components, the Contractor must describe how the solution aligns with Oregon€™s AI Guiding Principles. What is the Division's formal process and timeline for reviewing and authorizing the use of such first or third-party AI components within the WCIS, particularly concerning the State Government Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council's final recommended action plan?	The Division would need to obtain authorization for any AI components of the solution.
	11	Attachment A, Exhibit K, Section 2.8 & Section 23	Exhibit K details the requirement for Division access to Agency Data for a minimum of 90 Calendar Days post-termination, while Section 23 requires record maintenance for a minimum of six years. Will the Division require the Contractor to maintain read-only access to historical transaction and audit logs related to Agency Data for the full six-year period stipulated for Records Maintenance, even after the 90-day transition period has concluded?	Pursuant to Section 23 of the sample contract, the selected contractor will be required to maintain all records related to the contract for a period of six years following termination. Whether Agency Data must be maintained for six years will depend upon the Division's decision at the end of the contract.
	12		Does the State require FedRAMP High or Moderate for hosting, and by what date?	GovRAMP (StateRAMP) at moderate level will streamline security approvals. This is not a requirement.
	13		Are there known issues or constraints with current EDI processes, especially Proof of Coverage?	There are no known issues and/or constraints unrelated to expected challenges with legacy applications.
	14		Does the State have constraints that may limit sprint cadence, such as fiscal year cycles, legislative windows, or blackout periods?	No, not generally. Select staff important to consult for specific processes could be impacted by similar activity but only rarely.
	15		Does all data have to be encrypted in the database or just some types of data?	Encryption of all data will streamline security approval.
	16		Should all data in the database be translated or just screen Labels and dropdown content? Should User configurable Labels be translated?	This would be for document/correspondence generation. There would be content that is both label-like and populated fields needing translation. This would include multi-select type fields and not free-text type fields.
	17		What is the current quality level of legacy data, and is data cleansing expected before migration?	Many areas of data are inconsistent or incorrect. Data cleansing is an activity that is desired to be planned with an unknown responsibility for the cleanup at this time.
	18	Attachment H, Section 1, page 2	Any security/classification requirements (PII/PHI), redaction, or watermarking for outbound attachments?	PII/PHI data. No explicit redaction or watermarking requirements.
	19	RFP, Section 2.4, page 9, par. 5	Is the legacy database entirely phased out and shutdown after go live, or would there be any functionality that would still be used in legacy after go-live which would impact the new system?	Large legacy database will continue to exist to support other Agency (DCBS) applications. It may be necessary to maintain portions of the Division's intertwined data and structure in order to make other Agency (DCBS) systems work.
	20	Attachment B, Section 3.2, page 13, par. 2	Out of all the integrations mentioned, which integrations are mission-critical for Day 1 go-live, and which can be deferred? Would it be possible to provide a list of external integrations (interfaces) and type of integrations (file transfer, API, etc.)?	Most identified integrations are mission-critical for Day 1 go-live. The Division is open to discussing deferrals once the implementation approach and integrated schedule are determined.
	21	Attachment F, Table 2, page 2,	What specific legacy systems currently support WCD operations (CIS, EDS, Access-based tools, etc.) — and are they integrated or standalone?	Custom .Net desktop application. Separately there are Excel and Access files that are not integrated. Separate use of Microfocus Content Manager for some document management.
	22	Attachment B, Task 3, page 12, Number 4	What technology stack/DBs used in these systems (WCIS, AICS, SQL Server, Oracle, Access)?	Custom .Net desktop application with Oracle database backend is the stack used for most of the system. A few ColdFusion web applications as well.
	23	RFP, Section 2.3.3, page 8, par. 1	Are there any custom or undocumented data sources (e.g., Excel macros, shared drives) in production today?	A word template with macro is in use, shared network drives are in use.
	24	RFP, Section 3.3.1.5, page 18 par. 2	Will the State provide onsite workspace for contract personnel?	Yes.
	25	Attachment B, Task 1 Project Management, page 6, Section 1.3	Will the State consider a phased or incremental go-live approach, or must all modules and functionalities be ready before go-live?	The Division will consider a phased or incremental approach. .
	26	Attachment C, page 1, par. 1	Do the functional and non-functional user stories provided in the RFP represent the State’s fully vetted and accurate expectations for end-user features? Or does the State anticipate that the selected vendor will need to conduct substantial gap analysis, validation, and refinement of these requirements during the project?	Further refinement may be needed but the requirements/stories are fully vetted.
	27	RFP, Section 2.3.3, page 8	What performance SLAs (response time, uptime) are expected?	Please see Sample Contract, 4.4
	28	RFP, Section 2.4	Will the system manage external credentials directly or through third party APIs?	An access control system is desired. Microsoft Azure AD is in use for other systems.
	29	Attachment C, Line number 718	EDI POC and Medical - Add or delete Insurer in NetCenter? Is NetCenter a different application?	NetCenter refers to the .Net desktop applications that were custom built and are the main set of applications in use. This is referring to a transaction sent via POC EDI and the resulting change needed in the .Net application. EDI medical is not in scope for this project.
	30	Attachment B, Section 3.4, page 14, par. 2	Attachment B - As part of Data Migration, fixing data quality issues of the Legacy System is not within the scope of Contractor responsibilities. However, Contractor will provide necessary support to the Division in addressing this issue. Would it be possible to quantify the effort/resource requirement for supporting the Data cleansing effort?	Out of roughly 6M records total there are data consistency issues particularly in select tables. Strategizing and planning data cleanup is planned for project planning and contract negotiation. Vendor proposals and offerings are welcome.
	31	Attachment B, Key Assumptions, page 22	As per Attachment B, data migration is currently expected to use mock data, with the assumption that live data will not be cleaned and ready for test migration. Is the state comfortable with the potential limitations of conducting system and product testing without access to fully migrated production data? Specifically, while mock or sample data may validate the migration approach, it may restrict the ability to perform comprehensive, real-world testing.	The Division expects that migration testing using mock data will sufficiently represent production data, and that further migration testing with production data will be conducted as part of a later phase.
	32	Attachment A	Could you confirm whether the extent or nature of contract redlines will influence the evaluation or scoring of proposals? If so, are there specific sections of the sample contract that are more sensitive and should remain unmodified?	No, Proposer may redline any part of the sample contract, but not all provisions of the sample contract are negotiable and the State is not obligated to accept any revisions to the sample contract.
	33	Attachment F, Additional Program Information	How many User Account/User Profiles, both internal & external, need to be created for the initial go live and what is expected growth during warranty and post warranty? Does the 2,000,000 workers count represent real system users?	Internal users are estimated to be approximately 175. External accounts would be leveraged by Employers, Insurers, Healthcare providers, Attorneys generally. These would all support some portion of the claims submitted to WCD. Approximately 200,000 employers are subject to Worker's Compensation insurance in Oregon.

Approximately 25,000 "workers," as in newly or previously injured workers, have disabling claims yearly. 2M would be the total number of subject workers in the state. Only a subset of the 25k, having experienced an injury, would potentially utilize an account to interact with WCD.

34	Attachment B, Task 5, page 19	Does the State have a statutory, regulatory, or contractual timeline required for the initial go-live release?	No.
36	Section 4.3	Is there an established budget range for this modernization initiative, and should our proposal align to a specific cost ceiling?	No.
37	Section 2.3	Can you clarify how you see this system expanding to other DCBS divisions and whether you expect the initial vendor to support that expansion?	There are no plans currently for other Division to utilize the solution.
38	Section 2.3.3	Please provide an estimated count of the tables that will need to be migrated for the 20 plus systems and 40 plus sub schemas to help us size the data migration effort?. Additionally, if possible, please provide the record counts.	There are approximately 6M records across roughly 1,000 tables. The 20 systems represent distinct applications. The sub schemas are Oracle schemas, as in owners of the varied tables.
39	Section 2.3.3	Can the Division share the approximately fifty spreadsheets, Access databases, and other shadow applications referenced in Section 2.3.3 so responders can more accurately understand data sources and size the migration effort?	No.
40	Attachment B Section 1.2; Attachment C User Stories	Can the Division provide a finalized list of user personas and RBAC roles for WCIS to help inform our security and access design?	The Division has limited and outdated information as to personas and RBAC roles. I
41	Attachment B – Training Development and Delivery; Change Management	Do you expect the vendor to fully lead change management and training, or will these activities be shared with the Division?	The division has two full FTE resources (change management analyst; system and software trainer) who will own and drive all change management and training decisions and activities, with support from Deloitte LLP. The Division will deliver all training to internal and external business stakeholders. The proposer may be responsible for creating initial technical training materials and administrator manuals, train-the-trainer activities, and will serve as an advisor to the modernization dedicated resources as they develop the overall training strategy.
42	Section 2.4	Do you have annual projections for claims volume over the next 3 to 5 years so we can size the system appropriately for long-term scalability?	Approximately 25,000 new claims every year. Expected to increase to approximately 65,000.
43	Section 2.4	Do you have annual claims numbers for the last year and projections for claims volume over the next 3 to 5 years so we can size the system appropriately for long-term scalability?	Approximately 25,000 new claims every year. Mostly consistent over the past few years.
44	Section 2.4	Please provide the estimated average number of daily logins by unique customer personas, along with the estimated number of users for each persona. Ex: Attorneys/Injured Workers/Insurers. Please list the personas whose users consistently log into the system each month – specifically, those who access the system more than 4 days per month.	External stakeholders do not have access to the Division's systems. There are a few specific access points within the current Division portal, but they are very limited and not a reliable source of system usage.
45	Section 2.4	Please confirm whether authenticated access is required for all customer personas. If not, please identify the personas that do not require authentication.	Confirmed.
46	Section 2.4	Please list the external systems that must integrate with WCIS and identify the functions or data flows required for each.	See Attachment F - Additional Program Information.
47	Attachment K	a) Could you please provide full instructions we can pass along to the clients we will ask to complete the Reference Check Form? For example, is there a specific date and time you require the clients to provide the form back to your SPC? Will our organization be disqualified if a client misses a question, fills the form in incorrectly, or submits late? 1.b) Could you also confirm that by "three copies", you mean one form per Reference/client organization, for a total of 3? 1.c) Do you require the Reference Check Forms to correspond with the Past Performance Narratives, or are these sections independent of one another?	See Addendum 4.
48		Does the state of Oregon have a budget threshold for both implementation and on-going annual costs?	The DIvision will not be sharing budget thresholds at this time.
49		What is the number of internal and external users expected. Internal users based on Processors and Management	See Attachment F - Additional Program Information.
50		The RFP emphasizes bi-weekly progress reports and RAID meetings. What specific metrics or templates (beyond Microsoft Office) would Oregon prefer for proposed solution-based reporting (e.g., integrating with the proposed solution's Project Portfolio Management for automated burndown charts)?	Proposer may utilize whatever reporting tools it prefers as long as the outputs can align with Microsoft tools or be made available via a PDF.
51		For sprint planning, the RFP requests effort estimates (Low/Medium/Large/Extra Large). Can Oregon provide initial guidance on hour ranges for these categories, or examples from prior projects, to align with the proposed solution's Story Planning in Agile Development?	Proposer should provide.
52	Section 1.2	Could we get an extension on when questions are due?	No further extensions on questions due date.
53		Please provide a breakdown of number of personas (excluding constituents) that will need access to the system and what their primary role will be.	Employers, MCOs, Workers, Insurers, Vocational Providers, Healthcare Providers, and Attorneys are all anticipated external user types. Internally will be role based for sections within the Division and management and system administration.
54		The approach graphic mentions configuration sprints. How many sprints per release cycle does Oregon envision, and should we prioritize certain functional groups (e.g., Claims vs. CPTS) in early sprints?	The Division anticipates 3-4 sprints per release cycle, but Proposer should recommend.
55		Task 1 requires access to Division tools like JIRA for 10 staff. Does Oregon have a preference for integrating the proposed solution's Instance Scan or DevOps tools with JIRA, or using the proposed solution's defect tracking?	No.
56		In confirming requirements and fit/gap (Deliverable 2.1), the RFP references existing user stories. For the proposed solution's out-of-the-box (OOTB) functionality (e.g., Case Management for claims workflows), what tolerance exists for gaps that can be addressed via Flow Designer configurations vs. requiring custom apps?	Low-code / no-code tools such as Flow Designer, provided they are included as part of the out-of-the-box functionality, would be noted as conditionally addressing the gap (similar to meets with exception) as opposed to a true gap that would require custom application development.
57	3.3.1.3 (2) & Attachment K - Reference Checks	Can references provided be both for the prime and subk?	Yes.
58	WCD RFP, Section 3.3.1.5: Staffing Management Plan & Org Chart, Page 18	The RFP references multiple partners supporting the project including a contracted Project Management / Business Analysis vendor and iQMS vendor (Deloitte LLP and Public Knowledge). Can the Division clarify each partner’s role and expected responsibilities to guide how we align collaboration and hand-offs during implementation?	Deloitte Consulting LLP is providing the Division with project management, business analysis, change management, communication, training, and data/implementation support. Public Knowledge is fulfilling the State required Independent Quality Management Services (https://www.oregon.gov/eis/shared-services/Documents/SWQA-FAQ-IT-Initiatives-That-Require-IQMS.pdf)
59	WCD RFP, Section 2.4: Scope of Work/ Specifications, Page 9 and Attachment F, Anticipated Future Volume (Table 2), Pages 2 & 3	Can the Division provide the list of systems in-scope for integration with the new WCIS Solution, aligned to the categories in Table 2: Critical System Integrations with the PMP in Attachment F?	See Attachment F - Additional Program Information.
60	WCD RFP, Section 2.4: Scope of Work / Specifications, Page 9	Can the Division confirm the number, type, and approximate volume of legacy databases and data sources that will be in scope for data migration?	See Attachment F - Additional Program Information.
61	Attachment B – Scope of Services, Task 1: Project Management, Contractor Responsibilities (9.b.i), Page 4	Attachment B states that the Test and Pre-Production environments, as well as data migration development and testing, should use mock/disguised data or limited production subsets. Will the Division provide this mock/test data or is the creation of these datasets expected to be part of the implementation vendor’s scope?	The Division expects to collaborate with the Proproser to create mock/test data that best represents the needs of the business and the capabilities of the proposed solution. The parties will develop more specific details regarding testing strategy during contract negotiations and project implementation.
62	Attachment B – Scope of Services, Task 1: Project Management, Contractor Responsibilities (9.b.i), Page 4	Can the Division provide additional detail on the preferred State-owned GovRamp compliant cloud environment (or the available environment options) that the Division prefers for hosting the future-state solution?	Please see additional information regarding the EIS Data Center Services. https://www.oregon.gov/eis/data-center-services/Pages/default.aspx#computing_services

The State Data Center has invested in a hybrid Azure cloud.

63 WCD RFP, Section 3.3.2.3: User Stories & Non-Functional Requirements, Page 20 and Attachment C – User Stories & Non-Functional Requirements (Cover Sheet tab) The RFP states that Attachment C (User Stories) should be categorized as "Meets" if it is "met through configuration." Does a solution meet the requirement if the final deployed application will meet the requirement as written? Or, should the Proposer response of "Meets" only be used for SaaS products where the approach for building the requirement matches the definition of "Configuration" in Attachment N?

For example, if a solution development approach is to build on an established platform and customize to the State's needs, and the State retains ownership of the codebase (does not result in a forked codebase), then does the solution "meet" the requirement if it accomplishes the objective as written?	That would be an example of "meets through configuration".
	64	WCD RFP, Section 3.1: Proposal Submission Requirements (Technical Proposal, Scope of Services Response, Page Limits), Page 14	Section 3 notes a 15-page limit for the Scope of Services response, while Attachment B (Scope of Services) is 24 pages. Can the Division confirm that any redlines or edits made directly in Attachment B itself are not subject to the page limit?	Red-line edits do not count toward the page limit.
	65	Attachment B – Scope of Services, Task 1: Project Management (Deliverable Table, 1.1: Project Kickoff), Page 3	Attachment B (Task 1) includes limited OCM activities or deliverables for the implementation vendor. Will OCM be led by the Division or another partner? If so, can the Division outline the expected OCM activities and deliverables so we can align our project plan accordingly?	The Division will lead OCM activities and related communications, supported by Deloitte LLP. The OCM activities are underway and will continue throughout the project duration. Proposer can assume monthly activities (e.g., communications, Change Agent Network, Leadership & the Division's employee engagement) and recurring quarterly/bi-annual) events like townhalls, conferences and all employee meetings. The OCM and engagement plan aligns with the current project schedule and similarly will align with a future integrated schedule.
	66	Attachment D – Proposal Evaluation and Scoring, Pricing (Table 18), Page 16	Attachment D (Pricing) states that pricing points will be calculated using the “lowest total price quoted from all proposals received in response to this RFP.” Can the Division confirm whether this refers to the lowest price among all submissions, or only among proposals deemed compliant and within the competitive range that are selected for Round 2 evaluation?	The price evaluation will only be conducted on the proposals who have moved on to Round 2.
	67	WCD RFP, Section 3.3.1.4: Key Personnel Qualifications, Capabilities & Experience, Page 17	Section 3.3.1.4 notes that the Project Manager must be a PMI-certified Project Management Professional (PMP). Can the Division confirm whether equivalent experience and / or comparable Agile certifications may also be considered when evaluating the Project Manager candidate?	Yes, equivalent experience and/or comparable Agile certifications may be considered.
	68	Attachment B – Scope of Services, Task 2: System Design & Planning (2.c), Page 7	Attachment B (Task 2) references “documented current state processes.” Does the Division currently have comprehensive and accurate current-state process maps that it will provide to the vendor? Or will the implementation vendor be responsible for developing current-state and future-state process maps?	The Division has accurate current-state process maps and future-state process models that it will provide to the selected Proposer during the project discovery period.
	69		The RFP requires screen mockups, process flows, and a data dictionary. Would Oregon accept the proposed solution's Process Automation Designer exports for flows and Data Model Studio for dictionaries, or require additional tools like Visio?	The Division will accept the Process Automation Designer and Data Model Studio.
	70		For refining user stories, how should we handle prioritization conflicts (e.g., Must Have vs. Should Have from Attachment C)? Can Oregon nominate a Product Owner for sprint alignment sessions?	The Division expects to have a resource performing product ownership duties to support user story refinement and prioritization.
	71		Task 2 includes updating the test management plan. Does Oregon prefer the proposed solution's Automated Test Framework for SIT/UAT scripting, or integration with external tools like TestRail?	Proposer should recommend testing-related tools for consideration that support and align with proposed solution.
	72		Please provide further details on the number of systems, data sources, etc. and approximate records counts that will be required to migrate to the new system.	There are nearly a dozen schemas hosting about 800 tables and several hundred packages supporting the Division’s processes. In total, this data is approximately 65GB in size.
	73		Will there be a "cut-off" for archived or closed cases that must be migrated to the new system? If so, what is that time period and how many records approximately would that be?	The Division follows the Oregon State Archives record retention schedule (Number 2015-0013(193) effective April 2017):

• Retain fatal claims and permanent total disability claims 99 years after the record closure date, destroy

• Retain Workers with Disabilities Program claims 75 years after the record closure date, destroy

• Retain denied claims without litigation 6 months, destroy

• Except as otherwise specified in the special schedule, retain all other Workers’ Compensation Claims Files 10 years after the record closure date, destroy

74	The training plan updates references modules per phase. What is the expected volume of end-users per role (e.g., WCD Users, External Users) to scope the proposed solution's Knowledge Management for self-service training portals?	There are less than 200 Division employees who will use the new system and hundreds of external stakeholders (annual portal users are <13,000). While a significant number of claims are managed by several large organizations. See question 106 for additional training information.
75	For iterative configurations (e.g., user story specs), the RFP requires a configuration guide. How detailed should this be for the proposed solution (e.g., including Update Set exports for reproducibility), and who approves per sprint?	The configuration guide should be of sufficient detail to define version control requirements, necessary integrations between components, a baseline of approved versions, maintenance, and governance. The program manager and/or product owner resource will review and approve per each sprint.
76	The RFP mandates at least three mock migrations. For the proposed solution's Data Loader or Integration Hub, what data volume (e.g., record counts for claims/employers) should we baseline for these mocks?	Increasing percentages per attempt, starting at 5% plus approximately 50 hand-selected records would be a good starting point for project planning.
77	Integration testing with partner systems (e.g., via APIs/SFTP) is required. Can Oregon provide a prioritized list of partners (e.g., DAS, DOJ) and sample data exchange formats to prototype in the proposed solution's Integration Hub?	The Division integrates with partners that include:

- DCBS (DCBS Central Services Division, Oregon OSHA, and the Workers' Compensation Board)

- Other state partners (Oregon Employment Department, Oregon Department of Revenue, and Oregon Department of Justice)

- External: State Action Insurance Fund (SAIF), National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), Insurance Services Office (ISO), and others

The majority of data exchanges are flat file transfers. Proposer should recommend data exchange formats to prototype, including XML.

78 Defect resolution SLAs are referenced but not detailed. What are the target resolution times by severity (e.g., Critical: 4 hours) for the proposed solution's Incident Management? See the Sample Contract, Attachment A. Target times are provided in the Sample Contract, Attachment A, as summarized below.

Level 1 - 4 hours after Response, unless otherwise agreed by Agency Level 2 - 24 hours after Response Level 3 & 4 - As agreed upon by the parties

79		The cutover plan must describe dependencies. What is the planned parallel run duration between legacy systems and WCIS in the proposed solution (e.g., 4-6 weeks)?	Unknown at this time.
80	Attachment G - One Time License Cost vs. Annual Cost	Can you please provide a description of what the state expects to see in the One Time License Cost field of Section E as opposed to the annual costs of Section B?	Costs associated with licenses should be captured in E, while any additional costs can be added to B.
81		Performance/Security Testing requires penetration tests. Does Oregon have preferred vendors (e.g., via DAS) for third-party pen tests on proposed solution instances, or internal guidelines?	The Division has not specified a preference and is open to Proposer recommendations.
82		Sustainment planning includes input to the Product Roadmap. How frequently should proposed solution updates (e.g., quarterly releases) be reviewed with Oregon for WCIS compatibility?	Quarterly solution updates would be sufficient, but the Division is open to discussion and further clarification during contract negotiations.
83		In Claims Coding (e.g., rows 2-12), auto-population of forms like 1503/1644 is required. For the proposed solution's Record Producers, what fields are mandatory for auto-fill (e.g., FEIN, injury date), and any validation rules?	This refers generally to data such as the Division claim number, insurer file number, claim and worker information such as date of injury, name, date of birth, as well as the employer, insurer, claims processor, worker, attorneys and other parties that are reflected as parties to the claim.
84	Section 1.1	The RFP notes the Solution may expand to other DCBS divisions. Should the architecture be designed multi‑tenant from day one? What data isolation, RBAC, and reporting requirements will apply if/when expansion occurs?	No.
85	Section 1.1	What other divisions within the agency are candidates for future rollout of the Solution developed for DCBS?	None at this time.
86	Section 2.3.2	Of the future‑state focus areas (access management, security, data exchange, document management, business rules, workflow, stakeholder self‑service, UI, reporting), which are top‑3 non‑negotiables for the first release? How will success be measured?	The Division is seeking a full, robust solution for a complex system replacement-type effort. Depending on the release approach, some functionality could be deferred, but everything listed would be considered a priority. A lot of this functionality does not exist for the Division currently, so success would be measured by the implementation of this functionality and the corresponding system performance.
87	Section 2.3.3	What is the total volume of data to be migrated?	There is nearly a dozen schemas hosting about 800 tables and several hundred packages supporting the Division’s processes. In total, this data is approximately 65GB in size.
88	Section 2.3.3	Will manual datasets be standardized before migration, and who is responsible for this effort?	Unknown. Proposer should propose.
89	Section 2.3.3	What is the defined approach for handling data that cannot be reconciled across multiple sources?	Unknown. Proposer should propose.
90	Section 2.3.3	Will there be a documented threshold for acceptable data quality before migration proceeds?	Unknown. Proposer should propose.
91	Section 2.3.3	What is the escalation process for irreconcilable data? Will there be a governance board or business owners making decisions?	Unknown. Proposer should propose.
92	Section 2.3.3	What happens if critical data cannot be migrated accurately? Is there a contingency plan (e.g., manual entry, parallel systems)?	Unknown. Proposer should propose.
93	Section 2.4	What acceptance criteria will certify migrated data (reconciliation %, error tolerances)?	To be determined in project planning.
94	Section 2.3.3	Legacy landscape quantification: WCD cites ~20 applications, 25+ databases, and 40+ sub‑schema databases, with 50+ shadow apps (Excel/Access/OneNote).	No response provided as this is not a question.
95	Section 2.3.3	Will legacy systems remain accessible for historical reference after migration? If so, for how long?	Probably for some time, but unknown.
96	Section 2.3.3	How will shadow systems (Excel, Access, OneNote) be integrated or retired? Will their data be migrated, archived, or discarded?	Shadow system functionality should be integrated into the new solution, with appropriate data being considered for migration.
97	Section 2.3.3	Is it possible to provide a complete inventory of the 20+ applications, 25+ databases, and 40+ sub schemas? Can WCD provide a system‑of‑record map, data owners, and quality assessments (duplicates, missing fields, code sets)? Any data flow diagrams AND/OR database schemas and relationships? Any system which is going to remain v/s retired v/s replaced?	Most of the Division's current state IT is comprised of in-house solutions built on Oracle backend and .NET WPF front end. Some applications in Coldfusion front end. Several other 3rd party software. While most of the Division's current state IT will be deprecated with the development of the new system, some are expected to remain and integrate with the new system.

Of the approximately 6M total rows of data, several tables have known quality issues including inconsistently populated columns.

98	Section 2.3.3 - 2.4	Which legacy sources exhibit recurring issues, such as missing fields or inconsistent identifiers? Will the WCD coordinate with the vendor in situations where certain data sets cannot be migrated to the new solution due to constraints or uncertainties regarding data integrity?	Most legacy systems in use exhibit recurring issues, due in part by a lack of accurate documentation. The Division will coordinate with the selected Proposer to address data challenges.
99	Section 2.4	Of the five workstreams (Core; Employer; Dispute Resolution; Enforcement & Providers; Claims & Benefit Programs), which must be delivered in the initial release vs. phased waves? What dependencies or “must‑go‑together” linkages exist among them (e.g., RBAC + external self‑service)?	The core system must come first and must include various foundational functionality to enable workflow management, access control and permissions, document/template generation, etc. The employer functional grouping is the largest - claims and benefit programs would be the next largest and the other two will be much smaller. Proposer should submit recommendations for release approach and sequencing that best supports the proposed solution.
100	Section 2.4	When WCD says the roadmap “begins with the core system implementation,” what minimum capabilities must the core include to green‑light the subsequent workstreams?	The global L1 requirements should be met by the core system functionality. Proposer should submit recommendations to support its proposed solution.
101	Section 2.4	What external user experience expectations exist (mobile first, ADA/WCAG levels, multilingual)? Are there transaction volume and concurrency targets (e.g., insurer filings, provider certifications)?	Please see the Attachment C - User Stories and Non-Functional Requirements for system requirements surrounding external mobile access, multilingual capabilities, and compliance with the ADA/WCAG.
102	Section 2.4	What regulatory, operational, and performance reports must be reproduced on day one? Any statutory deadlines or public transparency dashboard requirements we must meet?	Unknown; depends upon selected solution.
103	Section 2.4	The RFP expects business rules automation. Should rules be managed by business users (low‑code rule authoring) or centrally by IT? What change management and versioning controls are required for rules impacting compliance and sanctions?	Business rules should be owned by authorized business users (i.e. admin, supervisor, etc.) rather than centrally by IT. Change management and versioning control for compliance and sanctions rules would require the same sign-off by authorized business users. Version control of business rules with rollback capabilities is welcome.
104	Section 2.4	What mandatory templates and mailing channels (postal, secure email, portal messages) must be supported? Any legal language approvals required by DCBS?	Channels are described in the functional and non-functional requirements. Yes, the Division will require specific language to be included in letter templates and other documents.
105	Section 2.4	What ADA/WCAG level must be met for all public‑facing experiences? Are there language access mandates (Spanish, etc.) for injured workers and providers?	Please see the Attachment C - User Stories and Non-Functional Requirements for system requirements surrounding multilingual capabilities and compliance with the ADA/WCAG.
106	Section 2.4	The RFP calls for user training and support (job aids, onboarding guides). What are the training cohorts, delivery modes (in‑person, virtual), and acceptance criteria (e.g., proficiency scores)?	Division employees will attend multiple in-person instructor led training, led by the Division's Modernization trainer. External stakeholder training will be self-paced via digital assets (guides, videos, job aids). All training materials will be created by the Division and leverage existing training materials provided by the selected Proposer. Proficiency scores for DivisioD employees will be above 75% with external stakeholders varying as there are thousands of entities that will use the system at varying times and due to the digital delivery of training materials, proficiency for external stakeholders will not be tracked nor measured. There are some external partners that are heavy users and manage a significant amount of claims (~70%) that may participate in virtual instructor-led training.
107	Section 2.4	Can you provide existing API documentation and/or data mapping documentation from previous integrations?	See Attachment F - Additional Program Information.
108	Section 2.4	Can you provide a list of all external systems requiring integration at go live?	See Attachment F - Additional Program Information.
109	Section 2.4	Are there any specific regulatory or compliance testing requirements?	See Attachment F - Additional Program Information.
110	Section 2.4	Is there any expected support structure? E.g. Support tier (L1, L2, and L3), Support hours (24/7, business hours, etc.), on site vs. remote support, minimum SLA requirements?	Proposer should detail.
111	Section 2.4	What is the expected volume of support tickets by severity level? Is there any historical data available for this that can be shared with us? Any seasonal variations in support needs?	Unknown. Limited information is available and changes to existing legacy systems are difficult and time-consuming. Some reported issues cannot be resolved.
112	Section 2.4	Is there any preferred schedule for system patches and updates?	No.
113	Section 2.4	Does WCD receive employer registration or business entity data from other state agencies (e.g., Secretary of State, Department of Revenue)? If so, which agencies?	The Division receives Oregon Business registry Information via integration from Oregon Employment Department (OED) and the Department of Revenue (DOR) to DCBS.
114	Section 2.4	Are there integrations with state unemployment insurance or wage reporting systems for cross-verification of employer compliance?	Not at this time.
115	Section 2.4	Are there specific vendors that already provide claim and proof of coverage data feeds/file transfers to CIS and EDS? If so, what vendors are currently used for these data feeds, and do they follow the IAIABC standards?	ISO and NCCI are approved vendors for EDI POC which is submitted via SFTP. The Division is interested in transitioning to an XML (Extensible Markup Language) as an alternative to flat-file processing via SFTP.
116	Section 2.4	Are there any users external to the agency that will need to access the internal systems, such as Deputy Attorneys General?	No.
117	Section 3.3.2.3	The RFP emphasizes meeting requirements “through configuration.” Where does WCD anticipate that configuration alone will not be sufficient (e.g., complex adjudication workflows, provider certification rules), and what is the acceptable threshold for managed solutions/custom code?	The Division does not have expected scenarios where configuration will be insufficient to meet requirements. The Division is open to low-code/no-code configurations as the solution is more likely to be mostly or fully customizable in meeting the requirements rather than needing custom development.
118	Section 3.3.2.6	What are WCD’s policies for AI use, data handling, model training, and auditability? Are there prohibited AI scenarios?	The Division follows State of Oregon policies and guidance but is interested in potential solutions leveraging AI.
119	Section 3.3.3.2	For external users (employers, providers, attorneys, injured workers)? What is the expected peak/average monthly portal usage? Roughly how many internal users does the WCD expect to have accessing the proposed solution?	Unknown. All 175 of the Division's staff, plus an additional 25 (approx) staff within DCBS are expected to have on-going access.
120	Attachment F	Which user groups listed in the table (e.g., employers, insurers/self-insured employers, managed care organizations, vocational providers, healthcare providers, attorneys, and workers) are expected to have access to data through an external-facing web portal, and what level of access or functionality will each group require (e.g., view-only, data submission, compliance reporting, self-service updates)?	All user groups listed are expected to have varying levels of access to data through external-facing portal. Most would require capability to perform self-service updates, data submissions, and compliance reporting. Specific access requirements will be better defined through the development of an RBAC matrix.
121	Attachment F	What is the average number of days to complete a claim?	This varies widely based on type of job, complexity and severity of the injury and accepted conditions.
122	Attachment F	How many external actors, e.g., claimants, attorneys, etc. are typically involved in a claim?	Typically there is 1 worker aka claimant, 1 employer, 1 insurer, 1 TPA or claims processor. However, there are exceptions based on the specifics of the claim. Attorneys can represent a worker or an employer/insurer but are not part of every claim.
123	Attachment F	Does CIS have an API or only file-based export/import? Are there any restrictions for accessing CIS data?	The current state system does not have an API. Data in CIS is currently controlled based on a users' access permissions.
124	Attachment F	How does WCD view the information right now?	The Division views the information on the legacy system through .NET screens.
125	Attachment F	Is WCD allowed to write data back to CIS or is it read-only?	The Division both reads and writes to CIS.
126	General question	Are there any restrictions on work being performed outside of the U.S.? We have offices in Europe, Australia, India and elsewhere. If access to data and systems is limited to the U.S., is it permissible to perform development work outside of the U.S. (so long as personnel outside of the U.S. do not access Oregon’s data or systems)?	No work is allowed outside of the U.S.
127	Attachment G	In Attachment G - it requests No of Hours and Hourly Rate, per deliverable, however this appears to be a fixed fee solicitation, what is the intent of supplying that breakdown in Section E?	This is not intended as a fixed fee solicitation; the contract will set a not to exceed compensation amount. The breakdown by costs (including subscription or licensing), hours and rates by deliverable will assist in evaluation of the proposed solution.
128		For Claims Closure (e.g., rows 13-26), the NOC exception report flags missing info. Should this integrate with the proposed solution's Reporting module for automated alerts, or export to Excel?	The Division prefers an integration within the systems automated alerts.
129		In 873 Process (e.g., rows 27-40), printing 873 letters and labels is needed. Does Oregon prefer the proposed solution's Print Service integration or a custom PDF generator?	Proposer should recommend options that support the proposed solution and address the requirement.
130		NFR-2 (IAM): Custom roles and supervisor hierarchies (rows 36-46). How many roles are anticipated (e.g., 20+), and should the proposed solution's Hierarchical Groups be used for org structure?	The Division expects to have 40+ internal and external roles. The type of access required by each group will be determined as part of the development of a Role Based Access Control (RBAC) matrix.
131		NFR-9 (UX/UI): Multilingual support for Russian/Spanish/Vietnamese (row 127). Does Oregon prefer the proposed solution's Localization plugins or Google Translate integration?	Proposer should recommend options that support the proposed solution and address the requirement.
132		For change requests (Appendix A), what thresholds trigger a formal review (e.g., >5% scope impact)?	Greater than 15% change requires a formal review.
133		Tools section: Compatibility with Microsoft Teams for storage. Does Oregon approve the proposed solution's Files and Attachments for deliverables, or require SharePoint sync?	Proposed solution must sync with Microsoft Office tools.
134		Are respondents required to be registered to do business in the state of Oregon at the time of submission, or can this be done immediately after award?	Proposer must be registered with the Oregon Secretary of State at time of Contract execution, if required.
135	Attachment B, Task 1, Contractor Responsibilities, para 3	Implementation Approach and Project Governance Clarity : With reference to Attachment B, Task 1, Contractor Responsibilities, para 3, Given the requirement for the Contractor to adhere to the Division’s Project Management Plan and collaborate with existing contracted services (Deloitte LLP for Business Analysis and Project Management, and the Quality Assurance contractor), what is the Division's expected RACI model detailing the specific boundaries and decision rights (who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed) between the Contractor's Project Manager/Solution Architect, the Division Project Manager (Exhibit E), PM/BA services, and the iQMS vendor during Task 2: System Design & Planning and Task 3: Build and Test?	Deloitte, LLP is providing PM, BA, OCM, Communications, Data/Implementation support to the Division's modernization team. The modernization project team resources (8) will be the main point of contact for the selected proposer. iQMS providers QA/QC assessment services per the Statewide Quality Assurance Program and do not perform project work. Yes, the Division has an existing RACI but the RACI will be further developed with the selected Proposer during contract negotiations.
136	Attachment B, Task 1, Deliverable 1.1: Project Kickoff	Implementation Approach and Project Governance Clarity : With reference to Attachment B, Task 1, Deliverable 1.1: Project Kickoff, Deliverable 1.1 requires the Contractor to contribute to the WCIS Project Management Plan (PMP). Will the Division provide the baseline PMP template and core structure (e.g., governance, risk management frameworks) prior to the Project Kickoff Session, or is the Contractor expected to propose the comprehensive PMP structure for joint refinement?	Proposer must develop its own Project Management Plan as part of the contracted work. The Division could share its internal PMP.

This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Mar 9, 2026.