RFP 2025-16 Clarifying Questions 1.pdf

PH: 503-742-5400 WWW.CLACKAMAS.US

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS #2025-19

CLOUD-BASED RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR HUMAN RESOURCES (HR) PERSONNEL FILES

RESPONSE TO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS #1

February 26, 2025

Note that these are questions submitted by interested firms to the above referenced solicitation. The below answers are for clarification purposes only and in no way alter or amend the RFP as published.

1. We see that Laserfiche is mentioned in the RFP. Has the County conducted a pilot or evaluation of Laserfiche to date?

Laserfiche has been recommended to us by other jurisdictions that have successfully used it for similar purposes. From our initial discussions and research, it appears to have the necessary features that align with our requirements, though we have not yet fully evaluated the solution.

2. Will the County accept FedRAMP Ready status for the proposed solution (which incorporates a 3rd party assessment of NIST compliance) in lieu of SOC 2 Type 2?

The County would accept FedRAMP certification as adequate. However, "FedRAMP Ready" status suggests that while the solution meets the standards based on a third-party assessment, it has not yet achieved full certification. Please include any records of this assessment in the proposal for our evaluation. Additionally, since our system stores HIPAA-related data, we may need to establish a Business Associate Agreement

(BAA).

3. Are the existing multipage PDF files searchable or image-only? I.e., will they require OCR’ing as part of the migration?

Existing documents are searchable by associated metadata only. OCR is not a requirement as part of migration.

4. Given the information provided by the County under “Current system information for migration purposes:”, can we assume that the County will provide the already-exported information in this format?

The County will export the existing system data using a third-party export tool. Batches of multipage PDFs with burned in annotation (where necessary) and a corresponding delimited text file containing document metadata for each batch will be provided.

5. Does status as DBE/WBE qualify for any points under General Background and Qualifications?

Clackamas County does not award points for this category.

6. Appendix 4 and the Response Matrix both refer to the “DMS”. Is this used as a reference to what is now labeled the “RMS”, or is there an existing DMS in use at the County?

In this context DMS and RMS both refer to the current ApplicationXtender system used for HR records management. The County does not currently have a single enterprise-wide DMS/RMS.

7. Our software employs a named user licensing model tied to two main types of users: Full Users and Participant Users. Full User can be granted ability to do anything within the repository including administering the system, importing document, and editing metadata. Participant Users are read-only users who can also participate (submit/approve) in forms processes. Do you know the number of users between these two licenses? Or would you like us to submit general pricing tiers only?

We estimate needing 25 full users and 400 participants. Please provide an overview of pricing tiers and a detailed cost breakdown for each license.

8. For accessing Records Management System, how many users will need full rights (upload, edit cases) and how many will need read-only rights (only view the cases or participate in workflow process)?

We estimate needing 25 users with full rights (upload, edit) and 400 participants with read-only.

9. Is the County’s preference more towards Cloud or On-Premises Records Management System?

Our preference leans towards a cloud-based Records Management System. However, we are open to reviewing the costs and benefits of both cloud and on-premises solutions if the vendor offers both options.

10. Do you have budget already available for this project? If yes, what is the maximum budget you are planning to spend on this project?

We have a budget in mind, and the total cost for implementation, migration, and first-year licensing should not exceed $150,000. We would appreciate a detailed proposal to ensure alignment with this budget, or to determine if adjustments to the number of licenses are needed, or if we need to ask for additional funding. This is also detailed in section 3.3.3 of the original RFP document.

11. Has the County seen demonstrations of any Records Management System? If yes, what is the name of the solution and vendor which provided the demonstration?

During the requirements gathering phase, we conducted high-level reviews of Oregon Record Management System (ORMS), SharePoint, PowerDMS, and Laserfiche. Of these solutions, Laserfiche appeared to meet the majority of our replacement system requirements.

12. Is there any expected timeframe within which you would like this system to go-live?

We plan to start the project in July 2025, but we do not have specific go-live date. Since our aging system is degrading, this is a high priority. While we want to ensure the timeline is realistic, we also need to get this done as soon as possible.

13. In Appendix 3 for User Counts, it lists Current, Future State Option1 and Future State Option 2. Can you confirm that Option 1 is what is preferred?

We estimate needing 25 users with full rights (upload, edit) and 400 participants with read-only. However, we would like to see an overview of pricing tiers and a detailed cost breakdown for each license.

14. Is there a related SQL Database for AppXTender, or is the one .txt file of metadata per file in the system the only way to get the data extracted?

There is a production SQL server for ApplicationXtender. The third party export tool reads from the database during the export process which produces the export data batch the County would provide.

An example export would be a batch of 10,000 documents with a corresponding single text file containing 10,000 lines of delaminated metadata.

End of Clarifying Questions #1