The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
San Bernardino County Purchasing Department Request for Proposal Business Process Mapping Documentation Services No.
HRD126-HR-6463
Date: August 6, 2026
Amendment #1: to REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) No. HRD126-HR-6463 BUSINESS PROCESS MAPPING DOCUMENTATION SERVICES
Issued: Thursday, August 6, 2026
This Amendment is intended to provide additional information and/or to change the requirements in the above-referenced RFP. Any information contained herein will be considered part of the RFP.
Amendment Description:
(1) ATTACHMENT K – Questions and Answers is hereby incorporated into the RFP
ATTACHMENT K
Questions and Answers
| Question No. |
| Question |
| Answer |
| 1 |
| Can the County clarify the anticipated onsite versus remote work expectations for the Business Process Architecture consultant(s)? Specifically, are all workshops required to be conducted onsite, and may documentation, process mapping, and related deliverables be performed remotely? |
| The County anticipates a hybrid approach. Workshops, design sessions, governance meetings, and other collaborative activities may occur either onsite or virtually, at the County's discretion. Documentation development, process mapping, analysis, and preparation of deliverables may be performed remotely unless the County determines onsite participation is necessary. The Proposer should include sufficient staffing and travel assumptions in its cost proposal to support a hybrid engagement. |
| 2 |
| Does the County anticipate a single lead Business Process Architect supported by additional resources, or is a larger dedicated consulting team expected throughout the engagement? |
| The County has not prescribed a staffing model. Proposers should recommend the team structure they believe is necessary to successfully perform the scope of work. Staffing will be evaluated based on qualifications, proposed level of effort, project approach, and ability to support concurrent Oracle implementation activities. |
| 3 |
| Will the County consider Oracle Fusion HCM Business Process Architecture experience gained on large private-sector implementations to be comparable to public-sector experience, provided the proposed consultant has extensive Oracle Fusion HCM process mapping, workshop facilitation, and transformation experience? |
| Public-sector experience is strongly preferred because of the complexity of governmental HR, payroll, budgeting, labor relations, and regulatory requirements. However, the County will evaluate all relevant Oracle Fusion HCM implementation experience as described in the evaluation criteria. Proposers should clearly explain how their experience is applicable to the County's environment. |
| 4 |
| How frequently does the County anticipate onsite workshops, steering committee meetings, and stakeholder sessions during each phase of the project? |
| The exact schedule has not yet been finalized and will be driven by the Oracle implementation plan. Proposers should assume regular participation throughout the project and provide sufficient staffing to support concurrent design activities when necessary. |
| 5 |
| Please provide the County's current estimate of the number of Level 0, Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 processes to be reviewed, developed, or documented under this engagement, including any anticipated departmental process variations. |
| The County has not finalized the total number of business processes. The intent of this procurement is for the selected Proposer to assist the County in developing and maintaining the enterprise process architecture. Proposers should base their pricing on the scope described in the RFP and clearly identify any assumptions. |
| 6 |
| Please provide the anticipated number, frequency, and typical duration of Oracle-led workshops, design sessions, process playbacks, testing sessions, governance meetings, and other meetings that the selected contractor will be expected to attend or lead. |
| The County cannot provide a final meeting count because it is dependent upon Oracle's implementation schedule. Proposers should assume participation throughout all implementation phases and identify any assumptions used in developing their cost proposal |
| 7 |
| Regarding Attachment J, is pollution liability insurance required for the County's scope of work? |
| The insurance required for this work is outlined in Section B. 2. Insurance Specifications of this RFP. |
| 8 |
| Is the requirement for three completed Oracle Fusion public-sector engagements a mandatory pass/fail condition, or may a proposer demonstrate it collectively through named subcontractors? |
| The County will evaluate the qualifications of the proposed team. Proposers may identify subcontractor qualifications where permitted by the RFP. However, the Proposer remains fully responsible for contract performance, and the evaluation will consider the overall qualifications and experience of the proposed team. |
| 9 |
| How many Level 2 and Level 3 processes does the County currently anticipate? |
| The County has not established a final process count. Process volumes will be determined during implementation. Proposers should clearly state any estimating assumptions used in developing pricing. |
| 10 |
| Will the County provide existing EMACS process maps, inventories and SOPs? |
| The County anticipates making available relevant existing business process documentation to the selected Proposer, subject to project governance and confidentiality requirements. The Proposer should independently validate all documentation as required by the Scope of Work. |
| 11 |
| Must the prime contractor itself possess the two combined HCM/EPM references? |
| The County will evaluate the overall experience of the proposed team in accordance with the RFP. Proposers should clearly identify which firm performed each referenced engagement and the role of each proposed team member. |
| 12 |
| How many Oracle workshops and onsite working sessions should proposers assume? |
| Refer to the response regarding Oracle workshops above. The County cannot provide an estimated quantity. Proposers should identify the assumptions used to develop their proposed pricing. |
| 13 |
| Does the County anticipate one award or multiple awards divided by module, process area or project phase? |
| The County currently anticipates making a single contract award. However, as stated in the RFP, the County reserves the right to determine the number of awards based on the proposals received and the County's best interests. |
| 14 |
| Is there an approved budget or not-to-exceed value for the engagement? |
| The County is not disclosing a project budget or not-to-exceed amount. Proposers should submit their most competitive pricing based upon the requirements of the RFP. |
| 15 |
| May firms use subcontractor projects and personnel to satisfy the required comparable-project qualifications? |
| The County will evaluate the qualifications and experience of the proposed project team, including approved subcontractors, where identified in the Proposal. The Proposer remains contractually responsible for all services performed under the resulting contract. |
| 16 |
| Which process-repository and modeling platforms has the County approved? |
| As identified in the RFP, the County prefers tools supporting BPMN 2.0 and export to standard formats such as Microsoft Visio and PDF. The final repository platform will be determined collaboratively with the selected Proposer. The County currently anticipates utilizing SharePoint or another County-approved collaboration platform. |
| 17 |
| The schedule states "Localize and Validate: January 2026-December 2027," although contract award is anticipated in November 2026. Should the start date be January 2027? |
| Yes. This is a typing error. The correct schedule is Localize and Validate: January 2027 through December 2027. |
image1.png