Amendment_1_RFP_33101-26013_School_Choice_Program_Mgt_System.pdf
PDF 652 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFP 33101-26013FAS5
- Issued by
- Davidson County, Tennessee
About this file
Amendment #1 to RFP #33101-26013FAS5 - School Choice Program Management System
This document is Amendment #1 to a Request for Proposals issued by the State of Tennessee Department of Education for a comprehensive School Choice Program Management System. The amendment updates the RFP schedule, provides clarifications to 102 questions and comments submitted by potential respondents, and replaces the original RFP document entirely with Release #2. The State seeks a secure, web-based electronic system to support three school choice programs: the Education Savings Account (ESA), Individualized Education Account (IEA), and Education Freedom Scholarship (EFS). The system must accommodate approximately 70,000 account holders, 700 schools, 100 State staff members, and 400 service providers. The system shall consolidate three existing platforms and migrate approximately 70,000 historical applications and associated data dating back to the 2023-2024 school year. Key milestones include a Pre-response Conference scheduled for November 6, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., a written questions deadline of November 14, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., a Notice of Intent to Respond deadline of November 7, 2025, and a response submission deadline of December 19, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Technical response evaluations are scheduled for completion by January 9, 2026, with cost proposals to be scored on January 12, 2026. The State will release a Notice of Intent to Award on January 15, 2026, with the protest period ending January 23, 2026. Contract signature is anticipated by January 29, 2026, with full system implementation required by May 1, 2026. The contract term spans sixty-four months through fiscal year 2031.
The estimated maximum contract liability is $9,750,000 for the full contract term. The cost proposal must be submitted on the exact form specified in RFP Attachment 6.3 and includes line items for requirements gathering, development, testing, pilot training, rollout phases, annual system hosting, subscription or license fees, system maintenance, technical support, and change orders. The State will not confirm whether the current system will continue operating for the 2026-2027 school year. Historical data migration includes applicant information, document uploads, status records, application reviews, and financial records from all three programs. The system must be contractor-hosted as a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) solution meeting State security requirements, with no specified cloud provider preference. The State currently utilizes Microsoft Entra ID for Single Sign-On integration and EdFi 6.x API/4.x data model standards. No formal minimum technical score threshold is required before cost proposals are evaluated. The State will not allow respondents to propose revisions to contract terms during negotiations prior to award, and oral presentations will not be conducted as part of the RFP evaluation process.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
09-20-18 RFP-AMEND
RFP #33101-26013FAS5 – Amendment #01 Page 1 of 18
STATE OF TENNESSEE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 33101-26013FAS5
AMENDMENT #01
FOR SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
DATE: December 12, 2025
RFP # 33101-26013FAS5 IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
1. This RFP Schedule of Events updates and confirms scheduled RFP dates. Any event, time, or date containing revised or new text is highlighted.
EVENT
TIME
(Central Time
Zone)
DATE
1. RFP Issued October 30, 2025
2. Disability Accommodation Request Deadline 2:00 p.m. November 5, 2025
3. Pre-response Conference 10:30 a.m. November 6, 2025
4. Notice of Intent to Respond Deadline 2:00 p.m. November 7, 2025
5. Written “Questions & Comments” Deadline 2:00 p.m. November 14, 2025
6. State Response to Written “Questions & Comments”
December 12, 2025
7. Response Deadline 2:00 p.m. December 19, 2025
8. State Completion of Technical Response Evaluations
January 9, 2026
9. State Opening & Scoring of Cost Proposals 8:00 a.m. January 12, 2026
10. Negotiations (Optional) January 13 -14, 2026
11. State Notice of Intent to Award Released and RFP Files Opened for Public Inspection
2:00 p.m. January 15, 2026
12. End of Protest Period January 23, 2026
13. State sends contract to Contractor for signature
January 27, 2026
14. Contractor Signature Deadline 2:00 p.m. January 29, 2026
RFP #33101-26013FAS5 – Amendment #01 Page 2 of 18
2. State responses to questions and comments in the table below amend and clarify this RFP.
Any restatement of RFP text in the Question/Comment column shall NOT be construed as a change in the actual wording of the RFP document.
RFP
SECTION
PAG
E
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
General 1. Is there any data migration that will need to be done during the primary project phases? If so, what will need to be migrated and what will need to be migrated or copied to the new system?
Yes, all historical data (since 2023-2024) will need to be migrated from the current system during the primary project phases.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.11.
User Access
page
2. Do you already have permission groups and an approved access matrix identified for users for PII and other basic information?
The State will define permission groups as required to implement the State’s different choice programs. Currently, there are permissions for State staff, the selected contractor, service providers, and families.
Pro Forma Contract Section D.7.
Assignment and Subcontracting
page
3. If COTS software is used to provide the base functionality and/or additional functions required by the RFP, is it considered a subcontractor, or should that just be disclosed as part of the solution?
It can be disclosed as part of the solution unless the COTS provider is providing custom development for the solution as well, in which case the COTS system should be disclosed as part of the solution and the COTS provider as a subcontractor providing additional services.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.20.
and A.21. Pass Through Funds
4. Please expand on the description of Pass Through Funds, and what those will be used or invoiced for, as mentioned in A.20 and A.21 of the Pro Forma contract, and referenced to Section C. Section C does not clarify the purpose of Pass Through funds for State Approved service providers.
Pass Through Funds are state funds awarded to families to be used for educational purposes and are paid directly to service providers on behalf of the families through the selected contractor’s system. Service providers and schools will submit an invoice via a portal in the selected contractor’s system, and the contractor will then submit the invoice to the State for approval. Once the goods and services are approved by the State and provided by the service provider, then the State funds will pass through the portal to the service providers and schools.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.13.e.
Technical Specifications
5. Does the state have Ed-Fi data standard models and access standards identified for stakeholders and the system?
Are there specific use-cases or examples of what Ed-Fi standards will be used, as guidance for information that the system should be gathering and making available via data access?
The State is currently using EdFi 6.x API/4.x data model but will be keeping current with the current EdFi roadmap going forward.
General 6. Do you have a list of the vendors who have registered intents to respond for this RFP?
The State does not have an official list of potential respondents who have submitted an intent to respond, but the State does maintain emails received expressing an intent to respond to this solicitation.
RFP Section 2 Schedule of Events
RFP Attachment
6.2 Section C.2.
pages
7 and
7. Implementation Timeline: The Contractor Signature Deadline is January 29, 2026, and the full System Implementation deadline is May 1, 2026. This is an exceptionally short 3-month timeline for a system of this
The stated implementation timeline in the RFP is the expectation.
RFP #33101-26013FAS5 – Amendment #01 Page 3 of 18
PAG
E
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
scale. Can the State confirm this date is firm? Is a phased rollout acceptable, or is this date tied to a specific legislative start date for one of the programs?
RFP Attachment
6.2. Section
B.13 Personnel Roster
page
8. Personnel Roster: We plan to hire additional personnel relevant to the contract execution. Can the relevant resume details of soon to be hired employees be shared?
This is acceptable, but Respondents should also clearly identify the employment status of all proposed key personnel (e.g., current employees, contingent hires, etc.)
RFP Attachment
6.2. Section
C.4. State SSO Integration
page
9. State SSO Integration: The RFP requires the system to "integrate with the State Single Sign On (SSO) solution". What specific SSO technology/protocol (e.g., SAML 2.0, OIDC) and vendor (e.g., Azure AD, Okta) does the State use?
Are technical integration guides available?
The State currently utilizes Microsoft EntraID for its SSO solution. There are technical implementation guides available to integrate with Microsoft Entra services.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.a.2.
Application System
page
10. Data Migration Scope: The RFP mentions combining "three (3) separate platforms" and transferring "existing data". Can the State identify these three platforms and provide details on the volume, format, and complexity of the historical data to be migrated?
Data would need to be migrated from all three (3) existing choice programs, housed within the State’s current contractor’s system. This data migration will include but is not limited to applicant information, document uploads, status records, application reviews, and financial records. Data for approximately 70,000 applications and their reviews will need to be migrated in full.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.a.3.
Application System
page
11. Document Verification: What is the State's anticipated technical mechanism (e.g., automated API call, manual staff review, integration with third-party verification services) for verifying uploaded documents such as IRS tax forms, birth certificates, and residency documentation?
The documents uploaded will be verified manually by State staff. There is no requirement in this RFP for an automated technical mechanism for document verification.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.a.46.
Application System
page
12. Program Prioritization: How should the System prioritize a student who is eligible for multiple School Choice Programs (ESA, EFS, and IEA), and what is the definitive priority order between these three distinct programs?
Students can be eligible for all three (3) school choice programs but can ultimately only receive funding from one (1) program. Once eligibility is determined, the parent makes the decision as to which program best fits their students’ needs.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.
a.48
page
13. Lottery Weighting (ESA): Clarify how the various prioritization factors for the ESA lottery/waitlist—specifically "renewal," "Priority School zoning," "household income," "prior year status," and "sibling participation"—are weighted and applied in the selection algorithm?
If the number of ESA Program applications received by the State from eligible students exceeds the maximum number of students that may participate in the ESA Program for that school year, then the State shall conduct an enrollment lottery process. Students who participated in the ESA Program in the previous school year shall be re-enrolled in the program if renewal criteria is met and shall be excluded from entering into an enrollment lottery.
If an enrollment lottery is conducted, then enrollment priority must be granted in the following order:
(a) Eligible students who have a sibling participating in the ESA Program;
RFP #33101-26013FAS5 – Amendment #01 Page 4 of 18
PAG
E
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
(b) Eligible students zoned to attend a priority school as defined by the State’s accountability system pursuant to T.C.A. § 49-1-602, at the time of the enrollment lottery;
(c) Eligible students eligible for direct certification for free lunch under 42 U.S.C. § 1758(b)(4); and
(d) All other eligible students.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.a.52
page
14. Language Requirements: The system must "include multiple languages" and provide "translated versions". Which specific languages (e.g., Spanish, Arabic, etc.) are required for the initial implementation? Will the State provide certified translations, or is the contractor expected to procure translation services?
The system shall allow external stakeholders to translate all content to their chosen language via a web-based translation service The system must allow external stakeholders the ability to translate all content to their chosen language via a web-based translation service or an automated program that ensures confidentiality and data protection.
RFP Attachment
6.2 Section C.7.
page
15. System Customization vs. COTS:
Provide further details on the desired balance between customizing a ready-made product versus custom-building the system to meet Tennessee-specific provisions, particularly regarding the ability to quickly incorporate changing legislative mandates.
The system must meet the needs of the choice programs as defined within the Pro Forma Contract and/or during the requirements gathering phase with the State. How those needs are met between COTS configuration vs. customization depends on the selected contractor's ability to convey solution options to the State.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.13.
Technical Specifications
page
16. Hosting & Cloud Environment: The system must be cloud-based. Does the State have a preferred cloud provider (e.g., Azure, AWS)? Must the solution be deployed into a State-managed cloud environment, or is a contractor-hosted, SaaS (Software as a Service) solution acceptable, provided it meets all security requirements?
There is no preference for cloud provider. The solution must be a contractor hosted SaaS solution that meets the State’s security requirements.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.13.h.3.
Technical Specifications
page
17. Testing Data: Since the testing site must mirror the production System, what is the required method for populating the testing site with realistic, non-production State Data Sets, and what specific limitations or obfuscation rules apply to this data?
There is no required method; however, the selected contractor will provide a testing site that does not contain real personally identifiable information, financial data, or Social Security Number data. The volume of data available in the testing site will mirror anticipated production volumes (and beyond) to ensure there is enough test data available.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.19.
System Maintenance
page
18. SLA: What are the State's expected Service Level Agreement (SLA) response and resolution times for technical support tickets, and do they differ for State staff versus families?
Response and resolution times will vary depending on the severity and impact of the reported issue.
Service level times will not vary by user profile.
See item 3 below for revised Pro Forma Contract section A.19.h.
General 19. Are you looking for off the shelf SaaS platform that will be configured to meet the requirements of this RFP, or is the State open to proposals for a bespoke, tailored solution that requires significant custom development?
The selected contractor shall provide a system that meets the needs of the State and meets the State's requirements as defined within the Pro Forma Contract. How the system is provided depends on the selected contractor.
RFP #33101-26013FAS5 – Amendment #01 Page 5 of 18
PAG
E
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
RFP Attachment
6.4. Reference
Questionnaire
page
20. When submitting Contractor Reference Projects (as required in Attachment 6.4), must the references be specific to the Education Scholarship Account (ESA) program, or will references for similar large scale Department of Education (DOE) or School Choice program management system be acceptable?
Attachment 6.4 requires references from projects similar to the goods or services sought under this
RFP.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.17.
System Hosting and Storage
page
21. How many years of historical data (e.g., application records, fiscal transactions, denials) from the existing platforms are required to be migrated into the new System database?
All historical data (since 2023-2024) will need to be migrated from the current system during the primary project phase.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.8.c.
page
22. Please clarify the meaning of the requirement to pull historical data into the query tool. Is this limited to the three School Choice Programs (ESA, IEA, EFS) or does it include data from other related programs?
This requirement is only related to the three (3) school choice programs – IEA, ESA, and EFS.
RFP Section
1.1. Statement
of Procurement Purpose paragraph 3
23. Please clarify the scope of “fully customizable” and the ability to “respond to changing mandates”.
Are minor legislative/administrative changes expected to be absorbed as part of ongoing maintenance under the initial contract price?
Will a formal Change Order process be used for significant, new legislative mandates (e.g., adding a fourth program, major eligibility changes) that impact the System architecture or require substantial development effort?
This system will support three (3) state choice programs that are currently written in state law; as the laws and/or accompanying rules for these programs change, so too must the system, as necessary. The system cannot be static. Minor legislative/administrative changes, including but not limited to eligibility changes, are expected to be absorbed as part of the ongoing maintenance of the contract.
That said, Section A.23. of the Pro Forma Contract permits the State to address clarifications needed to the original contract or to memorialize operational items, order of operations, etc. via a change order. However, any requests to change the scope (by adding entirely new items, changing the contract term, or changing the payment methodology, for example) would require a written amendment pursuant to Section D.3. of the Pro Forma Contract. As such, if the State requests an enhancement to the system that is not within the scope and/or is not a State or federally required change, including the addition of a fourth choice program, the State will execute an amendment to the contract pursuant to Section D.3. of the Pro Forma Contract.
Pro Forma contract Section A.7. Support and Training System
page
24. Please clarify the scope of the required trainings. Do the “minimum of nine (9) and maximum of fifteen (15) virtual and/or recording trainings” refer to:
The total number of sessions for the entire contract term?
The total number of sessions per fiscal year?
The selected contractor shall be responsible for an initial development of trainings in the first year of the contract term with the expectation that the selected contractor will be responsible for ongoing adaptations to existing trainings throughout the life of the contract. Refer to the entirety of Pro Forma Contract Section A.7 for details of other required trainings.
RFP #33101-26013FAS5 – Amendment #01 Page 6 of 18
PAG
E
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
The total number of sessions per School Choice Program (ESA, IEA, EFS)?
General 25. Can the State provide a list of the systems requiring integration with the new system and the data required?
Currently defined Integration sources, formats and requirements are outlined in Sections A.13.e. and A.16. of the Pro Forma Contract Any additional integrations needed by the State will be addressed with the awarded Contractor via change order set forth in Pro forma Contract Section A.23.
Pro Forma contract Section A.4.a.52 Application System
page
26. How many translated languages are expected?
The system must allow external stakeholders the ability to translate all content to their chosen language via a web-based translation service or an automated program that ensures confidentiality and data protection.
General 27. Can the State please clarify what data migration requirements are in scope?
source system volume of data (e.g. number of data rows and number of tables) requiring migration
Data will need to be migrated from all three (3) existing school choice programs – IEA, ESA, and EFS – housed within the State’s current contractor’s system. This data migration will include but is not limited to applicant information, document uploads, status records, application reviews, and financial records. Data for approximately 70,000 applications and their reviews will need to be migrated in full.
contract Section A.4.a.48.v.
Application System
page
28. Is there just one application workflow for the three programs?
The system must have the flexibility to support all three (3) current choice programs defined in the RFP and Pro Forma Contract. The requirements of each of the programs may vary.
General 29. Is data archival and backup tool required? If yes, does the agency have any preference?
Yes, data archival and backup are required. The State does not have a preference for tools. The tool the selected contractor uses shall align with their system plans.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.a.11 & 35
Application System
Pdf pages 41 and
30. Does DOE have an SMS text tool? No, the State does not have an SMS text tool.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.a.18.
Application System
page
31. Does the State have a preferred E-signature tool?
The State does not have a preferred e-signature tool.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.5.e.
Account Holder Management System
page
32. Who are the "Service Providers" and what is their role?
A service provider is any individual or entity receiving payment through the Fiscal Management and Payment System on approved expense categories. Service providers will offer services like tutoring, therapy, after-school/summer programming, or goods like technology for families to purchase using program funds outside of school tuition and fees. Families in each choice program
RFP #33101-26013FAS5 – Amendment #01 Page 7 of 18
PAG
E
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
must use funding on approved expense categories. EFS allowable expenses are set forth in SBE Rule 0520-01-24-.07, ESA allowable expenses are set forth in SBE Rule 0520-01-16- .05(1)(a), and IEA allowable expenses are set forth in SBE Rule 0520-01-11-.06(1)(a).
Sections A.6.a.8, A.6.b.4, A.6.b.5. Fiscal Management & Payment System
pages 47 and
33. What is included in the e-commerce site?
The e-commerce site includes storefronts for all State-approved service providers through which they can list their current products/services and from which students and families can place orders and/or schedule sessions with/from the service providers.
Pro Forma Contract Sections A.8.2 and A.8.3.
Reporting System
page
34. What is the IVR being used and what reports are being generated from it?
There is not a current IVR in use.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.11.
User Access
page
35. Can the State provide an estimated number of users for the following user types:
the state participating schools account holders service providers
Approximately 100 State staff, 700 schools, 70,000 account holders, and 400 service providers.
Pro Forma Section A.6.a.10 Fiscal Management & Payment System
page
36. Will OOB history tracking be sufficient for this request or will a custom solution be required?
The Pro Forma Contract outlines the history tracking requirements. The selected contractor will provide a system that meets these requirements.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.
Application System
page
37. In addition to supporting all listed document upload formats, will the State allow 3rd-party identity-verification systems (Plaid, Persona, etc.) and/or Federal Income Verification Express Service (IVES) to be integrated into the application process so long as it aligns with the State's internal application management and review processes?
The State will allow secure third-party identity verification systems to be integrated into the application process if they align with internal application protocol and State security requirements.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.a.11.
Application System
page
38. What type of on-demand customer support emails are currently shared with different user types?
Large scale and individual on-demand emails are currently being shared with applicants to communicate application review status and other communications as requested by the State.
RFP #33101-26013FAS5 – Amendment #01 Page 8 of 18
PAG
E
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.a.8.
Application System
page
39. Does the State collect unique identifying information or numbers from applicants now—such as SSNs or other identifiers?
Currently, the State does not specifically collect unique identifying information or numbers as part of the application process. However, applicants may be required to upload documentation to establish income and residency to qualify for the choice programs, including but not limited to tax documents, identification documents, and mortgage/utility information, which may contain unique identifying information or numbers, including but not limited to SSNs.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.a.19.
Application System
page
40. What variables does the State match on to determine if applications are duplicates?
The selected contractor shall, at a minimum, match first name, last name, and date of birth of each applicant to identify potential duplicate applications among all programs and within a single program.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.a.23.
Application System
page
41. Is declining a scholarship only required prior to award, or must families be able to decline throughout the entire school year regardless of the amount already funded?
Families may decline a scholarship if a student has been approved for a scholarship and chooses not to use the scholarship prior to funds being awarded. If a scholarship is accepted, families may still choose to withdraw from the program at any time, which requires all funding to be returned to the State.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.a.24.
Application System
page
42. What types of documentation does the State accept as verification of income?
Currently, the State accepts a Federal Tax Form 1040 showing dependents and total household income, current benefits documentation for SNAP or TANF benefits, and current benefits letter for limited TennCare program types.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.a.
page
43. What student information would the State expect account holders to update throughout the year?
Account holders are required to update changes to the following information, at minimum:
Email address;
Physical address;
Phone number;
School type (i.e., independent home school, private school);
School enrollment transfer;
Student legal name;
LEA of residence;
Change in legal status (i.e., conservatorship or Power of Attorney (POA) documentation);
and
Change in Account Holder.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.5.c.
Account Holder Management System
page
44. What type of customer support is the Department currently handling, and through what communication methods?
On-demand emails are currently being shared with applicants to communicate application review status and other communications as requested by the State. The State also provides customer service by answering incoming calls from the public.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.6.10.
Fiscal Management
page
45. How does the Department define a duplicate account?
Duplicate accounts consist of two (2) separate accounts created for the same student in the same program.
RFP #33101-26013FAS5 – Amendment #01 Page 9 of 18
PAG
E
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
and Payment System
Pro Forma Contract Sections A.8.a.1. and A.8.a.2.
Reporting System
page
46. Please confirm that the State is not expecting the vendor to integrate with the State’s existing call center or provide reports for that existing system.
The State is not expecting the vendor to integrate with the State’s existing call center or provide reports for that existing system.
Pro Forma Contract Section E.8. - E.11.
pages 78, 79, 80, 81
47. Please confirm that: (1) All pre-existing components of our multi-tenant platform—including source code, architecture, frameworks, database structures, and underlying IP—remain solely owned by the Contractor and are not transferred to the State under Section E.8; and (2) The State will own all State data generated, stored, or processed through the system, but this ownership does not extend to the Contractor’s underlying platform IP.
Ownership of all IP and rights granted to the State for software is covered under E.8.b and corresponding subsections in the pro-forma contract. Ownership of the pre-existing components not developed for the State under the contract shall be Contractor Owned Software whose IP remains with the contractor. In accordance with E.8.b contractor grants the State a perpetual non-exclusive license to the Contractor-Owned Software to be used solely with the Custom-Developed Application Software and the Work Product. Contractor shall provide the source code in the Custom-Developed Application Software, Work Product and the Contractor- Owned Software, with all subsequent modifications, enhancements, bug-fixes or any other changes in the source code of the Work Product and the Contractor-Owned Software and all other code and documentation necessary for the Custom-Developed Application Software to be installed and function as intended and as set forth in this Contract, to the State. The State does own all data generated, stored, and processed through the system.
RFP Section
1.1. Statement
of Procurement Purpose
48. On Page 2, Section 1.1, the RFP states: “The estimated maximum liability is $9,750,000.00 for the Contract Term of sixty-four (64) months. The Contractor shall complete implementation of the System, including completion of all key project phases and associated deliverables by May 1, 2026, unless otherwise agreed to by the State” (emphasis by offeror).
Given the 64-month period of performance, should this be a start date of January 2026 and an end date of May 2031?
The implementation of the system, including completion of all key project phases and associated deliverables, is to be completed by May 2026, unless otherwise agreed by the State.
The anticipated contract term will be sixty-four (64) months.
General 49. Given the state-wide nature of the system, to what extent does the system need to be accessible to regions and people with varying levels of internet connectivity?
The system shall maintain a minimum response time regardless of internet speed. If the user can connect to the internet, they should be able to complete the process within a +/- 10% variation in time to a user on a high-speed connection. The system responsiveness should be the same whether computer or mobile experience.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.
page
50. How many programs will the selected vendor be required to build
The selected contractor will be required to build applications for the following three (3) programs:
RFP #33101-26013FAS5 – Amendment #01 Page 10 of 18
PAG
E
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
Application System applications for? Are the applications the same or significantly different?
Individualized Education Account (IEA) program
Education Savings Account (ESA) program Education Freedom Scholarship (EFS) program
Each current application is unique.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.13.c.Technica l Specifications
page
51. How many student databases does the state expect the new system to interface with via APIs?
The system will only interact with the State-owned databases/systems during the Contract Term.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.3.
page
52. Does the state have a documented work flow for all components of the system that can be shared?
The State does not have a documented workflow for all components of the system that can be shared.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.19.
System Maintenance
page
53. Are policy changes anticipated during the contract term, and how will mid-year changes be handled?
Yes, these are state programs that can be impacted by changes required by the General Assembly. Critical updates shall be made immediately or at a timeframe agreed upon by the State. All non-critical updates shall be completed by a timeframe agreed upon by the state.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.a.48.
Application System
page
54. For the prioritization and waitlist algorithm, can the State provide a complete list of priorities, tiebreakers, and household-level handling?
Prioritization is defined in statute and the SBE rules. Prioritization and waitlist algorithm information for the ESA Program can be found at Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-2601 et seq. and SBE Rule 0520-01-16-.03, while prioritization and waitlist algorithm information for the EFS Program can be found at Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-3501 et seq. and SBE Rule 0520-01-24-.03.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.a.3.
Application System
page
55. Will additional external data sources (IRS, SNAP/TANF verification, etc.)
require integration, or will Applicants upload documentation only?
Applicants will upload these external documents, which will then be verified manually by State staff.
There is no requirement in this RFP for an automated technical mechanism for document verification.
Section A.4.a.2.
Application System
page
56. Can the State provide documentation, data models, and user workflows for the three platforms being consolidated?
See response to Question #52. The State can provide process documentation and workflows required for the three (3) programs to the selected contractor. The selected contractor will work with the State to determine data needed to support these programs.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.17.
System Hosting and Storage
page
57. Should historical data be migrated in full, partially, or linked via archive?
All historical data (since 2023-2024) will need to be migrated (in full) from the current system during the primary project phase.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.a.3.
Application System
page
58. Can the State confirm if all edits after submission are prohibited unless the application is marked "Incomplete?"
All applications will be closed for edits after submission unless sent back to the applicant as Incomplete (needing changes).
RFP #33101-26013FAS5 – Amendment #01 Page 11 of 18
PAG
E
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
Pro Forma Contract Section A.12.
Emails and Automated Messages
page
59. What events or data updates must trigger notifications (email, SMS, in-portal alerts)?
On-demand emails will be shared with applicants to communicate application review status and other communications as requested by the State.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.9.b.
Project Implementation Phases and Deliverables
page
60. Will the State allow phased rollouts of subsystems, or must all components go live together?
Phased rollouts of subsystems will be permitted.as long as all components of the system can go live together on or before May 1, 2026, unless otherwise agreed to by the State.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.9.d.
Project Implementation Phases and Deliverables
page
61. When will the State provide legacy system access for requirements gathering?
The selected contractor will determine requirements for the system with the State. Legacy system access will not be required to determine requirements. The State will work with the current contractor, service providers, and/or systems/data collections to provide access to the selected contractor for the new system.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.17.
System Hosting and Storage
page
62. What is the expected size of legacy data requiring migration?
Data would need to be migrated from all three (3) existing programs, housed within the State’s current contractor’s system. This data migration will include but is not limited to applicant information, document uploads, status records, application reviews, and financial records. Data for approximately 70,000 applications and their reviews will need to be migrated in full.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.17.
System Hosting and Storage
page
63. Should scanned images/documents be migrated or only metadata?
Scanned images/documents and metadata shall be migrated.
RFP Attachment
6.2. Section
C.2.
page
64. Given that Section C.2 of the RFP requires all key project phases and associated deliverables to be completed by May 1, 2026, can the State confirm whether the current application solution will continue to be used for the 2026–2027 school year?
The State will not confirm that the current system will continue to be used for the 2026-2027 school year.
General 65. Is the State open to considering multiple pricing models?
The State requires the pricing model/cost proposal that is in the posted RFP.
RFP Attachment
6.3. Cost
Proposal and Scoring Guide
page
66. In the Cost Proposal and Scoring Guide, the line item for Scope Changes via Change Orders carries an evaluation factor of 250, whereas all other items range from 1–5. Can the State confirm whether the factor of 250 is correct?
The evaluation factor of 250 is correct.
General 67. Can the State provide a description of the current systems and tools used to manage the ESA, EFS, and IEA programs, including any legacy
The current ESA and EFS programs utilize a contractor’s SaaS platform that has both application form data and attachments related to the applications. The IEA program uses a manual
RFP #33101-26013FAS5 – Amendment #01 Page 12 of 18
PAG
E
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
platforms, manual processes, or vendor systems?
data collection process and online form submissions (FormStack) to gather data.
General 68. Does the State have an existing data-flow diagram showing how applicant, student, school, financial, and eligibility data currently move across State units and systems? If not, can the State identify the authoritative source for each major data domain?
See response to Question #52.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.3.
page
69. Can the State confirm all external systems the School Choice platform must integrate with, such as EIS, TEDS, internal finance systems, SIS sources, or third-party processors?
See response Question #25.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.3.
page
70. For each required integration, will the State provide API documentation, data dictionaries, sample files, batch schedules, and technical contacts?
For any integrations, the State will provide documentation available for the Contract Term.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.a.24 Application System
page
71. Does the State expect document upload only, or should the System calculate eligibility based on income thresholds, apply automated acceptance rules, or integrate with external verification systems?
The system shall allow for both document upload and automated acceptance/decision rules based on each program’s criteria.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.a.24 Application System
page
72. Should specific document formats be required?
Acceptable file formats include the following: .jpg, .gif, .png,. pdf,. hevc, and. heic.
Section A.4.a.48.
Application System
page
73. Should the System include a configurable rules engine that State staff can update yearly, or should rules be fixed and uneditable?
A configurable rules engine that can be updated will be required.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.a.48.
Application System
page
74. Can the State provide the full current priority criteria, including income tiers, sibling rules, geographic rules, disability-related criteria, and military priority?
ESA eligibility and prioritization information can be found in Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-2601 et seq. and SBE Rule 0520-01-16.
EFS eligibility and prioritization information can be found in Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-3501 et seq. and SBE Rule 0520-01-24.
IEA eligibility information can be found in Tenn.
Code Ann. § 49-10-1401 et seq. and SBE Rule 0520-01-11.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.a.48.
Application System
page
75. Should ESA, EFS, and IEA have separate lottery processes or a unified prioritization workflow?
ESA and EFS have different lottery and/or prioritization processes based on individual program statutes. These processes are outlined in Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.a.(48) and SBE Rules 0520-01-16 and 0520-01-24, respectively.
The IEA program does not have a lottery and/or prioritization process. Each program operates independently from the others.
RFP #33101-26013FAS5 – Amendment #01 Page 13 of 18
PAG
E
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.b.2.
Application System
page
76. Can the State provide the complete list of required document types and any specific formats?
Acceptable file formats include: .jpg, .gif, .png, .pdf, .hevc, and .heic.
Required documents include but are not limited to the following: residency verification, income verification, special education documentation, citizenship/lawful presence documentation, and other unique verification specific to some applications such as school records or appeal forms. This is not an exhaustive list.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.b.2.
Application System
page
77. Which documents require approval, expiration tracking, or renewal reminders?
Most submitted documents require annual approval.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.4.b.2.
Application System
page
78. Do requirements differ between ESA, EFS, and IEA?
Yes, each program follows its own statute and State Board of Education rule. ESA information can be found in Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-2601 et seq. and SBE Rule 0520-01-16; EFS information can be found in Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-3501 et seq. and SBE Rule 0520-01-24; and IEA information can be found in Tenn. Code Ann. § 49- 10-1401 et seq. and SBE Rule 0520-01-11.
Section A.6.a.1.
Fiscal Management and Payment System
page
79. Should wallets represent actual funds available for payment, or operate as a ledger-only accounting balance?
The wallet should operate both as a ledger and represent actual funds available for families.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.6.a.2.
Fiscal Management and Payment System
page
80. Will the Contractor be responsible for processing real payments, or solely for tracking authorizations and balances?
The selected contractor will facilitate the Pass Through Funds (state funds that flow through the selected contractor’s system and out to the service providers and schools).
Pro Forma Contract Section A.6.a.
Fiscal Management and Payment System
page
81. How are annual funding amounts calculated for each program? Are the formulas standardized or program-specific?
The funding formulas are program specific.
For ESA, the maximum annual amount is equal to either the amount representing the average allocation that students generated under the Tennessee Investment in Student Achievement (TISA) funding formula for the student’s zoned local education agency (LEA) OR the combined statewide average of required State and local TISA allocations per pupil, whichever is less.
For IEA, the maximum annual amount is equal to the amount representing the base funding allocation and the average special education funds generated by students with disabilities under the TISA formula for the LEA in which the student's enrollment is reported for purposes of this part; provided, that if a participating student participated in
RFP #33101-26013FAS5 – Amendment #01 Page 14 of 18
PAG
E
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
the program in the 2024-2025 school year, then that participating student must not receive an annual amount in the 2025-2026 school year or a subsequent school year that is less than the annual amount the participating student received in the 2024- 2025 school year..
For EFS, the scholarship is equal to the base funding amount of the TISA formula and is solely state-funded.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.6.a.
Fiscal Management and Payment System
page
82. Should the System support manual adjustments, mid-year corrections, retroactive funding, rollover balances, or recurring tuition payments?
Yes, the system shall support manual adjustments, mid-year corrections, retroactive funding, rollover balances, and recurring tuition payments.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.6.a.
Fiscal Management and Payment System
page
83. Who is responsible for approving expenses or payments (parents, schools, or State fiscal staff)?
Any expenditures inside the e-commerce storefront will be pre-approved by the State.
Parents will be able to make purchases or initiate tuition payments in the e-commerce storefront.
State staff will then approve the invoices provided by the contractor before funds are moved to the vendor.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.6.a.
Fiscal Management and Payment System
page
84. Should the System include automated control checks such as spending categories, limits, and fraud monitoring?
The system shall have the ability to enforce limitations, such as only one (1) technology purchase per school year or not exceeding limits within categories as determined by the State.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.6.a.
Fiscal Management and Payment System
page
85. What reconciliation process is expected with Treasury, State finance systems, or payment processors?
The selected contractor shall maintain accurate transaction records for all deposits, adjustments, and expenditure processed through their system and shall assist State staff in reconciling these records with the State’s official balances, as needed. Specifically, the selected contractor shall:
Provide detailed transaction reports that:
a. Include all allocations, adjustments, and expenditures for each participating student account; and
b. Align with the State’s fiscal year structure (July 1 – June 30).
Support balance verification by confirming that the ending balance for each account matches the State’s calculation below:
Beginning Balance + Allocations ± Adjustments – Expenditures = Ending Balance
Coordinate with State systems by:
a. Submitting reconciliation files;
b. Submitting other reports in formats required by the State, including formatting to assist with 1099 reporting for service providers; and
RFP #33101-26013FAS5 – Amendment #01 Page 15 of 18
PAG
E
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
c. Validating that payment processor data matches the selected contractor’s records and State records.
Resolve discrepancies by investigating and correcting any variances between the selected contractor’s records, payment processor data, and State finance system entries.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.6.a.
Fiscal Management and Payment System
page
86. Should the System generate any IRS or tax-related reporting documents?
For 1099 reporting related to service providers, the system shall report to the State reportable payments made on behalf of the State through the system that are considered offline payments.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.8.
Reporting System
page
87. Can the State provide example reporting templates or required field lists for program performance, financial reconciliation, audit reporting, and expenditure categories?
Please refer to the list provided in Pro Forma Contract Sections A.8.a. and A.8.c.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.8.c.
Reporting System
page
88. Should the query tool retrieve all data fields from all tables, including historical transactions, documents, and audit logs?
Yes, the query tool shall retrieve all data fields from all tables, including historical transactions, documents, and audit logs.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.9.
Project Implementation Phases and Deliverables
page
89. During the requirements-gathering phase, will the State provide business rules, workflow diagrams, data dictionaries, process logic, and sample datasets?
See response to Question #52. The State can provide process documentation and workflows required for the three (3) programs to the selected contractor. The selected contractor will work with the State to determine data needed to support those programs.
Pro Forma Contract Section A.10.
Project Management Plan and Schedule
page
90. Will the State designate a single owner for all programs, or separate leads for ESA, EFS, and IEA? This impacts coordination, approvals, and weekly check-ins during implementation.
The State will work with the selected contractor to develop a communication plan that is agreed upon by the State.
General 91. In similar solicitations, Tennessee and other states have often required vendors to participate in oral presentations or product demonstrations so evaluators can directly verify product functionality, quality, and user experience. Would the Department consider adding an oral presentation or product demonstration phase to this solicitation to ensure that proposed solutions meet the program’s functional, technical, and user requirements before award?
Oral presentations will not be part of this RFP.
RFP #33101-26013FAS5 – Amendment #01 Page 16 of 18
PAG
E
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
RFP Attachment
6.2. Sections B
& C
pages 23-29
92. In order to ensure that the proposed solution meets the needed requirements, would the Department consider implementing a scoring threshold for Sections B and C prior to scoring cost proposals?
All proposals will be evaluated according to the process outlined in the RFP, which includes scoring technical sections and cost proposals without a minimum technical score requirement.
RFP Section
1.1. Statement
of Procurement Purpose
93. The RFP references an “estimated” maximum liability of $9.75 million over 64 months. Could the Department clarify whether this amount represents a firm cost cap or an estimate subject to adjustment?
See item 3 below for revised RFP Section 1.1. and revised Pro Forma Contract Sections A.20. & C.3.b.
RFP Section
1.1. Statement
of Procurement Purpose
94. The “estimated” maximum liability is substantially below the market rate for comparable ESA administration contracts and may discourage competition. Generally, most ESA programs pay 2-5% of the total program budget, whereas this program appears to limit administration fees to 0.3%, an 85% discount to competitively bid prices in other states.
Would the Department consider revising this to be in line with market averages to ensure Tennessee conducts a competitive bidding process that results in the best possible solution being chosen?
See response to Question #93.
General 95. Many states incorporate customer service as a required component of ESA administration. Would the Department consider adding customer service as a required element, given its importance to ensuring families, schools, and service providers receive timely and consistent assistance throughout the life of the program?
Customer service related to the program will be handled by the State.
General 96. How will the Department evaluate proposals that leverage automation and technology to reduce the Department’s staffing requirements and save costs? Will the Department’s cost evaluation criteria consider the total program cost of each proposal, including the cost to the Department of having to hire, train and staff more manual software solutions?
All RFP proposals will be evaluated according to the process outlined in the RFP.
General 97. We noticed that responses to vendor questions are scheduled to be released approximately one week before the proposal deadline. Would the Department consider issuing responses earlier to provide vendors sufficient time to adjust their proposals
Responses to potential respondent questions will be provided as soon as possible but no later than the stated date.
RFP #33101-26013FAS5 – Amendment #01 Page 17 of 18
PAG
E
QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
based on any clarifications or updates?
General 98. The RFP frequently references a “System” as the required deliverable.
Can the Department confirm whether this indicates a preference for a single platform that can provide all the needed functionality?
Yes, the State seeks a single platform system that shall meet the current requirements for the three
(3) programs as outlined in the RFP and Pro Forma Contract.
General 99. The RFP requires that a system “must also be entirely web-based, requiring no application-specific software to be downloaded by users and being accessible from any major web browser (e.g., Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, etc.) from a tablet, mobile, or computer (including Mac or PC) to ensure users have readily available access to the System.” Can the Department confirm that a system that did not meet all of these requirements will be marked as nonresponsive?
See item 3 below for revised RFP Attachment 6.2.- Section A – Mandatory Requirements.
RFP Attachment
6.3. Cost
Proposal & Scoring Guide
page
100. The RFP states that “A Cost Proposal must be recorded on an exact duplicate of the RFP Attachment 6.3., Cost Proposal & Scoring Guide.” Can the Department confirm that any changes to the cost proposal form will result in a response being marked as nonresponsive?
Per RFP Section 3.1.2. and Section 3.1.2.1. Cost Proposal: A Cost Proposal must be recorded on an exact duplicate of RFP Attachment 6.3., Cost Proposal & Scoring Guide.
NOTICE: If a Respondent fails to…
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .