RFI_Amendment_1_Questions_and_Answers.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 Teresa Terry Phone Email Teresa.terry@okdhs.org

DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT

a. This is to incorporate the following:

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

Questions/Answers

1) Has the State been provided any type of demonstration within the last two years? If so, what vendor or companies provided those demos?

2) Is there an established budget for this project?

3) Will the State make available additional current-state artifacts, such as system inventories, interface catalogs, data dictionaries, or reports catalogs?

4) Is the State planning on modernization /replacement of any in-scope legacy systems in the future?

5) What is the current status of cross-agency data sharing agreements among OKDHS, OSDH, and OHCA?

6) Can the State provide any data volume estimates that would help respondents frame conversion effort and cost ranges?

7) Can the State share the expected timeline from feasibility study completion to a potential RFP?

2) No budget identified

3) Vendors are encouraged to propose their approach based on the information provided in this RFI. Additional artifacts will be determined and shared as part of a subsequent procurement process.

4) For State of Oklahoma policies and standards that should be considered when providing architecture and implementation recommendations please see State of Oklahoma Information Security Policy, Procedures and Guidelines that include guidance. [https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/omes/documents/InfoSecPPG.pdf] Agency specific modernization efforts over the next 5 years include:

OHCA is modernizing its entire Medicaid system. WIC is also modernizing their MIS and responses should include consideration for USDA requirements.

5) Formal cross-agency data sharing agreements among OKDHS, OHCA, and OSDH are limited and point-to-point in nature where they exist. Each agency handles PII and PHI under its own data governance practices, and no cross-agency data governance program has been established.

For purposes of this RFI, respondents should account for the likelihood that new or amended data sharing agreements would be required to support a unified intake experience, particularly for identity resolution, status sharing, and any cross-program auto-enrollment functionality. Vendors should describe what interagency agreements or consent frameworks their proposed architecture would require.

6) Vendors are encouraged to propose their approach based on the information provided in this RFI and their experience with like modernization efforts.

The State anticipates that the approach will have integration layer, MasterPerson, and key Application requirements. Back-end systems will remain System of Record for their specific programs. Approach and architecture are Data Management focused.

For State of Oklahoma policies and standards that should be considered when providing architecture and implementation recommendations please see State of Oklahoma Information Security Policy, Procedures and Guidelines that include guidance. [https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/omes/documents/InfoSecPPG.pdf]

7) The feasibility study will be presented to the Legislature. Any next steps, including a potential future procurement, would depend on legislative action following that presentation; no timeline beyond completion of the study has been established at this time.

Question 2: We understand the goal is for a unified and integrated eligibility system. Is the intent to also calculate and manage benefits for all programs including tracking payments to eligible applicants?

Question 3: Is the goal to initiate intake via Online Portal for all programs or will intake still be completed through various options including online portal, phone, worker proxy entry, in person/paper applications, and those submitted via mail or fax?

Question 4: Is the intention to migrate legacy data for all programs?

Question 5: Based on the RFI, the goal is a unified system with an integrated technical architecture. Is it preferred to replace all legacy systems with one central unified/integrated system or based on the amount of legacy systems, is the goal to keep limited legacy systems?

Question 6: Since there are three agencies involved and six programs, who will have the oversight and decision making for designs? Will this be done independently by agency or will there be a central person/team leading the design efforts for a unified system that has to meet requirements for the three different agencies and six programs?

Question 7: With respect to measuring return on investment or business value, what level of metrics are available by the three agencies to measure existing operational costs and outcomes to compare against a new unified system?

The State is leaning toward a phased implementation approach rather than a simultaneous rollout across all six programs, however specific planning decisions will be informed by the information shared and requested as part of a possible subsequent procurement process.

Question 2: The intent of the unified "One Front Door" is limited to the citizen-facing application intake experience and does not extend to benefit calculation, payment management, or tracking payments to eligible applicants. There is no plan at this time to have an integrated eligibility system, each program's existing back-end systems will continue to handle eligibility determination and benefit management independently. Vendors should scope their response accordingly.

Question 3: Intake is not envisioned as an online-only channel. The State's expectation is that the 'One Front Door' encompasses online portal submission as the primary channel, with continued support for phone, worker proxy entry (caseworker-assisted intake), in-person/paper applications, and submissions via mail or fax. A unified solution must accommodate multi-channel intake such as a caseworker entering an application on behalf of a walk-in client through the same system a citizen uses online, with parity in data collection and routing.

Respondents should describe how their proposed approach supports omni-channel intake and handles applications originating outside the digital channel (e.g., paper-to-digital conversion, mail scanning, fax-to-workflow routing).

Question 4: Vendors are encouraged to propose their approach based on the information provided in this RFI and their experience with like modernization efforts.

The unified "One Front Door" will need to have a unified person index for active participants and application components for client dashboard, the approach should include how to efficiently phase into having this data available.

Question 5: The intent of the unified "One Front Door" is limited to the citizen-facing application intake experience and does not extend to benefit calculation, payment management, or tracking payments to eligible applicants. There is no plan at this time to have an integrated eligibility system, each program's existing back-end systems will continue to handle eligibility determination and benefit management independently. Vendors should scope their response accordingly.

Question 6: The design authority for a unified system has not been formally established. Given that OKDHS, OHCA, and OSDH each administer distinct federal programs with their own policy rules, design decisions, the State's going-in expectation is that a cross-agency function would hold decision rights over shared front-end design (UX, branding, shared workflows), while individual agencies retain authority over program-specific screens, language, and eligibility-related questions tied to their back-end systems. Respondents are encouraged to recommend a governance and design authority model reflecting this balance.

Question 7: SNAP payment error rate (10.7% FY2025, 11.2% FY2024) with dollar-level error breakdowns, Child Care improper payment rate (3.99%, $9.6M on $241M in subsidy payments), TANF work participation rate (35.8% FY2024) and average processing days, and an executive dashboard with average transaction time (31 min), completion rate (72%), and case-queue elapsed times (218–281 days for renewals/applications). OHCA has granular MMIS clerk-level workflow stats (processing days, on-time %) and FTE counts (E&E Staffing.xlsx). OSDH/WIC: error rates are tracked federally, not at the state level (national estimate ~2.5%, not Oklahoma-specific).

2. Client identity: Do the three agencies share a common client identifier or master data management capability today, or would identity resolution across programs be net-new? Is a citizen-facing single sign-on across OKDHSLive, MySoonerCare, and WIC channels in scope for the unified experience?

3. Volume and scale: Can the State share high-level volume metrics (annual applications per program, active caseloads, renewal volumes, peak concurrency)? Cost ranges for centralized vs. federated approaches vary significantly with scale, and shared baselines would make respondent cost inputs comparable.

4. OHCA platform constraints: Is OHCA's Medicaid E&E system a commercial platform or custom-built, and is it CMS-certified as a modular E&E solution? Are there contractual or certification constraints on extending it to serve as a shared component?

5. Hosting posture: Are the current systems primarily on-premises or cloud-hosted, and does the State have an approved cloud environment meeting SSA and IRS 1075 requirements that a unified front-end could inherit, or would authorization be net-new?

6. Federal funding strategy: Does the State intend to pursue enhanced federal funding (e.g., Medicaid 90/10 FFP with cost allocation across programs) for implementation? This materially changes which architectural pathways are financially viable and should shape respondents' cost-range answers.

7. "Near term" definition: The RFI references achieving a unified user experience "in the near term." What time horizon does the State consider near term (e.g., 12 to 24 months), so respondents can calibrate sequencing recommendations?

8. Suggested page limits: Section F references suggested page limits but does not enumerate them by component. Please provide the suggested limits.

9. Study visibility: Will the feasibility study findings or recommended pathways be published or otherwise available to RFI respondents once submitted for legislative consideration? If so, when?

2. Client identity: Oklahoma does not currently have a Master Client Index or any shared identity record across the three agencies. Client identity reconciliation is an unsolved problem that any unified experience must address. It is anticipated that the Agencies involved in the "One Front Door" will have a Master Person Index that will consolidate and maintain Program IDs as well as a Master ID to support seamless coordination across the Portal. Vendors are encouraged to propose their approach to SSO and identity management as part of their response.

3. Volume and scale: Approximate cases - SNAP 300,000 active cases, TANF 3,000 open cases, Child Care 21,000 cases/35,000 children, LIHEAP 75,000 – 100,000 households/year, WIC 100,000 recertifications, Medicaid 600,000. Peak concurrency unavailable.

4. OHCA platform constraints: OHCA's system specifics are not relevant for this RFI. Vendors are encouraged to propose their "One Front Door" approach based on the information provided in this RFI and their experience with like modernization efforts.

5. Hosting posture: The State is looking for a best of breed Unified Portal that will support the federated eligibility and enrollment management back end. Data is not allowed to be hosted outside the US unless specific permission is given from the State CIO. For specifics on State of Oklahoma policies and standards please see State of Oklahoma Information Security Policy, Procedures and Guidelines that include guidance. [https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/omes/documents/InfoSecPPG.pdf] and [https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/omes/documents/CloudComputingStandard.pdf].

6. Federal funding strategy: The State has not made a determination on federal funding strategy for implementation. Implementation funding would depend on the feasibility study's findings and future legislative action.

That said, the State recognizes that federal funding eligibility materially shapes which architectural pathways are viable. Respondents are strongly encouraged to address the federal funding implications of each approach they propose, specifically: (a) whether the architecture could qualify for enhanced Medicaid FFP (90/10 DDI, 75/25 operations) under 42 CFR Part 433 Subpart C, including CMS modularity standards compliance; (b) how costs would be allocated across programs to maximize federal participation (SNAP, TANF, Child Care, LIHEAP, Medicaid, WIC); and (c) what federal approval processes (APD, IAPD, or equivalent) would be required and their timeline implications.

7. "Near term" definition: The feasibility study will be presented to the Legislature. Any next steps, including a potential future procurement, would depend on legislative action following that presentation; no timeline beyond completion of the study has been established at this time.

8. Suggested page limits: The following suggested limits are provided to 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. Suggested limits: Cover Letter 1–2 pp, Exec Summary 2–3 pp, C.2 3–4 pp, C.3 5–6 pp, C.4 4–5 pp, C.5 2–3 pp, C.6 3–4 pp, C.7 2–3 pp, C.8 3–4 pp, C.9 2–3 pp , C.10 3, or roughly 30–40 pages total.

9. Study visibility: OKDHS does not intend to publish the study, but it will be available upon request in early 2027.

Please find our questions below.

Question 1: Modernization Strategy and Target Architecture

The RFI distinguishes between a "unified" customer experience and "integrated" backend eligibility systems. Does the State have a preferred architectural direction (e.g., enterprise orchestration layer, shared services, common intake platform, or a consolidated eligibility engine), or is it seeking vendor recommendations across all viable approaches?

Question 2: Current Systems and Technical Documentation

Will the State provide additional documentation describing the current application landscape, including system inventories, interface diagrams, data flows, API availability, and technology stacks for systems such as IMS, FACS, PHOCIS, Current™, OnBase, and the OHCA Medicaid platform?

Question 3: Existing Modernization Initiatives

Are any of the participating agencies currently undertaking modernization initiatives, cloud migrations, or major system enhancements that should be considered when evaluating future integration or orchestration approaches?

Question 4: Success Criteria for the Feasibility Study

Beyond cost, schedule, and technical feasibility, what are the State's primary measures of success for the feasibility study? For example, will recommendations be evaluated based on customer experience improvements, caseworker efficiency, reduction in duplicate data collection, increased automation, operational savings, or another set of performance outcomes?

Question 5: Procurement Roadmap

Following completion of the feasibility study, does the State anticipate issuing one or more competitive procurements (e.g., planning services, systems integration, implementation, independent verification and validation (IV&V), or organizational change management), and is there an anticipated timeframe for those procurements?

The State is looking for a best of breed Unified Portal that will support the federated eligibility and enrollment management back end. Data is not allowed to be hosted outside the US unless specific permission is given from the State CIO. For specifics on State of Oklahoma policies and standards please see State of Oklahoma Information Security Policy, Procedures and Guidelines that include guidance. [https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/omes/documents/InfoSecPPG.pdf]

Question 2: Current Systems and Technical Documentation

Vendors are encouraged to propose their approach based on the information provided in this RFI. Additional artifacts will be determined and shared as part of a subsequent procurement process.

Question 3: Existing Modernization Initiatives

For State of Oklahoma policies and standards that should be considered when providing architecture and implementation recommendations please see State of Oklahoma Information Security Policy, Procedures and Guidelines that includes guidance. [https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/omes/documents/InfoSecPPG.pdf] Agency specific modernization efforts over the next 5 years include:

OHCA is modernizing its entire Medicaid system. WIC is also modernizing their MIS and responses should include consideration for USDA requirements.

Question 4: Success Criteria for the Feasibility Study

The primary measures of success are: technical and architectural availability; technical implementation achievability, future-state extensibility & configurability, compliance, delivery operating and organizational model maturity required, time to value, citizen impact, operational impact, cost, One Front Door alignment.

Question 5: Procurement Roadmap

The state is open to any state-approved procurement strategy that effectively supports the selected pathway. The feasibility study will be presented to the Legislature. Any next steps, including a potential future procurement, would depend on legislative action following that presentation; no timeline beyond completion of the study has been established at this time.

1. Would the State find it valuable for a vendor to respond from a Quality Assurance perspective, addressing only the subset of Exhibit 1 questions that align with its specific areas of expertise and capabilities?

2. Does the State anticipate that independent verification and validation (IV&V), quality assurance, testing, and organizational change management services would be procured separately from any system integrator or platform vendor?

2. The state is open to any state-approved procurement strategy that effectively supports the selected pathway. The preferred response addresses all of Exhibit 1. The State encourages responses submitted jointly by partnering organizations.

1. As a specialty vendor whose capabilities address a subset of the questions in Exhibit 1, should our response address every question, noting where one falls outside our scope, or only those relevant to our capability?

2. Are the suggested page limits firm or advisory, are they per section or total, and do tables, graphics, and appendices count toward them?

3. Given that responses may be subject to the Oklahoma Open Records Act, may respondents designate specific proprietary or confidential portions, and how will OKDHS handle material marked that way?

4. Will OKDHS, OHCA, or OSDH make available a current-state systems or data-source inventory, or point to published references, to help respondents tailor integration and data-sharing approaches?

5. What is the anticipated timeline for completing the feasibility study and for any subsequent solicitation, and does OKDHS plan follow-up with respondents, such as demonstrations or interviews, as part of the study?

1. 2. The following suggested limits are provided to 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. Suggested limits: Cover Letter 1–2 pp, Exec Summary 2–3 pp, C.2 3–4 pp, C.3 5–6 pp, C.4 4–5 pp, C.5 2–3 pp, C.6 3–4 pp, C.7 2–3 pp, C.8 3–4 pp, C.9 2–3 pp , C.10 3, or roughly 30–40 pages total.

2. 3. Portions Requested to be Held Confidential.

3. 1. All material submitted by a vendor becomes the property of the State of Oklahoma. No portion of a response shall be considered confidential after award of the contract except pursuant to 74 O.S. § 85.5. Any portion of the response requested to be held confidential shall be listed in an identified section for review. Do not duplicate listed documents in this section, simply provide a list of documents or sections of documents requested to be confidential.

4. 2. For each portion of the response listed as considered confidential, the responder must identify the specific information considered confidential and fully comply with OAC 260:115-3-9 in Oklahoma Administrative Rules, which additionally requires a responder to enumerate the specific grounds, based on applicable laws which support treatment of the information as exempt from disclosure and explain why disclosure is not in the best interest of the public. 7.4.3 A response marked in total as proprietary and/or confidential will not be considered confidential. 7.4.4 Any information marked as confidential and embodied elsewhere in a response rather than listed in this section of the response packet will not be considered confidential and will be subject to disclosure without further review. The State of Oklahoma has no responsibility to independently review an entire response for a confidentiality claim. Likewise, confidentiality claims of a responder will not be considered if a response does not comply with requirements of OAC 260:115-3-9, and the information will be subject to disclosure pursuant to state law. 7.4.5 Certain items will never be deemed confidential under the Oklahoma Open Records Act. The following is a non-exhaustive list of items that are not confidential: a. Price. b. References. c. Individual’s names.

5. 4. Vendors are encouraged to propose their approach based on the information provided in this RFI. Additional artifacts will be determined and shared as part of a subsequent procurement process.

6. 5. The feasibility study will be presented to the Legislature. Any next steps, including a potential future procurement, would depend on legislative action following that presentation; no timeline beyond completion of the study has been established at this time.

7.

2. Are there any active or planned modernization initiatives, procurements, system replacements, or platform upgrades within OKDHS, OHCA, or OSDH that suppliers should consider when responding?

3. What are the current technologies used for IAM (a shared identity provider, authentication platform, or citizen login service that respondents should assume could be leveraged as part of a unified front-door experience), image storage – if any, document management strategy solution, ESB layers and data reporting tool? Can the respondents assume that they will be allowed to re-use these technologies if they meet the requirements we typically have?

4. Can we assume that the State will own all the licenses, such as software and operating system level items? This matters for pricing.

5. Expectations for Cost Estimates: Can respondents provide only rough-order-of-magnitude estimates ?

6. Document Management Strategy: OnBase is mentioned. Should respondents assume that existing document management capabilities would be retained.

7. Regarding section "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". There are no page limitations noted in the RFI or the portal. Please provide if applicable.

Approximate annual application/renewal

SNAP 100,000

TANF 3,000

Child Care 7,000

LIHEAP N/A

OHCA Medicaid 600,000

OSDH WIC 100,000

Approximate annual active cases

SNAP 280,000

TANF 3,000

Child Care 21,000 cases/35,000 children LIHEAP 75,000 to 100,000 OHCA Medicaid 1,000,000

OSDH WIC 100,000

2. For State of Oklahoma policies and standards that should be considered when providing architecture and implementation recommendations please see State of Oklahoma Information Security Policy, Procedures and Guidelines that include guidance. [https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/omes/documents/InfoSecPPG.pdf] Agency specific modernization efforts over the next 5 years include:

OHCA is modernizing its entire Medicaid system. WIC is also modernizing their MIS and responses should include consideration for USDA requirements.

3. There are no enterprise-wide solutions (across all three agencies) for the components of a unified "One Front Door" portal. Each agency may have scalable components that could be re-used. Vendors are encouraged to propose their approach based on the information provided in this RFI and their experience with like modernization efforts.

4. Yes

5. The State is not seeking proposals, pricing commitments, or vendor differentiation against competitors. Respondents should provide high-level, rough-order-of-magnitude cost ranges by architectural approach.

6. The unified portal is expected to support the application process including data and document collection. Vendors should describe their approach to document management as part of their proposed solution. Each Agency will maintain their existing Document Management systems and an integration with these back-end systems should be included in the Unified Portal approach.

7. The following suggested limits are provided to 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. Suggested limits: Cover Letter 1–2 pp, Exec Summary 2–3 pp, C.2 3–4 pp, C.3 5–6 pp, C.4 4–5 pp, C.5 2–3 pp, C.6 3–4 pp, C.7 2–3 pp, C.8 3–4 pp, C.9 2–3 pp , C.10 3, or roughly 30–40 pages total.

2. Should respondents assume that a unified customer experience can be achieved while preserving existing eligibility systems, or should recommendations also consider longer term modernization opportunities?

3. Has the State initiated any modernization efforts, pilots, or shared services initiatives related to eligibility, data sharing, or cross-program coordination that respondents should consider when providing architectural and implementation recommendations?

2. For purposes of this RFI, respondents should assume a greenfield approach for the unified front door and should recommend an architecture and workflow that integrates with the State's existing back-end eligibility systems. The State's current working hypothesis is that full back-end replacement is not a feasible near-term path; however, the State welcomes innovative approaches respondents believe could help achieve the unification goal.

3. For State of Oklahoma policies and standards that should be considered when providing architecture and implementation recommendations please see State of Oklahoma Information Security Policy, Procedures and Guidelines that include guidance. [https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/omes/documents/InfoSecPPG.pdf] Agency specific modernization efforts over the next 5 years include:

OHCA is modernizing its entire Medicaid system. WIC is also modernizing their MIS and responses should include consideration for USDA requirements.

1. Can the State provide approximate annual application/renewal volumes and active caseload counts by program (SNAP, TANF, Child Care, LIHEAP, WIC, Medicaid)?

2. Can the State share the approximate number of eligibility workers/caseworkers by agency who would be users of a unified solution?

3. For the legacy OKDHS systems (IMS, FACS), can the State characterize the underlying technology (e.g., mainframe/COBOL, database platforms) and whether modern integration points (APIs, middleware) currently exist?

4. Is PHOCIS (WIC) a state-hosted, multi-state consortium, or vendor-hosted solution, and are there existing plans to modernize or replace it independent of this study?

5. Does the State have an existing enterprise master data management (MDM) capability, master person index, or shared client identifier across any of the three agencies today?

6. Does the State currently have, or plan to procure, an enterprise identity proofing / identity and access management solution that a unified front door would be expected to leverage?

7. For a state with multiple agencies, existing eligibility systems, and a goal of achieving a unified user experience in the near term, which approach do you recommend and why?

8. What is the State's current cloud posture and preference (e.g., State-hosted, GovCloud, vendor SaaS), and are there State of Oklahoma hosting or data residency requirements respondents should assume?

Scope

1. Should respondents assume the "unified front door" scope includes only application intake and status tracking, or also renewals/redeterminations, document upload, notices, and two-way client communications across all six programs?

2. Are call center / contact center consolidation and CRM capabilities within the scope of the feasibility analysis, or limited to the digital channel?

3. Should respondents assume eligibility rules engines remain in the existing agency systems (federated), or should cost ranges also cover scenarios where determination logic is consolidated?

4. Is Presumptive/Express Lane eligibility or cross-program auto-enrollment (e.g., adjunctive eligibility for WIC based on SNAP/Medicaid) an objective the State wants approaches to address?

5. Do we currently have PII/PHI data and kindly share any type of data governance program which is currently in place and if not, what is the current process?

6. Should cost ranges include organizational change management, training, and legacy system remediation work on the agency side, or only the new solution's implementation and operations?

Procurement & Contracting Signals

1. Does the State anticipate a single prime contractor model, multiple awards by module/function, or a State-as-integrator model for any future procurement resulting from this study?

2. Has funding been appropriated or requested for implementation beyond the feasibility study, or would implementation funding depend on the study's findings and a future legislative session?

1. Approximate annual application/renewal

SNAP 100,000

TANF 3,000

Child Care 7,000

LIHEAP N/A

OHCA Medicaid 600,000

OSDH WIC 100,000

Approximate annual active cases

SNAP 280,000

TANF 3,000

Child Care 21,000 cases/35,000 children LIHEAP 75,000 to 100,000 OHCA Medicaid 1,000,000

OSDH WIC 100,000

2. Approximate number of eligibility workers/caseworkers: OHCA between 250 and 300; WIC ~ 900 staff who would need access (includes county health department, independent contractor, and state office staff); OKDHS between over 2000 users (includes proxy access for partners who assist clients). OHCA is also working on solutions for HR1 which will include additional contracted staff who will be eligibility/member-facing. Those counts are unknown at this time. Additionally, OHCA has a large Agency View network of Tribal Partners, other state agencies, and FQHCs with staff who help members enroll and obtain eligibility.

3. Neither of these systems would be in scope for the Unified Portal. IMS is an IBM mainframe (COBOL-based), leverages Data Connector API, and serves as the system of record for OKDHS eligibility and benefits across SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, Child Care, and LIHEAP. FACS is a PowerBuilder client-server application that caseworkers use for case management. Both are internally maintained by OKDHS IT, and the State does not have active replacement plans.

The back-end eligibility and enrollment management systems leverage integration interfaces including APIs, Batch/event feeds, and ESB, but there is not a shared API gateway or enterprise integration platform.

4. The focus of this RFI is the Unified Portal. The Portal will need to interface with back-end eligibility systems including PHOCIS, a state-owned, state-hosted management information system (MIS). Modernization planning for PHOCIS has begun but will not immediately affect this eligibility solution.

5. Oklahoma does not currently have a Master Client Index or any shared identity record across the three agencies. Client identity reconciliation is an unsolved problem that any unified experience must address. It is anticipated that the Agencies involved in the "One Front Door" will have a Master Person Index that will consolidate and maintain Program IDs as well as a Master ID to support seamless coordination across the Portal.

6. For State of Oklahoma policies and standards that should be considered when providing architecture and implementation recommendations please see State of Oklahoma Information Security Policy, Procedures and Guidelines that include guidance. [https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/omes/documents/InfoSecPPG.pdf] Agency specific modernization efforts over the next 5 years include:

OHCA is modernizing its entire Medicaid system. WIC is also modernizing their MIS and responses should include consideration for USDA requirements.

7. This is one of the core questions the State is posing to respondents in this RFI. The State is not prescribing a preferred approach and is seeking your recommendation and supporting rationale.

8. The State is looking for a best of breed Unified Portal that will support the federated eligibility and enrollment management back end. Data is not allowed to be hosted outside the US unless specific permission is given from the State CIO. For specifics on State of Oklahoma policies and standards please see State of Oklahoma Information Security Policy, Procedures and Guidelines that include guidance. [https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/omes/documents/InfoSecPPG.pdf] and [https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/omes/documents/CloudComputingStandard.pdf]

Scope

1. For purposes of this RFI, respondents should assume the unified front door scope encompasses, at a minimum, application intake and status tracking, including functions required to facilitate both, across all six programs. The State's current intent does not extend the portal scope to benefit calculation, payment management, or formal agency notices, which remain with each agency's existing back-end systems.

2. For the purpose of the feasibility study, the State's focus is on the digital channel.

3. Respondents should assume eligibility rules engines remain within the existing agency systems/a federated model.

4. The RFI does not prescribe a position on presumptive eligibility, Express Lane eligibility, or cross-program auto-enrollment (e.g., adjunctive eligibility for WIC based on SNAP or Medicaid enrollment). For WIC in particular, adjunctive eligibility establishes income eligibility only and does not satisfy all of WIC's eligibility criteria; a nutritional risk assessment is still required and cannot be inferred from another program's enrollment. These are policy decisions the agencies would make in consultation with their federal partners.

However, respondents are encouraged to address whether their proposed approach could accommodate cross-program eligibility signals and what data-sharing, identity resolution, and consent management requirements that would entail.

5. The Unified Portal must be USDA 7 CFR § 246.26(d) and HIPAA compliant. Yes, all three agencies handle PII and PHI as part of their core operations and WIC has specific confidentiality requirements for applicant and participant information. There is no unified cross-agency data governance program in place today. Please see State of Oklahoma Policies and Standards, OMES HIPAA Privacy and Security Policy [https://oklahoma.gov/omes/divisions/information-services/about-information-services/policy-and-standards.html]

6. Cost ranges should include all costs relevant to the solution broken out by type of expenses to support the analysis.

Procurement & Contracting Signals

1. The state is open to any state-approved procurement strategy that effectively supports the selected pathway.

2. Funding would be dependent on the study's findings and future budget processes.

2. Section F of the RFI references suggested page limits by section but does not include the actual limits in the RFI document or Exhibit 1. Could OKDHS please provide the intended page or length guidance by section so that respondents can appropriately scope their responses?

3. Does Oklahoma currently have a Master Client Index or shared identity record across the three agencies, or is client identity reconciliation part of what the unified experience layer must solve?

4. Can Oklahoma share additional detail on IMS and FACS — current vendor/support model and planned end-of-life or re-procurement timelines?

5. Has Oklahoma identified a single executive sponsor or cross-agency governance body for this feasibility effort, and will that structure carry forward into any resulting procurement?

As to future phases: this feasibility study will be presented to the Oklahoma Legislature, and any subsequent procurement would depend on legislative action and additional funding appropriation. Vendors are encouraged to identify a practical near-term path for the unified experience while noting how their proposed architecture could accommodate deeper integration over time.

2. The following suggested limits are provided to 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. Suggested limits: Cover Letter 1–2 pp, Exec Summary 2–3 pp, C.2 3–4 pp, C.3 5–6 pp, C.4 4–5 pp, C.5 2–3 pp, C.6 3–4 pp, C.7 2–3 pp, C.8 3–4 pp, C.9 2–3 pp , C.10 3, or roughly 30–40 pages total.

3. Oklahoma does not currently have a Master Client Index or any shared identity record across the three agencies. Client identity reconciliation is an unsolved problem that any unified experience must address. It is anticipated that the Agencies involved in the "One Front Door" will have a Master Person Index that will consolidate and maintain Program IDs as well as a Master ID to support seamless coordination across the Portal.

4. Neither of these systems would be in scope for the Unified Portal. IMS is an IBM mainframe (COBOL-based), leverages Data Connector API, and serves as the system of record for OKDHS eligibility and benefits across SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, Child Care, and LIHEAP. FACS is a PowerBuilder client-server application that caseworkers use for case management. Both are internally maintained by OKDHS IT, and the State does not have active replacement plans.

5. Oklahoma has established both an executive sponsor and a cross-agency governance body for this feasibility effort. That structure was intentionally designed with continuity in mind. The expectation is that the same or similar governance foundation would carry forward into any resulting procurement, providing stability and avoiding the organizational restart.

That said, the State recognizes that governance models for a feasibility study and an implementation are not identical in scope or cadence. Vendors are encouraged to draw on their experience with comparable multi-agency efforts and propose governance structures that they have seen work in practice. The State will consider those recommendations as it refines its approach for any future procurement.

1. Does the State have a preferred architectural direction among:

1. User experience orchestration only

1. Shared data layer

1. Enterprise case management

1. Shared eligibility determination

1. Are respondents expected to assume all current federal certifications remain intact during transition?

1. What planning horizon should respondents assume (5-year, 10-year, lifecycle)?

1. Can the State provide:

4. Active caseloads by program?

4. Annual applications?

4. Renewal volumes?

4. Number of workers?

4. Call center volumes?

4. Concurrent users?

1. Is Oklahoma evaluating creation of a statewide master client index? Would agency specific clients be segregated or shared across agencies?

1. Would workers retain agency-specific systems with shared customer information?

1. Could multiple procurements result from the feasibility study findings?

1. What procurement path does the State currently envision following completion of the HB1575 feasibility study?

Agency specific modernization efforts over the next 5 years include:

OHCA is modernizing its entire Medicaid system. WIC is also modernizing their MIS and responses should include consideration for USDA requirements.

2. Vendors are encouraged to propose their approach based on the information provided in this RFI, their experience with like modernization efforts and encourages vendors to propose innovative approaches to delivering the "One Front Door" experience for Oklahoma residents.

The eligibility and enrollment management systems will remain in place with the agencies.

3. Yes, respondents should assume all current federal certifications. However, vendors should identify any scenarios in their proposed approach where certification status could be implicated. Respondents should flag those risks and describe their mitigation approach.

4. The feasibility study will be presented to the Legislature. Any next steps, including a potential future procurement, would depend on legislative action following that presentation; no timeline beyond completion of the study has been established at this time.

5. Approximate number of eligibility workers/caseworkers: OHCA between 250 and 300; WIC ~ 900 staff who would need access (includes county health department, independent contractor, and state office staff); OKDHS between over 2000 users (includes proxy access for partners who assist clients). OHCA is also working on solutions for HR1 which will include additional contracted staff who will be eligibility/member-facing. Those counts are unknown at this time. Additionally, OHCA has a large Agency View network of Tribal Partners, other state agencies, and FQHCs with staff who help members enroll and obtain eligibility.

Approximate annual application/renewal

SNAP 100,000

TANF 3,000

Child Care 7,000

LIHEAP N/A

OHCA Medicaid 600,000

OSDH WIC 100,000

Approximate annual active cases

SNAP 280,000

TANF 3,000

Child Care 21,000 cases/35,000 children LIHEAP 75,000 to 100,000 OHCA Medicaid 1,000,000

OSDH WIC 100,000

6. Oklahoma does not currently have a Master Client Index or any shared identity record across the three agencies. Client identity reconciliation is an unsolved problem that any unified experience must address. It is anticipated that the Agencies involved in the "One Front Door" will have a Master Person Index that will consolidate and maintain Program IDs as well as a Master ID to support seamless coordination across the Portal.

7. The federated eligibility and enrollment management systems will remain in place with the agencies and the appropriate Master Person data will be shared.

8. The state is open to any state-approved procurement strategy that effectively supports the selected pathway.

9. The state is open to any state-approved procurement strategy that effectively supports the selected pathway.

Please describe any currently funded, planned, or in-progress modernization initiatives across OKDHS, OHCA, and OSDH that may impact future eligibility, enrollment, portal, case management, data-sharing, or integration capabilities, including anticipated timelines and dependencies.