COBRA enrollment management requires a cap on how many enrollees you can actively support at once. When an RFP asks for the maximum Active COBRA Enrollment allowed, it’s about setting a realistic limit on the number of people who can be enrolled simultaneously in COBRA while your team can still administer notices, eligibility, premium collection, and deadlines accurately. A figure around 10 percent of the eligible population is a practical, commonly used cap. It reflects typical COBRA uptake—most people don’t stay on COBRA long enough to swell enrollment dramatically—and it aligns with the capacity of benefits teams, software systems, and service levels to handle routine spikes without compromising compliance or response times. Setting the limit much lower, like 5 percent, can become constraining during normal fluctuations and temporary increases in enrollment. Pushing the cap higher, such as 15 or 20 percent, often requires substantially more resources and cost unless there’s a proven pattern of higher COBRA activity with your client base. So, the 10 percent figure represents a balanced, sustainable target that supports reliable administration while remaining cost- and resource-conscious.

A change management plan defines how any deviation to scope, schedule, or cost will be handled. It lays out the process for requesting changes, who reviews and approves them, how the impacts are assessed, and how approved changes are implemented and baselined. This plan helps prevent uncontrolled scope creep by providing formal control over changes and ensuring everyone knows who can approve changes, what information is needed, how long decisions take, and how changes affect timelines, budgets, quality, and risks. In project proposals, presenting a clear change management plan shows you can maintain control over the project even when things evolve, keeping the work aligned with objectives and stakeholder expectations. The other options don’t fit because changing the sponsor falls under stakeholder management or governance, not change control; changing the contract’s currency is a financial/contracts issue rather than change control; and changing goals without approval would violate governance and undermine control mechanisms.

The standard minimum group size is defined using full-time equivalents, which ensures there are enough data points for a reliable evaluation. Five full-time equivalents means the group must total at least five FTE, whether that’s five people each working full-time or a mix of part-time workers whose combined hours add up to five full-time equivalents. This threshold helps keep results stable and representative without being too large to manage. For example, three workers at 0.5 FTE each plus two at 1.0 FTE would also meet the minimum. The other options don’t fit because a placeholder wage entry is a data input instruction, not a group size; 100+ eligible WSE is a much higher threshold; and a percentage is not a count of people.

Two full-time WSEs is the defined minimum to form an OMS group. This threshold ensures there’s enough personnel to share responsibilities, provide coverage, and yield stable data for governance and planning. A singleton would not meet the intended grouping standard, since one person cannot offer the same level of continuity or cross-checking as two. Options with five or 100+ exceed the minimum and aren’t the stated threshold. The idea of entering a $1 wage as a placeholder is a data-entry workaround and does not establish the required group size.