RFP 2025-16 Clarifying Questions 4.pdf

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

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS #2025-16

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

RESPONSE TO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS #4

March 24, 2025

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

1. Scope Clarification: In Sections 3.1 & 3.3.1, the county references both current records management requirements and the Response Matrix, which includes additional processes such as records requests, workflows, electronic forms, and portals. Can you provide a comprehensive breakdown of all required professional services that should be included in the proposal, including records management conversion, future state components, and workflow automation?

In the HR Record Management Requirements outlined starting on page 16 of the RFP, details are provided regarding current processes and workflows. Currently, AX does not have electronic forms or portals, but we want to ensure that the new solution includes the flexibility to support these tools. Ideally, the tool should allow the county to develop its own forms and set up its own workflows if the solution offers this capability. We also expect that any additional costs associated with utilizing these features will be clearly itemized in the cost breakdown. Professional services should include content import and initial setup to match the minimum requirements outlined in the Response Matrix.

2. Form Fillable Templates: How many electronic forms are required for this project, and will they be tied to automated workflows? If so, can you provide process diagrams or workflow details to define the scope?

While we do not currently utilize electronic forms within our system, ApplicationXtender for HR, this is a future-state capability we want the new solution to provide. We do have some forms in mind, but we do not expect them to be part of the initial setup. Our expectation is that the solution will allow us to create our own forms and workflows as needed in the future. It’s important that the solution has this flexibility. If these features are not included in the base cost of the product, we would like to see a detailed cost breakdown for adding them, including any professional services needed for configuration and future workflow automation.

3. Security & Role Management: Should the system automatically update user roles based on changes in a third-party HR system, or will roles be manually assigned within the ECM?

Currently, user roles are assigned manually. However, ideally, we need some roles to be assigned automatically. For example, managers could automatically be assigned as approvers for their direct reports. If there are automation capabilities available within the solution, we are certainly open to exploring and leveraging them to streamline the process.

4. Training Requirements: What are the county’s training expectations for this project? Should training include custom videos, live sessions, end-user guides, or technical admin training, and should these services be included in the proposal?

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

Yes, any available training should be included in the proposal. Depending on the complexity of the new solution, we expect, at a minimum, that both technical admin training and power user training are provided. Additionally, any videos, training documentation, or other resources that can be shared with end users would be extremely beneficial to ensure a smooth transition and adoption of the new system.

5. Workflow & Integrations: Can you clarify whether workflow rerouting, functional admin views, and hyperlink integrations should be included in the initial scope or treated as potential add-ons?

Please refer to the Response Matrix, where these features are clearly defined under the relevant requirement categories.

For example, features such as Workflow Rerouting, Hyperlinks, and Functional Admin Views are marked as "Wish List" items, meaning they are not mandatory but are highly desirable. However, we believe that any modern records management solution should include these capabilities to enhance usability and efficiency. While they are not strictly required, their availability would significantly improve the overall functionality of the system.

6. Workflows: Can the county describe any records workflow processes that would be required for documents scheduled to be destroyed (purge, legal hold, extend) or can the solution automatically purge based on the outlined retention policy?

The solution should not automatically purge records, as this is not considered a best practice. Instead, the goal would be to implement retention tags or labels that can be applied to specific documents or categories of documents. Once these retention periods are met, the system should notify the document owners, indicating that the records are eligible for destruction. It is important that document owners remain responsible for initiating the destruction process, as our Records Management policy requires a formal process, including the completion of a destruction form. This approach ensures proper oversight and compliance with our retention policies while preventing accidental loss of critical records.

End of Clarifying Questions #4