Active SLED Opportunity · COLORADO · COLORADO COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM
AI Summary
RFP for implementation services of Comprehensive Learner Record (CLR) and Learner Employment Record (LER) for Colorado Community College System, with electronic bid submission and deadline August 14, 2026.
Request for Proposals for Comprehensive Learner Record (CLR) and Learner Employment Record (LER) Implementation. **Solicitation Type**: RFP - Request for Proposal (Formal) **Source ID**: PU.AG.USA.2473.C22035801 **Piggyback Contract**: No **Question Acceptance Deadline**: 07/21/2026 07:00 PM EDT **Questions are submitted online**: Yes **Bid Submission Type**: Electronic Bid Submission **Solicitation Number**: CCCS 27-001 **Reference Number**: 0000430669 **Pricing**: In attached document **Bid Documents List**: | Item Name | Description | Mandatory | Limited to 1 file | |---|---|---|---| | Bid Documents | Documents defining the proposal | Yes | No | **Questions and Answers**: | Question | Answer | |---|---| | The Table of Contents references a Pre-Proposal Meeting (Section 1.F), but no such section, date, or format appears in the body of the RFP or in the Schedule of Activities. Will CCCS hold a pre-proposal meeting? If so, please publish the date, format, and whether attendance is mandatory. RFP reference: RFP Table of Contents (p.1) lists “1.F Pre-Proposal Meeting”; §1 body (pp.9–10) omits it. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | The Schedule of Activities lists the public proposal opening as August 11, 2026, which precedes the proposal submission deadline of August 14, 2026. Please confirm the correct dates for the submission deadline and the public opening. RFP reference: §1.E.ii.c–d (p.9). | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Section 1.A reads “On behalf of the State of Colorado, Insert State Agency/IHE is issuing this Request for Proposals.” Please confirm that the Colorado Community College System is the issuing and contracting entity for this solicitation so that we could address our proposal correctly. RFP reference: §1.A (p.2). | Answered in Addendum 1 | | The proposal is limited to 50 pages “not including administrative documents.” Please confirm which items are excluded from the page count — specifically the Standards Conformance Matrix, sample credential outputs (CLR JSON, Open Badges 3.0 assertions, W3C VC/CTDL samples), the VPAT, Appendix C, W-9, signature page, Tab F references, Tab G confidential materials, and the Tab E cost proposal. May voluminous technical exhibits be submitted as labeled appendices outside the 50-page limit? RFP reference: §5 (p.28) — 50-page limit; Tabs A–I. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Q7. Tab F requests a minimum of three (3) client references, while the minimum qualifications require at least five (5) current higher-education clients. Please confirm that three references satisfy Tab F, with the five-client minimum evidenced separately in Tab B. RFP reference: Tab F (p.29) vs. §2.A.ii (p.10). | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Does CCCS require the proposed solution to include both a native talent marketplace and integrations with external talent marketplaces? If external integrations are required, please clarify the expected scope of those integrations. For example, does CCCS expect the learner’s LER or verifiable credentials to be transmitted directly to an employer or external platform, or would standards-based credential sharing, verification requests, and interoperable APIs that allow employers to access and verify learner-authorized records satisfy this requirement? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | The RFP states that CCCS serves approximately 130,000 students annually, while the technical evaluation references scalability for 60,000 or more students. Please confirm the population vendors should use for pricing and capacity planning. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | The RFP references “HECVAT Version 4.” Please confirm the exact HECVAT version and format required (e.g., current HECVAT Full), and confirm it is due only prior to award rather than with the proposal. RFP reference: §3.C.e — Compliance and Security (p.15). | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Does the Banner MEP environment maintain a single persistent person identifier for a learner across all 13 colleges and the System Office? If not, should the vendor include identity matching and duplicate-resolution capabilities for students attending multiple CCCS colleges? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | The RFP refers to CCCS’s “Ethos API Database.” Please clarify the available Banner integration methods, including the applicable Ellucian Ethos services, Banner APIs, integration tables, events, database views, or other approved interfaces. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Publisher Platforms: Please confirm whether importing grades, outcomes, or competency information from the D2L gradebook will satisfy the external publisher platform requirement, without requiring direct integrations with Pearson, McGraw-Hill, Cengage, or other publishers. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Please confirm Microsoft Entra ID is the sole identity provider for SSO (SAML 2.0 / OAuth 2.0) and that no separate credential store is required for students, faculty, or staff. RFP reference: §4 Tier 1.4 — SSO (p.24); Phase 2 SSO (p.17). | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Is CampusCE integration in scope for the initial award, or is it a conditional integration to be authorized in a later phase? If in scope, at how many of the 13 colleges is CampusCE in use? RFP reference: §3.C / §4 Tier 1.6 — CampusCE “if applicable” (pp.14, 24). | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Learning Mobility Profiles: Must the vendor have at least one of the listed Learning Mobility Collaborative interoperability profiles operational in production at the time of proposal submission? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Must English and Spanish support include only the learner-facing interface, or also the administrative portal, employer portal, mobile applications, help content, training materials, notifications, and communication campaigns? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Please confirm that the vendor will retain ownership of its pre-existing SaaS platform, source code, algorithms, artificial intelligence models, APIs, standard documentation, credential frameworks, templates, and general product enhancements, while CCCS retains ownership of its data and project-specific deliverables. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Section 2.A.v identifies “financial stability and viability” as a minimum qualification, while Section 6.C.iii references “financial stability indicators” and “long-term viability and sustainability” as evaluation factors. Would company financial statements be considered sufficient documentation to demonstrate these requirements? Also, could these be marked as confidential? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Do you have a current credential vendor? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | If you do have a current credential vendor, do all 13 colleges use the same credential vendor? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Will all 13 colleges implement the new solution immediately? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Will there be one MSA for all 13 colleges or 13 separate MSAs? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Which of the 13 colleges will be "new" to credentialing? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Is this a complement to your credentialing initiative or a replacement for it? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Please confirm the proposal due date and public opening date. The RFP states proposals are due August 14, 2026 at 11:00 AM MST, but also states the public opening will occur virtually on August 11, 2026 at 12:00 PM MST. Should the public opening date be August 14, or is another date intended? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Please confirm whether the 50-page limit applies only to Tabs B–F or to the full technical proposal excluding administrative documents. The RFP states the proposal should be a single PDF with tab sections and no more than 50 pages excluding administrative documents. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Please clarify whether CCCS expects vendors to price all five phases as a full system-wide implementation, or to price Phase 1 separately with optional pricing for later phases contingent on funding. The RFP states each phase is contingent on grant awards or other funding sources. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Please clarify whether CCCS has identified preliminary funding sources, funding amounts, or expected budget ranges for Phase 1 and subsequent phases. The RFP states phase authorization depends on funding confirmation but does not provide a budget. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | For Phase 3, please clarify whether CCCS has already identified candidate pilot colleges or pilot programs, or whether the vendor is expected to recommend pilot selection criteria and candidate institutions. Phase 3 includes pilot college selection and readiness assessment for one to two pilot colleges. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Does CCCS prefer a single SaaS product vendor, or will CCCS consider a prime-integrator model using standards-based components and specialized partners for registry, issuing, wallet, verification, marketplace, and analytics capabilities? The RFP includes broad SaaS/platform capabilities and extensive integration requirements. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | May offerors use subcontractors or technology partners to satisfy requirements for native mobile applications, talent marketplace functionality, HRIS/ATS connectors, and security certifications? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Please clarify which Learning Mobility Collaborative profile CCCS currently prefers, if any: VCALM-EdDSA, OID4-ECDSA, or OB 3.0 Direct Delivery. The RFP asks vendors to state which profile best suits CCCS. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Does CCCS require production certification for Open Badges 3.0, CLR 2.0, and TrustEd Credentials at proposal submission, or is a roadmap to certification acceptable if the solution demonstrates conformance? The RFP states the solution must be 1EdTech certified for these formats/frameworks. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Please identify whether CCCS has existing CTDL/CTDL-ASN records in the Credential Registry, or whether the vendor is expected to create and publish those records as part of implementation. The RFP requires Credential Engine publishing implementation and CTDL mappings. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Can CCCS provide additional guidance regarding the anticipated funding available for each implementation phase or the expected budget range for the overall project to help vendors propose an appropriately scoped solution? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | How does CCCS envision the LER evolving over the next three to five years? Beyond implementation, are there plans to expand functionality to support additional learner engagement, advising, career navigation, or workforce initiatives? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Please clarify whether any credential issuance events must write back to Banner in Phase 2, or whether Banner writeback is optional and dependent on final workflow design. The RFP states LER platform-to-Banner data points apply “if applicable.” | Answered in Addendum 1 | | How does this initiative fit within Colorado’s broader learner mobility and workforce strategy? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Can CCCS describe the current communication model across the system? Are communications related to learner engagement and adoption coordinated centrally by CCCS, managed individually by each institution, or both? What role does CCCS envision playing in ongoing communications following implementation? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | For D2L Brightspace integration, please clarify whether CCCS currently uses D2L competency frameworks, D2L badging tools, LTI tools, or external publisher gradebook integrations in a way that exposes competency-level data. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Are there priority employer partners or workforce organizations than vendors should anticipate integration with during implementation? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | While the RFP references credential templates aligned with CCCS branding, can the system clarify the desired balance between statewide standardization and institutional-level flexibility? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Is CCCS currently exploring or planning any future initiatives related to a centralized admissions application across the system’s colleges? If so, should vendors consider how the proposed solution could support such an initiative, including efforts to reduce fraudulent applications? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Given that a strategic initiative of the CCCS is “Seamless Transfer Pathways,” should vendors with meaningful experience in this area highlight touchpoints between CLR / LER technology and the transfer process? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | As “Fraudulent Applications” are a current challenge of the CCCS, should vendors with experience in this area highlight ways in which their CLR / LER solution prevents fraud and supports identity management? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Please confirm whether Microsoft Entra is the required identity provider for all learner, faculty, staff, and administrative access, including external employer users. The RFP identifies Microsoft Entra for CCCS SSO. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Does the CCCS have preferred assessment and reporting processes for comprehensive competency-based learning? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Please describe the anticipated integrations with Banner SIS and D2L Brightspace LMS. Which data should flow in which direction(s)? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Please clarify whether CCCS expects the selected vendor to provide a custodial wallet, a non-custodial wallet, integration with third-party wallets, or multiple wallet options. The RFP requires learner-controlled sharing and digital wallet/digital resume capabilities. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Does the CCCS envision revoking credentials as suggested in section 3.C.a. of the RFP, or would they more typically expire? What are likely scenarios for revocation of a credential? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Does the CCCS envision mapping learning outcomes to workforce skills using a particular taxonomy, or should vendors recommend one? Should a CIP-SOC crosswalk be represented as well? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Please clarify whether self-asserted skills and evidence must be stored in the same LER as institution-verified credentials, or visually/technically separated for trust and verification purposes. The RFP requires learners to self-assert skills and evidence while also supporting verified credentials. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Please clarify whether CCCS expects the selected vendor to provide a full employer-facing talent marketplace, integrate with existing marketplaces, or both. The RFP requires employer search, compatible job opportunities, talent marketplace alignment, and external job portal links. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Please identify priority employer HRIS/ATS platforms for reference implementations, since the RFP asks for reference implementations for at least two major HRIS/ATS platforms. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | The RFP notes that “The platform must be multi-lingual (English and Spanish).” Should the credentials and their metadata also be bilingual, or is that not required? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Please clarify whether connection to Connecting Colorado is required in Phase 3 pilot, Phase 4 rollout, or future enhancement. Connecting Colorado appears in the RFP’s list of talent marketplaces/job platforms. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Please clarify approved labor-market data sources for real-time salaries, job openings, occupational requirements, and skills demand. The RFP requires regional real-time salaries, real-time job openings, labor market intelligence, and O*NET or similar frameworks. Wil you provide a Burning Glass license, for example? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Please confirm whether WCAG 2.1 AA is the required accessibility baseline for all learner, staff, employer, administrative, mobile, and reporting interfaces. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Please clarify whether CCCS prefers pricing by student, by college, system-wide enterprise license, credential transaction, implementation phase, or another model. The RFP asks vendors to provide pricing models and annual costs for the full five years. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Please clarify whether CCCS will consider optional modules or alternate pricing scenarios for marketplace, HRIS/ATS connectors, advanced analytics, mobile wallet, and additional integrations. The cost evaluation includes optional features or modules. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Please clarify whether CCCS intends to award to one prime contractor, multiple offerors, or a combination of a prime and approved subcontractors. The RFP reserves the right to award to multiple offerors if in the State’s best interest. | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Can CCCS provide additional context regarding the expected interoperability with external higher education institutions? Are there specific use cases or partner institutions respondents should consider? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Can CCCS clarify its expectations regarding employer verification analytics? Specifically, how does the system envision employer verification workflows and associated reporting being used within the proposed solution? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Which existing systems are expected to serve as the primary sources for data migration? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Is COPPA compliance required for all users, or just those under 18? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | IS GDPR compliance required for all users, or only those in the EU? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Which level(s) of FedRAMP certification are desirable? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | What is the CCCS definition of “near-real-time” data synchronization? | Answered in Addendum 1 | | Has CCCS published credentials to the Credential Registry previously? If so, what proportion of your credentials are currently published? | Answered in Addendum 1 | **Addendums**: | Addendum | Date | Note | |---|---|---| | Addendum No. 1 | 07/28/2026 02:59 PM EDT | |
SLED stands for State, Local, and Education. These are solicitations issued by state governments, counties, cities, school districts, utilities, and higher education institutions — as opposed to federal agencies.
SamSearch Platform
AI-powered intelligence for the right opportunities, the right leads, and the right time.