Q_A_Amendment.docx

Central Purchasing

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION

GENERAL INFORMATION

Pursuant to OAC 260:115-7-30(d), this document shall serve as official notice of amendment to the solicitation identified above. Such notice is being provided to all suppliers to which the original solicitation was sent.

Suppliers submitting bids or quotations shall acknowledge receipt of this solicitation amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation by doing one of the following:

1. Sign and return a copy of this amendment with the solicitation response being submitted.

2. If the supplier has already submitted a response, this acknowledgement must be signed and returned before the solicitation deadline. All amendment acknowledgements submitted separately shall have the solicitation number and bid opening date printed clearly in the subject line of the email.

Return to:

Contracting officer Samantha Fox Phone 405-522-6266 Email Samantha.fox@omes.ok.gov

DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT

a. This is to incorporate the following:

On behalf of the State of Oklahoma, OMES gives notice of:

The following RFP documents have been amended:

Exhibit 2 – Price Proposal Form Exhibit 3 – Statement of Work Exhibit 10 – Requirements Traceability Matrix

The following questions concerning this solicitation, were received during the Q&A period, which closed on 08/07/2026. All questions and responses are detailed as follows:

1. Exhibit Numbering in the Submission Requirements Matrix

Reason for the request: Section 5.3 of Exhibit 3 lists two separate scored line items both labeled "Exhibit 12" — one for "Integrated Delivery and Implementation Approach" and one for "Integrated Project Schedule" — while Exhibit 18 does not appear anywhere in the matrix under its own number. This is likely a drafting error, and we need it confirmed before finalizing which content goes under which exhibit number in our submission.

Supported by information:

• Exhibit 3, §5.3 (Submission Requirements Matrix) lists "Exhibit 12 – Integrated Delivery and Implementation Approach" in one row and "Exhibit 12 – Integrated Project Schedule" in a separate row.

• Exhibit 18 is titled "Instructions for Integrated Project Schedule" and does not appear under its own number anywhere in the §5.3 matrix.

• Exhibit 7's own scoring table correctly lists Exhibit 18 - Integrated Project Schedule, indicating the §5.3 matrix contains the error.

Proposed changes: Please confirm the second line item in the §5.3 matrix should read "Exhibit 18 – Integrated Project Schedule" rather than "Exhibit 12."

A. The drafting error has been corrected, please review the updated Exhibit 3.

2. Contact Center / CRM Technology Stack — Scoring, SLAs, and Pricing

Reason for the request: The RFP contains language affirmatively excluding a standalone call center platform and deferring the technology stack decision to post-award, but separately contains RTM, SLA, and pricing provisions that could be read as requiring Bidders to build, manage, or price a CRM/contact-center solution now. We need this reconciled before finalizing our technical response and cost proposal.

Supported by information:

• SOW §1.0: "The Exchange does not intend to support or procure separate channel-specific platforms outside the Exchange ecosystem. This includes but is not limited to: (1) a separate standalone agent or broker portal, (2) a separate navigator portal, and (3) a dedicated standalone call center platform. Bidders shall not propose, include, or price distinct duplicate solutions or disconnected components for these capabilities."

• SOW §2.5: "The State has not finalized its future customer support and contact center technology stack and intends to collaborate with the successful Supplier to evaluate platform capabilities, integration approaches, and operational dependencies prior to determining any future customer support technology procurement decisions."

• Exhibit 10 (RTM), SER-005: states the solution "shall integrate with or provide" CRM capabilities.

• Exhibit 19: reservation-of-rights language noting "future implementation of optional capabilities" such as call center technologies (general provisions, not a numbered SLA).

• Exhibit 02, Tab 3 "Support Center Cost": includes cost line items (e.g., "Technology & Equipment Variable Costs") with no exclusion for undetermined technology.

Proposed changes: Please confirm:

· Scoring: SER-005 will be scored as a requirement to integrate with a future State-selected CRM platform, not as a requirement for the solution to provide CRM capabilities itself.

A. Yes. Requirement SER-005 will be evaluated as a requirement for the proposed solution to support integration with a future State-selected CRM platform. It is not intended to require Bidders to provide CRM capabilities as part of the proposed solution.

As described in the Statement of Work, the State has not finalized its future customer support and contact center technology strategy and anticipates collaborating with the successful Supplier regarding future platform capabilities, integration approaches, and operational dependencies. The proposed solution should support integration with applicable customer support technologies, which may include CRM platforms and other customer support tools.

· SLAs: SLA obligations tied to building or managing a contact center/CRM solution are reserved for later, consistent with Exhibit 19's note on "future implementation of optional capabilities."

A. The State confirms that the current SLA requirements do not include service levels specific to the implementation, operation, or management of a CRM or contact center solution. As stated in Exhibit 19, Section 4.5, the State reserves the right to modify, expand, or introduce additional SLAs, operational metrics, support requirements, and reporting obligations associated with the future implementation of optional capabilities, including call center technologies, customer support platforms, or other operational components integrated into the Exchange ecosystem.

· Pricing: Pricing for building or operating a CRM or contact center technology stack is not required in the Exhibit 02 Support Center Cost tab, is not part of scoring and evaluation, and will instead be priced separately once the State finalizes its platform decision.

A. Correct. Exhibit 02 does not require pricing for the implementation, operation, or management of a CRM or contact center technology solution. The solicitation's Service Center scope is focused on Exchange operational functions, including outbound communications and notices, document processing, 1095-A corrections and appeals, and case management and escalation. The State has not finalized its future customer support and contact center technology strategy.

3. Please confirm that Oklahoma intends for insurance issuers to be solely responsible for collecting and processing consumer premium payments and that the State-Based Exchange solution will not be required to collect, process, or remit premium payments on behalf of consumers.

A. Correct. The State intends for issuers to remain responsible for the collection and processing of consumer premium payments. The solicitation does not include requirements for the Exchange solution to collect, process, or remit premium payments on behalf of consumers. Consistent with the Exchange's EDE-first operating model, the solicitation focuses on eligibility, enrollment, integration, program integrity, and related operational functions.

4. Please confirm that client references must be submitted by the bidder as part of the proposal.

A. Correct. Bidders are required to submit three (3) Exhibit 05 Reference Forms as part of their proposal submission. These references are identified as a scored component of the Administrative and General Information section.

5. Would the State consider a Supplier-managed hosting model in which the solution operates within the Supplier’s established, IRS Publication 1075-compliant cloud environment using the Supplier’s data warehouse, security, monitoring, and CI/CD tools, while providing the State with full visibility, audit access, and appropriate controls? This model would allow the Supplier to assume end-to-end responsibility for infrastructure availability, solution performance, security, and compliance under the SLAs.

A. No. The solicitation requires that the State retain ownership and control of the hosting environment and underlying infrastructure, including the cloud environment in which the solution operates. Suppliers should structure their proposals in accordance with the requirements set forth in the solicitation.

6. Reference: Exhibit 8 – Mandatory Requirements, Submission Requirements and Exhibits 11–17, General Instructions. Question: The RFP specifies use of 11 pt minimum font size. To assist the State’s proposal reviews and meet the State’s page limits, will the State allow bidders to use smaller font sizes for diagram, graphics and tables?

A. Yes. Bidders may use font sizes no smaller than 9-point for diagrams, graphics, and tables, provided the content remains legible. Tables may not be used primarily to present narrative content or to circumvent the 11-point minimum font size or applicable page limits.

7. Reference: Exhibit 2 – Price Proposal Form, Tab 1 (Platform Cost), row 17 (col A) and Tab 3 (Support Center Cost), row 16 (col A). Question: On the Platform Cost tab, the Cost Category numbers in column A skip from 6 to 8 (row 17 is labeled “8,” not “7”), and on the Support Center Cost tab’s Back Office Processing section they skip from 5 to 7 (row 16 is labeled “7,” not “6”). Can the State confirm no cost category was omitted from either tab and, if so, issue a corrected Exhibit 2 with the category numbers relabeled sequentially?

A. The State confirms that no cost category was omitted from either tab. The numbering discrepancies identified in the Platform Cost tab and Support Center Cost tab were inadvertent. A revised Exhibit 2 has been issued with the cost category numbering updated to reflect sequential numbering.

8. Reference: Exhibit 2 – Price Proposal Form, Tab 1 & Tab 2, Table 1 (row 9) vs. Tab 3, Table 1 (row 9). Question: Should Tab 1 (Platform Costs) and Tab 2 (Consumer-Facing Portal) also include a 2031 pricing column to cover the full 1-year-plus-four-renewals contract term, consistent with Tab 3 (Support Center Costs)?

A. Yes. The State agrees that pricing should be captured for the full potential contract term. Exhibit 2 has been updated to include a 2031 pricing column on the Platform Costs and Consumer-Facing Portal tabs.

9. Reference: Exhibit 2 – Price Proposal Form, Tab 2 of 3 (Consumer Facing Portal), column M, Total Cost rows 15 and 23. Question: On the Consumer Facing Portal tab (Tab 2 of 3), column M is missing the per-row SUM formulas in rows 11–14 and 19–22 that the Platform Cost and Support Center Cost tabs both include. Because those cells are blank, the “Total Cost” cells M15 and M23 will calculate to $0 regardless of what a bidder enters in the yearly columns (C:L). Can the State issue a corrected Consumer Facing Portal tab with the per-row SUM formulas added to column M, mirroring the Platform Cost and Support Center Cost tabs, so the Total Cost rows calculate correctly?

A. Yes. The State agrees that the Consumer-Facing Portal tab should include the applicable formulas necessary to calculate Total Cost values correctly. Exhibit 2 has been updated to include the missing SUM formulas in the identified cells.

10. Reference: Exhibit 10 – Requirements Traceability Matrix, Functional tab, Rows 74 and 76; Implementation tab, Rows 42 and 44; Technical tab, Row 16. Question: We have identified three data-integrity items in the Requirements Traceability Matrix affecting our ability to track and respond to individual requirements: (1) Rows 74 and 76 of the Functional tab are both labeled "FUNC-067" despite containing two distinct requirements; (2) Rows 42 and 44 of the Implementation tab are both labeled "IMP-039" despite containing two distinct requirements; and (3) Row 16 of the Technical tab contains the Requirement ID "TECH-015" with no Category, Sub-Category, or requirement text populated. Please provide distinct IDs for the duplicate pairs in items (1) and (2) so each requirement can be tracked and responded to separately, and clarify for item (3) whether TECH-015 should be completed with the missing information, removed, or treated as a placeholder.

A. The State confirms that Exhibit 10 - Requirements Traceability Matrix has been updated to address the identified issues. In the Functional tab, requirement identifiers beginning with Row 76 have been renumbered to ensure unique requirement IDs. In the Implementation tab, requirement identifiers beginning with Row 44 have been renumbered to ensure unique requirement IDs. In the Technical tab, TECH-015 was included in error and should not be included in the Bidder's response. A revised Exhibit 10 has been issued accordingly.

11. Reference: Exhibit 3 – Statement of Work, Sec.5.3 (Submission Requirements Matrix) vs. Exhibit 3's own component definitions. Question: Should Exhibit 10 be recategorized under “Technical and Operational Narrative” rather than ‘Mandatory Supplier Qualifications’ in the Sec.5.3 matrix, consistent with its “Scored” (not Pass/Fail) evaluation type?

A. Yes. The State agrees that Exhibit 10 should be evaluated as part of the Technical and Operational Narrative rather than Mandatory Supplier Qualifications. The solicitation has been updated accordingly, and Section 5.3 has been revised to reflect Exhibit 10 under the Technical and Operational Narrative evaluation category.

12. Reference: Exhibit 3 – Statement of Work, Sec.3.0 (Implementation Lifecycle and Deliverables) and Exhibit 15, Sec.3.3 (Transition-Out Plan) and Sec.3.4 (State Ownership and Vendor Support). Question: Exhibit 15 requires the bidder to address their approach to Transition-Out, however Exhibit 3 Scope of Work has no requirements for Transition-Out. Can the State please provide Transition-Out requirements in Exhibit 3 Scope of Work?

A. Exhibit 15, Sections 3.3 and 3.4, require Bidders to describe their proposed approach to Transition-Out, including knowledge transfer, documentation, coordination activities, and the transition of individual modules, services, or the full solution.

The purpose of this requirement is to evaluate the Bidder's approach to supporting State ownership and control, reducing vendor lock-in, and facilitating the transition of services or solution components if required. The State is evaluating the Bidder's understanding of and approach to these objectives rather than prescribing a specific future transition scenario.

The State is not providing additional Transition-Out requirements in Exhibit 3 at this time.

13. Reference: Exhibit 3 – Statement of Work, Project Description (page 2). Question: Exhibit 3 tells bidders the State does not intend to support or procure a separate channel-specific platform outside the Exchange Ecosystem. This seems to conflict with the Requirements FUNC-056 through FUNC-066 in Exhibit 10. These requirements state the bidders need to provide a navigator and agent portal, which duplicates the functionality provided by the EDE-connected OKEPs. Can the State remove the noted functional requirements, or clarify that these requirements are to be met through EDE-connected OKEPs?

A. Exhibit 10 - Requirements Traceability Matrix has been updated to align with the Exchange's EDE-first operating model. Requirements FUNC-056, FUNC-062, and FUNC-065 have been revised. Requirements FUNC-057 through FUNC-60, FUNC-063, FUNC-064, and FUNC-066 have been removed from consideration. Bidders should respond in accordance with the revised Exhibit 10 requirements.

14. Reference: Agency Bidder Instructions, Sec. 7.10. Question: The requirement requests vendors “…three years of audited financial statements…” Private partnerships do not produce audited financial statements or file corporate financial information such as a 10-K as part of business practices.

In lieu of audited financial statements and tax returns can we provide a copy of our Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) Business Information Report, inclusive of its D&B viability and credit ratings, and financial information for the time periods requested?

A. The State will allow privately held entities that do not prepare audited financial statements to provide a current Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) Business Information Report, including applicable viability and credit ratings and available financial information for the requested period.

In addition, the Bidder shall provide its most recent three years of available financial information, including financial statements such as balance sheets and income statements, where available, as well as current-year interim financial information. If formal financial statements are not prepared, equivalent financial information prepared by management or an accountant/CPS may be submitted.

The State reserves the right to request additional financial information as necessary to evaluate the Supplier’s financial capacity, stability, and ability to perform the Scope of Work.

15. Reference: Agency Bidder Instructions, Sec.7.3.1–.3 and Exhibit 3 Sec.5.3 order. Question: The proposal has two places where it is instructing the bidder on how to submit the forms – Section 7: Agency Bidder Instructions and Exhibit 3: Statement of Work, Sub-Heading: Submission Requirements Matrix. Can you confirm our understanding that the bidder is expected to follow Exhibit 3 for submission? If not, please clarify.

A. No. The State’s required proposal format is established in Section 7 of the Agency Bidder Instructions. The Submission Requirements Matrix in Exhibit 3 is intended to identify the information and requirements that bidders must address in their Statement Of Work response; it does not establish a separate proposal submission organization, format, or submission order.

16. Please confirm that bidders should follow the Required Bid Format outlined in Section 7 of the Agency Bidder Instructions. Certain instructions in Exhibit 3, SOW Submission Requirements Matrix, appear to conflict with that format, and we want to ensure that all requested information is presented in the order expected by the evaluators.

A. Yes. Bidders must follow the Required Bid Format set forth in Section 7 of the Agency Bidder Instructions. The Submission Requirements Matrix in Exhibit 3 is not intended to replace or modify that format. Rather, it identifies the information, content, and requirements that Bidders must address within their Statement of Work response.

17. Please confirm where bidders should include items required by Section 7 of the Agency Bidder Instructions that are not reflected in the four component categories identified in the Exhibit 3 Proposal Submission Structure and SOW Submission Requirements Matrix. If bidders are expected to follow the Exhibit 3 structure, may these items be placed within the component category the bidder determines is most appropriate? (Agency Bidder Instructions – Section 7; Exhibit 3 SOW - Submission Requirements Matrix) A. Bidders should include items required by Section 7 of the Agency Bidder Instructions in the applicable section of the Required Bid Format established in Section 7. The Submission Requirements Matrix in Exhibit 3 is intended to identify the information and requirements that must be addressed in the Statement of Work response and does not modify the Required Bid Format. Bidders should not relocate Section 7 requirements into an Exhibit 3 component solely for purposes of organizing the Statement of Work response.

18. Please confirm that, in order to satisfy Sections 7.5.5 and 7.6.2, bidders may reference within the applicable sections of the proposal PDF where we have attached separate Word documents containing the redlines that are required by Sections 7.5.1 and 7.6.1. (Agency Bidder Instructions – Sections 5 & 6) A. Yes. For Sections 5 and 6 of the Agency Bidder Instructions. Bidders may reference separately submitted Word documents containing the required redlines, requested exceptions, or additional bidder terms, provided the documents are clearly identified and submitted in accordance with the solicitation instructions. This accommodation applies only to the requirements identified in Sections 5 and 6 of the Agency Bidder Instructions and does not establish a general option to satisfy other solicitation requirements through separate documents incorporated by reference.

19. Please confirm that the reference to “Exhibit 12 – Integrated Project Schedule” in the Exhibit 3 Submission Requirements Matrix is a typographical error and should instead refer to “Exhibit 18 – Integrated Project Schedule,” as Exhibit 12 is the Integrated Delivery and Implementation Approach. (Exhibit 3 SOW - Submission Requirements Matrix) A. Please see answer to Question #1.

20. Tech-015 in the RTM is a blank row. Was that intended? (RTM – Technical Tab) A. Yes. TECH-015 was included in error and was not intended to contain a requirement. Exhibit 10 has been updated to remove TECH-015 from consideration, and Bidders should not include a response for that requirement.

21. Line 22 of the Support Center Costs tab in Exhibit 2 – Price Proposal Form states: “Outbound Mailroom Implementation (State pays postage and stamp),” while the RTM requires the solution to support the “generation, formatting, and delivery of outbound communications.” Please clarify whether the State will cover both printing and postage costs for outbound mail or whether vendors should include printing costs in their Service Center pricing. If vendors are expected to include printing costs, please provide the anticipated outbound mail volume. (RTM Service Center Tab cell D32; Exhibit 2 - Price Proposal Form Support Center Costs Tab, line 20) A. Exhibit 2 has been updated to require Bidders to include outbound mail-related costs, including printing, envelopes, insertion, handling, and postage, in their proposed Service Center pricing. Consistent with the solicitation requirements, the Supplier shall support the generation, formatting, printing, and delivery of outbound communications and notices.

The State is not providing anticipated outbound mail volume estimates for pricing purposes. Bidders should develop their pricing assumptions based on the information provided in the solicitation and their experience supporting State-Based Exchange operations.

To support evaluation and comparison of proposals, Bidders shall provide annual estimated outbound mail costs within the Support Center Cost tab and provide supporting unit rates and assumptions for standard outbound notices and 1095-A mailings, including applicable printing, envelope, handling, and postage costs.

22. RTM requirement Func-051 states that the Supplier will develop and publish formal plan-shopping guidelines and an OKEP/web-broker participation guide. Please confirm that the State intends to use these materials to administer the OKEP/web-broker program and that program administration—including onboarding, training, certification, compliance monitoring, SLA management, and enforcement—is outside the Supplier’s scope of responsibilities. (RTM – Functional Tab) A. Yes, the supplier will be responsible for developing and publishing plan-shopping guidelines and an OKEP/web-broker participation guide. The Exchange will use these materials to administer the OKEP/web-broker program, and the supplier should expect to partner with the Exchange to support the administration of the OKEP/web-broker program.

23. RTM Tech-030 requirement states that the solution must support the transfer of assister, agent, and broker licensure information both to and from OID. Because OID is the authoritative source for licensure information and licensure is not managed by the Exchange, please confirm that the Supplier is expected to receive licensure data from OID to establish and validate profiles, including during initial migration, but is not expected to transmit licensure information back to OID. (RTM – Technical Tab) A. The State agrees that OID is the system of record for assister, agent, and broker licensure information. Requirement TECH-030 has been updated in Exhibit 10 - Requirements Traceability Matrix to remove references to transmitting licensure information back to OID. The Supplier shall support the receipt and use of licensure information from OID as required to establish, maintain, and validate assister, agent, and broker profiles.

24. Please confirm that Offerors may submit proposed SLAs pursuant to IMP-034 for the State’s consideration. Where should these proposed SLAs, along with any exceptions or revisions to the RFP’s SLAs or other exceptions be included in the response? (RTM – Implementation tab; Agency Bidder Instructions –7.7.1; Attachment A – 6.11) A. Yes. Bidders may submit proposed SLAs pursuant to IMP-034. Proposed SLAs should be submitted in the General Questions section of the online event, as specified in Section 7.7.7 of the Agency Bidder Instructions.

Any requested exceptions to, or revisions of, the State's SLA provisions included in the solicitation must be submitted in accordance with Section 5, Requested Exceptions to Terms, including the required redlined Word document.

25. Please describe the hosting model described in the Technology Solution overview in Exhibit 3 of the SOW and in RTM OPR-008, TECH-008 - will the supplier get an account with administrative access and be able to use automation tools such as Terraform to set up, configure and size the various components needed for building and maintaining the environments? Or, will the State supply infrastructure components with the vendor's responsibility limited to the application? (Exhibit 3 SOW - Technology Solution; RTM – Technical Tab) A. The State anticipates that the hosting environment will be established and managed within State-owned infrastructure. OMES may provision the environment in consultation with the successful Supplier and based on the Supplier's technical requirements and recommendations. The Supplier will be provided appropriate administrative access necessary to configure, maintain, and support the solution and its environments, including the use of approved automation tools, subject to State and OMES security, access, and technology requirements. The State will retain ownership of the environment and the highest level of administrative access.

26. Will the supplier have the ability to provision pre-production environments described in the Technology Solution overview in Exhibit 3 SOW and in RTM OPR-008 and TECH - 008, such as Stage and Test in the State owned infrastructure for its internal validation? (Exhibit 3 SOW - Technology Solution; RTM – Technical Tab) A. Yes. The Supplier will be responsible for provisioning, installing, configuring, and maintaining the required pre-production environments within the State-owned infrastructure, subject to applicable State and OMES requirements and access controls.

27. Please confirm the state-managed and state-governed cloud environments referenced in OPR-008 and TECH-008 include Amazon EKS services in an AWS cloud environment. (RTM – Technical Tab) A. OPR-008 and TECH-008 are not intended to prescribe a specific cloud provider or service. The solution must operate within a State-owned, State-governed, and State-approved cloud environment and comply with applicable OMES enterprise architecture and security standards.

28. In the Bidder Response section of the submission portal you have a question for each section of the response, with individual, required document upload links for each question. Are we thus required to submit our response in separate components, or is it possible to submit a single, unified response? If allowed, would we then need to attach the same unified response file for each question? (Bidder Response) A. Yes, please submit individual documents where requested. You may also submit a single unified response in the question titled “Response to Specifications/SOW* (7.7)

29. In the Bidder Response section of the submission portal, where should we submit redacted copies of our response? (Bidder Response) A. You may submit a redacted copy of your entire bid response on the question titled “Response to Specifications/SOW*(7.7), but please include “Redacted” in the title. You may submit redacted versions of individual documents on the same line as the non-redacted, but please included “Redacted” in the title of the document.

30. Please clarify Assumption #3, which states that Maintenance and Operations (M&O) will begin after a 90-day hardening period. Based on our experience, M&O could - at State option - begin when the platform is production-ready in or around early September 2027, at public go-live on November 1, 2027 (OEP would then become a 'technology transition period' as described in the Exhibit 12, Section 3.6.1. and in Exhibit 3 Statement of Work - Implementation Lifecycle and Deliverables), or after Open Enrollment ends (typically, on February 1, 2028, when the exchange starts collecting user fees). When do you anticipate the hardening period will begin and end, and when will M&O start? Is the 90-day hardening period expected to occur during the Implementation and Training phase? (Exhibit 2 Price Proposal Form, Tab Platform Cost, Assumptions; Exhibit 3 SOW - Implementation Lifecycle and Deliverables; Exhibit 12 RTM - 3.6.1) A. The State requests that Bidders propose their recommended approach for implementation, hardening, transition, and Maintenance & Operations (M&O) activities based on the requirements set forth in the solicitation and the Bidder's experience. The State is not prescribing a specific start or end date for the hardening period, nor a specific date for commencement of M&O activities, beyond the requirements identified in the solicitation.

31. Please define 'Third party vendor' and 'subcontractor' as used in Exhibit 4. Does this list need to encompass all such entities, even those third party vendors used in the ordinary course of business or those under a certain $ spent threshold (for instance $100,000 per year)? (Exhibit 4 - Third Party Supplier Info) A, For purposes of Exhibit 4 and Section 7.12 of the Agency Bidder Instructions, Bidders shall identify any subcontractor or third-party supplier proposed to provide products, services, or solution components as part of the Bidder's proposed solution or Statement of Work. The solicitation does not establish a minimum dollar threshold for disclosure. Accordingly, Bidders should provide the information required by Section 7.12 for each proposed subcontractor or third-party supplier that will contribute to or support the proposed solution, products, or services.

32. Exhibit 3 Statement of Work, Section 2.5 pg.8 Service Center Scope and Responsibilities

Tier 1 enrollment and consumer engagement activities are expected to primarily occur through OKEPs and/or a separate customer support center.

How does the State anticipate that Tier 1 customer support capabilities will be resourced - through a separate competitive procurement, an expansion of the awarded Supplier's scope, or direct Exchange staffing?

A. Tier 1 customer support capabilities are not within the scope of this procurement. The State anticipates procuring Tier 1 customer support services separately from the Exchange platform and Service Center capabilities solicited through this RFP. The State reserves the right to determine and modify its future sourcing approach based on operational, programmatic, and business considerations.

33. Exhibit 3 Statement of Work, Section 2.5 pg.8 Service Center Scope and Responsibilities

Tier 1 enrollment and consumer engagement activities are expected to primarily occur through OKEPs and/or a separate customer support center. If the State has not yet made a determination on how Tier 1 customer support capabilities will be resourced, what is the anticipated timeline for doing so?

A. The State is actively developing a separate procurement to support Tier 1 customer support capabilities. While the State is not currently providing a timeline for release or award, bidders should be aware that planning and development activities for that procurement are underway. As noted, Tier 1 customer support is not within the scope of this procurement. The State reserves the right to determine and modify its future sourcing approach based on operational, programmatic, and business considerations.

34. Exhibit 3 Statement of Work, Section 2.5 pg.8 Service Center Scope and Responsibilities

The Supplier shall provide the tools, workflows, and operational capabilities necessary to enable Exchange staff to perform Service Center functions.

How will Tier 2 Service Center and Mailroom functions be performed (i.e., by Supplier personnel, Exchange staff using Supplier-provided tools, or a combination)?

A. The State anticipates that Tier 2 Service Center functions may be performed through a combination of Supplier-supported services and Exchange staff utilizing Supplier-provided tools, workflows, and operational capabilities. Bidders should propose an approach consistent with the requirements set forth in the solicitation. As described in the Statement of Work, the Supplier shall provide the tools, workflows, and operational capabilities necessary to enable Exchange staff to perform Service Center functions. Inbound mail processing is not within the scope of this procurement. The Supplier's responsibilities related to mail are limited to the outbound communications and notices functions described in the solicitation. For planning purposes, Bidders may assume that Tier 2 Service Center functions will initially be supported primarily by Supplier personnel, with the solution designed to enable future participation by Exchange staff.

35. Exhibit 3 Statement of Work, Section 2.5 pg.8 Service Center Scope and Responsibilities

The Supplier shall provide the tools, workflows, and operational capabilities necessary to enable Exchange staff to perform Service Center functions. If the Tier 2 Service Center and Mailroom functions are performed by a combination of Supplier personnel and Exchange staff using Supplier provider tools, which specific functions fall to each party?

A. The State has not finalized the allocation of responsibilities between Supplier personnel and Exchange staff for Tier 2 Service Center functions. Bidders should propose an approach consistent with the requirements set forth in the solicitation. As described in the Statement of Work, the Supplier shall provide the tools, workflows, and operational capabilities necessary to enable Exchange staff to perform Service Center functions. Inbound mail processing is not within the scope of this procurement. The Supplier's responsibilities related to mail are limited to the outbound communications and notices functions described in the solicitation.

For planning purposes, Bidders may assume that Tier 2 Service Center Functions will initially be supported primarily by Supplier-provided services and capabilities. However, the State has not finalized the allocation of responsibilities between Supplier personnel and Exchange staff and reserves the right to modify the operating model over time.

36. Exhibit 3 Statement of Work, Section 2.5 pg.8 Service Center Scope and Responsibilities

The Supplier shall support integration and interoperability with customer support and operational technologies utilized by the Exchange, including State-operated and/or third-party platforms. The State has not finalized its future customer support and contact center technology stack and intends to collaborate with the successful Supplier to evaluate platform capabilities, integration approaches, and operational dependencies prior to determining any future customer support technology procurement decisions. The solution shall support integration with applicable technologies, which may include customer relationship management (CRM), telephony, case management, workforce management, chat, document management, and related customer support platforms necessary to support Exchange operations. Given that the State has not finalized its customer support technology stack, what technologies (e.g., CRM, telephony, case management, workforce management) does the State anticipate the Supplier will be required to provide versus those the State will procure separately, to support Exchange operations at Go Live?

A. The Supplier should anticipate supporting real-time integration between the eligibility and enrollment platform and a CRM or other applicable customer support technologies. The State has not finalized its customer support technology stack and has not determined whether capabilities such as CRM, telephony, workforce management, or other customer support technologies will be procured separately or provided by the Supplier. At a minimum, the solution shall support surfacing data necessary for customer and stakeholder interactions, including contact information, health and dental insurance policy status, and ACA and Medicaid/CHIP eligibility and enrollment outcomes.

37. Exhibit 3 Statement of Work, Section 1.3 pg. 3 Background and Enrollment Metrics

These data points inform solution design, capacity planning, and operational readiness considerations for the Exchange. Given the dynamic regulatory, policy, and market environment in which State-Based Exchanges operate, these metrics are subject to change over time... the data presented herein should be interpreted as a point-in-time baseline for planning purposes rather than a fixed projection of future activity. What are the State's projected inbound consumer contact volumes - such as calls, chats, emails, and walk-ins - for Plan Year 2028 Open Enrollment and steady-state operations that bidders should use for integration and capacity planning purposes?

A. Inbound consumer contact operations are not within the scope of this procurement. Bidders should develop their solution, integration, and capacity planning assumptions based on the enrollment and broker association data provided in the solicitation, together with their experience supporting State-Based Marketplace organizations. The State notes that approximately 75% of currently enrolled consumers are associated with an Enhanced Direct Enrollment (EDE) entity.

38. Exhibit 3 Statement of Work, Section 2.5 pg.8 Service Center Scope and Responsibilities, Outbound Communications and Notices

The Supplier shall propose and implement a long-term solution for outbound consumer notices and communications, including notice generation, formatting, and distribution. The Supplier shall define an approach for mail development, printing, and distribution. What are the State's projected mail house volumes - such as inbound, outbound, and return mail - for Plan Year 2028 Open Enrollment and steady-state operations that bidders should use for integration and capacity planning purposes?

A. Inbound and return mail processing are not within the scope of this procurement. Bidders should develop their solution, integration, and capacity planning assumptions for outbound communications and notices based on the enrollment and broker association data provided in the solicitation, together with their experience supporting State-Based Marketplace organizations. The State notes that approximately 75% of currently enrolled consumers are associated with an Enhanced Direct Enrollment (EDE) entity.

39. Exhibit 3 Statement of Work, Section 2.6 pg. 9 EDE Management and Support

The Exchange will operate an EDE-first model in which OKEPs, including web brokers, agents, and other approved entities, serve as the primary consumer-facing channels. How many EDE partners does the State plan to engage for Plan Year 2028 Open Enrollment?

A. The State does not anticipate limiting participation to a specific number of OKEPs. The State intends to support participation by CMS-certified EDE partners operating in Oklahoma for Plan Year 2028, subject to applicable State and CMS requirements.

40. Exhibit 3 Statement of Work, Section 2.6 pg.9 EDE Management and Support

The Exchange will operate an EDE-first model in which OKEPs, including web brokers, agents, and other approved entities, serve as the primary consumer-facing channels. The Supplier shall support this distributed ecosystem by establishing a structured approach to EDE partner integration, support, communication, and coordination. What share of customer contacts - such as enrolling, making changes, and other plan-related tasks - does the State anticipate will be handled by EDE partners versus OID staff?

A. The State does not currently have a fixed percentage allocation for customer contacts between OKEPs/EDE partners and State-supported customer service functions. Consistent with the EDE-first operating model, OKEPs are expected to serve as the primary consumer-facing channel for plan shopping, enrollment assistance, and related enrollment activities. State-supported customer service functions may assist with application completion, eligibility-related questions, account maintenance, and general Marketplace support. OKEPs may also provide these services, as applicable. Bidders should use this operating model, rather than a fixed contact-volume allocation, for capacity and integration planning.

41. Reference: Exhibit 8; Exhibit 10, TECH-002; Exhibit 3, Hosting Environment

“Deploying within a State-owned, State-governed cloud environment is a strong choice it gives the State direct control over security, data governance, and long-term vendor transition flexibility."

Within that environment, can the State confirm whether Bidders may provide their own enterprise licenses for COTS components, rather than procuring them through OMES’s hyperscaler marketplace?

A. Bidder may propose Supplier-provided enterprise licenses for a solution deployed in the State-governed cloud environment, subject to State and OMES requirements. Licenses required for continued operation of the solution must be transferable to the State or a successor vendor upon contract expiration or termination.

b. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

SIGNATURES

Supplier company name Date

Authorized representative name Authorized representative signature

image1.png