Request_for_Information_-_IC-228956.docx

OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

Introduction Purpose This Request for Information (RFI) is issued to assist the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (OKDHS) in conducting market research for a potential future contract. No contracts will be awarded as a result of this RFI. No Suppliers will receive payment or any other form of compensation in exchange for responding to this RFI. OKDHS is not responsible for any costs incurred by the Supplier in the course of preparing or submitting a response.

OKDHS is seeking information from qualified Suppliers. The State of Oklahoma is conducting a feasibility study to evaluate options for a unified eligibility and enrollment system serving six federal public assistance programs administered across three State agencies. This Request for Information (RFI) is issued to gather structured, comparable input from the supplier community to inform the State's analysis of architectural pathways, implementation considerations, cost ranges, federal and State compliance requirements, and market readiness.

The feasibility study is required under Oklahoma House Bill 1575 (HB1575). Responses received through this RFI are analytical inputs to that study. The State seeks substantive, candid responses that reflect each respondent's actual experience, capabilities, and considered judgment.

Legislative Context: House Bill 1575

Oklahoma House Bill 1575 directs the State to assess the establishment of a unified and streamlined eligibility and enrollment system for public assistance programs, with the goals of promoting efficiency, accessibility, and coordination of services for Oklahomans served by State programs. The legislation mandates a feasibility study that examines current operating conditions, evaluates multiple integration pathways, considers cost and risk implications, and provides defensible findings and recommended pathways for legislative consideration. This RFI is a legislatively required input that informs the market landscape, supplier capability, delivery model, and cost-range elements of the study.

What the State Is Seeking

Through this RFI, the State seeks information that supports its feasibility analysis across four dimensions: architectural feasibility, implementation considerations, cost ranges, and federal and State compliance. The State is not seeking proposals, pricing commitments, or vendor differentiation against competitors. The State is seeking the supplier community's considered, experience-based perspective on what is possible, at what cost, with what risk, and in what timeframe.

BACKGROUND

'Unified' versus 'Integrated'

The State uses the term “unified” intentionally to distinguish the State’s goals from the goals of the more commonly used term “integrated” and asks respondents to use the same distinction in their responses.

-"Unified" refers to the user-facing "One Front Door" objective, a unified experience for Oklahomans seeking health and human services. This is the State's policy goal under HB 1575.

-"Integrated," as used in this RFI, refers to backend technical consolidation of eligibility systems, for example, retiring agency-specific eligibility engines in favor of a single shared platform.

The State's primary objective is to evaluate approaches that can provide a unified customer experience while recognizing the existence of multiple agency-specific eligibility systems.

Participating Agencies

Three State agencies participate jointly in this study. Each agency administers a distinct set of programs but serves an overlapping Oklahoma citizen population. The agencies are:

-Oklahoma Human Services (OKDHS)

--Lead State agency for the feasibility study. OKDHS issues this RFI on behalf of all three agencies and serves as the Single Point of Contact for respondent inquiries.

--In-Scope Programs: SNAP, TANF, Child Care, LIHEAP

-Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH)

--Participating agency. Provides program-specific input and review across the WIC program area.

--In-Scope Programs: WIC

-Oklahoma Health Care Authority (OHCA)

--Participating agency. Provides program-specific input and review across Medicaid eligibility and enrollment.

--In-Scope Programs: Medicaid

Current System Landscape (High-Level)

Oklahoma’s eligibility and enrollment environment is a multi‑agency, multi‑program ecosystem that has evolved over time to meet program‑specific federal requirements and operational needs. As a result, eligibility processes, supporting systems, and user experiences vary across programs and agencies.

Program‑Specific Systems and Operational Models

Each participating agency administers eligibility and case management through program-specific systems and workflows. OKDHS administers SNAP, TANF, Child Care, and LIHEAP using a combination of legacy eligibility systems (Integrated Management System, Family Assistance Case System, etc.) and supporting workflow and imaging tools (e.g., C¡A Current™, Hyland OnBase), relying heavily on worker-driven processes with a mix of manual and system-assisted determination. OHCA administers Medicaid eligibility and enrollment through a web-based application portal and underlying systems that support citizen self-service, automated renewals, and complex verification and determination workflows, with significant reliance on external data sources and automation. OSDH administers WIC through a clinic-based model supported by a specialized system (PHOCIS), with eligibility determination that includes in-person certification, manual appointment scheduling, and program-specific workflows that differ from the other programs. Across all programs, systems have been implemented independently to meet federal compliance standards, resulting in variation in functionality, data handling, and user interaction patterns.

Intake Channels and User Experience

Applicants may initiate eligibility across programs through multiple intake channels, including online portals (e.g., OKDHSLive, MySoonerCare, WIC Enrollment Request, phone-based intake supported by call center or worker proxy entry, in-person applications at field offices or clinics, and paper applications submitted via mail or fax. These channels often operate independently by program, with limited coordination across entry points.

While some programs support digital self‑service and automated workflows, others rely more heavily on staff‑assisted intake or in‑person processes. For example, WIC requires in‑person certification appointments with limited options to complete remotely, while Medicaid supports end‑to‑end online application and renewal.

From the applicant perspective, these differences mean multiple entry points depending on program, repeated submission of similar household, income, and demographic information, and limited visibility into eligibility across multiple programs. Applicants also have limited ability to track application or renewal status across programs in a single place, often receive separate notices and communications from each program, and must engage with multiple program-specific call centers or support channels for questions or issue resolution.

Eligibility Determination and Case Processing

Eligibility determination processes share common structural elements across programs but are implemented differently based on program rules and system capabilities. Worker-driven determination remains the dominant model for many OKDHS programs, with staff responsible for verification, calculation, and decision-making across multiple systems. System-assisted and automated determination is more prevalent in Medicaid, including automated renewals and the use of external data sources for verification. Program-specific workflows, such as WIC certification and LIHEAP seasonal processing, introduce additional variation in timing, documentation requirements, and decision paths.

Across programs, eligibility determination commonly includes application intake and case creation; verification of identity, income, and eligibility factors using both documentation and external data sources; the eligibility decision, notice generation, and benefit authorization; and renewal and redetermination. However, the systems supporting these steps are not integrated, requiring workers to navigate multiple tools and manually reconcile information across systems.

Systems, Data, and Integration

The current landscape includes multiple systems performing overlapping functions, including eligibility determination systems (e.g., IMS/FACS, OHCA systems, PHOCIS), workflow and case management tools (e.g., Current™), document management systems (e.g., OnBase), and external data sources and verification tools such as federal and state interfaces and vendor data services. Integration across these systems is limited and often relies on batch transfers or document-based workflows, manual data entry across systems, and program-specific interfaces rather than shared services. As a result, the environment exhibits duplication of data collection and storage, inconsistent data definitions and client identifiers across programs, and limited ability to share information across program boundaries.

Cross‑Program Coordination and User Journey

Although many applicants interact with multiple programs, the current environment does not provide a unified experience across them. Applicants typically complete separate applications for each program even when data requirements overlap significantly; cross-program eligibility is not systematically surfaced or actioned at the point of application; and program ownership boundaries, such as those between agencies and divisions, influence how cases are processed and communicated to the applicant. In practice, this leads to fragmented user journeys in which applicants must determine which programs to apply for, may not be aware of additional programs for which they qualify, and must navigate multiple agencies for questions, status updates, or issue resolution. While some data sharing agreements exist between programs, these are typically limited in scope and do not provide a flexible, unified approach to sharing and reusing data across all three agencies.

Operational Pain Points (High‑Level)

Based on current-state discovery, several consistent themes have emerged. Redundant data collection across programs increases burden on applicants and staff, and limited system interoperability requires manual workarounds that increase the risk of error. A fragmented user experience creates confusion about where to apply, what to apply for, and whom to contact, while variation in program processes complicates efforts to standardize intake and case management. Across all of these, dependence on legacy systems constrains automation and limits flexibility for future enhancements.

Implications for the Feasibility Study

The current system landscape reflects a set of independently optimized program environments rather than a coordinated, enterprise‑level eligibility ecosystem.

As a result, achieving a unified eligibility and enrollment experience will require consideration of how to deliver a single, coordinated entry point while respecting program-specific requirements; how to reuse shared data across programs without duplicating collection or compromising accuracy; how to integrate or orchestrate existing systems rather than fully replacing them; how to balance automation and worker-driven processes across programs; and how to improve the end-to-end user journey, including application, eligibility determination, tracking and visibility into status across programs, and support.

Federal Regulatory Constraints on Data Sharing

The State operates within a federal regulatory framework that constrains how data is shared across the six in-scope programs. Constraints include, but are not limited to, the following:

-HIPAA. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act constraints on Protected Health Information, particularly affecting Medicaid (OHCA) data and any health-related verification information.

-IRS Publication 1075. Federal Tax Information (FTI) handling requirements applicable to any system receiving, processing, storing, or transmitting tax return information used for eligibility verification.

-SSA Data. Social Security Administration data exchange rules, including SSA's cloud-environment approval requirements for systems handling SSA-sourced verification data.

-Program-Specific Confidentiality. SNAP confidentiality rules (7 CFR 272.1), TANF confidentiality (45 CFR Part 205), Medicaid confidentiality (42 CFR Part 431 Subpart F), and WIC participant confidentiality requirements (7 CFR 246.26(d)).

Pathway and Architecture Framing

As described above, the State distinguishes between a “unified” experience and “integration” of backend systems. Respondents are encouraged to reflect this distinction in describing their approaches. The State requests respondents consider environments where existing eligibility systems, federal certifications, and ongoing operations must be preserved or extended while improving the resident and caseworker experience.

Confidential Information and Open Records This RFI and responses provided may be subject to the Oklahoma Open Records Act. OKDHS will consider any requests by Suppliers to keep portions of responses confidential, provided that the Supplier:

INSTRUCTIONS TO SUPPLIERS

Response Deadline Response to the RFI should be submitted via the Supplier Portal by 3:00 PM CDT/CST August 14, 2006.

OKDHS Contact Information Name: Teresa Terry Email Address: Teresa.terry@okdhs.org The identified OKDHS point of contact is the sole individual to be contacted with questions regarding this RFI.

Supplier should submit questions, via the supplier portal, no later than 3:00 PM CDT/CST July 14, 2026.

RFI Amendments and Modifications If the RFI is amended or modified, additional information will be provided by email by the OKDHS point of contact.

Questions for Suppliers Questions: Please respond to questions in Exhibit 1 in the order presented.

D. Requested Format and Delivery D.1. File format: Microsoft Word (.docx).

D.2. Page size: US Letter (8.5 x 11 inches); 1-inch margins; portrait orientation.

D.3. Typography: Arial 11pt minimum for body text; larger sizes acceptable for headings, tables, and visuals.

D.4. Pagination: page numbers required; footer with respondent name and date on every page.

E. Requested Components

· Cover Letter

· Response Executive Summary

· Question Response

F. Suggested Page Limits Suggested limits guide effort; substantive responses that exceed a limit will not be disqualified. Responses that materially exceed limits across multiple sections may be summarized rather than reviewed in full.