University of Virginia, Electronic Medical Records System for Student Health and Wellness

Recommendation: worth pursuing, but it cannot be a PURSUE under the rubric yet. This is the closest thing to Carepatron's proven win pattern that RFP Radar has surfaced. It is also gated by two requirements that are stated as mandatory and that Carepatron does not meet today.

The deciding facts are now on the record. The check asked for three things: seat count, and whether SSO, SIS and accessibility are mandatory. Two of the three are answered.

What the University is buying, in its own words

Quoted from the RFP description on UVA's public posting portal:

The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (the "University") seeks proposals from qualified Firms to provide an electronic medical record system for the Department of Student Health and Wellness (the "Goods/Services"). These Goods/Services include, but are not limited to, an integrated electronic medical record ("EMR") and operational system, including implementation, configuration, training, support, and related professional services to support clinical, counseling, wellbeing, operational, administrative, compliance, billing, reporting, and inventory management functions within the Department of Student Health and Wellness ("Student Health and Wellness").

The system must serve five named service lines: Care and Support Services (CASS), the Student Disability Access Center (SDAC), Well-Being Services, Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) and Medical Services.

is the same displacement pattern as the Beacon College win, at a larger campus.

The answer to the check

11,960 permanent faculty and staff. Neither number is the licence count. Student Health and Wellness staff headcount does not appear in any document reachable without a supplier account. Under Carepatron's per-staff-user pricing the student number carries no cost, so this is the one commercial fact that still has to be obtained.

accessibility standards under Virginia's Information Technology Access Act is mandatory. This lands directly on a documented gap: known-gap-no-wcag-conformance, which states Carepatron has not specifically implemented WCAG conformance in the product today.

description, the bidder requirements or the agreement attachments. They are likely to sit in the functional requirements matrix, which is inside the portal.

Score: 67 of 100

• Buyer fit is the strongest of any lead to date. A university student health and counselling centre displacing Medicat is the Beacon pattern exactly.
• Product fit is good on the core and short on two stated requirements. Clinical documentation, scheduling, counselling notes, billing, client portal and reporting are core platform. E-prescribing is available through the DoseSpot integration at $39 per clinician per month (integrations-eprescribing).
• Two required functions have no answer in the claims library. Inventory management has no claim at all, so it cannot be answered without Glen. Immunization tracking and compliance management partly hits known-gap-no-hl7-fhir, which states plainly that Carepatron has no immunization registry reporting.
• Winnability is fair. It is an open competition, small business participation is encouraged, and the incumbent is being displaced rather than defended. Against that, the rubric scores higher-ed winnability down until Carepatron authors HECVAT and VPAT artefacts, and the library holds no HECVAT claim.
• Feasibility is good apart from the portal. Submissions are only accepted through the UVA public posting portal, which requires a Workday Strategic Sourcing supplier account.

The rubric caps this at REVIEW rather than PURSUE, and the cap is correct: accessibility is stated as mandatory and lands on a documented gap, and inventory management is a required function the library cannot answer at all. Two gap frictions against stated requirements means it cannot be PURSUE, whatever the buyer fit says.

Dates that matter

Attendance at the pre-proposal conference is not mandatory.

Next action for Carlos

Register Carepatron as a supplier on the UVA public posting portal, then attend the optional pre-proposal conference on 14 September. I did not register: creating a vendor account submits Carepatron's legal and tax details, which is your call, not mine.

Registering does two things. It releases the functional requirements matrix, which is the document that settles the SSO, SIS and seat-count questions. It also puts Carepatron in the room before the 21 September questions deadline, which is the last point at which the accessibility requirement can be tested rather than assumed fatal.

Procurement contact: Heather Hite, hch3h@virginia.edu, 434 982 5077. A second procurement address, brp3ux@virginia.edu, appears on the eVA record for the same solicitation.

What would change the call to a bid

Written confirmation from UVA that the Information Technology Access Act requirement can be met through a remediation commitment rather than conformance at award, plus a decision from Glen on whether inventory management is in scope for the product. If both go the right way, this becomes a PURSUE with 15 days still on the clock.