Oakland University, clinical cloud-based EHR and video recording system (solicitation 00323)

Recommendation: needs document. Read the next section before you spend anything to get it. The buyer named a capability in the title that Carepatron does not have.

This supersedes [[2026-09-30-mitn-michigan-unnamed-buyer]]. That note was the same solicitation under its BidNet identifier, bidnet_direct:0000438678, with the buyer unresolved. The buyer is now confirmed as Oakland University.

The thing to decide first

The solicitation title is the buyer's own words, published openly on BidNet Direct: "Clinical Cloud-Based EHR and Video Recording System". Video recording is not an incidental line item in a requirements list. It is half of what they named the procurement after.

Carepatron does not record video sessions. From the claims library, telehealth-no-recording: "Carepatron does not record or store video sessions. The AI Scribe produces a text transcript of the conversation, not an audio or video recording." The claim carries an explicit caveat: this is a design decision, so a buyer who requires session recording for supervision or quality assurance should treat it as a gap rather than a configuration option.

That caveat describes this buyer exactly. A university counselling training clinic records sessions so supervisors can observe student clinicians.

There is a second gap in the same area. The scope summary describes multiple supervisors reviewing, routing and approving work for each student trainee. Our claim on signatures, clinical-provider-signature, carries the caveat that co-signature and supervisor sign-off workflow is not documented in our sources. We cannot answer a supervision routing requirement from the library today.

So the live question is not only "is recording mandatory". It is whether a bid is worth preparing when two of the buyer's named workflows are both unsupported.

What the check asked, and how far I got

The check was: confirm whether session video recording with transcripts is mandatory.

Partly answered, and the unanswered part needs the gated document.

• Video recording is in scope. Confirmed from the buyer's own published title.
• Whether it is a mandatory requirement, and whether the buyer would accept it being met by a separate tool alongside the EHR, is not established. Both facts sit in the locked document.

The scope detail circulating publicly comes from Starbridge, which is a third-party summary, not Oakland University's words. It says the system is expected to provide "transcripts for live-observation recordings" for 40 or more practising students, supervisors and instructors each semester. I am treating that as indicative only. It is not quotable back to the buyer and I have not scored against it.

What I confirmed

Our BidNet membership is free and already carries the Michigan member agency entitlement, so this is not a paywall. The block is a form, not a fee.

Oakland University Purchasing publishes its staff on its own site. The buyer contact for 00323 specifically is locked on BidNet, so I have not matched a name to this solicitation. The department contacts, as printed by the university:

• Kimberly Dolejsi, Director of Purchasing, [email protected], (248) 370-4423
• Maria Ebner-Smith, Part-time Senior Buyer, [email protected], (248) 370-4199
• Shonda Thomas, Buyer, [email protected], (248) 370-4016
• George Haight, Buyer, [email protected], (248) 370-4421

Routes I tried, and how each failed

1. Starbridge, the source listing. Carries the description summary. States plainly: "No files attached to this RFP."
2. Oakland University's own bid page. The university has stopped publishing documents itself. The page says all vendor opportunities, project documentation, addenda and award notices "will be hosted exclusively on BidNet Direct". The newest entry on that page is dated 5 August 2026. Solicitation 00323 does not appear.
3. BidNet Direct, logged out. Issuing organisation, solicitation number, description, bid documents and buyer contact all show "Locked, registered members only". No AI Overview text on this listing, so that route does not apply here.
4. BidNet Direct, logged in with our vendor account. This unlocked the solicitation number and confirmed the listing sits under Oakland University. The detail page then stops: "An action is required before access to this solicitation is granted. MITN Purchasing Group. Your organization registration form for this purchasing group is incomplete." I did not complete it. That form submits Carepatron's own organisation details and accepting it is your call, not mine.
5. Other BidNet endpoints under our session. Six supplier and public URL patterns tried. Each either returned 404 or landed on the same registration gate.
6. Firecrawl, rendering JavaScript. Run against both the open-bids URL and the buyer-scoped URL. Same locked fields. Rendering was not the problem.
7. Aggregator mirrors. GovCB, RFP School Watch, InstantMarkets, TechBids, BidPrime and the Starbridge buyer page. None carries the document. CivicIQ returned 403. Searches on the exact title and on "00323" returned nothing.
8. A university-hosted copy. Oakland University does sometimes mirror a PDF on grizzfiles.oakland.edu, which it did for solicitations 00280 and 00283. No mirror exists for 00323, and the share tokens are random, so there is no pattern to follow.

Why no public route will open before the deadline

I tested this rather than assuming it. BidNet publishes the full notice openly once a solicitation closes. Oakland University's solicitation 00309, now closed, renders its issuing organisation, owner organisation, solicitation number, full description and four attached documents with no login at all. Our 00323 is still open, so it is gated.

The consequence matters for planning. Waiting does not help. The documents become public after 3 November, which is after bids are due. Either we go through the MITN form before then, or Oakland University sends us the package directly, or we do not bid.

What unblocks it

One action, and it is cheap: email Oakland University Purchasing and ask the two questions that decide this, before anyone fills in a registration form.

This is worth trying first because it can kill the opportunity for free. If recording is mandatory and must be native, we stop, and we never touch the MITN form.

Draft below for you to send. I have not sent it.

To: [email protected] Subject: Solicitation 00323, Clinical Cloud-Based EHR and Video Recording System Hi Kimberly, We are interested in solicitation 00323, Clinical Cloud-Based EHR and Video Recording System, which closes on 3 November. Could you please send the RFP package, or point me to the buyer handling it? Two questions would help us decide quickly whether we are a sensible bidder, and save your evaluators time if we are not. First, is native video recording of counselling sessions a mandatory requirement, or would you consider a proposal where the EHR and the recording capability come from separate systems? Second, does the requirement for supervisor review and approval of student trainee documentation call for a formal routing and co-signature workflow inside the system? Carepatron is a cloud practice management and EHR platform for outpatient counselling and wellness. We document sessions with an AI scribe that produces a text transcript. We do not record or store video, which is why I would rather ask now than submit a proposal that misses what you need. Thanks, Carlos McCoy Carepatron

If the reply says the package only comes through BidNet, which is possible given their stated policy, then the decision returns to you: complete the MITN purchasing group registration form on BidNet Direct under our existing vendor account. That is a portal action and it commits Carepatron's organisation details, so I have left it alone. It would also unlock every future MITN solicitation, which is worth weighing separately from this one bid.

My read on the score

I have left the verdict at REVIEW and the score at 72 because the rule is not to rescore from a document I have not read.

For your judgement though, 72 looks too high now. It was set when the scope read as a counselling training clinic EHR for about 40 users, which is the Beacon College pattern and a genuine strength. The recording requirement was not weighed, because nobody had confirmed it was in the title. Two unsupported workflows in the buyer's own framing of the purchase should pull this well below the PURSUE line. I would expect it to land in the 50s once the document is read.

The higher-education gates from the rubric still apply on top: no SAML or OIDC single sign-on (sso-no-saml-scim), no WCAG conformance and no VPAT (known-gap-no-wcag-conformance), and no SIS connector (known-gap-no-sis-integration).

What would change the call: Oakland University confirming that recording may be met by a separate system. In that case the EHR half is a strong fit, and the parts that suit them are real. Unlimited student records at no per-client charge, an AI scribe included for every user rather than priced per clinician, and FERPA supporting controls documented honestly rather than claimed as certification.

Next action for you

Send the email above, or tell me to stand the opportunity down. No command for you to run.