Clarifying Questions 4- RFP 2026-74 LMS-eLearning System.pdf
PDF 234 KB Posted
- Attached to
- RFP 2026-74 LMS-E LEARNING SYSTEM
- Solicitation number
- S-C01010-00018108
- Issued by
- Clackamas County, Oregon
About this file
This document is a clarification response from Clackamas County, Oregon, addressing sixteen questions submitted by interested vendors regarding RFP 2026-74 for a comprehensive web-based Learning Management System with integrated off-the-shelf online training content. The County seeks proposals from qualified vendors to provide an LMS platform capable of serving approximately 2,800 active county employees across 20 departments, with cloud-hosted infrastructure supporting at least 2,800 active users and historical retention for 2,000 inactive users. The solution must integrate with Oracle PeopleSoft HCM for automated employee data feeds, support Microsoft Entra ID single sign-on, and include SCIM 2.0 user provisioning capabilities. The RFP requires nine content domains including Business Skills, Communication, Compliance, Cybersecurity, Diversity and Inclusion, Manager and Supervisor Skills, Microsoft Office Suite, Workplace Safety, and Wellness. Proposals were due November 5, 2026, at 2:00 PM Pacific Time, with clarifying questions due October 29, 2026, at 5:00 PM Pacific Time. The contract term is five fiscal years, with Year 0 representing the implementation period from contract establishment through June 30, 2027, and Years 1–4 comprising fiscal years thereafter.
Key clarifications provided include that vendors may use scheduled PeopleSoft feeds as an acceptable alternative to SCIM 2.0 for user provisioning, with daily deprovisioning required for separated employees, and that the County is not currently purging inactive or separated user records. The County requires the content library to be in place during Year 0 for configuration and testing. Regarding insurance, the County declined to negotiate professional liability, cyber liability, or automobile liability requirements prior to award. The County will accept references from education and private-sector clients similar to the County but requires three separate references—one newly engaged and one long-term—with no overlap between categories. Pricing must be separately itemized for LMS platform licensing, off-the-shelf content access and subscription, implementation, data migration and validation, training, annual maintenance and support, and custom report development, with distinct pricing for Year 0 and Years 1–4 based on 2,800 learners. Off-the-shelf content catalogs may be supplied by named subcontractors with the prime contractor maintaining single point of accountability. U.S.-based data hosting is preferable but the County will review all proposals; foreign-domiciled suppliers may propose equivalent insurance coverage from UK insurers rated A or better.
View the file
Other files
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
PH: 503-742-5400 WWW.CLACKAMAS.US
Department of Finance
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS #2026-74
LMS-eLearning System
RESPONSE TO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS
October 29, 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. References. Will the County accept references for the proposed key personnel's comparable work for prior employers where the proposing firm is less than three years old (section 5.5)?
Answer: The requirement for references is outlined in section 5.5 regarding requirements for references.
2. Provisioning. Section 3.3.1(11) says the solution should support SCIM 2.0. Is a scheduled PeopleSoft feed that deactivates separated employees on each run an acceptable alternative, and what maximum deprovisioning time does the County require? Will Entra ID send role, department and employee ID as claims, or is PeopleSoft the source of those attributes?
Answer: This is answered somewhat by Clarifying #1 – Question #4. A feed that deactivates separated employees on each run is acceptable. Deprovisioning should occur for separated employees daily. Entra ID will provide identity information, while PeopleSoft will remain the system of record.
3. Records retention. What retention period applies to the learner records of inactive and separated employees, and is an automated purge expected at the end of it?
Answer: The County is not currently purging any inactivated/separated users and purging is not expected currently. Public records carry a minimum retention period.
4. Contract term. Pricing is requested for Year 0 through Year 4. Is the intended term five fiscal years, or a shorter initial term with renewals, and what start date should Year 0 assume?
Answer: The intended term of the contract is 5 fiscal years. Year 0 assumes the implementation period of when the contract is established to Year 1 start date of 07/01/2027.
5. Insurance. Will the County accept cyber liability provided as a $1,000,000 sub-limit within the professional liability policy, and hired and non-owned coverage for automobile liability where the contractor operates no vehicles in performing the work?
Answer: We do not negotiate contract terms or insurance requirements prior to an award.
6. Section 5.1.4 page limit. May Appendix A, B and C tables use a 10-point font inside table cells, provided the narrative is 11-point? If not, may the Appendix "Notes" columns be cross-referenced to the narrative instead of repeated?
Answer: Refer to section 5.1.4 regarding requirements for proposal contents.
7. Section 5.5 references. For a young company, will the County accept references from education and private-sector clients outside the public sector, and may one reference serve as both the "newly engaged" and "long-term" client if the engagement has run for more than 12 months?
Answer: Please see reference requirements in Section 5.5. The County will accept references from education and private sector similar to the County. No, one reference may not serve as both “newly engaged” and “long term.”
8. Section 3.3.1 #10. For the Entra ID documentation requirement, is documentation of our standards-based SSO (OIDC and SAML) together with a test integration in the County's tenant during implementation acceptable evidence?
Answer: This documentation is acceptable.
9. Section 3.3.1 #11. If SCIM 2.0 is offered as a configured option, would same-day deprovisioning through Entra ID sign-in blocking plus the nightly PeopleSoft feed be considered an acceptable alternative for Year 0?
Answer: Please submit your proposal with your recommended approach. This item will be evaluated as part of the RFP review process.
10. Appendix C. Does the County require the content library to be in place for Year 0 configuration and testing, or only from July 1, 2027?
Answer: Yes, the content library needs to be in place for Year 0 configuration and testing to ensure the system is set-up to go live.
11. AI features. Does the County have an AI use policy that would apply to AI-assisted course creation from County documents (for example, restrictions on which documents may be processed)?
Answer: The County is currently developing an AI Policy. Any AI tools and functionality will need to be reviewed prior to contracting and implementation.
12. Section 5.4 Fees. Is a per-active-user annual fee for the content library (separate from the LMS platform fee) acceptable, given the 1,500 monthly unique learners noted in CQ1 #12?
Answer: The County would like to review all available fee structure options.
13. Data location: does the County require learner data to be hosted in the United States, or would hosting in another jurisdiction with equivalent security controls be acceptable?
Answer: The US is preferable, but the County will review all proposals to make a determination
14. Content library: may the off-the-shelf catalog be supplied by a named content partner as a pre-authorized subcontractor under section 2.20, with Cademy remaining prime contractor and single point of accountability?
Answer: Yes.
15. Page limit: does the 20-page limit include a separately priced content catalog list, or may the catalog title list be provided as an appendix outside the limit?
Answer: As referenced in Section 5.1.4, proposal may not exceed a total of 20 pages.
16. Insurance: for a foreign-domiciled supplier, would equivalent coverage from a UK insurer rated A or better be acceptable, with a certificate naming the County as additional insured?
Answer: We do not negotiate contract terms or insurance requirements prior to an award.
17. Section 5.5 references. May a newly formed LLC use clearly attributed comparable engagements delivered by its founder before incorporation, together with references from a named proposed LMS/platform provider, to satisfy the three-client requirement and its recent-client/long-term-client components? Please identify any part that the prime proposer must meet independently.
Answer: The requirement for references is outlined in section 5.5 regarding requirements for references.
End of Clarifying Questions #4
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .