RFP_WCB Litigation Tracker 4.16.26 - As Posted.docx

State of Oregon

Cover Page Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) Is issuing this Request For Proposals (RFP) under OregonBuys Bid Number S-DASOBO-00014853 for Litigation case mangement system (LCMS)

Date of Issue: April 20, 2026 Opening Date and Time: June 4, 2026 at 12:00 PM PST

The State of Oregon promotes equal opportunity for all individuals without regard to age, color, disability, marital status, national origin, race, religion or creed, sex or gender, sexual orientation, or veteran status.

RFP Solicitation #: S-DASOBO-00014853 Litigation Case Management System (LCMS) Page 2 of 27

Table of Contents

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A SAMPLE CONTRACT

ATTACHMENT B DISCLOSURE EXEMPTION AFFIDAVIT

ATTACHMENT C PROPOSER INFORMATION AND CERTIFICATION SHEET

ATTACHMENT D REFERENCE CHECK FORM

ATTACHMENT E PRICE PROPOSAL FORM

ATTACHMENT F COBID CERTIFICATION / OUTREACH PLAN

ATTACHMENT G RESPONSIBILITY INQUIRY

ATTACHMENT H SOLUTION REQUIREMENTS

ATTACHMENT I ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE

ATTACHMENT J STATEWIDE SECURITY STANDARDS

SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION

INTRODUCTION

The State of Oregon, acting by and through the Department of Administrative Services, State Procurement Services (“DAS SPS”), is issuing this Request for Proposal for a Litigation Case Management System (“LCMS”) on behalf of the Workers’ Compensation Board (“Agency” or “WCB”), an independent adjudicatory agency within the Department of Consumer and Business Services (“DCBS”).

The LCMS solution WCB seeks to replace multiple disconnected legacy systems and paper-driven workflows with a centralized electronic solution that reduces the administrative workload, enhances agency transparency and accessibility, increases access to justice, and expands existing reporting capabilities. The primary objective is to implement a solution that promotes a single service point for stakeholders, staff, and decisionmakers to access litigation case information from anywhere using any device with an internet connection.

WCB anticipates that a new LCMS will leverage the best available technology to enhance customer service and enable employees to excel at their core business functions while retiring and replacing the outdated legacy systems with a comprehensive, integrated, and flexible solution.

Additional details on the Scope of the goods or services or both are included in the Scope of Work/Specifications section.

DAS SPS and WCB will evaluate Responsive Proposals through two (2) or more evaluation rounds (Round) but reserve the option to issue a Notice of Intent to Award after any Round depending upon scoring results from such Round. Round 1 Proposal submissions must include the following three components:

1. Administrative Proposal

2. Technical Proposal

3. Price Proposal DAS SPS anticipates the award of one (1) Contract for the benefit of WCB from this RFP. The initial term of the Contract is negotiable, but DAS anticipates that the initial term of the Contract may be from one to five (5) years, with options to renew.

Although the preference is for acquisition of the LCMS and related Services through a single Contractor, if during the course of evaluation, the State Parties foresee benefit from more than one (1) Contractor, DAS may announce multiple awards.

The table below represents a tentative schedule of events. All times are listed in Pacific Time.

SCHEDULE

RFP Protest Period Ends

7 calendar days prior to RFP Opening

1.1 SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT (SPC)

The SPC for this RFP is identified on the Cover Page, along with the SPC’s contact information. Proposer shall direct all communications related to any provision of the RFP only to the SPC, whether the technical requirements of the RFP, contractual requirements, the RFP process, or any other provision.

SECTION 2: AUTHORITY, OVERVIEW, AND SCOPE

AUTHORITY AND METHOD

Agency is issuing this RFP pursuant to its authority under ORS 279A.050 and OAR 125-246-0170(2).

Agency is using the Competitive Sealed Proposal method, pursuant to ORS 279B.060 and OAR 125-247-0260. Agency may use a combination of the methods for Competitive Sealed Proposals, including optional procedures: a) Competitive Range; b) Discussions and Revised Proposals; c) Revised Rounds of Negotiations; d) Negotiations; e) Best and Final Offers; and f) Multistep Sealed Proposals.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

For the purposes of this RFP, capitalized words will refer to the following definitions in OAR 125-246-0110 and the RFP, including all its attachments.

General Definitions Enterprise Information Services (EIS): means the organization within DAS led by the State Chief Information Officer.

Proposer: is an individual, organization, or firm that submits a formal response to a Request for Proposal (RFP). The Proposer is responsible for delivering all required documentation and information in accordance with the RFP instructions, with the intent of being considered for contract award.

Round: means a specific stage within the RFP process where proposals or vendor responses are reviewed, evaluated, and shortlisted based on predefined criteria. Each round may involve progressively more detailed assessments, clarifications, or negotiations, with vendors being narrowed down or advanced to subsequent rounds until a final selection is made.

2.1.1 Project Specific Definitions

ADA: means Americans with Disabilities Act.

Court Jurisdictions: means the various levels and divisions of the Oregon Judicial system where litigation may be filed, processed, and resolved.

Data: Data includes all information input, collected, calculated and all data that is received into the LCMS by attachments related to cases.

E-Court System: is a modernized approach to the state’s court system, designed to improve access to court information and streamline processes.

Legacy System: refers to an existing or outdated information technology system, application, or platform that remains in use but may rely on obsolete software, hardware, or processes.

Oregon Judicial Department (OJD): is the state agency that administers Oregon’s court system, including the Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon Court of Appeals, Oregon Tax Court, and the circuit courts in each of Oregon’s counties.

Solution: means Litigation Case Management System.

Stakeholders: means individuals or entities such as attorney’s, claimants, employers, insurers, and agency staff who have a vested interest in WCB’s case management process and outcomes.

OVERVIEW, BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND OBJECTIVES

Agency Overview and Background The Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS) is Oregon’s largest regulatory and consumer protection agency. It administers state laws and rules, protects consumers and workers in the areas of workers’ compensation, occupational safety and health, financial services, insurance and building codes.

The Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) is an independent adjudicatory agency within the Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS). DCBS’ Central Services Division (CSD) provides shared IT services to WCB. WCB has three primary divisions. These include the WCB Hearings Division, in which administrative law judges (ALJs) conduct contested case hearings, the Board Review Division which has five board members appointed by the governor, who provide balanced and unbiased case review of appealed cases, and the Administrative Services Division which provides business and operational support to the agency.

WCB’s mission is to provide timely and impartial resolution of disputes arising under Oregon Workers' Compensation Law and the Oregon Safe Employment Act.

The Workers' Compensation Board operates under the following Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS):

· ORS Chapter 656 - Pertains to the workers' compensation system in Oregon, detailing the rights and responsibilities of workers and employers. It includes provisions for coverage, claims, and the duties of the Workers' Compensation Board.

· ORS Chapter 654 - Also known as the Oregon Safe Employment Act, is a comprehensive set of laws designed to ensure safe and healthful working conditions for every working person in Oregon. It authorizes the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services to set mandatory occupational safety and health standards and to enforce laws, regulations, rules, and standards for the protection of employees' life, safety, and health. WCB has jurisdiction over disputes arising out of this chapter.

The Workers' Compensation Board operates under the following Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR):

· OAR 438 - Rules adopted under the Board's general rulemaking authority of ORS 656.726(5) to provide rules of practice and procedure for hearing and review proceedings under 656.001 to 656.990, for exercising its continuing authority under 656.278 and providing for the payment of attorney fees in cases under the Workers' Compensation Law pursuant to 656.388.

Project Overview and Background WCB is seeking a litigation case management system to provide more efficient, effective and responsive services to the Oregonians who require WCB’s forum.

WCB operates in the same paper-based case file system it has used for well over 30 years. The Oregon court system, and attorneys within the system, on the other hand, have been moving to an electronic environment for over a decade. As a result, the Oregon courts and many of WCB’s stakeholders are already conducting business in a fully electronic environment. The functionality to electronically file, track, and access case status information on disputes is a constant request from WCB’s stakeholders, who are accustomed to Oregon’s E-court system here and in other jurisdictions.

WCB does have an electronic portal. However, it is merely a conduit for submitting documentation. WCB staff must then print out every submission for inclusion in the paper file. Because there are multiple ways to file documents, although useful for parties requesting hearings, case processing issues can often occur.

Further, WCB conducts public board meetings, regarding, among other things, its rule-making functions. Stakeholder groups have submitted multiple requests for WCB to provide more detailed statistics regarding attorney fees and case resolution. The ability to gather these types of statistics is beyond the capability of WCB’s current system. Several of the statistical reports the WCB relies on each month can only be accessed by IT staff and cannot be accessed by WCB management. This is because data cannot be easily converted from one platform to another, nor does WCB’s IT support have the resources to do so.

Purpose WCB has not kept up with court electronic filing standards over the last ten-plus years. While the rest of the Oregon court systems conduct business electronically, the current processing of legal filings and issuance of binding and final orders from WCB remains a primarily manual and paper process. Methods of filing are not consistent and, in some cases, do not promote equal access to justice for injured workers.

In addition to requests for hearing, other court-related services, such as managing the statewide docket for multiple locations, hiring interpretation services, providing ADA accommodation at proceedings, production of hearing notices, amending case information, processing and routing mail, notification of settlements, production of final orders, and capturing statistical information on case dispositions are all manual processes performed by internal staff with ad hoc methods (i.e., paper-based requests or work sheets, Excel spreadsheets, email boxes, or limited scope software tools). WCB staff are handling over 1.5 million pieces of paper per year. Regularly, staff is unable to respond to public requests for information due to the constraints of WCB’s current tracking system.

2.1.2 Objectives

WCB, in cooperation with DCBS’ IT&R division, has been partnering to explore IT solutions to specifically address case management tracking for litigation. A project team was developed to examine business requirements and available tools are in use at other state agencies. A portion of the team attended an E-court conference and were able to see off-the-shelf software solutions in action, as well as hear from several court jurisdictions that have put these software solutions into practice. The project team has also been in communication with the Oregon Judicial Department which, as noted above, has already instituted an electronic litigation case management system statewide.

WCB wants to procure a litigation case management system that provides all parties with a start-to-finish electronic digital record of all litigation information, correspondence, filings, exhibits, events, activities, interim orders, interpreter requests, request for hearings, transcript orders, and litigation outcomes. This will enable parties to electronically file, track, submit documentation and other case related activities, and will provide electronic access to case information from case creation to disposition.

Desired Solution capabilities:

· Any parties, including pro se litigants, may electronically file a dispute.

· Individuals, parties, and attorney can file requests for hearing, notice of rights, and other litigation information and forms electronically with the ability to accommodate a variety of abilities and language needs, creating greater access to justice for underserved communities.

· WCB staff can view all case status information.

· External parties can view case status, events, and activities.

· External parties can submit correspondence and exhibits electronically to the Board.

· External parties can submit requests or case changes (e.g., Response to Issues, Filing of Appearance, Change of Venue, Motions) to WCB for processing.

· External parties can view active litigation cases for registered litigants.

· Produce immediate Hearing Notices and Amended Notices, for external parties to view.

· WCB staff can consolidate, supplement and bifurcate cases, in keeping with litigation movement.

· Decision-makers can access case information and submissions and take action on the case electronically during the pendency of litigation or mediation.

· Decision-makers can publish opinions electronically.

· WCB staff can track and store litigation information on issues, case types, and attorney fees to respond to stakeholder requests, public record requests and to measure internal agency initiatives and performance.

· WCB staff can publish litigation information on issues, case types, and attorney fees for external parties to view, meeting the Governor’s expectation for transparency in state government.

· WCB staff can effectively and timely track and process public record requests electronically.

· Electronic records retention throughout the life of an active case and after that conforms with WCB’s stated retention schedule as provided to the Oregon State Archives.

· WCB staff can collect data to produce agency metrics with multiple parameters (monthly, yearly, biennially) for use in agency outreach to entities such as Oregon State Bar and Oregon Management-Labor Advisory Committee (MLAC).

· WCB staff can collect data that enables them to produce an event-based view of case status from first filing to final order.

· Provide detailed reporting capabilities to meet WCBs reporting needs for performance, budget, quality control, facility use, and staffing equity in WCB’s multiple locations, including providing more specificity in case dispositions and outcomes.

· WCB staff can send case files electronically to the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court and between other state agencies, public or private entities for litigation purposes.

· Track multiple levels of appeal and case resolution data. Currently, WCB can only capture one level of appeal and is routinely overwriting data when the next level of appeal is decided.

· Schedule automated purging to adhere to WCB’s 90-day post-closure statutory retention guidelines.

· Meet Oregon cybersecurity standards and EIS solution policies and standards.

· Comply with Oregon state and federal accessibility guidelines/standards.

· Configurable role-based security access and permissions for internal users and external parties to a case.

· The Solution and Deliverables that are electronic documents or multimedia content, and web, desktop, and mobile applications, as well as Solution documentation (such as training materials and user guides) must meet all applicable standards for digital accessibility. Applicable standards are those set in law, administrative rule, and Agency policies, including as those laws, administrative rules, and policies are updated from time to time. The successful Proposer shall ensure compliance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The successful Proposer shall deliver Services that meet standards for digital accessibility established in Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 (Level AA).

SCOPE OF WORK/SPECIFICATIONS

WCB prefers a Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS), Software as a Service (SaaS) solution that meets the requirements through a proven, previously implemented solution over new, customized development, but acknowledges that some customized configuration may be required to achieve the full scope of the Project. Agency preferences will be appropriately reflected in the scoring of responses.

Successful Proposer shall deliver a Solution that meets the requirements described in this RFP. Agency anticipates the following services will be provided as part of the Services delivered under the Contract.

2.1.3 System Configuration and Planning

Proposer will provide consultation services to assist in analysis of Agency use cases/scenarios, recommend best practices for system configuration and setup, and will assist in completing the System Security Plan that is required by Department of Administrative Services Cyber Security Services.

Successful Proposer shall deliver a Solution that meets the requirements described in this RFP. Agency anticipates that Proposer shall provide the following services under the Contract.

Project Management The Proposer’s Project Manager will:

a) work closely with the DCBS Project Manager to ensure successful implementation of the LCMS.

b) serve as a single point of contact and coordinate all tasks with the DCBS Project Manager.

c) develop a detailed project schedule and plans and work with the DCBS Project Manager to ensure all tasks, timelines, and resources are identified and agreed upon.

d) identify and schedule Proposer resources to meet project deliverables and timelines.

e) provide a detailed implementation plan.

f) provide weekly status reports including, but not limited to, work completed, work underway, upcoming planned work, scheduled changes, risks, and delays.

g) ensure that all project management activities, plans, and deliverables adhere to the Project Management institute’s Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®) standards and practices.

h) possess qualifications appropriate for a project of this size and complexity, including a minimum of five (5) years of project management experience and a current project management certification such as PMP®, CAPM®, PMI‑ACP®, or an equivalent credential.

3. Within fifteen (15) business days after effective date of Contract, the Proposer shall provide a Project Communication Plan to Agency detailing how communication will be handled on the project and shall include, but not be limited to, roles and responsibilities, project status, and weekly meetings.

Proposer will provide an initial Project Management Plan in its proposal. At a minimum, the plan must include a description of the project management approach, high-level milestones, detailed tasks, assumptions, constraints, and key risks.

DCBS Project Manager shall review and approve the project schedule and all deliverables before any deliverable can be considered finalized and completed by the Proposer.

Implementation

3. Proposer will provide a detailed Implementation Services Plan with costs, that outlines how the Agency goals and objectives and System Functional and Technical Requirements will be met based on the expected ‘Go-Live’ requirements.

3. Implementation Plan must include services required to support the transfer of appealed case files from LCMS to the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court. The LCMS must be able to receive and attach judgements issued by the Oregon Judicial Department to the appropriate case record.

3. Proposer’s Implementation Plan may also include optional implementation service offerings for consideration by the Agency. The Implementation Plan shall not be considered finalized until Agency has approved the Implementation Plan in writing.

3. Proposer will provide consultation services to assist in analysis of Agency use cases/scenarios and recommend best practices in implementing the LCMS.

Configuration

3. Proposer will provide out-of-the box configuration and best practices of the Solution with built-in workflow tools, templates, and/or best practices provided directly by the vendor.

Implement any configurations, workflows, and templates that will streamline Agency’s existing business processes.

Data Management (Access/Storage/Retrieval)

3. Agency is provided with full access to LCMS system data to store, retrieve, and manipulate. Data includes all data input, collected, and calculated within the LCMS Solution.

Proposer will provide all Agency data, in a format determined by the Agency, for compatible export to Agency systems for additional integration, archiving, security, data manipulation, and/or presentation.

Data Conversion and Migration

3. Proposer will recommend the conversion and migration approach required to import current Agency data into the proposed LCMS.

a) Provide required format (configuration and/or file type) with examples to migrate Agency data: including but not limited to, Agency’s litigation cases, related hearing correspondence, motions, and exhibits, and currently scheduled events.

b) Import data to the LCMS solution based on format provided to Agency.

c) Approach must include provisions for Agency to have transparent access into all steps of the data conversion processes and the ability to inspect intermediate and final results.

d) Provide a recommended conversion and migration approach that clearly identifies the strategy to avoid significant operational interruption. The approach must specify the environment in which data migration will occur and must include no fewer than 2 iterations of data migration. Each iteration must be followed by validation testing conducted by WCB. The Proposer shall implement all required corrections to migrated data identified during validation to ensure complete accuracy and integrity of the final data migration.

e) Collaborate with Agency on a strategy to identify all data that will be extracted from the Agency’s existing databases and loaded into the new LCMS.

f) Provide database documentation and supporting metadata for the Solution, including, without limitation, an Entity Relationship Diagram and Data Dictionary.

2.4.6.2 The Proposer’s data conversation and migration approach must account for the Agency’s substantial volume of paper-based case materials and describe how these records will be digitized, indexed, and incorporated into the LCMS in a manner that preserves accuracy, completeness, and usability.

Reporting

3. Proposer will provide a list of reports provided as a part of their out of box reporting.

Proposer will describe their ability to offer Agency system administrators training and the ability to create new reports in the system.

Proposer will provide support, assistance, and guidance to Agency staff to complete the configuration / set-up of two (2) additional Agency specific ad-hoc reports in addition to any out-of-the-box reports.

Proposer will describe available data-visualization capabilities, including dashboards, charts, and other graphical displays that support monitoring, analysis, and decision-making.

Accessibility and WCAG Compliance

3. The proposed system must meet standards for digital accessibility that conforms to Title II of the ADA. Current compliance standard is Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 (Level AA) or any subsequent version adopted by the State of Oregon during the term of the Contract.

The System must be accessible to users with disabilities and must support compatibility with assistive technologies including, but not limited to, screen readers, keyboard-only navigation, speech recognition software, and other accessibility tools.

User Acceptance Testing

3. Proposer will provide recommendations on conducting user acceptance testing, including an initial Test Plan, in its proposal. At a minimum, the recommended Test Plan must clearly describe a preferred strategy for performing configuration testing and testing of out-of-the-box and all Agency specific configuration.

Training and Documentation

3. Proposer will provide a detailed explanation of any Training Plan for System Administrator and Agency end users.

3. Proposer will describe any proposed administrative training on product navigation to include key areas of daily tasks such as user profile management, case creation and navigation, online document submission, docketing/event scheduling, management of requests for interpreter services, etc.

3. Proposer will describe any available training to administrative and technical staff on available reports for administrative and agency staff use, as well as creating ad-hoc reports.

3. Proposer will describe its ability to train staff on available customizations to reports and ability to print and export reports to available formats (including CSV, Excel, PDF).

3. Proposer will provide all technical, operational, and administrative knowledge transfers required for Agency staff to electronically exchange data with the Oregon Judicial Department’s E-Court system.

3. Proposer will provide all technical, operational, and administrative knowledge transfers required for Agency IT personnel to successfully conduct activities related to the deployed Solution.

3. Proposer will provide all training resources available to the Agency such as but not limited to training documentation, user manuals, Computer Based Training (CBT) resources, or support contacts.

3. All training materials and Solution documentation shall be freely reproducible by Agency, for internal use only, with no infringement on copyright or use.

3. Proposer will provide training and consultation in LCMS for Agency-specific configurations.

3. Proposer will provide system documentation that includes the following:

a) Desk Manual (viewable online and printable)

b) Graphical representation of the conversion, testing and implementation process

c) How-to system manual that details implementation steps and process Ongoing Services (Maintenance and Repair/Customer Services/Help Desk)

3. Proposer will provide all ongoing System maintenance and support.

3. Proposer will provide warranty support for all LCMS software.

3. Proposer will provide detailed LCMS release documentation, including all new capabilities being delivered, with new LCMS releases and updates. The Proposer will provide detailed updates and documentation for all documented known issues with new LCMS releases and updates.

Performance Standards and Service Level Agreement (SLA)

3. Proposer will provide a detailed Service Level Agreement (SLA) for support of the LCMS for Agency review and approval. The SLA must have at least three levels of support depending on the issue. The SLA is not considered finalized until the Contract is effective.

Escalation Plan

3. Proposer will provide an escalation plan that includes at minimum: procedure to be used during the implementation of the project if resolution is required to a conflict arising during the duration of the Contract.

3. Proposer will provide an escalation plan for issues identified with the LCMS during production; this includes escalation for issues that are unresolved in the agreed upon timeframe

3. Proposer will provide prioritization guidelines including names, titles and contact information.

Disaster Recovery Plan

3. Recovery Time Objective (“RTO”): Maximum elapsed time between the Agency’s declaration of a disaster and when the Agency’s functionality is restored and made available for use by Agency. Proposer shall meet Agency’s RTO of 4 hours.

Recovery Point Objective (“RPO”): Maximum elapsed time of Agency data loss resulting from a disaster declaration event. Proposal shall meet Agency RPO of 15 minutes.

Proposer will ensure all Agency disaster recovery hosted servers will remain accessible to Agency at the Proposer disaster recovery hosting site(s) during the duration of the Agency disaster event.

Business Continuity Plan Proposer shall support Agency with business continuity including, but not limited to, continuity strategies, internal and external communications, training. and coordination with interested parties, all as requested or directed by Agency. The Proposer shall support any business continuity drills Agency may conduct.

PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS

MINIMUM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Round 1 Proposal Submissions To be considered for evaluation, Proposal must contain each of the following elements (further detailed in Round 1 Proposal Requirement, below):

3. Administrative Proposal

1. Executive Summary

2. Proposer’s Organizational Profile

3. Experience and Capabilities

4. Key Persons, Organizational Chart, Subcontractors

5. Security Requirements

6. Underlying Agreements

7. Value Added Services (Optional)

8. Disclosure Exemption Affidavit (Attachment B)

9. Proposer Information and Certification Sheet (Attachment C)

10. Reference Check Form (Attachment D)

11. Cobid Certification/ Outreach Plan (Attachment F)

12. Responsibility Inquiry (Attachment G)

13. Accessibility Compliance Report (Attachment I)

14. Statewide Security Standards (Attachment J) Technical Proposal Statement of Work, addressing the Scope of Work/Specifications in Section 2.4.

a. System Configuration and Planning

b. Project Management

c. Implementation

d. Configuration

e. Data Management (Accessing /Storage /Retrievals)

f. Data Conversion and Migration

g. Reporting

h. Accessibility Compliance

i. User Acceptance Testing

j. Training and Documentation

k. On-Going Services (Maintenance and Repair /Customer Services /Help Desk)

l. Performance Standards and Service Level Agreements (SLA’s)

m. Escalation Plan

n. Disaster Recovery Plan

o. Business Continuity Plan

Solution Requirements (Attachment H) Price Proposal (Attachment E) Proposal Page Limits The complete Round 1 Proposal is limited to 60 pages. Any pages exceeding this limit will not be provided to the evaluation committee or considered in the evaluation. The following items do not count toward the page limit:

Disclosure Exemption Affidavit (Attachment B) Proposer Information and Certification Sheet (Attachment C) Reference Check Form (Attachment D) Key Persons, Resumes if applicable (not to exceed two (2) pages per each) Price Proposal (Attachment E) Cobid Certification/ Outreach Plan (Attachment F) Responsibility Inquiry (Attachment G) Accessibility Compliance Report (Attachment I) Statewide Security (Attachment J) Proposal Format and Quantity Proposal should follow the format and reference the sections listed in the Minimum Requirements section 3.1. Responses to each section and subsection should be labeled to indicate the item being addressed.

OregonBuys Electronic Response. Proposer must submit one (1) copy of its Proposal electronically through OregonBuys.

The Price Proposal must be submitted as a separate electronic response file.

Proposer must follow the submission procedures outlined in RFP Section 4.5, Proposal Delivery Options. Acceptable electronic formats include the following: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) or Microsoft Excel (.xls or .xlsx).

If Proposer believes any of its Proposal is exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law (ORS 192.311 through 192.478), Proposer shall Complete and submit the Disclosure Exemption Affidavit (Attachment B). Proposer shall also mark as “Confidential” in OregonBuys all attachments to its Proposal that Proposer believes are exempt from disclosure and provide fully redacted version of its Proposal, clearly identified as the redacted version. Note that the final price amount is not exempt from public disclosure.

Proposer may not include any weblinks within its Proposal response.

Authorized Representative Failure of Proposer’s authorized representative to sign the Proposal may result in rejection of the Proposal by Agency.

ROUND 1 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

Administrative Proposal

3. Executive Summary (Mandatory, Scored) Proposer shall briefly describe how the proposed solution addresses the high-level requirements listed in this RFP. These requirements form the basis for a comprehensive yet succinct Executive Summary that summarizes the proposed solution, its distinctive features, and how it will fulfill the State’s requirements. In addition, summarize:

1. The significant factors of Proposer’s design, implementation, and technical approach.

2. Where comparable software projects and implementation services have been provided by the Proposer.

3. The project management methodology Proposer will use to reduce risk and maximize the potential success of the integrated solution implementation, deployment, and operation.

4. Uniquely compelling features/functionalities offered in the proposed Integrated Solution.

5. If Proposer is planning to propose a subcontracting relationship to meet all Requirements, please describe the unique value of each relationship to the Project’s success.

Proposer’s Organization Profile (Mandatory, Scored) Proposer must provide a profile of its organization. This is Proposer’s opportunity to give an overview of its organization, describe the structure of its business, and discuss how the organization can effectively deliver the Services described in this RFP. The Profile must include at a minimum:

1. Ownership. If incorporated or formed as another entity, the state in which the organization is incorporated or formed and the date of the incorporation or formation;

2. Location of the organization’s offices (headquarters and branches);

3. Location of the office from which employees will be assigned to work on the Project for the DAS SPS;

4. Number of employees located in the Pacific Northwest, nationally, and internationally;

5. Description of the established business relationships with proposed subcontractors (e.g., data conversion contractor); and

6. Organization’s client base.

Experience and Capabilities (Mandatory, Scored) Proposer must include a brief description of Proposer’s history, experience, and services provided. The description must include the Proposer’s number of years of experience providing similar services to those required by this RFP.

Key Persons, Organizational Chart, and Subcontractors (Mandatory, Scored) Key Persons. Specify key persons, including subcontractor key personnel if applicable, to be assigned to perform and manage the Services; for each individual include a current resume (not to exceed two (2) pages each) that demonstrates qualifications and experience relevant to the Services proposed.

At minimum, Proposer must provide the following Key Persons:

1. Project Manager that will be the primary contact for implementation and onboarding of the software. Configuration and Training

2. Support Manager that will be the primary contact for support and maintenance related issues.

Key Person(s) Requirements and Preferences are:

3. Must have a minimum of three (3) years of experience providing services comparable to those required under this RFP.

4. Demonstrate Contractor has internal quality control practices for its Key Person(s) to develop, support, and perform the required implementation services.

5. Key Person(s) must have appropriate training, education, experience, and orientation to fulfill the requirements of their assigned positions to meet the DAS SPS’s expectations.

Organizational Chart. Provide an organizational chart identifying the staff who will provide the Services required by this RFP, illustrating the lines of authority as appropriate.

Subcontractors. If Proposer intends to work with subcontractor(s), Proposer shall include a statement detailing any subcontracting firms or individual subcontractors that may be engaged as part of the Proposal to this RFP, with those entities and the Services they will provide clearly identified.

Security Requirements (Mandatory, Not Scored) Proposal must contain a statement pertaining to security checks and non-disclosure agreement as described below. This statement is not scored. The statement must demonstrate Proposer's agreement that if awarded a Contract:

1. Proposer and Proposer's staff who will have access to State systems, facilities, and confidential information must submit to all security checks requested by DAS SPS, which may include any combination of fingerprinting, Oregon Law Enforcement Data Systems (“LEDS”) and Federal Bureau of Investigation Criminal Justice Information Services (“FBI CJIS”) background checks, and comply with the following State of Oregon security standards:

· Privileged Access Monitoring and Reporting viewable at: https://www.oregon.gov/das/Policies/107-004-140.pdf

· Statewide Information and Cyber Security Standards viewable at:

https://www.oregon.gov/eis/cyber-security-services/Documents/eis-css-statewide-information-technology(IT)-control-standards.pdf

· Statewide Cloud Computing policy: http://www.oregon.gov/das/policies/107-004-150.pdf

· Oregon’s Statewide Information Security Program Plan: https://www.oregon.gov/eis/cyber-security-services/Pages/guidance-for-state-agencies.aspx.

· The Oregon Consumer Information Protection Act (OCIPA), ORS 646A.600 through 646A.628.

2. Proposer shall sign a non-disclosure agreement for any and all information received or processed on its equipment from the State of Oregon.

3. Proposer must protect at all times State of Oregon sensitive material.

Underlying Agreements (Mandatory, Not Scored) Proposer will submit any additional documents required for this project (e.g., End User License Agreement (EULA), Maintenance Agreement, etc.)

Value Added Services (Not Mandatory, Not Scored) If Proposer is proposing any value-added services, Proposer shall include a statement describing these services as well as the corresponding prices and subcontractors and/or resellers available to provide said services. Proposer may submit services including solution engineering, installation, configuration, training, and maintenance/support. Proposer should include in their proposal a description of how available configurations, workflows, and templates will streamline Agency’s existing business processes.

Disclosure Exemption Certification (Mandatory, Not Scored) Proposer shall complete and submit the Attachment B, Disclosure Exemption Certification as part of the Proposal. Submission is required even if Proposer is not identifying confidential or proprietary information and data for nondisclosure. If Proposer is identifying items for nondisclosure as confidential or proprietary, in addition to the original Proposal and copies, Proposer must submit a redacted single hard copy and single electronic copy of the complete, original Proposal submission (see section 3.1.4).

Proposer Information and Certification Sheet (Mandatory, Not Scored) Proposer shall complete and submit the Proposer Information and Certification Sheet (Attachment C).

Failure to demonstrate compliance with Oregon Tax Laws and sign the Proposer Information and Certification Sheet may result in a finding of non-Responsibility References (Mandatory, Round 1 Not Scored, Scored in Round 2) Provide contact information for a maximum of 3 references from current or former client firms for similar projects completed within the last 3 years. References must be able to verify the quality of previous, related work.

DAS SPS may check to determine if references provided support Proposer’s ability to comply with the requirements of this RFP. DAS SPS may use references to obtain additional information or verify any information needed. DAS SPS may contact any reference (submitted or not) to verify Proposer’s qualifications.

Proposer shall send the Reference Check Form (Attachment D) to its references. Reference forms must be completed and sent to the SPC. Reference forms must be received prior to Closing.

Cobid Certification/Outreach Plan (Mandatory, Not Scored) Proposer shall complete and submit a Certified Disadvantaged Business Outreach Plan (Attachment F).

Responsibility Inquiry (Mandatory, Not Scored) Proposer shall complete and submit the Responsibility Inquiry form (Attachment G).

Accessibility Compliance Report (Mandatory, Pass/Fail) The Proposer will submit the completed Accessibility Compliance Report (Attachment I).

Statewide Security Standards Response (Mandatory, Pass/Fail) The Proposer will submit the completed Statewide Security Standards Spreadsheet (Attachment J).

Solution Security is extremely important to the State. Yet, the State recognizes that security is a joint obligation between the State and the successful Proposer and that the security requirements may be satisfied using more than one approach. In order to assist the State in its evaluation of the Solution, Proposer shall address the security requirements set forth in Attachment J, Statewide Security Standards Spreadsheet for the proposed Solution. Proposer shall complete the spreadsheet and insert comments on Attachment J.

The spreadsheet will not be scored; it will be reviewed as Pass/Fail by a Business Security Advisor (BSA). If Proposer’s solution does not meet the State’s security requirements, or the programs’ security requirements, DAS SPS may reject the Proposal.

Technical Proposal:

3.2.2.2 Statement of Work (Mandatory, Scored)

Proposer shall describe how it will deliver the Services described in Section 2.4, Scope of Services including a Work Breakdown Structure and a Schedule.

3.2.2.3 Solution Requirements Response (Mandatory, Scored)

Proposer shall address and describe how the proposed Solution meets the Solution Requirements set forth in Attachment H, Solution Requirements. Please use the Comments section of Attachment H to provide information on the time of availability of the requirement if feature does not currently exist in Proposer’s Solution or to provide any other relevant details regarding the requirement.

Price Proposal (Mandatory, Scored) Proposer shall complete and submit the Price Proposal (Attachment E). Do not add columns or modify the spreadsheet.

The Price Proposal will be scored in Round 1.

ROUND 1 SOLICITATION PROCESS

PUBLIC NOTICE

The RFP, including all Amendments and attachments are published in the State of Oregon’s electronic procurement system OregonBuys at https://oregonbuys.gov/. Unless otherwise indicated in the RFP Amendment, documents will not be mailed or emailed to prospective Proposers.

Modifications, if any, to this RFP will be made by written Amendment(s) published in OregonBuys. Prospective Proposer is solely responsible for checking OregonBuys to determine whether or not any Amendment(s) have been issued. Amendment(s) are incorporated into the RFP by this reference.

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

DAS SPS will conduct a pre-Proposal teleconference on the date and time listed in the Schedule. Prospective Proposers’ participation in this conference is VOLUNTARY.

The purpose of the pre-Proposal teleconference is to:

1. Provide additional description of the project;

2. Explain the RFP process; and

3. Answer any questions Proposers may have related to the project or the process.

Prospective Proposers must notify the SPC via email concerning planned participation in the conference. Email notifications must be received no later than the date and time listed in the Schedule and provide:

1. Email Subject Line: S-DASBOBO-00014853 Pre-Proposal Conference Participation

2. Company Name; and

3. Name and Contact Information for each company representative participating The SPC will reply via email with conference details (telephone number and access code) and conference agenda material (if any).

Oral Statements made at the pre-Proposal teleconference are not binding upon DAS SPS. Proposers must submit all questions in Writing via email to the SPC, and DAS will thereafter publish Written responses to all such Written Questions in OregonBuys.

QUESTIONS / REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATIONS

All inquiries – whether relating to the RFP process, administration, deadline, or method of award, or to the intent or technical aspects of the RFP – must:

SOLICITATION PROTESTS

Protests to RFP Prospective Proposer may submit a Written protest of anything contained in this RFP, including but not limited to, the RFP process, Specifications, Scope of Work, and the Sample Contract. This is prospective Proposer’s only opportunity to protest the provisions of the RFP, except that Proposer may protest as provided below.

Protests to Amendment(s) Prospective Proposer may submit a Written protest of anything contained in the respective Amendment. Protests to an Amendment, if issued, must be submitted by date /time specified in the respective Amendment , or they will not be considered. Protests of matters not added or modified by the Amendment will not be considered.

Requirements for Solicitation Protests All protests to the RFP or to Amendment, if any must be delivered to the SPC via email and must be received by the due date and time identified in the Schedule or as set forth in the respective Amendment and must:

1. Reference the RFP number

2. Identify prospective Proposer’s name and contact information

3. Be sent by an authorized representative

4. State the reason for the protest, including:

a. the grounds that demonstrate how the Procurement Process is contrary is to law, Unnecessarily Restrictive, legally flawed, or improperly specifies a brand name; and

b. evidence or documentation that supports the grounds on which the protest is based.

5. State the proposed changes to the RFP provisions or other relief sought.

Protest Response DAS SPS will respond timely to all protests submitted by the due date and time listed in the Schedule. Protests that are not received timely or do not include the required information may not be considered.

PROPOSAL DELIVERY OPTIONS

Proposer is solely responsible for ensuring its Proposal is received by the SPC in accordance with the RFP requirements before Opening. Agency is not responsible for any delays in mail or by common carriers or by transmission errors or delays, or for any mis-delivery for any reason. A Proposal submitted by any means not authorized below will be rejected. The following delivery options are permitted for this RFP:

Delivery through OregonBuys Proposal submission should be electronically through OregonBuys at: OregonBuys.gov Detailed instructions on how to submit a Proposal can be found at OregonBuys Vendor Formal Solicitation Response.pdf

PROPOSAL MODIFICATION OR WITHDRAWAL

If a Proposer wishes to make modifications to a submitted Proposal, the Proposer must submit its modification in one of the authorized methods listed in Section 4.5 (Proposal Delivery Options). To be effective the modification must include the OregonBuys bid number and be submitted to the SPC prior to Opening.

If a Proposer wishes to withdraw a submitted Proposal, it must submit a Written notice signed by an authorized representative of its intent to withdraw to the SPC via email, prior to the…