Clarifying Questions 1- RFP 2026-74 LMS-eLearning System.pdf

PH: 503-742-5400 WWW.CLACKAMAS.US

Department of Finance

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS #2026-74

LMS-eLearning System

RESPONSE TO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS

October 15, 2026

Note that these are questions submitted by interested firms to the above referenced solicitation. The below answers are for clarification purposes only and in no way alter or amend the RFP as published.

1. What formats can ClearCo export for completion records, transcripts, and certificates (for example, CSV or

API)?

Answer: CSV.

2. About how many completion records will need to be moved, and how many years of history should be included?

Answer: Estimated numbers from 2021 through 2025 are as follows:

• 15,182 completions from 2,866 unique users

• 5 years of history

3. Is the ClearCo course content the county uses built into the ClearCo platform, or is any of it available as SCORM or other standard packages that could run in a different LMS? Are there any other third-party content providers besides ClearCo and the 2 SCORM courses noted in Section 3.3.1?

Answer: ClearCo’s catalog is provided by Prositions, and includes content from a # of creators who are 3rd party content providers. The County believes Prositions’s content could run in a different LMS.

4. Section 3.3.1, item 11, notes that SCIM 2.0 is preferred for provisioning. If a vendor proposes a scheduled file feed from PeopleSoft instead (for example, nightly), would that be acceptable? Also, does the county have a required timeframe for removing a user's access after they leave or change roles (for example, same day or within 24 hours)?

Answer: As stated in 3.3.1 item 11, describe your alternative process and expected timeline for deprovisioning user access following employee termination or role change. Access to all county systems is removed by our organization immediately upon termination. Our current schedule for file feeds from PeopleSoft is nightly.

5. For "support for synchronous training" in Section 3.3.1, would linking to live sessions (such as Zoom or Teams) with attendance tracking in the LMS meet the requirement? Or is a virtual classroom built into the LMS expected?

Answer: Yes, linking to Zoom or Teams is acceptable.

6. Does the County's current PowerDMS subscription provide API or other integration access? If so, please identify the data and activities the County expects the LMS to receive from or exchange with PowerDMS, such as users, training assignments, policy acknowledgments, completion records, and completion dates.

Answer: Yes, the current PowerDMS subscription provides integration access. The County has not explored data exchange between our current LMS and PowerDMS, the County is unable to provide the additional details requested.

7. What integration methods are currently available from the County's Oracle PeopleSoft HCM environment for the LMS, such as API, SFTP, or scheduled flat-file exchange? Does the County have a preferred method and refresh frequency?

Answer: Refer to RFP section 3.3.1. #3 for integration methods. Our current refresh frequency is nightly.

8. Please identify the County's current LMS and the approximate volume and date range of historical learner records to be migrated, including completions, transcripts, certifications, assignments, and related metadata. In what format(s) can these records be provided to the selected vendor?

Answer: The current LMS is ClearCo. Records can be provided in CSV format. The County will transfer 5 years of historical records for live/registered class and assigned course completions. Estimated numbers from 2021 through 2025 are as follows:

• 5,182 completions from 2,866 unique users

• 5 years of history

9. Could the County please provide a list of the ClearCo courses it currently licenses and wishes to retain or replace, including course title and content provider/publisher, if available? This information will allow Proposers to identify equivalent courses within their proposed content libraries and determine whether continued ClearCo licensing or a ClearCo partnership would be necessary.

Answer: As stated in 3.2 BACKGROUND, Clackamas County places a high priority on the availability of off-the-shelf course content aligned with public sector, workplace safety, leadership, compliance, and professional development needs. The list of courses is unavailable. This is a list of some of the skills categories from ClearCo’s catalog:

Access - Microsoft® Accident Prevention Active Shooter Adobe Acrobat Basic Safety Basic Skills Bloodborne Pathogen Safety Bloodborne Pathogens Box Change Chemicals & Gases Cloud-based Apps Communication Confined Spaces Conflict Construction Safety Customer Service Cyber Security Delegation Digital Literacy Diversity, Inclusion & Bias DOT & Driving Driving Safety Electrical Safety Emergencies Emergency Preparedness Engagement Ergonomics Ethics Evernote Excel - Microsoft® Facebook Fall Safety File Transfer Fire Prevention Fire Safety First Aid Forklift Safety General Safety

Generations GHS Gmail Google Apps Google Chrome Google Drive Google+ Harassment & Discrimination Hazards Health & Wellness Healthcare Hearing Protection Heat Stress Holiday, Weather-Related Safety Internet Explorer Interviewing & Hiring iPad & iOS Ladders & Scaffolds Legal LinkedIn Listening & Feedback Lock-Out Tag-Out Machinery & Trucks Management & Supervision Materials & Equipment Materials & Equipment Mentoring & Coaching Microsoft Office 365 Motivation & Attitude MS Office 2016 Office 2013 OneDrive Onenote OSHA Outlook - Microsoft® Performance & Appraisal Personal Computers Personal Protective Equipment Pintrest PowerPoint - Microsoft® Presenting Problem Solving Project & Publisher - Microsoft®

Project Management Safety Skills

Sales Salesforce Samsung Galaxy S Phone & Tablet

Skype Slips, Trips, & Falls Social Networking Substance Abuse Team Building & Team Work Teams Telephone Skills Termination Time Management Twitter Violence & Bullying Virtual/Remote Work/Hybrid Webex Windows 10 Windows 8 Word - Microsoft® Working Remote Writing YouTube Zoom

10. Are historical PowerDMS training and policy-acknowledgment records expected to be migrated into the new

LMS at implementation, or is the requirement limited to ongoing synchronization of PowerDMS activity after go-live?

Answer: Details to be determined; likely after go-live.

11. For historical completions associated with ClearCo courses, does the County require preservation of the learner's completion history and transcript only, or should historical ClearCo records also be mapped to equivalent replacement courses in the new content library?

Answer: Completion history and transcript will be sufficient.

12. The RFP states that an average of 750 courses are completed each month. On average, how many unique learners log into the LMS each month?

Answer: 1,500.

13. Does the County license ClearCo content directly, or through its current LMS provider? When does the current ClearCo agreement expire? Would the County consider keeping its ClearCo license and having the selected vendor integrate that content, rather than providing equivalent courses?

Answer: ClearCo licenses its content through Prositions. Our agreement with ClearCo with Prositions content expires June 30, 2027. No, The County will not pursue a contract directly with Prositions. As stated in 3.2, proposers may offer an integrated LMS and content solution or propose partnerships with third party content providers. Proposals must clearly distinguish between LMS platform functionality and content licensing models, including bundled content, optional subscriptions, marketplace access, and associated costs.

14. Please describe the topics the County considers "Government Specific" content.

Answer: As a government organization, The County values a broad range of skills development for our workforce, including respectful communication and effective employee supervision. The County does not prioritize sales, marketing, profit-maximization and other for-profit, corporate topics. As stated in 3.2, Clackamas County places a high priority on the availability of off-the-shelf course content aligned with public sector, workplace safety, leadership, compliance, and professional development needs.

15. Can the County confirm whether continued access to the existing ClearCo catalog is a scored preference or an essential requirement? Will equivalent content libraries be evaluated equally when course-by-course mapping is provided?

Answer: Access to our current content library provided by ClearCo is not essential. Appendix C will be used to assess the content library. Answer to question 14 provides additional details.

16. What integration does the County expect with PowerDMS? For example, importing PowerDMS training records into the LMS, sending LMS completions to PowerDMS, or both?

Answer: Th County expects PowerDMS training records to be integrated into the LMS.

17. Does the County currently use Zoom or Microsoft Teams for virtual training? Would integration with one of these platforms meet the "Built-in Virtual Classroom" requirement?

Answer:

18. Do the completed Appendices A, B and C count toward the 20-page limit?

Answer: Yes.

19. Would the County consider a custom-built LMS using an open-source platform, including the necessary integrations, data migration, and ongoing support, or if you're specifically looking for an existing commercial solution.

Answer: Yes, if the LMS meets our needs and specifications.

20. The RFP requests at least three references from clients the proposer has served that are similar to Clackamas County, including one newly engaged client within the past 36 months and one long-term client. Could you please confirm whether these references are required to be U.S.-based clients, or whether qualified international clients would also be acceptable, provided they have comparable LMS implementations and organizational scale/requirements?

Answer: Yes, references from outside the United States are acceptable.

21. Are remote/international vendors eligible to participate if they can support LMS implementation, online training workflows, integrations, reporting dashboards, content migration/support, and ongoing technical maintenance?

22. Does Section 2.20 permit an authorized LMS reseller to serve as prime contractor while the software manufacturer provides cloud hosting, product support, and technical services? What written authorization, if any, is required?

Answer: The County cannot tell you how to propose or what your partnership with subcontractors should be. The award will be made to one vendor and their solution to provide our full requested scope.

23. Will the County accept manufacturer client references for the LMS platform in combination with the prime contractor's implementation or integration references?

Answer: References should be provided in accordance with section 5.5.

24. Is integration of PowerDMS user activity required for initial rollout, or is it an optional feature for evaluation?

What integration interfaces are available?

Answer: It is an optional feature for evaluation.

25. Does the County require SCIM 2.0 specifically, or will a documented API/HRIS-driven provisioning and deprovisioning approach receive equivalent consideration?

Answer: Vendors unable to support SCIM 2.0 shall describe their alternative process and expected timeline for deprovisioning user access following employee termination or role change.

26. Section 5.3 – Exhibits: Can you please confirm whether the reference to completing “Exhibits A, B, and C in response to Section 3.3” refers to Appendices A, B, and C located at the end of the RFP document?

27. Sections 5.2 and 5.3 – Response Requirements: Section 5.2 requests a description of the firm’s ability to meet the requirements outlined in Section 3, while Section 5.3 requests a comprehensive solution proposal explaining how the LMS meets the requirements listed in Section 3.3.1. Are both sections requesting responses to the same items (1–13) in Section 3.3.1, or are separate responses expected?

Answer: Provide responses to each bulleted item in 5.2 and 5.3. Section 5.2 will focus on proposers general background while 5.3 shows the detail of the firms objectives.

28. We are a Florida based e-learning provider working mostly in the federal government. Could you please clarify if we need to be registered with the State of Oregon or the Clackamas County to be eligible to bid on this opportunity?

Answer: You do not need to be registered with the State of Oregon or Clackamas County to propose on this RFP.

However, it will be a contract requirement for the awarded vendor to be registered and active with the Oregon Secretary of State.

29. Have you seen any vendor demos prior to this RFP release? If so, which ones?

Answer: No.

30. What is driving the June 2027 go-live date?

Answer: The County fiscal year runs July 1 through June 30. Our contract with our current LMS provider ClearCo ends June 30, 2027.

31. What are you currently spending per year for your current solution?

Answer: $58,800.00 USD per year for 2,800 active users.

32. Does your Oracle Peoplesoft HCM capture supervisor relationships?

33. Will the learners/users taking training in this LMS self-register for an account or do you have a system from which you’d like to pull user account data for your target audience or will your administrators be manually bulk loading/creating these accounts? Please describe the user account creation scenarios. If automated, how frequently would you like to update user data in the LMS? (Daily via an inbound data feed, real-time via web services/API, or ad-hoc manually)

Answer: Refer to RFP section 3.3.1. #10. Account access is established through Single Sign-on, with nightly file feeds from our HRIS PeopleSoft. Daily updates is our expectation.

34. Do you have any users whose data will come from other systems (contractors, external users, etc.)? Will this data need to be fed into the LMS or be manually created by administrators?

35. How will your user population interact with the system (i.e. one-time training, recurring training, optional/mandatory, etc.)? Please explain.

Answer: Interaction varies and can include: access individually for on-demand content; complete assigned modules; register for live, facilitated sessions; supervisors can assign training to members of their teams.

36. Based on your need to track certifications, how many certifications will you need to create in the LMS for go-live?

Answer: Our current system does not track certifications centrally.

37. The LMS allows for different Welcome Page designs per org unit/audience. Will your company require differentiated branding of the LMS based on an organizational unit? If so, how many?

38. How many learning objects (web-based training, ILT, vILT, documents) will you be migrating/loading to the new LMS for go-live?

Answer: The County has 2 third-party Sharable Content Object Reference Model (“SCORM”) courses and 130 internal courses in our current LMS to be migrated for go-live.

39. Will your team be able to extract and transform your training data and historical completion data or you are looking for the vendor to get raw data files from you and transform the data into the required format to load into the new system?

Answer: Training data and historical completion data will be available in CSV format.

40. Do you have any external content providers other than ClearCo that you need to integrate with the LMS (Skillsoft, LinkedIn, etc.)? If so, which ones? Do you want completions for those external courses to be tracked in the

LMS?

41. Would you like to integrate any additional vILT providers other than Zoom with the LMS? Please specify which one(s). Ex. WebEx, GoToMeeting, Adobe Connect, Zoom, MS Teams.

Answer: MS Teams.

42. Are you planning to implement eCommerce functionality with the new LMS (ability for users to purchase/pay for training)? Please describe your use-cases/scenarios for eCommerce workflows.

43. How many custom reports, if any, would you want to re-create in the new system?

Answer: The County does not know how many, if any, of the 1,177 custom reports we have we will want to re-create in the new system.

44. Are you looking for the vendor to provide dedicated managed services in Year 1 -Year 4 to support your team in day-to-day system administration, configurations, and system support beyond software vendor technical support?

45. Given the complexity of the requested solution, the open period to submit questions until October 29th, and no published timeline for answers, would you consider extending the RFP due date by two weeks to November 19, 2026 to allow sufficient time for answers to be published and vendors to prepare a comprehensive response for this critical initiative?

Answer: The County has no intention of postponing the close date for this project.

46. Do you have a dedicated LMS Administrator? If no, how does your team plan to maintain and manage the new

LMS?

47. Are you looking for the vendor to provide Level 1 end-user support to your user population in addition to Administrator support? Would this be ongoing Level 1 support or just for the deployment of a new LMS?

48. Do you require the new LMS to support languages other than English? If yes, what other languages will be required?

End of Clarifying Questions #1