6-701-26-013-Addendum I.pdf

Texas Education Agency RFO 701-26-013, Federal Fiscal & Program Monitoring Management System

Addendum 1, September 11, 2026

This addendum incorporates the following changes to the above-referenced solicitation:

I. The following changes have been made to language listed in section 2.4:

From: “The contractor shall develop and administer the SP as a part of the response in accordance with the TEA policy on utilization of VetHUBs and State law. The contractor must make a good faith effort and solicit a minimum of three Texas-certified VetHUBs from the State’s Centralized Master Bidders List (CMBL) / VetHUB Directory for work that they cannot complete with their own staff and resources. Additional requirements are listed in Attachment C. In addition to a completed SP, contractors planning to subcontract portions of their work for TEA are required to provide supporting documentation to support good faith efforts. (for example, emails between the contractor and potential subcontractors, trade organizations, and development centers)."

To: "In accordance with the Texas Comptroller's amended VetHUB Program rules and the State of Texas Subcontracting Plan (SP) Form, effective May 12, 2026, the contractor shall make a good faith effort to notify Texas-certified Veteran-Owned Businesses (VetHUBs) of each subcontracting opportunity identified in Section 4 of the SP Form. To identify appropriate VetHUB vendors, the contractor should search the Centralized Master Bidders List (CMBL) and VetHUB Directory by business category or NIGP code for firms capable of performing the subcontracting opportunity. Certified VetHUB vendors may be identified using the VetHUB-only search function and will be designated with an Active Bidder (A-Approved) VetHUB status.

For each subcontracting opportunity identified in Section 5.3, the contractor shall document a minimum of two Texas-certified VetHUB vendors that were notified of the opportunity. Documentation shall include the vendor's legal business name, Texas Vendor Identification (VID) Number, date of notification, and the vendor's response status, if any."

II. Questions - The following questions and associated responses are hereby incorporated into the above-referenced solicitation:

1. QUESTION: If there is an incumbent contractor, could you please provide the name of the incumbent?

TEA RESPONSE: There is no incumbent contractor. TEA currently uses TeamMate+ Audit and Smartsheet to support fiscal and programmatic monitoring activities.

2. QUESTION: Has TEA seen any demonstrations of SaaS vendors offering FFMPS solutions? If so, which softwares and companies have been engaged in market research prior to this RFO?

TEA RESPONSE: No.

3. QUESTION: Approximately what dollar value of federal subawards does TEA monitor annually in the FFMPS?

TEA RESPONSE: For the current monitoring cycle, FFM is monitoring 146 subrecipients with federal award amounts totaling approximately $210.1 million.

4. QUESTION: Approximately how many fiscal and programmatic monitoring reviews are conducted annually today, and what volume does TEA expect the new system to support?

TEA RESPONSE: FFM is currently monitoring 146 subrecipients, and FPC is validating an additional 163 school systems. TEA anticipates and expects the system to be able to support 400 or more fiscal and programmatic reviews annually.

5. QUESTION: How many materially distinct federal programs, funding streams, or monitoring protocols will the system support?

TEA RESPONSE: The system must support TEA’s federal fiscal and programmatic monitoring protocols. Specific configuration requirements will be provided to the awarded contractor during implementation.

6. QUESTION: How many TEA administrators, TEA staff, reviewers and other internal end-users are expected to access the system?

TEA RESPONSE: TEA anticipates that more than 30 internal users will require system access.

7. QUESTION: What distinct internal and external user roles are required—for example FFM reviewers, FPC reviewers, FCU staff, supervisors and school-system users—and what actions should each role perform?

TEA RESPONSE: The system must support role-based access for internal TEA users and external school-system users. Specific roles and permissions will be finalized with the awarded contractor during implementation.

RFO 701-26-013, Addendum 1 2

8. QUESTION: What data segregation and visiblity separation is required among FFM, FPC, FCU and other TEA program teams?

Should TEA staff have cross-program visibility, and should each school system be restricted exclusively to its own monitoring reviews, findings, documents and corrective actions?

TEA RESPONSE: TEA staff will require varying levels of access based on assigned roles. External users must be restricted to information associated with their respective school system or organization.

9. QUESTION: How materially different are the monitoring protocols, evidence requests, forms and review workflows across FFM, FPC and the federal programs being monitored? Can TEA provide samples, templates, screenshots or PDFs of current forms?

TEA RESPONSE: Monitoring protocols and workflows vary by monitoring function and program. Detailed requirements, forms, and templates will be provided to the awarded contractor during implementation.

10. QUESTION: At what level of financial detail must TEA capture or analyze data during fiscal monitoring—for example federal program, award/subaward, fund source, cost category, expenditure or transaction?

TEA RESPONSE: The system must support the financial data and supporting documentation required by TEA’s federal fiscal monitoring protocols. Specific data elements will be finalized during implementation.

11. QUESTION: What financial schedules, expenditure records and supporting documentation are school systems required to submit during fiscal monitoring, and do those requirements vary materially by federal program? Can you provide examples?

TEA RESPONSE: Grantees may submit various financial records and supporting documentation based on the applicable monitoring protocol. The system must accept and store commonly used file types, including Word, Excel, and PDF.

12. QUESTION: How should TEA's federal awards, funding sources/programs, subrecipients, subawards and individual monitoring reviews relate to one another in the system?

TEA RESPONSE: Monitoring reviews are individualized based on the school system’s risk level, the federal program monitored, and the indicators selected for review.

13. QUESTION: Can TEA provide existing fiscal/programmatic monitoring protocols, process maps, checklists or workflow diagrams that respondents should use when designing the proposed solution?

TEA RESPONSE: Current FFM and FPC monitoring protocols are available on TEA’s applicable program webpages. Respondents should propose solutions that improve the efficiency of TEA’s monitoring workflows and processes.

14. QUESTION: Can TEA provide samples of the six categories of TeamMate+ records identified in Section 1.7.B?

TEA RESPONSE: Applicable samples and detailed record information will be provided to the awarded contractor during implementation.

15. QUESTION: You mention relationships need to be carried over during migration. For scoping purposes, can you please provide the data model diagrams for the record types and relationships in TeamMate+?

TEA RESPONSE: The solution must migrate applicable TeamMate+ data while preserving record relationships and making historical and longitudinal information available to authorized TEA staff. Detailed data models will be addressed during implementation.

16. QUESTION: What are the approximate record counts, document counts/storage volume, historical date range and available export formats for the TeamMate+ migration?

TEA RESPONSE: Detailed record counts, document volumes, historical date ranges, and export formats will be identified with the awarded during kickoff.

17. QUESTION: Will individual student, parent, teacher or other personally identifiable information—or protected health information—be stored in the system? If so, what specific data categories are anticipated?

TEA RESPONSE: No. The solution must comply with all applicable federal and state security and data-protection requirements, including FERPA.

18. QUESTION: What authentication/SSO requirements apply to internal TEA staff and external school-system users? Are any integrations required beyond the TeamMate+ migration?

TEA RESPONSE: The system must provide secure, role-based access for internal TEA and external school-system users. Specific authentication, SSO, and integration requirements will be finalized during solution design

RFO 701-26-013, Addendum 1 3

19. QUESTION: Does fiscal monitoring require the system to receive or integrate expenditure, payment, reimbursement, drawdown or other financial data from another TEA system? If so, from which system(s)?

TEA RESPONSE: No. This information is pulled by TEA staff during monitoring reviews from other existing TEA systems.

20. QUESTION: What types of corrective actions and resolution activities result from monitoring findings? Can TEA provide representative examples, including statuses, documentation, due dates, escalation and closure processes?

TEA RESPONSE: The system must track corrective actions, due dates, status updates, supporting documentation, escalation activities, and final resolution of monitoring findings. Representative workflows will be provided during implementation.

21. QUESTION: Approximately how many distinct monitoring letter templates, findings templates, determinations templates, non-compliance notice templates, corrective-action communications and other document templates must the system generate?

Approximately how many automated notification/email types are required?

TEA RESPONSE: The system must support configurable monitoring letters, findings, determinations, noncompliance notices, corrective-action communications, and automated notifications. Final template and notification counts will be determined during implementation.

22. QUESTION: What business, regulatory, or monitoring-cycle deadline is driving the four-month Production Go-Live requirement and six-month Knowledge Transfer requirements? Is the four-month timeline expected to include completion of all historical data migration?

TEA RESPONSE: The timeline reflects TEA’s need to deploy the system promptly to support increasing monitoring workloads.

Historical data identified for migration must be successfully migrated and validated before final project completion.

23. QUESTION: Please confirm the intended contract period start date and end date?

TEA RESPONSE: Please review section 1.4 Anticipated Schedule of Events.

24. QUESTION: Which TEA teams and SMEs will participate in implementation—including FFM, FPC and FCU—and approximately how many TEA staff will comprise the core implementation/UAT team??

TEA RESPONSE: TEA subject-matter experts from the applicable program and support areas will participate in requirements validation and user acceptance testing. The size and composition of the core team will be finalized during project initiation.

25. QUESTION: Section 3.2 refers to the Information Security Review as Attachment J, while the Table of Contents, Section 3.1 and the form itself identify it as Attachment H. Please confirm Attachment H is the required Information Security Review.?

TEA RESPONSE: The Information Security Review form is Attachment H and can be found on page 74.

26. QUESTION: Attachment K states that the SLA is provided as a separate document package. We did not find this document package in Bonfire. Please confirm that the SLA is posted in Bonfire and is the document respondents should use for compliance and pricing assumptions.?

TEA RESPONSE: Attachment K has been posted to the Bonfire platform and submissions must address their ability to meet those requirements in their proposal.

27. QUESTION: For a TX-RAMP-certified SaaS solution that is not currently on “DIR's approved blanket SaaS products list”, will TEA pursue the required DCS exemption after selection, and is any vendor action required prior to award??

TEA RESPONSE: Vendors must hold either TX-RAMP Level 2 Certification or TX-RAMP Provisional Certification leading to TX-RAMP Level 2 Certification at the time of contract execution and maintain the required status throughout the term of the contract. Vendors are responsible for obtaining the required TX-RAMP certification.

28. QUESTION: Does the criminal-background-check/fingerprinting requirement apply to vendor personnel who only access TEA Confidential Information within the vendor-hosted SaaS environment, or only personnel accessing TEA internal systems, networks, or campuses?

TEA RESPONSE: Please see #86 of the TEA Terms and Conditions.

29. QUESTION: Is there an anticipated budget range or not-to-exceed amount for this procurement?

TEA RESPONSE: TEA does not make project-specific budget information public. A Respondents should develop and submit their proposed pricing based on the requirements, scope, deliverables, and assumptions outlined in the solicitation and their own assessment of the level of effort necessary to successfully complete the work.

RFO 701-26-013, Addendum 1 4

30. QUESTION: Are key personnel required to work onsite in Texas, or may they perform services remotely or offshore? If onsite presence is required, 2) please specify which roles, locations, and expected frequency?

TEA RESPONSE: There is not an expectation of an on-site presence from the selected vendor.

31. QUESTION: Please provide the anticipated number of internal TEA users and External Users?

TEA RESPONSE: TEA anticipates more than 30 internal users. The system must support use by 400 or more grantees annually;

the number of individual external users has not been prescribed, as the number of staff responsible for uploading information will vary by organization.

32. QUESTION: How many years of historical data must be migrated? Please provide the volume to be migrated??

TEA RESPONSE: The applicable historical period and volume will be discussed with the awarded contractor at kickoff.

33. QUESTION: What is TEA’s anticipated budget or not-to-exceed amount for implementation, data migration, integrations, annual licensing, support and optional services?

TEA RESPONSE: TEA does not make project-specific budget information public. As a result, detailed funding amounts, cost estimates, budget allocations, and internal financial planning documents associated with this project are not available for release. Respondents should develop and submit their proposed pricing based on the requirements, scope, deliverables, and assumptions outlined in the solicitation and their own assessment of the level of effort necessary to successfully complete the work.

34. QUESTION: Please confirm the expected calendar duration of the contract. Section 1.5 states one state fiscal year and indicates that a partial state fiscal year does not count toward that total?

TEA RESPONSE: This information is correct.

35. QUESTION: What post-go-live stabilization or hypercare period does TEA expect, and what support is required during that period?

TEA RESPONSE: Ninety (90) days of post-go-live hypercare/stabilization support is required. Support should include SLA compliance validation, user adoption support, production defect resolution, performance monitoring, and operational transition to normal support.

36. QUESTION: What existing TEA systems or third-party systems must the new monitoring system integrate with? What are the integration methods does the TEA expecting such as API's or any Middleware tools like MuleSoft etc.?

TEA RESPONSE: The selected vendor will be responsible for working with TEA staff to migrate data from existing systems such as TeamMate+ and SmartSheet, and other relevant system. Since this is a new system, we would expect that the software be able to integrate if needed to other pre-existing systems.

37. QUESTION: What are the systems TEA currently using for reports and analytics??

TEA RESPONSE: TEA currently uses TeamMate+ Audit and Smartsheet to support monitoring activities. Additional reporting and analytics tools, if applicable, will be identified during implementation.

38. QUESTION: What post-go-live stabilization or hypercare period does TEA expect, and what support is required during that period?

TEA RESPONSE: Ninety (90) days of post-go-live hypercare/stabilization support is required. Support should include SLA compliance validation, user adoption support, production defect resolution, performance monitoring, and operational transition to normal support.

39. QUESTION: Does TEA has any preference for onshore/offshore resources for implementing new system?

TEA RESPONSE: Attachment B states, “All Contractor personnel, including subcontractors, assigned to perform work under the Contract must perform such work from within the United States.” In addition, “Contractor personnel may not use any computing device to access TEA's network, systems, or email while located outside the continental United States”. Vendors may submit red lines exception to the terms and conditions.

40. QUESTION: What TX-RAMP certification level is required for the proposed solution and every third-party cloud service— Level 1, Level 2 or another classification?

TEA RESPONSE: Vendors must hold either TX-RAMP Level 2 Certification or TX-RAMP Provisional Certification leading to TX-RAMP Level 2 Certification at the time of contract execution and maintain the required status throughout the term of the contract.

RFO 701-26-013, Addendum 1 5

41. QUESTION: The RFP states that TEA seeks to increase the number of fiscal and programmatic monitoring reviews completed annually and accelerate issuance of monitoring results. Could TEA provide:

- the approximate number of fiscal reviews and programmatic reviews completed annually; and

- the average duration of each review type (from initiation to issuance of results)?

TEA RESPONSE: FFM is currently monitoring 146 subrecipients, and FPC is validating 163 school systems. TEA anticipates supporting 400 or more reviews annually. Average review duration varies and is not specified.

42. QUESTION: The RFP notes that the solution will support more than 400 school systems annually. Could TEA provide estimated counts for:

- TEA internal users by role (administrators, reviewers, approvers, managers, etc.);

- average and maximum external users per school system; and

- expected concurrent user volumes for both internal and external users?

TEA RESPONSE: TEA anticipates more than 30 internal users and is used by 400 or more grantees annually. User counts by role and expected concurrent-user volumes will be finalized during requirements validation

43. QUESTION: TeamMate+ Audit is identified as the current monitoring application and the RFP requires migration of relevant historical information. Could TEA provide:

- approximate number of years of historical data to be migrated;

- approximate counts of reviews, findings, corrective actions, documents, and correspondence records;

- approximate volume and size of supporting documents and attachments;

- source export capabilities (API, database extract, flat files, reports, etc.); and

- whether TEA expects all historical records or only a defined subset to be migrated?

TEA RESPONSE: Applicable historical TeamMate+ reviews, findings, corrective actions, documents, correspondence, and related records must be migrated while preserving data integrity and record relationships.

44. QUESTION: Could TEA identify the specific systems, application and databases that the SaaS solution will need to integrate with and available integration methods for each system (e.g., APIs, direct database access, batch file transfers)?

TEA RESPONSE: TeamMate+ is the identified legacy monitoring application as well as SmartSheet for other processes. TEA’s expectation is that the data is migrated from existing systems to new systems.

45. QUESTION: The solicitation requires SaaS solutions to be TX-RAMP or FedRAMP certified. Could TEA clarify:

- the required TX-RAMP impact level (Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3, as applicable);

- whether TX-RAMP provisional certification is acceptable at contract award or implementation; and

- whether FedRAMP authorization alone is sufficient or requires TX-RAMP reciprocity prior to production use?

TEA RESPONSE: Vendors must hold either TX-RAMP Level 2 Certification or TX-RAMP Provisional Certification leading to TX-RAMP Level 2 Certification at the time of contract execution and maintain the required status throughout the term of the contract. Vendors that receive a designation on the FedRAMP marketplace or GovRAMP authorized products list may inherit a corresponding status within TX-RAMP by submitting a request to DIR for a reciprocal TX-RAMP certification.

46. QUESTION: TeamMate+ Audit is identified as TEA’s current monitoring application. Could TEA describe:

- the primary business processes currently managed within TeamMate+ Audit;

- key workflow stages completed outside of TeamMate+ Audit; and

- the systems, repositories, or tools supporting those external processes.?

TEA RESPONSE: TeamMate+ Audit supports current federal fiscal monitoring activities, while other monitoring activities use additional tools, including Smartsheet and manual processes. Detailed workflows will be reviewed with the awarded contractor during implementation.

47. QUESTION: Please identify the current tools or systems used for federal fiscal and program monitoring and describe the data, documents, case history, communications, and audit records that the selected contractor will be required to migrate, including estimated record counts and storage volume.?

TEA RESPONSE: TEA currently uses TeamMate+ Audit and Smartsheet. The solution must support migration of applicable monitoring reviews, results, findings, determinations, supporting documents, corrective actions, status information, correspondence, and reporting data. Detailed counts and storage volumes will be determined during data assessment.

RFO 701-26-013, Addendum 1 6

48. QUESTION: Please provide the anticipated numbers of TEA users, external school-system users, participating organizations, concurrent users, annual monitoring reviews, and annual document submissions that respondents should use for solution sizing and pricing.?

TEA RESPONSE: TEA anticipates more than 30 internal users and is used by 400 or more grantees annually. User counts by

49. QUESTION: Please identify all required integrations, including identity and access management, TEA or school-system data repositories, document storage, email, financial or grants systems, and reporting platforms, and indicate which systems provide supported APIs or other interface specifications.?

TEA RESPONSE: TeamMate+ migration is required. Additional integrations will be identified during requirements validation and solution design.

50. QUESTION: What TX-RAMP impact level and authorization status will be required, and must the selected solution hold that authorization at proposal submission, contract execution, or production go-live?

TEA RESPONSE: Vendors must hold either TX-RAMP Level 2 Certification or TX-RAMP Provisional Certification leading to TX- RAMP Level 2 Certification at the time of contract execution and maintain the required status throughout the term of the contract.

51. QUESTION: Please confirm the target contract start and production go-live dates, whether TEA anticipates a phased rollout, and the functional, performance, security, and user-acceptance criteria that will govern final acceptance?

TEA RESPONSE: Please refer to Section 1.4 of the RFO and the TADBP.

52. QUESTION: Within TEA's established fiscal and programmatic monitoring processes beyond TeamMate+ Audit, please describe the current tools and enablers used to support monitoring, including data analytics, document management or workflow activities?

TEA RESPONSE: TEA currently uses TeamMate+ Audit, Smartsheet, and manual processes to support monitoring, document management, workflow, and reporting activities.

53. QUESTION: Within the RFP, Section 1.5 states that the contract term is one state fiscal year, with any partial initial period excluded from that calculation, while Section 1.4 anticipates a January 2027 start date. Attachment E, however, requires fixed rates for both an initial contract period and an optional renewal period. To ensure a consistent pricing basis, please clarify the intended duration and end date of the initial contract period, whether renewal periods are contemplated, and the contract periods for which respondents should provide pricing?

TEA RESPONSE: Attachment E is provided as an example only. There is no requirement to submit hourly rates for development staff or pricing for optional renewal periods. The contract term is correctly stated in Section 1.5, and the anticipated start date is identified in Section 1.4.

54. QUESTION: Can TEA describe its desired use of analytics, automation, AI-assisted capabilities with human oversight, and other technology enablers to support fiscal and program monitoring activities?

TEA RESPONSE: TEA seeks configurable dashboards, reporting, automated workflows, document generation, notifications, data export, and audit trails. Respondents may propose additional innovative capabilities, including appropriately governed AI-assisted functionality, consistent with all security and compliance requirements.

55. QUESTION: Sections 1.10 and 3.6 state that payment for product licenses will be based on “defined minimum acceptable usage criteria listed in this document.” Please identify the minimum acceptable usage criteria and where they are defined in the solicitation?

TEA RESPONSE: Please refer to sections 1.7 and 1.8 of the RFO.

56. QUESTION: Section 1.5 states that the contract term is one state fiscal year and that a partial state fiscal year following contract execution will not count toward that term. Attachment E also references an initial contract period and an optional renewal period. With an anticipated January 2027 contract start, please confirm the anticipated initial contract end date and identify any available renewal periods?

TEA RESPONSE: Attachment E is provided as an example only. There is no requirement to submit hourly rates for development staff or pricing for optional renewal periods. The contract term is correctly stated in Section 1.5, and the anticipated start date is identified in Section 1.4.

RFO 701-26-013, Addendum 1 7

57. QUESTION: Section 1.10 states that “all pricing included in the response falls under the product license fee for the software.” Section 3.6 separately references software subscription/licensing, maintenance, support, implementation activities, and optional professional services, while Attachment F provides separate one-time implementation-related pricing categories. Attachment E also requests hourly rates for development staff. Please clarify the intended pricing structure?

TEA RESPONSE: Attachment E is an example only, and there is no requirement for hourly rates for development staff. The attachment provides a baseline outline of scheduled events and target dates. Respondents may refine and propose an alternative detailed project schedule as part of their submission. Respondents shall provide pricing for all software subscription, licensing, implementation, and any other costs necessary to deliver the proposed solution. All pricing included in the response falls under the product license fee for the software.

58. QUESTION: For purposes of pricing the required historical TeamMate+ migration, please provide the approximate historical period and volume of records and documents expected to be migrated, identify the anticipated export format or extraction method, and confirm whether TEA will provide the TeamMate+ data extract or whether the awarded contractor will be responsible for extracting data directly from TeamMate+. Please also confirm whether TeamMate+ is the only legacy source included in the migration requirement.?

TEA RESPONSE: TeamMate+ is the identified legacy source. Applicable historical reviews, findings, corrective actions, documents, status information, correspondence, and reporting data must be migrated. Detailed volumes, historical periods, extraction methods, and any additional legacy sources will be identified during data assessment. The general requirement is the past seven (7) years of information.

59. QUESTION: For each school system or subrecipient selected for monitoring, does TEA expect the platform to allow access for all staff members necessary to participate in document submission, review communications, findings, and corrective action activities, without a prescribed limit on user accounts per organization?

TEA RESPONSE: The platform must permit authorized school-system personnel to submit documentation, respond to inquiries, review findings, and manage corrective actions. The solicitation does not prescribe a specific limit on user accounts per organization

60. QUESTION: What is the anticipated date of the first monitoring cycle in which the platform would be utilized?

TEA RESPONSE: Production go-live is required within four months of contract execution. The first monitoring cycle that will use the platform will be determined during implementation planning.

61. QUESTION: In addition to FFM, FPC, and FCU identified in the RFO, does TEA anticipate any other divisions or units using the system during the initial contract term?

TEA RESPONSE: The initial scope identifies FFM, FPC, and FCU. TEA does not anticipate other divisions or units at this time.

62. QUESTION: How many monitoring related letters are sent to each school systems during a monitoring cycle?

TEA RESPONSE: The number of monitoring-related letters varies based on the review, findings, and corrective-action activities.

63. QUESTION: Can Attachment F - Price Proposal be modified or must it be completed as is?

TEA RESPONSE: Yes, vendors may provide alternative Attachment F response.

64. QUESTION: How many programmatic reviews do you complete each year?

TEA RESPONSE: FPC is currently validating 163 school systems and anticipates that the annual volume may increase to approximately 200.

65. QUESTION: How many fiscal reviews do you complete each year?

TEA RESPONSE: FFM is currently monitoring 146 subrecipients and anticipates that the annual volume may increase to approximately 200.

66. QUESTION: How many TEA staff use the tool?

TEA RESPONSE: TEA anticipates that more than 30 internal users will require access to the system.

67. QUESTION: How many users external to TEA submit documentation?

TEA RESPONSE: TEA anticipates more than 30 internal users and is used by 400 or more grantees annually. User counts by

RFO 701-26-013, Addendum 1 8

68. QUESTION: How many corrective actions do you issue each year?

TEA RESPONSE: Corrective-action volume varies based on monitoring results and identified noncompliance.

69. QUESTION: What number of issues do you track and resolve in a year? What status reporting is done to the board? How often?

TEA RESPONSE: The number of issues varies based on monitoring results, findings, and corrective actions.

III. All other provisions of the solicitation remain the same.