It is the intent of these specifications, terms, and conditions to describe a Learning Management System/Learning Experience Platform (LMS/LEP) that will provide a data management system for self-registration and tracking of instructor-led training, online learning, informal, and social learning which supports career growth and development.
It is also the intent to utilize online content libraries. The County desires an LMS/LXP System (System) that can sustain other functionality including Onboarding, Performance Management, Engagement, Workforce & Succession planning, etc.
The County intends to award a three-year contract (with the option to renew for two years) to the Bidder selected as the most responsive and responsible Bidder whose response conforms to the RFP and meets the County’s requirements.
Background
The County’s Human Resource Services Department (HRS) is responsible for Training and Development. This includes offering employees opportunities to increase their skills, knowledge, and abilities for career development. With the need for learning and training growing, both in demand and in complexity, technology helps to provide alternate, efficient and cost-effective means of learning and training.
The County provides training and development for over 9,700 employees in a variety of roles across 20+ departments, as well as 3,000 other public sector and non-profit employees (number of end users may increase within next three years due to expansion of services to other cities and non-profits).
Currently, the County has a SaaS, cloud based LMS (SumTotal). The current system includes learning management and content and can be accessed through the internet and Citrix Receiver for administrative users. Other online content can be purchased separately and then loaded into the current LMS. The County continues to need tracking and reporting for in-person training, mandated training, and learning courseware either supplied by the LMS/LXP or purchased separately by the County from connected content providers.
For the past five years, Countywide LMS/LXP has shared one database among all departments and has successfully:
- Tracked training and learning events;
- Facilitated meeting all legal reporting requirements; and
- Achieved overall effectiveness and collaboration countywide.
The current LMS is set to sunset, and the County is in need of a replacement. The County is seeking a replacement solution that improves platform stability, reporting accuracy, certification management, access controls, integration reliability, and administrative efficiency, while expanding overall LMS/LXP capabilities. The County is seeking a system that has:
- Capacity for talent and learning management and development;
- Built in mobile capability;
- Capability for a “single sign-on” process;
- User friendly, accessible, easy-to-modify reports that meet various needs of all County departments/agencies and affiliates; and
- Easy to find, launch, and track online courseware.
A comprehensive LMS/LXP will provide the tools to automate registration, wait-listing, cancellations, recordkeeping and sign-in sheets for in-person classes as well as online learning and informal learning.
Project Details
- Reference ID: 902724
- Department: General Services Agency-Procurement
- Department Head: Detra Dillon (Purchasing Administrator)
Important Dates
- Questions Due: 2026-05-19T00:00:00.000Z
- Pre-Proposal Meeting: 2026-05-15T17:30:00.000Z — Microsoft Teams meeting
Join RFP 902724 Bidders Conference
Meeting ID: 226 647 629 087 92
Passcode: kM2xY2qm
Dial in by phone: +1 415-915-3950
Phone conference ID: 765 234 45#
Evaluation Criteria
- Completeness of Response (1 pts) —
Responses to this solicitation must be complete. Responses must address all the requirements identified within this solicitation and all related documents, including any Addenda. Failure to meet the Bidder Minimum Qualifications may also be considered an incomplete response and may result in the disqualification of the Bidder.
- Debarment and Suspension (1 pts) —
Bidders, its principal, and named subcontractors are not identified on the list of Federally debarred, suspended, or other excluded parties located at www.sam.gov/SAM.
- Cost (75 pts) —
The points for Cost will be computed by dividing the amount of the lowest responsive and responsible bid received by each Bidder’s total proposed cost.
Cost evaluation points may be adjusted by considering:
- Reasonableness (i.e., how well does the proposed pricing accurately reflect the Bidder’s effort to meet requirements and objectives?).
- Realism (i.e., is the proposed cost appropriate to the nature of the products and/or services to be provided?).
- How well does Bidder’s cost capture all activities and staff needed to meet the services requested?
- How well does the Bidder allocate staff and resources?
- How well does the Budget Justification detail how Bidder arrived at particular calculations?
- Is the proposed cost appropriate to the nature of the services to be provided?
- How clear, realistic, and reasonable are costs in relation to the services provided and the number of clients to be served?
- How well does the Bidder outline, and how diverse are, the revenue sources for its organization and the proposed program?
- Technical Criteria (150 pts) —
In each area described below, an evaluation will be made of the probability of success and risks associated with the proposal response:
- Design - A comparison will be made of the proposed Learning Management System. The proposal will be rated higher for features of the proposed design that offer enhanced utility, ease of use, or ease of integration with existing equipment and systems.
- Software Design and Development - The evaluation will compare the proposed software capabilities with the requirements of this RFP and in terms of the software’s compatibility with existing SumTotal management and data processing systems.
- How well does the solution provide proven methodologies for migrating legacy training records, content, and user data?
- How well does the system offer advanced reporting and analytics, including configurable dashboards and ad hoc reporting tools?
- How well does the platform support standard and custom data export formats?
- How well does the solution enable easy integration with existing business intelligence (BI) systems?
- How well does the system include tools for data retention, archival, and lifecycle management?
- How well does the platform provide intuitive interfaces requiring minimal training?
- How well does the system support responsive/mobile-first design?
- How well does the solution offer customizable branding, dashboards, and workflows?
- How well does the platform demonstrate high usability for administrators transitioning from SumTotal?
- Life-Cycle Support - An assessment will be made of the scope and extent of resources required to operate, upgrade and maintain the proposed Learning Management System.
- How well does the solution provide comprehensive administrator and end‑user training?
- How well does the vendor offer responsive technical support, including defined Service Level Agreements?
- How well does the system maintain a robust knowledge base and documentation portal?
- How well does the vendor provide ongoing system updates, enhancements, and maintenance?
- How well does the bidder demonstrate commitment to long‑term product viability and roadmaps?
- Performance, Availability, and Reliability - An assessment will be made based on the following:
- Does the System provide measurable SLAs for uptime (e.g., 99.9% or higher)?
- How well does the System demonstrate proven performance under high concurrency loads?
- How effective is the System’s disaster recovery, business continuity, and backup capabilities?
- Does the System have minimal scheduled downtime or maintenance windows?
- Ancillary Services - A comparison will be made of the proposed services with the requirements of this RFP. Scoring will take into account convenience, responsiveness, and technical expertise.
How effective are the AI‑enhanced features (e.g., personalized learning paths, automated assignments)
- Description of Proposed Services and Implementation Methodology and Project Management (125 pts) —
Proposals will be evaluated considering the RFP specifications and the questions below:
- How well has Bidder demonstrated a thorough understanding of the purpose and scope of the project?
- How well does the description of proposed services depict a logical approach to fulfilling the requirements of the RFP?
- How well does the description of proposed services achieve all the requirements in the RFP, including the deliverables and reports the County expects it to provide?
- How thorough, thoughtful, and relevant is Bidder’s plan to collect data to monitor the progress of the proposed services?
- How well has Bidder identified pertinent issues and potential problems related to the project?
- How well has Bidder addressed culturally appropriate services; including accommodations for language and/or cultural differences?
Implementation Methodology and Project Management
The evaluation will consider the quality of the Bidder’s implementation and project management approach. Bidder’s will be assessed on:
- How clear and detailed are the proposed project plans and pricing? How appropriate are the milestones, deliverables, and timelines?
- How well does the Bidder demonstrate experience migrating organizations from SumTotal to the proposed LMS?
- How well does the Bidder include change management, knowledge transfer, and stakeholder engagement strategies?
- How well does the Bidder assign experienced project managers and subject‑matter experts?
- Relevant Experience (25 pts) —
Proposals will be evaluated, including considering the RFP specifications and the questions below:
- How extensive is the Bidder’s experience implementing and supporting SaaS LMS/LXP solutions for organizations of similar size, complexity, and user volume, particularly in the public sector or multi-department environments?
- How effectively has the Bidder delivered full lifecycle services—including implementation, configuration, data migration, system integration, training, and ongoing support—for comparable LMS/LXP systems?
- How strong is the Bidder’s experience integrating LMS/LXP platforms with enterprise systems such as HRMS (e.g., PeopleSoft), Single Sign-On (SSO)/Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA), and third-party applications?
- How well does the Bidder demonstrate experience supporting compliance-driven learning environments, including certification management, continuing education tracking, auditability, and accurate reporting?
- Based on past performance and client references, how reliably has the Bidder delivered stable, high-performing systems (e.g., uptime, reporting accuracy, user adoption), and how effectively have issues been resolved
- References (25 pts) —
References
- Demo of the Learning Management System (100 pts) —
- Does the proposed Learning Management System demonstrate successful functional capability across key areas, including certification tracking, continuing education (CE) credit management, reporting (including scheduled/automated reports), role-based access control (RBAC) and domain visibility, enrollment/waitlist/cancellation workflows, content launches (SCORM, AICC, xAPI where applicable), and synchronization with the County’s HRMS?
- Does the proposed Learning Management System demonstrate performance that meets or exceeds agreed-upon response time and system performance targets under anticipated user load and usage conditions?
- Does the Bidder demonstrate that the Learning Management System has successfully completed required security reviews and can meet County vendor risk processes?
- Does the Bidder demonstrate a clear and successful go-live approach, including completion of post-implementation stabilization (“hypercare”), with no major errors or critical defects as defined by County
- Small Local Emerging Business Preference (ADMIN SCORING) (25 pts) —
Points equaling 5% of the Bidder’s total score for the above Evaluation Criteria will be added. This will be the Bidder’s final score for purposes of award evaluation.
- Local Preference (ADMIN SCORING) (25 pts) —
Points equaling 5% of the Bidder’s total score for the above Evaluation Criteria will be added. This will be the Bidder’s final score for purposes of award evaluation.
Submission Requirements
- Submit Bid Response and Bid Form (required) —
Please confirm that both your response and the Bid Form have been uploaded here.
- Submit Bid Response (required) —
Please confirm that your response has been uploaded here.
- Has your response addressed all the requirements identified within the solicitation and all related documents, including any addenda? Failure to meet the Bidder Minimum Qualifications may also be considered an incomplete response and may result in the disqualification of your bid. (required)
- Your company, its principal, and named subcontractors are not identified on the list of Federally debarred, suspended, or other excluded parties located at www.sam.gov/SAM. (required)
- I certify that I have read, understood and agree to the terms in this solicitation, and that I am authorized to submit this response on behalf of my company. (required)
- Pricing (required) —
- Choose Option 1 when you have set line items, for example:
- This is a quote for goods or commodities.
- This is a public works bid, with a pricing table that can be uploaded into OpenGov Procurement from an Excel spreadsheet.
- Seeking services for hourly rate schedules.
- Choose Option 2 when you need vendors to provide you with the line items.
- Evaluation Committee? (required) —
Will there be an evaluation committee to review the proposals and score them based on weights and multiple criteria?
- Procurement and/or Project Contact (required) —
Select the information you would like display.