RFP 170-4437-25 Questions_Responses_FINAL.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 35 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- S-17000-00015408
- Issued by
- Marion County, Oregon
About this file
This is a Questions and Responses document for RFP 170-4437-25 issued by the Oregon State Treasury for Oregon Retirement Savings Marketing Services. The procurement seeks a qualified vendor to develop a comprehensive technical assessment and digital marketing plan for the OregonSaves auto-IRA program. Phase 1 deliverables require research and discovery, strategic framework development, research methodologies, goal setting, and a detailed work timeline. Proposals were due January 27, 2026, at 12:00 PM Pacific Time, with questions submitted by December 19, 2025. The evaluation process awards a maximum of 1,100 points across six key areas: organizational strength and experience (200 points), understanding of services (200 points), key personnel and resumes (150 points), project implementation plan (200 points), sample marketing plan (150 points), and price proposal (200 points). All Phase 1 activities must be completed no later than September 30, 2026. The initial contract term is anticipated to be five years with options for unlimited renewals, and the Notice of Intent to Award was expected around March 16, 2026.
The RFP does not disclose specific budget ranges, though pricing will be competitively scored with the lowest proposal receiving 100 points, the second lowest 75 points, and the third lowest 50 points. Treasury requires an all-inclusive firm fixed price for Phase 1 deliverables, with Phase 2 pricing proposed using flexible billing structures such as hourly rates, retainer fees, or media placement commissions. There is no current incumbent providing marketing or digital marketing services for OregonSaves. California and Illinois are identified as the most relevant comparable state auto-IRA programs. Proposers must provide a minimum of three references and either SOC 2 attestation or completion of Treasury's Security Questionnaire. The State of Oregon encourages participation from small businesses certified by the Oregon Certification Office for Business Inclusion and Diversity (COBID), and COBID certification is considered separately from scored criteria. Proposers employing 50 or more full-time employees with contracts exceeding $500,000 must provide a Pay Equity Compliance Certificate prior to contract execution. Treasury will provide website analytics and existing branding guidelines to inform Phase 1 assessment work.
View the file
Other files
Show all 17
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1 Questions & Responses RFP 170-4437-25 Oregon Retirement Savings Marketing Services
| 1 | We’re curious about your emphasison technical and digital marketing. Is this driven by your understanding of the potential audience and how to reach them? The mechanism for enrollment? The competitive financial services landscape? Other? |
| Response | We're looking for cost-effective tools that will reach large audiences. |
| 2 | Similarly, do you see a need for additional marketing channels and if not, why? |
| Response | Yes. |
3 We need some clarification in how you are using the phrase digital and technical marketing.
Our sense is that this RFP seeks a firm to build the actual technical/digital product delivery system to meet market demand and customer characteristics, which is why you’re asking about security and tech capabilities. (For comparison, this is like the state hiring a firm to assess and build the One System and digital product experience.)
Or, is this about digital and technical marketing communication and promotion, which is why you’re asking about media buys? (For comparison, this is like the state hiring a firm to promote enrollment in OHP, via the One System, using digital channels.)
Or some combination of the two?
Response The latter is our focus.
| 4 | What technical capabilities for are you seeking in a consultant? |
| Response | Marketing capabilities |
| 5 | What is your budget for each phase of work? |
| Response | We do not want to disclose a budget at this point. Please review the pricing evaluation criteria in the RFP documents. |
6 Page 5, Business Inclusion and Diversity Is COBID certification or small business certification factored into the proposal evaluation scoring, or is it considered separately from scored criteria?
Response Separately.
7 Page 6, Program Overview Is there a current or recent incumbent providing marketing or digital marketing services for OregonSaves, and if so, what was the scope of that work?
Response No, there is no current or recent incumbent.
8 Page 8, Phase 1 – Assessment & Planning Is the Network open to independent audience research and message testing conducted by a professional research firm, or is Phase 1 intended to focus primarily on secondary research and marketing landscape analysis?
Response Yes, we are open to this.
9 Page 8, Phase 2 – Digital Marketing Who are the primary intended audiences for future digital marketing efforts: employers, individual savers, or both?
Response We're open to suggestions - our primary focus is on employers but would be interested in plans for individual savers as well.
10 Page 8, Phase 2 – Digital Marketing What are the primary goals of digital marketing efforts (e.g., awareness, enrollment, contribution behavior), and does the Network have the ability to track enrollment or participation outcomes tied to marketing activity?
Response All of those are goals, with a focus on employer enrollment. Enrollment data will be available, though ability to tie to marketing activites will need to be explored.
11 Page 8, Phase 1 - Assessment & Planning Who owns enrollment and participation data, and what level of granularity (aggregated vs. individual-level) will be available for analysis?
Response Necessary data will be made available that will help with Marketing efforts
12 Page 8, Phase 1 - Assessment & Planning AND Page 8, Phase 2 - Digital Marketing Are there restrictions on using enrollment or contribution data for attribution modeling, audience development, or retargeting?
Response See Response 11
13 Page 8, Phase 1 - Assessment & Planning Are there existing brand guidelines, messaging frameworks, or statutory constraints that limit how and where OregonSaves can be positioned or promoted?
Response There are some existing brand guidelines, with no specific statutory restrictions.
14 Page 15, Sample Marketing Plan Beyond overall participation growth, are there specific outcomes the Network is prioritizing (e.g., new saver enrollment, contribution rate increases, opt-out reduction, re-engagement of inactive accounts), and what KPIs are currently used to measure marketing effectiveness?
Response See Response 10.
15 Page 15, Sample Marketing Plan Are there priority audience segments, languages, accessibility requirements, or equity-focused goals that should inform the digital marketing plan beyond standard ADA compliance?
Response A focus on equity is an important consideration for our team.
16 Page 15, Sample Marketing Plan Should geographic segmentation (e.g., urban vs. rural, county-level analysis) play a role in campaign planning and measurement Response Yes and we would expect the plan to include this. We want all of Oregon to have the ability to save for retirement.
17 Page 15, Project Implementation Plan Are there specific auto-IRA programs or states the Network considers most relevant comparators, and has the Network conducted recent market research or brand studies that Phase 1 should build upon rather than duplicate?
Response The most relevant states are California and Illinois. No market research has been performed. There are a number of national research organizations that look at state Auto-IRA products.
18 Page 15, Sample Marketing Plan What digital marketing, analytics, CRM, or automation platforms are currently in use, what level of access to historical performance and enrollment data will be available, and are there privacy, regulatory, or internal policy constraints that should shape targeting or personalization strategies?
Response See Response 11
19 Page 15, Sample Marketing Plan Are there digital channels the Network already anticipates expanding or reducing (e.g., paid search, social, display, video), or should Phase 1 assume a fully open channel evaluation?
Response Assume fully open
20 Page 15, Project Implementation Plan; Page 16, Price Proposal Should Phase 1 recommendations emphasize near-term, readily implementable opportunities for Phase 2, or is the Network equally interested in longer-term strategic recommendations that may require phased investment?
Response We would expect both as we build out future Marketing plans for OregonSaves.
21 Page 16, price proposal Without a budget range, the scope and approach for this proposal could vary greatly. Could you provide an annual budget or budget range for this project based on historical data or funding streams?
Response see question 5 response
22 Page 16, price proposal What is the estimated total budget of the 5-year term of the project or historical budget estimates for similar retirement savings marketing campaigns?
Response see question 5 response
23 Page 16, price proposal While Phase 2 is contingent, does the Network have a target range or planning assumption for annual paid digital marketing and advertising investment to help frame scalable recommendations?
Response See question 5 response
| 24 | Phase 1 Assessment Scope. Is the intent of the assessment primarily a strategic and directional one, or do you anticipate hands-on audits of existing marketing platforms, campaigns, data infrastructure, or technology systems? In other words, is the request to look at what tools you are using in context of industry best practices, or do you wish us to analyze how you’re using those tools in detail? |
| Response | Strategic and directional. |
| 25 | Availability of Existing Research and Data. What existing research, performance data, analytics, or prior marketing plans (if any) will be made available to inform the work? |
| Response | See Response 7 and 11 |
| 26 | Input and Stakeholders. Can you describe (at a high level) the internal resources at the Network that XO Agency will have access to for research, or will the work primarily be focused on external analysis? Is there a regular working team that we will interact with, or a single stakeholder/manager? |
| Response | There are specific team members you will work directly with - focus on on external analysis with ongoing discussions with internal team |
| 27 | Priority Audiences. Are there specific audience segments you consider higher priority for Phase 1 analysis and planning (for example, employers, employees subject to automatic enrollment, opt-outs, or eligible individuals not currently participating)? |
| Response | See Response 9 |
| 28 | Should proposers treat the Project Implementation Plan as focused on how the Phase 1 work will be executed, and the Sample Marketing Plan as focused on marketing strategy, research approach and planning concepts? is some overlap expected? |
| Response | Assume overlap |
| 29 | Are there any constraints or requirements that proposers should consider when recommending digital marketing tools, platforms or measurement approaches as part of Phase 1? |
| Response | Yes- some restrictions related to TikTok / (X) Twitter |
| 30 | Please clarify this statement: “Proposals containing unsolicited marketing or advertising material may not be scored favorably if specific information is difficult to locate” on p. 13. This RFP does indicate that work samples are to be included; what is meant under “unsolicited marketing or advertising material”? |
| Response | Please ensure that within your proposal that information requested within the RFP; i.e. Minimum requirements, implementation plan, etc; are easy to locate and not difficult to find within your proposal due to marketing or advertising material. If information is scattered throughout your proposal it may be difficult to find the information for the evaluators and could impact scoring. |
| 31 | Is there a required or minimum number of references that must be completed and submitted as part of the proposal under Attachment D? |
| Response | Minimum of 3 references. An Addendum will be posted with a new reference check form (Attachment D). |
| 32 | Terms and Conditions: Does Treasury require proposers to submit their standard Terms and Conditions as part of the proposal, or is acknowledgement of Treasury’s Terms and Conditions sufficient? |
| Response | Please refer to "Contract Negotiation" under section 7 of the RFP. Any exceptions to the terms of the sample contract, Attachment A, must be submitted with the proposal. If no edits are required, please ensure that a reference is included in the proposal that no changes, exceptions or objections to the Sample Agreement is required. |
| 33 | Sample Agreement: Is it required that proposers return the Sample Agreement with their proposal even if no edits, exceptions or objections are being requested? |
| Response | Please see response to Question 32. |
| 34 | While we understand the Treasury is not required to disclose a specific budget, could you share whether the Phase 1 deliverables are expected to fall within a particular budget range so proposers can scope appropriately? Additionally, to ensure the Phase 2 marketing plan is right-sized, are there any annual marketing investment parameters, or a budget range we should use for planning scenarios? |
| Response | See Response 5 |
35 The RFP states that proposers must submit any exceptions to the Sample Contract (Exhibit A) with the proposal; however, the proposal checklist lists two separate submission items: (1) Terms and Conditions and (2) Sample Agreement.Could you please clarify: What you expect to be included under “Terms and Conditions” vs. “Sample Agreement”; and Whether you prefer a redlined Exhibit A submitted as the Sample Agreement, plus a separate narrative summary of exceptions submitted as Terms and Conditions, or another format altogether?
Response If exceptions to the Sample Agreement (Attachment A) are needed, submit a redlined sample agreement. Please disregard the reference on Terms and Conditions on the checklist.
| 36 | Both the Project Implementation Plan and the Sample Marketing Plan appear to focus on Phase 1 methodology and approach. Can you elaborate on the intended differences between these two components, including the level of detail, purpose, and clarify what distinct information should be included in the Sample Marketing Plan that is not already covered in the Project Implementation Plan? |
| Response | No response here |
| 37 | We had a question regarding the security questionnaire for this RFP. Is it required of subcontractors as well as primes? |
| Response | It's likely if Treasury data will be handled by the subcontractor in any capacity, that the security review might need to be completed. Proposer requirement is met by either SOC 2 or Security Questionniare. |
| 38 | Will Treasury provide access to existing OregonSaves digital assets (e.g., website analytics, CRM data, or prior campaign reports) to inform the Phase 1 assessment? |
| Response | Yes website analytics can be provided |
| 39 | Are there preferred digital marketing platforms or tools (e.g., Google Ads, Meta Business Suite, programmatic DSPs) that Treasury expects vendors to prioritize? |
| Response | No |
| 40 | For security compliance, is a SOC 2 attestation strongly preferred, or will completing the Treasury Security Questionnaire be considered equivalent? |
| Response | Either SOC 2 or answering Treasury's Security Questionnaire will be sufficient. |
| 41 | Will Treasury share existing branding guidelines, messaging frameworks, or creative assets to ensure alignment with OregonSaves’ public identity? |
| Response | Yes |
| 42 | Are there specific audience segments (e.g., small employers, younger workers, underserved communities) that Treasury expects vendors to emphasize in campaign planning? |
| Response | See Response 9 |
| 43 | Does Treasury anticipate vendors to provide media placement services directly, or only strategy and creative execution? |
| Response | Both |
| 44 | Will Treasury facilitate coordination with internal stakeholders (e.g., IT security, communications, program administrators) during discovery and implementation phases? |
| Response | Yes |
| 45 | Is there a defined budget ceiling or range that vendors should be aware of when preparing pricing proposals? |
| Response | see question 5 response |
| 46 | For Phase 2, will Treasury consider phased rollouts or pilot campaigns prior to full statewide implementation? |
| Response | Yes |
| 47 | Is there a budget or budget range for this RFP? |
| Response | see question 5 response |
| 48 |
| Response |
| 49 |
| Response |
| 50 |
| Response |
| 51 |
| Response |
Sheet2
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .