PERS RFQ 45900_00017298 Enterprise Forms Remediation QA Final.pdf

PERS S 45900-00017298 Enterprise Forms Remediation – Q&A

The State of Oregon

Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) Issues the Following

Informal Request for Quote (RFQ)

#PERS S 45900-00017298

Enterprise Forms Remediation

Addendum #1

Addendum Date of Issuance: July 17, 2026

Quotes Due: July 21, 2026 1:00 PM (Pacific Time)

Sole Point of Contact: Jennifer Champie, Senior Procurement and Contracts Specialist

Oregon Public Employees Retirement System

Contracts and Procurement Section 11410 SW 68th Pkwy Tigard, OR 97223 E-mail: jennifer.champie@pers.oregon.gov mailto:jennifer.champie@pers

Questions Received

The following questions were received. PERS has reviewed and provided the following answers:

Q1: Can the agency provide an inventory of the in-scope forms that, for each individual form, identifies:

• file type (PDF, Word, or web); page count;

• content type or functional category in as much detail as available (for example, beneficiary designation, retirement application, withdrawal request, direct deposit authorization, tax withholding, address change, employer report, survivor benefit claim, domestic relations order, or similar functional categories used in pension administration);

• field type and interactive logic, distinguishing between forms that contain only standard fillable fields (text inputs, checkboxes, radio buttons, and dropdowns with no computation or conditional behavior) and forms that contain calculated or interactive fields (computed totals or math operations, dynamically populated values, or conditional logic that shows, hides, or changes fields based on prior responses), because these represent materially different levels of remediation effort;

• other structural characteristics that affect accessibility complexity (for example, data tables, multi-column layouts, signature blocks including digital or e-signature fields, embedded images or charts, or scanned-image content).

• If a structured per-form inventory is not available, can the agency provide the aggregate count of in-scope forms by file type (PDF, Word, web), the aggregate page count by file type, and a summary breakdown of content types and structural characteristics across the in-scope corpus?

• Can the agency confirm the total form universe (the inventory of which the in-scope ~260 forms represent three quarters), so that bidders can plan for the remaining quarter if the agency elects to extend the engagement per §4.4?

• Will the agency make a representative sample of the in-scope forms available to bidders during the solicitation period, or will the full inventory be transferred to the awarded vendor at kickoff?

A1: All forms for this engagement will be fillable PDFs. Roughly 50%% of forms are 1-2 pages in length.

25% are 3-4 pages, and the remaining 25% are 5 or more pages in length (this also includes “packets” such as retirement applications which may include Federal forms, which PERS is not responsible for producing.)

At the time of the engagement, we can provide a detailed breakdown of which forms, how many pages in each form, and a prioritized list so that the vendor can know where to start. Some of that information can be used by the vendor to help identify templates for common types of forms. At this time, for example forms, you may view our most-requsted forms here:https://www.oregon.gov/pers/Pages/Most- Requested-Forms.aspx and https://www.oregon.gov/pers/emp/Pages/Employer-Forms.asp

Forms at those links are representative of the kinds of forms will be included in the remediation effort and their functionality (and these forms will be among the ones to be remediated).

For interactive forms, we do use text input fields, radio buttons, checkboxes, conditional behaviors, math computations, and dynamically populated fields. Many forms do include other characteristics including data tables, multi-column layouts, signature blocks, embedded images or charts, and/or scanned images.

https://www.oregon.gov/pers/Pages/Most-Requested-Forms.aspx https://www.oregon.gov/pers/Pages/Most-Requested-Forms.aspx

Q2: Does the "web" portion of the in-scope forms refer to HTML forms published on pers.oregon.gov, forms hosted in a third-party platform (for example, a forms-builder application, SharePoint, ServiceNow, or other system of record), or both?

• For any web forms in scope, will the awarded vendor receive direct edit access to the underlying HTML and CSS (or the platform's form-builder configuration), or will the awarded vendor produce remediation specifications that the agency's in-house team implements?

• Approximately how many of the in-scope ~260 forms are web forms, as opposed to PDF or Word documents? Can the agency provide either a list of URLs for all in-scope web forms, or at minimum a representative set of URLs that includes at least one live example of each distinct form builder, content management system, or backend rendering mechanism in scope, so that bidders can inspect a working instance of each rendering mechanism and account for the platform-specific accessibility considerations that materially affect the per-hour effort referenced in Question 8(c)?

A2: Web forms refer, for this effort, to PDF forms downloaded from the agency’s websites. All forms for this engagement will be fillable PDFs.

Q3: PDF Accessibility Checker (PAC) generates an exportable report against the PDF/UA standard (ISO 14289-1). PAC does not report on WCAG conformance directly, although there is substantial overlap between the PDF/UA checks and the WCAG 2.1 AA Success Criteria that apply to PDF documents. Adobe Acrobat's built-in accessibility check generates an exportable report against Acrobat's own rule set, with partial overlap to PAC and to WCAG. Screen-reader testing is a manual procedure, typically documented in a narrative or checklist format identifying the assistive technology and version tested, the test procedure followed, and the resolution of any findings.

None of these three outputs, on its own, constitutes a complete WCAG 2.1 AA conformance assertion. In addition, the named tools are PDF-specific; Word and web forms require different validation tooling and produce different evidence artifacts. Clarification of the required documentation package for each format ensures that the awarded vendor's deliverables align with what the agency expects to accept under §2.6 and reconcile against monthly invoicing per Attachment D §4.2.

• For each remediated PDF form, which of the following documentation artifacts does the agency require: the exported PAC report against PDF/UA; the exported Adobe Acrobat accessibility-check report; a screen-reader testing summary identifying the assistive technology and version tested, the test procedure followed, and the resolution of any findings; a separate WCAG 2.1 AA conformance assertion attesting that the form has been validated against each applicable WCAG 2.1 AA Success Criterion; or some combination of these?

• For each remediated Word form, which documentation artifacts does the agency require, recognizing that the Microsoft 365 Accessibility Checker is the analogous validation tool for Word documents and that Word forms can additionally be evaluated through screen-reader testing against the rendered document?

• For each remediated web form, which documentation artifacts does the agency require (for example, automated scanner output such as axe or WAVE; a manual checklist against WCAG 2.1 AA Success Criteria; a screen-reader testing summary; or some combination)?

• Should the test-evidence artifacts be delivered as a single bundle per form (one folder per form containing all required artifacts), or as a consolidated package across the engagement (organized by artifact type)?

A3: Web forms refer, for this effort, to PDF forms downloaded from the agency’s websites. All forms for this engagement will be fillable PDFs (no Word forms).

The following documentation artifacts are acceptable- the exported Adobe Acrobat accessibility check report and a separate WCAG 2.1 AA and Section 508 conformance assertion attesting the form has been validated against the criteria.

Q4: Does the agency require specific minimum or current versions of JAWS, NVDA, and VoiceOver for the screen-reader testing, or are bidders free to test against the latest publicly released versions at the time of remediation?

For each screen reader, does the agency require specific PDF reader pairings (for example, JAWS with Adobe Acrobat Pro and Adobe Acrobat Reader, NVDA with Adobe Acrobat Reader, VoiceOver with Preview and Adobe Acrobat Reader), or are standard vendor pairings acceptable?

The RFQ names VoiceOver without specifying platform. For PDF and Word form remediation, standard practice is to test VoiceOver on macOS. Can the agency confirm that VoiceOver-macOS is the intended platform under this RFQ, and that VoiceOver-iOS (mobile) is not part of the scope unless explicitly added?

Each of the screen readers named in §2.7 has known behaviors in which the assistive technology or the user agent (the PDF reader, the web browser, or the host application for Word) renders certain content elements differently from what the document's underlying tags and structure would predict. Some of these behaviors can be mitigated by document-level workarounds (for example, additional or redundant labeling patterns, structural duplication, or vendor-specific tags) that go beyond what is required for WCAG 2.1 AA conformance or, for PDFs, PDF/UA conformance, because the underlying defect is at the assistive technology or user agent layer rather than at the document code layer. Applying such workarounds materially increases per-form remediation effort. In addition, workarounds applied to mitigate behavior in one assistive technology or user agent frequently degrade the rendered experience for users of a different assistive technology or user agent (for example, redundant labeling that improves one screen reader's announcement can produce duplicate or verbose announcements in another, and structural duplication that resolves a reading-order issue in one PDF reader can introduce navigation noise in another). Workarounds are therefore not uniform improvements; they involve trade-offs across the user population. Does the agency expect the awarded vendor to apply assistive-technology and user-agent workarounds beyond what is required for conformance, in order to optimize the rendered experience for a specific subset of the named screen readers, or does the agency expect remediation to address only code-level conformance with WCAG 2.1 AA (and, for PDFs, PDF/UA), with residual assistive-technology or user-agent rendering issues left to the assistive technology and user agent vendors to resolve? If a hybrid approach is acceptable, can the agency identify the issue classes for which workarounds should be applied and the primary user population the workarounds should optimize for?

A4: Standard vendor pairings are acceptable, standard practices are acceptable, mobile is not part of the scope. The agency expects remediation to address formatting and code-level conformance with WCAG 2.1 AA and Section 508 (and, for PDFs, PDF/UA), with residual assistive-technology or user-agent rendering issues left to the assistive technology and user agent vendors to resolve.

Workarounds are not expected or desired. The following documentation artifacts are acceptable- the exported Adobe Acrobat accessibility check report and a separate WCAG 2.1 AA and Section 508 conformance assertion attesting the form has been validated against the criteria.

Q5: Is there an incumbent contractor currently providing forms-accessibility services, template development, accessibility documentation, or accessibility training to the agency?

If an incumbent contractor exists, will the awarded vendor be supplementing the incumbent's work, replacing the incumbent's work at the end of the incumbent's contract term, or working in parallel on a non-overlapping subset of the inventory?

If incumbent deliverables or methodology documentation already exists (for example, remediated forms, template files, procedural documentation, or training curricula), will those deliverables be made available to the awarded vendor as inputs at kickoff, and is the awarded vendor permitted to extend or revise them under Attachment D §9 (Ownership of Work Product)?

A5: No, no incumbent contractor.

Q6: What is the baseline accessibility familiarity of the six to eight staff to be trained (for example, the staff are new to accessibility, have completed prior introductory training, or have current working experience with WCAG and assistive technology)?

What is the agency's intended outcome for the trained staff post-engagement (for example, authoring net-new accessible forms using the delivered templates, accessibility-testing forms produced by others, approving forms before publication, or a combination of these roles)?

Will the agency define the post-training assessment criteria (passing threshold, format, retake policy) or does the agency expect the awarded vendor to propose those criteria for agency approval?

A6: Basic familiarity, some introductory training completed, may be intermediate understanding (though not facility) by the time of this engagement.

Trained staff, post-engagement, should be able to use the requested templates for the different kinds of forms, and should be able to use the requested job aids and documentation to create new forms if they must create something outside of one of the provided templates. Additionally, they should have gained an understanding of the standard accessibility techniques to use when creating and troubleshooting forms, as well as an understanding of how to address issues that are pointed out when using an accessibility checker.

We would like the vendor to propose for acceptance associated technical assistance hours post training and post template deployment.

Given the desired training outcomes, PERS would like the vendor to use their expertise to propose the training route that will best support staff attaining the post-engagement state.

Q7: Library scope and unit definition. How does the agency define the unit of "template" for purposes of the deliverable count (for example, a distinct source file, a distinct visual layout, a functional archetype that may have format variants such as a Word source plus a PDF export, or another definition)? How many distinct templates does the agency expect the library to include, and is the count expressed as a fixed number, a range, or a function of the in-scope inventory's content categories asked in Question 1?

Format coverage and alignment with the PERS modernization program. In which formats should the templates be delivered (Word, PDF source files, web HTML, or a combination)? Given the modernization program described in §1.0 (replacement of the legacy jClarety pension administration system with a new commercial-off-the-shelf platform), does the new platform have accessibility specifications, a design system, a component library, or forward-looking brand standards that the awarded vendor should align the template library against, so that the templates remain useful after the new system is deployed?

Pre-build inputs the agency will provide at kickoff. Which of the following will the agency provide to the awarded vendor at kickoff, and on what timeline:

• the current Agency Brand Standards (brand book, color palette, typography, logo files);

• the plain-language guidelines referenced in §2.7;

• any existing form templates currently in use by the agency;

• exemplar forms from the in-scope inventory selected by the agency as visual references for the new templates;

• any wireframes, design specifications, component specs, or content models already prepared by the agency;

• validation rules and error-message standards used by the agency, if standardized;

• representative content for each template, so the templates are populated with real or representative copy at delivery rather than placeholder text?

Requirements definition before build. How are template requirements confirmed before the awarded vendor begins building each template? Possible approaches include a written specification per template approved before build begins; a kickoff workshop with stakeholders sufficient to anchor requirements for the whole library; or an iterative discovery process where requirements emerge during build. If a written specification process is preferred, will the agency author the specifications, or will the awarded vendor draft them for agency approval before building?

Review and revision process. How many review rounds does the agency expect per template (for example, draft review, revision, final review, or a different cadence)? Will the agency designate a formal approval authority (whether an individual, a committee, or a defined role) responsible for accepting each template and resolving conflicts when reviewers disagree? Beyond what number of revision rounds is the awarded vendor's effort considered out of scope, so that additional rounds trigger a change request under Attachment D §4.4 rather than additional uncompensated effort?

User acceptance testing for the template library. Does the agency require user acceptance testing of the template library as a deliverable acceptance gate under §2.6, separate from the post-training assessment in Question 6? If yes, what is the UAT structure: the testing population (for example, the agency's form authors who will use the templates to build new forms, agency staff who review completed forms, or representative members or employers who interact with forms in production); the sample size; the test scenarios; and the acceptance criteria?

A7: A template can be defined as a fully functional and accessible blank form that is a close approximation of a current common type of form, representing how that type of form may look and function and being able to be used as a base for building future forms similar to that type; a few with representative copy are desired, however. The agency would like the vendor to propose the amount and type of templates based on their assessment of the types of forms provided (addressed further below). Once that is ascertained, we will be able to establish review processes.

The agency will provide branding and other standards materials and guidance as pertains to forms.

There are not current templates, but rather examples of form types. From these different kinds, which will be provided during remediation, we would need templates developed. At present, the only thing the agency uses is one basic form “template” for a single-page form, considered the "rough" of the forms document -- header, footer, logo, and basic form blocks are included in it.

The purpose of this engagement is to create a short-term bridge for WCAG 2.1 AA Section 508 and PDF/UD compliance, as the modernization program is still in the foundational stages. The time horizon for a fully deployed omni-channel pension administration system is still six to eight years from being realized. In the interim, PERS must still comply with accessibility requirements. As such, this engagement is a stop-gap measure, given PERS current positioning. The scope of this contract is for immediate resolution and compliance, while upskilling in-house staff. All accessibility requirements for modernization will be contained within the PERS Modernization Program and developed in concert with the future pension administration system vendor.

Q8: Does the agency prefer that the cost proposal present a single not-to-exceed total per deliverable area in §2.5 (six fixed prices), a personnel rate card with estimated effort allocated to each deliverable area, or a hybrid (fixed prices for the Assessment Report, template library, documentation, training, and Final Report;

per-form or per-page rates for the remediated forms deliverable)?

For the document subset of the remediated forms deliverable (PDF and Word), will the agency accept per-page rates indexed to complexity tiers, so that monthly invoicing under Attachment D §4.2 can reconcile to the actual mix of forms accepted in each invoicing period?

For the web subset of the remediated forms deliverable, standard industry practice prices web auditing and remediation on a per-hour basis, because effort tracks with the platform's edit-access model, the number and behavior of form controls, the validation logic, and the integration depth with backend systems, rather than with a single document-length metric. Will the agency accept a hybrid pricing structure within the remediated forms deliverable, with per-page rates indexed to complexity tiers for the PDF and Word subsets and per-hour rates for the web subset, so that the cost proposal reflects the actual unit of effort for each format?

A8: The offeror should submit pricing that reflects a cost for each deliverable that rolls up to a total Not to Exceed dollar amount.

Q9: Does the agency require that all work under this engagement be performed by individuals located within the United States, or are there no geographic restrictions on where the awarded vendor's team performs the remediation, template development, documentation, and training work?

If geographic or data-residency restrictions apply, do they apply to all in-scope forms uniformly, or only to a subset (for example, forms that contain or reference member personally identifying information, in contrast to blank-template forms with no member data)?

What are the agency's expectations regarding subcontractor disclosure under §7.1 (Subcontracts), including any expected timing and level of detail?

A9: The selected offeror must be registered to do business with the State of Oregon through the Oregon Secretary of State. Information on how to register is located on their website. The work must be performed within the United States and align with the working hours of the agency. If the selected offeror chooses a subcontractor for some of the work, they must possess the same knowledge as listed in the work requirements. The selected offeror will be the main contact and responsible for all work under the contract.

Q10: Does the agency have an established budget range or a not-to-exceed ceiling for this engagement that it is able to share?

If a single ceiling is not available, can the agency indicate the funding basis for the work (for example, a fixed appropriation for the biennium, or funding tied to the modernization program described in §1.0), so that bidders can scale the proposed approach appropriately?

A10: This solicitation is being conducted as an intermediate procurement and by rule the dollar amount cannot exceed $250,000. This solicitation rule information is noted in the RFQ. Offerors are encouraged to submit pricing that is competitive for this type of work.

Q11: Does the agency have an existing, documented intake-to-publication workflow for forms (including current quality assurance steps, approval authorities, and roles) that the job aids and process documentation should reflect, or does the agency expect the awarded vendor to design and propose a new workflow for agency approval?

For the governance plan in the Final Report, does the agency expect a recommended operating model for sustaining accessibility after the engagement (for example, roles, review cadence, and re-validation triggers for new or revised forms), and will the agency identify the internal owners the plan should be built around?

What does the agency expect "post-training support" to include, and over what period (for example, a defined number of support hours, a question-and-answer window for a set number of weeks after training, or scheduled office-hours sessions), so that bidders can scope and price the support commitment consistently?

A11: Yes, there is an existing intake-to-publication workflow for forms, however, subject to adjustment if the vendor demonstrates a streamlined method that produces the desired results (ADA compliance) and meets the needs and capabilities of the agency.

The agency would like a recommendation for how to operationalize sustaining accessibility after the engagement; internal owners of the process can be identified by the agency.

The agency is open to a set number of technical assistance hours being proposed and accepted.

Q12: The SOW references approximately 260 forms (three-quarters of the inventory). What is the total number of pages?

A12: Based on the varying number of pages our forms contain, a very rough estimate would be between 550-775. At the time of the engagement, we can provide a detailed breakdown of which forms and how many pages in each form.

Q13: Approximately what percentage of the forms are

• Word forms

• Static PDF forms

• Fillable PDF forms

• Web forms

A13: Web forms refer, for this effort, to PDF forms downloaded from the agency’s websites. All forms for this engagement will be fillable PDFs.

Q14: Would PERS consider providing a pricing worksheet that identifies the approximate quantity and total pages for each form type? For example:

Type Quantity Total Pages Word forms X X Static PDF forms X X Fillable PDF forms X X Web forms X X

Providing this information would allow vendors to develop more accurate and comparable pricing while reducing assumptions regarding the level of remediation required.

A14: The offeror should submit pricing that reflects a cost for each deliverable that rolls up to a total Not to Exceed dollar amount. The agency won’t be modifying the pricing sheet.

Q15: Because the overall effort is heavily influenced by the number, format, and complexity of the forms requiring remediation, would PERS consider allowing vendors to propose an alternative pricing approach, such as Time-and-Materials with a Not-to-Exceed ceiling or an FTE-based staffing model?

A15: The offeror should submit pricing that reflects a cost for each deliverable that rolls up to a total Not to Exceed.

Q16: Does PERS have an anticipated staffing expectation for this project (e.g., number of contractor personnel or approximate Full-Time Equivalents) to support completion of the work within the desired schedule?

A16: The vendor should produce a staffing plan that is adequate to upskill current staff, create a selection of templates, remediate current PDF forms, and to validate those forms meet accessibility requirements. Additionally, this should be done in advance of the April 2027 deadline imposed by the Department of Justice.

Q17: Are editable source files available for all forms, or will some require remediation from PDF-only versions?

A17: The majority of our forms have source files. There may be a few that are PDF-only, but it would be a rare instance.

Q18: What is the expected complexity of the forms (e.g., tables, images, multi-page forms, calculations, or conditional fields)?

A18: There are multi-page forms. On the interactive forms, we do use text input fields, radio buttons, checkboxes, conditional behaviors, math computations, and dynamically populated fields. Many forms do include other characteristics including data tables, multi-column layouts, signature blocks, embedded images or charts, and/or scanned images.

Q19: Will every remediated form require:

• PAC validation

• Acrobat Accessibility Checker

• JAWS testing

• NVDA testing

• VoiceOver testing

• Keyboard testing

Or will screen-reader validation be performed on representative samples? Testing every document with multiple screen readers takes significant time.

A19: The agency expects remediation to address formatting and code-level conformance with WCAG

2.1 AA and Section 508 (and, for PDFs, PDF/UA); The following documentation artifacts are acceptable-the exported Adobe Acrobat accessibility check report and a separate WCAG 2.1 AA Section 508 conformance assertion attesting the form has been validated against the criteria.

Q20: How many unique accessible templates are anticipated, and what types of forms should they support?

A20: The agency is open to a number being proposed by the vendor for acceptance after review and assessment of provided forms and form types.

Q21: Approximately how many job aids are expected, and approximately how many total pages?

A21: The agency is open to a number of job aids being proposed by the vendor for acceptance, as long as that number provides the information needed for the team to reference for using the created templates, building new forms from scratch, remediating current forms, and any new processes that are established.

Q22: Approximately how many procedures and processes are expected to be documented?

A22: The agency is open to a number being proposed by the vendor for acceptance, as long as that number provides the information needed to encompass all the procedures and processes that are created or remediated during this effort.

Q23: How many total days of training are expected? Multiple training sessions can be scheduled in one day.

A23: The number of days of training required will be based on how complex the templates and remediation system are. Our assumption is that, in tandem with Step-by-Step Guides, Job Aids, and Quick Reference Guides, a minimum of one-day training would be required, however, the agency is open to the number of training and technical assistance hours being proposed and accepted.

Q24: Can you please clarify what is expected for Self-Paced Materials? Does this include:

• PowerPoint

• Student Guide

• eLearning

• Recorded webinars only

A24: The agency expects, at a minimum, some kind of written documentation that includes stey-by-step information around different processes created by this engagement, to include visual guidance.

The agency is open to the vendor proposing the type of self-paced materials.

Q25: Post-Training Support: Please define the number of support hours to budget.

A25: The agency is open to a set number of technical assistance hours being proposed and accepted.

Q26: Governance Plan: What level of governance is expected?

A26: The agency would like a recommendation for how to operationalize sustaining accessibility after the engagement and documentation of that for governance.

Q27: Will the agency staff prioritize forms, prioritize SMEs, review documents, and perform acceptance testing?

A27: As this pertains to the current effort for remediating fillable PDFs, the agency will prioritize the necessary components of this process.

Q28: How many review and revision cycles should the contractor include for each deliverable?

A28: Once the process is determined for creating templates, and how many templates, as well as the cadence for remediating current forms, the review process will be able to be established.

Q29: Is there an incumbent or is this a new requirement?

A29: New requirement.

Q30: Of the 260 forms in scope, what is the current breakdown? (Approximate count of PDF vs Word vs web forms, typical length in pages, and approximate share of “simple” vs “complex” forms)

A30: Web forms refer, for this effort, to PDF forms downloaded from the agency’s websites. All forms are PDF (no Word or online forms). In the universe of PERS forms, approximately 84% would be considered “simple,” and 16% would be considered more “complex.”

Q31: How would you describe the current maturity level of accessibility knowledge and skills among staff? (For example, should we expect staff to have some understanding, or are they starting from a completely foundational level?)

A31: Relevant staff have been going through on-going state and industry training and should be at an intermediate level of understanding by the time this project is implemented.

Q32: What is the relative weight in the scoring of this solicitation for price compared to expertise and approach of the vendor?

A32: This is an informal solicitation and doesn’t require the agency to provide the scoring method. The agency will evaluate quotes based on the best fit for the agency as explained in the RFQ.

Q33: Will additional material submitted about our approach or philosophy be evaluated?

A33: Yes

Q34: What is the target timeline for calling vendor references?

A34: The agency hasn’t established a timeline for this and will be part of the evaluation process, which may take a few weeks after the quote deadline.

Q35: Do you have analytics around frequency and recency of forms access?

A35: We will base the prioritization of the 260 forms for remediation on those most used by our interested parties and then those most used operationally if those differ.

Q36: Is there a legal requirement to continue providing paper forms after modernization, or are you open to retiring PDF versions in favor of online forms?

A36: We are not able to retire PDF versions in favor of online forms at this time.

Q37: Are you open to changes in form design and content (e.g., simplifying questions, restructuring sections, adding instructions and error messages) to improve accessibility and plain language, or is the expectation primarily structural/technical remediation of existing designs?

A37: The expectation for remediation is primarily related to structrual and technical remediation of existing forms (since the forms are already vetted and content approved, the agency is unlikely to make changes). Regarding representative text in templates and best practices to ensure compliance for new forms, the agency is open to these.

Q38: Will you accept contract exceptions at this stage or will this occur with downselected vendors?

A38: Under quote submissions, it states that Offerors must be able to comply with all requirements of the RFQ and accept the terms and conditions. It will be at the agency’s discretion whether exceptions to the Contract will be made to any part of the requirements, if the offeror elects to submit with the quote. If no exceptions are received with the quote, there will be no negotiations with the Contract terms and conditions.

Q39: What does PERS mean by “web” forms in Section 2.1? Are these HTML forms, CMS-managed forms, forms generated by a third-party platform, web pages containing links to PDF/Word forms, or something else?

A39: Web forms refer, for this effort, to fillable PDF forms downloaded from the agency’s websites.

Q40: For any web forms in scope, what platform, CMS, application, or vendor system is used to create, manage, and publish them?

A40: Web forms refer, for this effort, to PDF forms downloaded from the agency’s websites. For PDFs, the majority of forms are laid out in InDesign and then converted to fillable PDFs.

Q41: Will the contractor be expected to directly modify web form code, templates, CMS configuration, or production content?

A41: No.

Q42: If direct web remediation is expected, what level of access will PERS provide to the contractor, and what deployment, review, and approval process will apply?

A42: N/A

Q43: Are any web forms controlled by third-party vendors or systems where PERS cannot modify the underlying code or generated output?

A43: N/A

Q44: Would PERS accept web form remediation recommendations, code-level guidance, validation support, and implementation guidance where direct contractor implementation is not feasible due to platform, access, vendor, or deployment constraints?

A44: N/A

Q45: For the accessible template library described in Section 2.2, how many distinct templates does PERS expect the contractor to create, and in what formats?

A45: The agency is open to a number being proposed by the vendor for acceptance after review and assessment of provided forms and form types; the agency will be open to the proposed format of the templates, based on its capabilities to work with the proposed kind. In the end, the proposed format must be able to be easily used by the PERS staff responsible for forms and they must be able to be trained to sustainably used the format (PERS will not be purchasing any new software or licensing for additional resources); the format must also produce accessible, fillable PDF forms.

Q46: For the “version-controlled template files” described in Section 2.2, does PERS expect a formal version control system such as Git/SharePoint version history, or a documented file naming, versioning, changelog, and approval process for Word/PDF template files?

A46: The agency is working toward a more automated process to prevent versioning, but that will be established internally; for the version control for the remediation process, documented file naming, versioning, changelog, and approval process for the PDF file templates and remediated forms is needed.

Q47: For the staff training and knowledge transfer described in Section 2.4, how many live training sessions does PERS expect, and what is the desired duration of each session?

A47: The number of days of training required will be based on how complex the templates and remediation system are. Our assumption is that, in tandem with Step-by-Step Guides, Job Aids, and Quick Reference Guides, a minimum of one-day training would be required, however, the agency is open to the number of training and technical assistance hours being proposed and accepted.

Q48: What type and duration of post-training support does PERS expect, such as office hours, email support, document review, or follow-up Q&A sessions?

A48: The agency is open to the type and number of technical assistance hours being proposed and accepted.

Q49: Ref: Authorization to Conduct Business in the State of Oregon - Please clarify whether registration with the Oregon Secretary of State is required prior to bid submission, or only post-award. If the Offeror has no employees or physical presence in Oregon and intends to deliver services 100% remotely, is registration still mandatory?

A49: This information is provided in the RFQ. An offeror must be registered to do business with the State of Oregon in order to perform work for a State agency such as PERS with no exceptions. The selected Offeror must be registered prior to the Contract execution, but the sooner after selection the better to not delay the project.

Q50: Ref: Insurance Requirements – Workers’ Compensation (ORS 656.017) If services are delivered entirely remotely with no Oregon-based personnel or payroll, is a Workers’ Compensation endorsement for Oregon still required? Would proof of exemption under ORS 656.017 be acceptable?

A50: The offeror must be registered to do business with the State of Oregon. The offeror would need to submit requirements in line with those requirements. The Workers compensation for insurance is a requirement by State Agencies regardless of remote work.

Q51: Ref: Insurance Requirements - Please confirm whether all insurance policies must be issued by carriers authorized to do business in Oregon, or if surplus/excess lines carriers licensed in other jurisdictions are acceptable?

A51: The offeror must be registered to do business with the State or Oregon and follow any requirements for that registration. The agency will work directly with the selected Offeror for the required work, and they would be responsible for completing it to the satisfaction of the Contract terms and conditions. Any supplied insurance certifications are confirming that the Offeror is covered for all listed liability.

Q52: Ref: Compliance Requirements – HIPAA/HITECH Please clarify whether HIPAA/HITECH compliance is required under this RFQ. If the scope of services involves pension forms and does not include Protected Health Information (PHI), can bidders confirm exemption from HIPAA/HITECH obligations?

A52: Yes, Offerors can provide exemption as PHI will not be present on any form.

Q53: Ref: Insurance Requirements – Automobile Liability - Would coverage limited to non-owned and hired autos be acceptable, provided evidence of a business use endorsement is included?

A53: The agency may negotiate this coverage with the selected Offeror.

Q54: Ref: Preferences – MWBE/SDVOB Participation - Please confirm whether subcontracting with Oregon-certified MWBE/SDVOB firms is mandatory, or if participation is optional?

A54: An Offeror isn’t required to subcontract with Oregon certified businesses or be one themselves, but State of Oregon agencies such as PERS are required to invite these businesses if services can be provided by them.

Q55: Assume that certain images may need to be edited or modified to meet accessibility standards (e.g., improving contrast, adjusting text legibility, or optimizing graphics for screen readers).

However, if such edits are not possible directly within the PDF due to technical limitations, we would require access to the source files (such as InDesign/INDD) in order to make the necessary changes. Could you please clarify if you will be able to provide the source files in such cases?

A55: None of the forms themselves have graphics (other than the logo); however, some forms have attached instruction sheets or packets which may include screenshots to guide the user in how to complete a process. Access to source files would be provided if needed.

Q56: Could you please clarify what form of third-party certification or attestation you require for the remediated documents? Would a VPAT (Voluntary Product Accessibility Template) report be sufficient? (OR) Do you require any additional third-party audit or certification documentation? Please clarify.

A56: The following documentation artifacts are acceptable- the exported Adobe Acrobat accessibility check report and a separate WCAG 2.1 AA and Section 508 conformance assertion attesting the form has been validated against the criteria.

Q57: Scanned Content: Could you please let us know what percentage of these PDFs scanned/image are-based and would therefore require OCR processing?

A57: None of the forms being provided for remediation are scanned/imaged.

Q58: Could you please share the split up of the estimated volumes of PDFs, Word and web pages that will require review and remediation?

A58: All of the forms for review and remediation will be fillable PDFs.

Q59: Whether Oregon will provide full access to the source code to support the remediation process for Web pages/forms?

A59: N/A (Web forms refer, for this effort, to fillable PDF forms downloaded from the agency’s websites.)

Q60: Are any mobile applications included within the scope of work for accessibility audit and remediation support of Web pages/forms?

A60: No.

Q61: Could you please confirm whether any multimedia assets to be review and remediation?

A61: There are no multimedia assets to be reviewed or remediated.

Q62: For the "web" category in Section 2.1, does PERS mean form documents (PDF or Word) downloaded from the website, or native HTML/web-page forms requiring code-level accessibility remediation?

A62: Web forms refer, for this effort, to fillable PDF forms downloaded from the agency’s websites.

Q63: Approximately how many of the 260 forms fall into the web category?

A63: None of the forms are native HTML/web-page forms requiring code-level accessibility remediation.

Q64: Section 2.2 requests a reusable library of accessible templates. Does PERS have an estimated number of templates needed, or an expected set of form types the library should cover?

A64: The agency is open to a number being proposed by the vendor for acceptance after review and assessment of provided forms and form types. At this time, to get an idea of form types to inform template types, you may view our most-requested forms here:

https://www.oregon.gov/pers/Pages/Most-Requested-Forms.aspx and

Q65: Section 2.4 requests foundational and hands-on training for six to eight staff. Are there specific topics PERS would like covered in the curriculum, and how many sessions or total training hours does PERS anticipate?

A65: The number of days of training required will be based on how complex the templates and remediation system are. Our assumption is that, in tandem with Step-by-Step Guides, Job Aids, and Quick Reference Guides, a minimum of one-day training would be required, however, the agency is open to the number of training and technical assistance hours being proposed and accepted.

Q66: Page count and length- Reference: Page 3, Section 2.1, Forms Accessibility Remediation What is the estimated total page count, average page count, and maximum page count for the forms in scope?

A66: Roughly: 50% of forms are 1-2 pages in length. 25% are 3-4 pages, and the remaining 25% are 5 or more pages in length (this also includes “packets” such as retirement applications which may include Federal forms, which PERS is not responsible for producing).

Q67: Form complexity- Reference: Page 3, Sections 2.1, Forms Accessibility Remediation, and 2.7, Business Standards Approximately how many forms are fillable or interactive, static, scanned, or image-based?

A67: No forms are scanned or image based, though some contain additional pages with directive images. Roughly 84% of PERS forms would be considered simple or basic with 16% falling into the “complex” category.

Q68: Source files- Reference: Page 3, Sections 2.1, Forms Accessibility Remediation, and 2.5, Key Deliverables Will editable source files be provided for all forms? When a source file is unavailable, is the contractor expected to recreate one or only remediate the existing PDF?

A68: The majority of the forms have source files. There may be a few that are PDF-only, but it would be a rare instance. The agency would expect the vendor to work with the provided PDF, should the situation arise.

Q69: Web forms- Reference: Page 3, Section 2.1, Forms Accessibility Remediation - What does PERS mean by “web forms”? Does this include HTML forms, third-party platforms, system-generated forms, or only documents published on the PERS website?

A69: Web forms refer, for this effort, to fillable PDF forms downloaded from the agency’s websites.

Q70: Testing and acceptance- Reference: Page 3, Sections 2.1, Forms Accessibility Remediation; 2.6, Deliverable Acceptance; 2.7, Business Standards; and Attachment D, Sections 3.2–3.3 Can PERS clarify the required accessibility testing and acceptance process, including the applicable PDF/UA standard, assistive technologies, testing environments, and required documentation?

A70: The agency expects remediation to address code-level conformance with WCAG 2.1 AA and Section 508 (and, for PDFs, PDF/UA); The following documentation artifacts are acceptable- the exported Adobe Acrobat accessibility check report and a separate WCAG 2.1 AA and Section 508 conformance assertion attesting the form has been validated against the criteria.

Q71: PDF Desktop Software- Reference: Page 3, Sections 2.1, Forms Accessibility Remediation, and Page 4, Section 2.8, Qualifications - The RFQ specifically references PAC for accessibility testing and test results. Will PERS require PAC-generated validation results, or may the contractor use an equivalent professional PDF accessibility testing tool, such as CommonLook, alongside Acrobat and manual screen-reader testing?

A71: The agency expects remediation to address code-level conformance with WCAG 2.1 AA (and, for PDFs, PDF/UA); The following documentation artifacts are acceptable- the exported Adobe Acrobat accessibility check report and a separate WCAG 2.1 AA conformance assertion attesting the form has been validated against the criteria.

Q72: Templates and training- Reference: Page 3, Sections 2.2, Accessible Template Development; 2.4, Staff Training and Knowledge Transfer; 2.5, Key Deliverables; and 2.6, Deliverable Acceptance - How many templates and training sessions does PERS anticipate, and what level or duration of post-training support is expected?

A72: The number of days of training required will be based on how complex the templates and system are. Our assumption is that, in tandem with Step-by-Step Guides, Job Aids, and Quick Reference Guides, a minimum of one-day training would be required, however, the agency is open to the number of training and technical assistance hours being proposed and accepted. The agency would like the vendor to propose for acceptance associated technical assistance hours post-training and post-template deployment.

Q73: Assessment scope- Reference: Page 3, Sections 2.1, Forms Accessibility Remediation, and 2.5, Key Deliverables Is the contractor expected to assess the entire forms inventory and remediate approximately 260 forms, or assess only the forms selected for remediation?

A73: The contractor is expected to assess and remediate the 260 forms selected for remediation as part of this engagement, to be completed in advance of the April 2027 deadline imposed by the Department of Justice.

Q74: Schedule- Reference: Page 4, Section 4.1, Term of Contract, and Page 6, Section 5.4, Quote Requirements Does PERS have a proposed milestone schedule, priority order, or expected batch-delivery schedule within the 6-to-8-month contract term?

A74: The agency will be able to provide a priority order of forms for remediation; however, all 260 identified forms must be completed in advance of the April 2027 deadline imposed by the Department of Justice.

Q75: References- Reference: Page 7, Section 5.4, Quote Requirements, and Attachment B, List of References Must the three references be for standalone accessibility-remediation projects, or may they be for larger engagements in which accessibility remediation was a substantial part of the work?

A75: References from larger projects in which accessibility remediation was a substantial aspect of the work are acceptable. However, to validate the success of the accessibility-remediation project the vendor should provide reference contact information from someone within the project who worked on accessibility-remediation with the vendor, who can speak to the quality of the output as well as the vendors approach and methodology.

Q76: Two-page limit- Reference: Page 6, Section 5.4, Quote Requirements Does the two-page limit apply only to the team qualifications and experience section, or to the entire quote, including capability, pricing, limitations, and the proposed statement of work?

A76: Yes, the two-page limit applies only to the team qualifications and experience section as stated under quote requirements.

Q77: How many reusable templates…