Oregon PERS PMO Software RFQ: replacing Microsoft Project Online before the 9/30/2026 retirement

Executive takeaway

Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) is running a Best Value Analysis (BVA) RFQ to replace Microsoft Project Online (retiring September 30, 2026). This is a time-sensitive PPM selection and implementation effort where your bid needs to be crisp on migration safety, day-one usability for project managers and time-tracking resources, and how you’ll maintain (or improve) their existing PowerBI-driven portfolio reporting.

What the buyer is trying to do

PERS’ project management office currently uses Project Online and the MS Project Desktop Client for project tracking, resource management, and dashboard reporting. With Project Online retirement approaching, PERS has initiated a project to identify, implement, and drive adoption of a replacement PPM platform before the retirement date to avoid data loss and operational disruption.

The environment described in the RFQ includes:

• Approximately 12 project managers
• Approximately 250 time tracking project team resources
• Approximately 20 active projects with schedules
• 7 PowerBI portfolio reports
• Schedules ranging from a few hundred to a few thousand lines
• Programs requiring a “master schedule” capability to maintain deadlines across projects

PERS notes that project intake is currently handled separately, with possible future interest in combining PPM with an intake feature.

What work is implied (bullets)

• Provide a modern, cloud-based PPM solution to replace Project Online.
• Plan and execute migration of critical project and resource data from the current platform.
• Stand up resource management and time tracking for a large base of team resources.
• Support robust scheduling needs, including large schedules and multi-project “master schedule” use cases.
• Maintain continuity of portfolio reporting, including enabling the existing PowerBI portfolio reports (and/or defining a path to re-point/rebuild them as needed).
• Drive adoption across project managers and time-entry users to ensure operational continuity before the 9/30/2026 retirement.
• Optionally position a roadmap for adding/combining an intake feature later (without overscoping the initial transition).

Who should bid / who should pass (bullets)

Who should bid

• Cloud PPM providers (or authorized resellers/partners) with proven migrations from Microsoft Project Online.
• Firms strong in enterprise scheduling and cross-project/program “master schedule” governance.
• Teams that can support time tracking at the ~250-user scale and resource management at portfolio level.
• Vendors who can clearly explain how PowerBI reporting will be preserved and validated post-cutover.
• Eligible firms aligned to the stated set-aside preferences (Small Business, MBE/WBE, DBE) where applicable to your participation strategy.

Who should pass

• Solutions that are primarily task trackers without credible portfolio resource management and master scheduling.
• Bidders who cannot articulate a migration approach that reduces risk of data loss and operational disruption.
• Teams without bandwidth to implement and drive adoption within the timeline implied by the Project Online retirement date.

Response package checklist (bullets; if unknown say 'verify in attachments')

• Signed/complete RFQ response forms and any required BVA narrative structure (verify in attachments).
• Product fit narrative mapped to PERS’ use case: project tracking, resource management, time tracking, dashboards/PowerBI, and master schedules.
• Migration plan: what data moves, how it’s validated, and how cutover avoids disruption (verify required format in attachments).
• Implementation and adoption approach tailored to: 12 project managers and ~250 time-entry users.
• Reporting approach for the 7 PowerBI portfolio reports (connectors, data model considerations, validation plan).
• Licensing/subscription proposal and any assumptions/constraints clearly stated (verify in attachments).
• Any required supplier certifications or eligibility documentation related to the set-aside preferences (verify in attachments).
• Project schedule that aligns to completing selection + implementation prior to September 30, 2026.

Pricing & strategy notes (how to research pricing; do not invent pricing numbers)

This RFQ is framed as a Best Value Analysis, so assume the buyer will weigh more than just subscription cost. To sharpen pricing strategy without guessing numbers:

• Build a clean user model around the quantities provided: ~12 project managers and ~250 time tracking users. Make it explicit what each user type needs to do (e.g., schedule authoring vs. time entry) so pricing tiers align.
• Separate one-time implementation/migration from recurring licensing. The buyer’s risk concern (avoiding data loss/disruption) typically makes migration and validation effort a major value driver.
• Document what’s included for reporting continuity: whether PowerBI connectivity is native, requires connectors, or requires rework of existing reports.
• Benchmark against the market-researched products PERS listed (Cyber Comm – PowerPak, Monday.com, OnePlan, Planisware, Planview PPM Pro, Project Insight, Sensei IQ, Smartsheet) by comparing feature coverage and implementation effort—not just license price.
• If you must price via an authorized reseller/channel, ensure the quote clearly identifies what is product vs. services and what support model applies (verify any channel constraints in attachments).

Subcontracting / teaming ideas (bullets)

• Pair a PPM software vendor/reseller with an implementation partner specializing in migrations from Microsoft Project Online.
• Team with a PowerBI/reporting specialist to validate or rebuild the 7 portfolio reports after migration.
• Add change management/training support focused on time-entry adoption for ~250 team resources.
• If your firm is strong in software but lighter on scheduling governance, team with a PMO advisory partner to strengthen the master schedule/program controls approach.

Risks & watch-outs (bullets)

• Timeline risk: Project Online retirement date (September 30, 2026) creates a hard operational deadline. Any vague implementation plan will likely score poorly.
• Migration completeness: The RFQ stresses preserving and migrating critical projects and resource data—be specific about validation and acceptance.
• Scale and usability: Time tracking for ~250 resources can fail if workflows are complex; prioritize simple UX and training approach.
• Master schedule expectations: Ensure your product supports cross-project dependencies and program-level deadline management as described.
• Reporting continuity: PowerBI portfolio reporting is explicitly part of today’s environment; treat it as a core requirement, not an afterthought.
• Scope creep: Intake functionality is described as a possible future opportunity—avoid bundling it as mandatory in phase 1 unless the attachments require it.

Related opportunities

• PMO Software (OregonBuys S-45900-00015966)
• PMO Software (OregonBuys S-45900-00016232)

How to act on this

1. Open the RFQ attachments and confirm response structure, evaluation approach under BVA, and any channel/contracting constraints (verify in attachments).
2. Decide your product positioning around the explicit needs: migration off Project Online, master schedules, time tracking scale, and PowerBI reporting continuity.
3. Build a migration-first implementation plan with clear validation steps and an adoption plan for both PMs and time-entry users.
4. Submit before the stated due date/time in the notice you’re responding to.

If you want a fast, compliant response package with pricing support and teaming options, Federal Bid Partners LLC can help you shape the narrative, map requirements, and assemble a submission that reads like a low-risk transition plan.