ESBD_489317_1772550937474_CIO-26-255 Addendum 1.pdf

THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

Office of Procurement & HUB Program

ADDENDUM NO. 1

Date: March 3, 2026

RFP Due Date: March 17, 2026

RE: RFP01-CIO-26-255 Employee Training LMS

Respondents shall acknowledge receipt of addendum(s) on the Execution of Offer (Exhibit A).

Questions/Responses:

1. Can TAMUS confirm the current LMS platform in use for employee training and whether the scope includes full system replacement or augmentation of existing systems?

Response: Full replacement.

2. For pricing purposes, can TAMUS clarify whether the 50,000 user estimate reflects concurrent active users, total named users, or anticipated annual login volume?

Response: There are roughly 50,000 employees across the A&M system that would utilize the system at any given time.

3. Can TAMUS clarify whether SCORM, xAPI, and LTI integrations are required at initial deployment or may be phased during implementation?

Response: Yes, at initial deployment.

4. Can TAMUS confirm the relative evaluation weighting of technical capability, security compliance, pricing, and HUB/VetHUB participation?

Response: We do not release the evaluation weighting utilized. All information available on our selection process is provided within Section 2.6 of the RFP. Note that VetHUB participation is not one of the evaluation criteria. The VetHUB requirement is a pass/fail based on proper completion of the HUB Subcontracting Plan form. Refer to Section 4.6 for more information on those requirements.

5. Which specific SSO protocols (e.g., SAML 2.0, OAuth 2.0, Shibboleth) are required for integration?

Response: Shiboleth/SAML2.0 is preferred but are OIDC/OAuth2.0 compliant as well.

6. Is there a requirement to migrate historical training data from an existing system into the new

LMS?

Response: It is preferred

7. What are the specific Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) subcontracting goal percentages for this professional/software category?

Response: The goal for this RFP is 2% as stated within section 4.6 of the RFP.

8. If a vendor intends to fulfill the entire contract using only its own resources (no subcontractors), what specific documentation is required to justify "self-performance" on the HSP form?

Response: As stated within method 4) in section 4.6 of the RFP you will complete the HSP form as self-performing. Follow the directions stated on the Quick Checklist which is page 1 of the A&M System HSP form.

9. Is the A&M System looking for a "shell" LMS where they provide all content, or does the proposal need to include a pre-built library of professional and computer training courses?

Response: No pre-built library is necessary

10. Is an integrated course authoring tool a mandatory requirement for this proposal?

Response: Yes

11. What is the desired "Go-Live" date for the system across all member agencies.

Response: We do not have a defined date. Vendor should provide their proposed time line for a successful implementation.

12. What are the expected Support Level Agreements (SLAs) for technical issues, and is 24/7 support required for all member universities?

Response: We need to hear what your support level agreement and support services are for LMS administrators.

13. What is the anticipated initial term of the contract and the number of optional renewal years?

Response: Please see section 1.5 of the RFP regarding performance period.

14. Since it’s common for some providers to present proposals with tiered pricing options (e.g., “A/B/C” structures), will vendors be disqualified if they submit multiple proposals or include alternative pricing options within their response?

Response: No

15. Who is the incumbent LMS provider?

Response: We have a custom-built product that is not commercial.

16. What is the purchase order authorization number for the existing contract currently fulfilling this requirement?

Response: See response to question 15.

17. Can you provide a summary of the key terms and scope of work from the current contract, what is different from the instant RFP?

Response: See response to question 15. All key elements for which we are interested are described in the RFP as well as the scope.

18. Are there any option years remaining on the existing contract? If so, how many?

Response: See response to question 15.

19. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current vendor’s performance?

Response: See response to question 15.

20. Are there any specific pain points or areas for improvement with the current solution?

Response: Information not available.

21. Without disclosing sensitive details, can you share general feedback on common weaknesses in unsuccessful bids from the last cycle?

Response: Not applicable.

22. When are vendor shortlist meetings?

Response: We have not identified a timeframe yet for any meetings or presentations from Respondents. If the A&M System elects to conduct any meetings, the selected Respondents will be provided sufficient time to prepare.

23. What is the expected growth in the number of users over the contract period?

Response: The number of active users remains stable. The number of unique users will increase over time. We have students who are not employees that utilize the system for required trainings, but this would not include all students.

24. What is the funding or grant source for this project?

Response: Not relevant.

25. Can you provide a budget range or estimated value for this contract?

Response: Not available.

26. Are there any specific pricing models preferred (e.g., fixed price, time and materials, subscription-based)?

Response: Please make your recommendation based on what you feel is appropriate.

27. Which specific expense line in your annual financial report will this project pay out of?

Response: Not relevant.

28. How do they evaluate price // first year or all years incl extensions

Response: All information available regarding our selection process is provided in section 2.6.

29. If we are not selected, who should we contact (name, email, phone) for a debriefing on our bid, and when should we do so?

Response: All questions on this RFP to soprocurement@tamus.edu.

30. If we are not selected, who should we contact (name, email, phone) to receive the written scoring or evaluation of our bid, and when?

Response: Requests for evaluation documents related to this RFP should be directed to openrecords@tamus.edu.

31. Are all 12 locations using Workday as their primary system of record? If no, please name any additional HRIS systems being used?

Response: Yes, all System Members use Workday.

32. Which employee eContent self-driven employee development/compliance-training providers is the Texas A&M system currently using that will require LMS integration?

Response: Some Members utilize Linkedin Learning and Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI Program)

33. Is there an interest in having self-driven employee development/compliance-training content included with the Learning Management System, and would this interest be for the purpose of enhancing the current collection or consolidating into one content provider?

Response: Yes.

34. Section 3.6.3 explicitly asks about 'traditional points and percentage grading' as well as 'competency-based grading'. Given that this platform is an Employee Training LMS primarily used for professional development and annual compliance training (as noted in Section 3.2.8), can the System clarify its specific use case for traditional grading? Specifically, will instructors actively maintain traditional academic gradebooks with letter grades, or is the primary requirement mailto:soprocurement@tamus.edu mailto:openrecords@tamus.edu simply for the system to calculate a backend score (e.g., an 80% on a quiz) that ultimately triggers a binary 'Pass/Fail' or 'Complete/Incomplete' status on the learner's transcript?

Response: The primary requirement is holistic yes.

35. The RFP mentions supporting 12 universities and 8 state agencies and asks about importing data from an "existing LMS" and "other LMS systems". Is this initiative a consolidation of multiple disparate legacy systems across the different institutions into a single unified platform, or are you replacing a single incumbent system that is currently shared by all Members?

Response: This RFP is to replace a single legacy system that is customized and integrates with additional systems built to meet unique needs for reporting and course assignments.

36. Are there specific functional gaps, compliance mandates, or technical failures in the current environment that are driving this procurement, or is this primarily a mandatory re-bid due to an expiring contract?

Response: This is not a re-bid. The Texas A&M University System uses a custom-built non-commercial product.

37. Has Texas A&M System received demos from other LMS systems? If yes, which systems?

Response: We looked a couple of systems prior to developing an RFP.

38. What is your budget for the annual recurring fees as well as one-time implementation in Year 1?

Response: Information not available.

39. What are you currently spending for your current solution?

Response: Information not available.

40. Section 2.6 outlines the factors that the A&M System will consider when determining the 'best value' for this award, including Needs Fulfillment, Experience & Qualifications, Implementation Timeline, and Financial Reasonableness. However, the RFP does not provide a specific scoring matrix. Can the System provide the anticipated percentage weights or point values assigned to each of these evaluation categories (e.g., Technical/Functional vs. Pricing vs. Timeline) so that we can ensure our proposal directly aligns with the System's highest priorities?

Response: We do not release the evaluation weighting utilized. All information available on our selection process is provided within Section 2.6 of the RFP.

41. Section 3.2.2 specifically asks vendors to describe their experience resolving "incompatibilities with SCORM packages that include specific Articulate 360 features". Can the System elaborate on the specific Articulate 360 features or interactions that are causing issues in the current environment so we can specifically address how Cornerstone resolves them?

Response: We would like to know of any limitations your system has with SCORM packages that you have encountered during past implementations and how you resolve them.

42. The RFP asks if the system can merge non-employee records with employee records if their affiliation changes. Is the System currently experiencing bottlenecks with duplicate user profiles and manual data reconciliation between Workday and the existing LMS?

Response: No.

43. Section 3.6.1 asks what the system provides regarding "adaptive learning, individual learning, mastery learning, and competency-based education". Is the System's future roadmap moving toward a comprehensive Skills ontology or internal talent mobility (Talent Marketplace)? Should vendors include broader platform capabilities in an Alternate Proposal to future-proof this investment?

Response: We seek to be open to new ways of learning and development.

44. Section 3.8 asks about "add-on products" like predictive analytics and media authoring tools. Does the System expect these features to be priced and scoped for a Day 1 implementation, or should they be presented as optional Future Phase modules?

Response: If they are required as part of the LMS to meet our requirements, it should be scoped, priced and clear within the proposal that additional add-ons are required. If they are optional, that should be clear as well.

45. Section 3.1 states that the new LMS must support 'over 50,000 users' across 12 universities and 8 state agencies. To help us accurately scope the data migration effort, align our implementation resources for each phase, and provide the most accurate Pricing Proposal (as requested in Section 4.5), can the System provide a breakdown of the anticipated user count (both active employees and historical/non-employee records) for each individual university and state agency?

Response: Decisions regarding historical data will depend on options available by the selected vendor.

46. Section 3.2.1 asks if the platform supports a "multi-institution configuration". Does the A&M System prefer a single unified tenant with robust security partitioning (Organizational Units) for each university/agency, or are you seeking separate distinct tenants for each Member institution that roll up into a master reporting view?

Response: One tenant with robust security partitioning

47. Section 3.5.1 asks if the employee-manager relationship can be defined "via Workday integration". Does the System require a real-time, integration for user provisioning and hierarchy management, or is it acceptable for the LMS to consume a standard automated flat-file feed from Workday?

Response: A flat feed is acceptable for establishing the employee-manager relationship hierarchy.

48. The LMS allows for different Welcome Page designs per organizational unit/audience. Will Texas A&M System require differentiated branding of the LMS based on an organizational unit? If so, how many?

Response: This is not required but we are interested in this option.

49. Do you have any external content providers that you need to integrate with the LMS (LinkedIn, KnowB4, etc.)? If so, which ones? Do you want completions for those external courses to be tracked in the LMS?

Response: Some members have access to Linkedin Learning and CITI and we would like completions for any other system to be tracked if possible.

50. Would you like to integrate any vILT providers with the LMS? Please specify which one(s) are required. Ex. WebEx, GoToMeeting, Adobe Connect, Zoom, MS Teams.

Response: None are required but this is an option we would like to see and our members use Teams and some use Zoom.

51. Do you have any users whose data will come from other systems (contractors, external users, etc.)? Will this data need to be fed into the LMS or be manually created by administrators?

Response: For new users being added, some will be fed into the LMS via Workday and some would need to be manually created by administrators. Regarding training records being imported in from other systems: yes. In some cases, users’ completions are fed into the LMS using an API and in some cases, they are manually added.

52. Will you allow users to self-register for an account? Explain the scenarios.

Response: Possibly. One example might be graduate students and researchers taking compliance training.

53. Are you planning to implement eCommerce functionality with the new LMS (ability for users to purchase/pay for training)? Please describe your use-cases/scenarios for eCommerce workflows.

Response: Yes. We offer trainings where one member of the A&M System will pay another member to attend a training via the LMS.

54. For the implementation phase, will there be a centralized A&M System project team acting as the single point of contact/approval, or will the vendor/implementation partner be required to manage separate discovery, configuration, and testing cycles with committees from all 20 individual member institutions?

Response: There will be a centralized team based at System office.

55. Regarding the implementation timeline requested in Section 4.3(C) for the 12 universities and 8 state agencies: Does the A&M System have a preference for a phased, rolling implementation (e.g., launching in sequential waves with multiple institutions per wave) or a single 'big bang' system-wide go-live? Clarifying your preferred rollout strategy will allow us to accurately scope the timeline, align our proposed client resource requirements, and effectively structure the 'white glove' implementation services requested in Section 3.2.2?

Response: Ideally all members go live on the same day.

56. Section 4.6 states that the "total expected value of this solicitation and subsequent contract is $100,000". For an enterprise SaaS LMS supporting 50,000+ users across a multi-year term, this figure is highly irregular. Can the System confirm if this $100,000 figure is cited strictly as the statutory threshold triggering the VetHUB Subcontracting Plan requirement, or if it represents an actual hard budget cap for the entire project?

Response: Section 4.6 should have read “total expected value of this solicitation and subsequent contract is $100,000 or more". Therefore, the VetHUB Subcontracting plan is required. This was not intended to represent a budget for this project.

57. Accessibility Termination: Exhibit D, Section 10.A (Accessibility Warranty) states that A&M System may "immediately terminate" the agreement if the vendor fails to remediate a WCAG 2.1 AA noncompliance. Will the System consider modifying this clause to include a standard "cure period" to allow the vendor to address the issue before termination rights are triggered?

Response: We require the contracting party shall promptly respond and use commercially reasonable efforts to resolve and remediate any noncompliance with the Accessibility Warranty.

58. Uncapped Liability: Exhibit D, Section 8 (Indemnification) requires the Provider to indemnify the System against third-party claims, including any "acts or omissions" of the Provider, without a specified cap on liability. Will the System entertain a standard limitation of liability clause (e.g., capped at 12 or 24 months of fees) for general contract damages, excluding gross negligence and willful misconduct?

Response: This may be negotiated within the contract, if awarded.

59. Can you provide a breakdown in internal employees vs. outside personnel that will need access to the LMS?

Response: Employees are about 50,000 and is stable, and outside personnel will grow over time.

60. Do outside personnel still access the LMS via SSO or do they have a different method for access (i.e., system credentials)?

Response: No, they use a different method.

61. The RFP mentions required integrations with “other training platforms”. Can you specify which training platforms would require this integration?

Response: Other training platforms include Linkedin Learning and CITI

62. Do you have any more detail around the anticipated breakdown of the 50K users? How many are TAMU employees vs. non-employee external users? Will the user population include University faculty?

Response: User population is all employees which includes anyone paid by the A&M System.

External users vary but is less.

63. The RFP contemplates different approaches to register/enroll users. Will you require some users to self-register with payment to access courses?

Response: Yes.

64. What are your needs around course/content migration? What formats will need to be migrated (we did see SCORM and Common Cartridge mentioned)? Do you have an estimate for # of courses to be migrated?

Response: Our LMS currently has about 550 eLearning courses in SCORM format and about 700 courses that are not eLearning. Of the 700, about 520 are classroom courses that employees can register for through our LMS; for these, completions are recorded when a registrar marks attendance. The rest are catalog entries; their completions are manually entered.

65. Across your current catalog, what is the primary delivery method (e.g., asynchronous online, synchronous virtual, or in-person)? Roughly what percentage of your courses are self-driven/on-demand versus cohort-based and facilitator-led?

Response: Current catalog is approximately 45% asynchronous online; 55% synchronous (includes both virtual and in person).

66. Are you currently issuing certificates or credentials as proof of completion or achievement? If so, how and what systems are being used?

Response: Our current LMS issues course completions via email and employees can view a transcript of completions.

67. What data and visualization tools and services are you currently using today to join and visualize data? Snowflake, Redshift, Tableau, Power BI, etc.

Response: Snowflake, Power BI, MicroStrategy, and BusinessObjects

68. What does "all member universities and agencies" mean in practice for rollout— is this a simultaneous system-wide go-live, or a phased member-by-member deployment?

Response: simultaneous

69. What is the approximate breakdown of the 50,000+ users between employees and non-employees, and how many are active vs. historical-only records?

Response: We have 50000+ active users.

70. Who are the primary internal stakeholders driving and approving this decision — is this IT-led, HR-led, or a shared governance decision?

Response: Shared

71. Are there specific compliance training programs (state-mandated, federally-mandated, or A&M System policy-mandated) that must be migrated and maintained with unbroken completion records?

Response: Decisions regarding historical data have not been made.

72. What does success look like at 6 months, 12 months, and 3 years post-implementation? Are there specific KPIs or metrics the A&M System will use to evaluate the vendor?

Response: Will be defined during implementation.

73. Is there a current LMS contract expiration date driving the March 17 deadline and anticipated award timing?

Response: No

74. The RFP asks for support for "outside personnel" — can you clarify the intended populations?

(e.g., contractors, vendors, volunteers, members of the public, students taking non-credit professional development)?

Response: Yes, all of these. Outside personnel is anyone who is not an employee and paid by the A&M system.

75. How are employee-manager relationships currently maintained — in Workday, another HRIS, or manually — and what is the quality/completeness of that data today?

Response: Workday is the system of record for employee-manager relationships.

76. Section 3.2.9 describes sophisticated auto-assignment rules based on user attributes. What HRIS attributes are currently available and consistently populated across all 12 universities and 8 agencies?

Response: Examples include job classifications, worker type, job profiles, organizational changes, transfers, hire, position information etc.

77. Does each member institution expect its own branded LMS experience, or is a unified A&M System brand acceptable?

Response: Not required.

78. Is there a preferred implementation partner, or is the expectation that the LMS vendor handles implementation end-to-end?

Response: Make the appropriate recommendation for your proposal.

79. What training content currently lives in the existing LMS — is it primarily SCORM packages, video, instructor-led courses, or a mix? And how much of it is actively used vs. legacy?

Response: SCORM is the existing format used for online courses. In person courses use registration features.

80. Has the A&M System conducted any user research or surveys with employees and managers about pain points with the current LMS?

Response: Yes

81. Are there any internal champions or power users at member institutions the vendor would engage during implementation?

Response: Yes.

82. The RFP requires SAML 2.0/OIDC SSO using the TAMUS Universal Identification Number (UIN). Is there a single A&M System identity provider, or does each member institution maintain its own IdP within InCommon federation?

Response: Single.

83. What is the existing LMS, and what data export capabilities does it support — specifically regarding SCORM completion records, xAPI statements, and user profile data?

Response: The existing LMS is a custom .NET application that integrates with the Rustici SCORM engine for course playback and completion recording. In addition to Rustici’s capabilities, the application offers REST APIs for course assignments creation and verification, completion creation and reporting, and learner details

84. The RFP requires Workday integration for employee-manager relationships and user provisioning.

What Workday modules are in use, and is there an existing REST API or SCIM provisioning capability available today?

Response: We use Core HCM, Payroll, and Benefits. No there is not an existing REST API or SCIM provisioning capability available today.

85. Does the A&M System have an existing Learning Record Store (LRS), and if so, which one? Is xAPI data from the current LMS being captured, and must it be migrated?

Response: No.

86. What is the current TX-RAMP certification status requirement — Level 1 or Level 2? And has the A&M System defined what cloud data residency requirements apply (U.S.-only hosting is mentioned in 3.2.1)?

Response: TX-RAMP Level 1 certification is sufficient for an enterprise LMS. On hosting, our current position is U.S. only. Any additional security and compliance expectations would be covered under their TX-RAMP requirements.

87. What IAM/IGA platform is in use for access governance (SailPoint is mentioned as an example)?

Is there an expectation of bidirectional role sync, or is this one-way provisioning only?

Response: We are open to suggestions.

88. The RFP references integration with LinkedIn Learning, Kaltura, Panopto, Teams, Zoom, Qualtrics, and others. Which of these integrations are required vs. aspirational, and which are currently in use across member institutions?

Response: None are required. Some members use Linkedin Learning and CITI.

89. Section 3.2.3 asks about disaster recovery plans and testing. What are the A&M System's defined RTO and RPO requirements for this system?

Response: This has not been defined at this time.

90. The RFP describes concurrent users across 50,000+ accounts. What does peak concurrency actually look like — for example, during mandatory annual compliance training rollouts where a large percentage of the workforce may be assigned simultaneously?

Response: In the past (e.g. COVID) we have had anywhere around 25000 on the LMS at any one time. The typical behavior is that an employee is assigned compliance training based on their respective Hire date. We do not currently assign training to all employees at the same time each year.

91. Are there firewall or network proxy configurations at member institutions that could interfere with SaaS LMS traffic, particularly for streaming media (Kaltura, Panopto) or WebRTC-based conferencing tools?

Response: Yes, and we will work with System Members to make exceptions.

92. Section 3.2.5 asks about data retention. What are the A&M System's specific data retention and destruction requirements for employee training records — particularly for terminated employees? Are there any state of Texas records retention schedules that govern this?

Response: We retain records for terminated employees for 5 years.

93. Does A&M System have an existing enterprise data warehouse or analytics platform (e.g., Tableau, Power BI) that LMS reporting data would need to feed into?

Response: Yes

94. Are there any known SCORM packages built with non-standard Articulate 360 features (specifically Rise 360 or Storyline features that rely on proprietary extensions) that have caused compatibility issues with other platforms in the past?

Response: No

95. Are you currently using an LMS? If so, which one? If not, how are you currently offering training to your employees and tracking completions?

Response: Yes. It is a custom-built product.

96. What are your business drivers, pain points, and/or compelling reasons for considering a change of platform to meet your talent management initiatives?

Response: Our current system needs an upgrade.

97. What is your budget for the annual recurring fees as well as one-time implementation in Year 1?

Response: Information not available.

98. What are you currently spending per year for your current solution?

Response: Information not available.

99. Please describe all key audiences (type of users) that you plan to have in the new LMS and how they will access the system.

Response: Key audiences are employees, some students, contractors, vendors etc. Employees will use Single Sign On. Non employees will use a different method.

100. What type of training do you plan to offer in this system?

Response: All information to be provided is within the RFP.

101. Which HRIS and/or other systems will you be pulling user data from to load user accounts into the LMS? Does it capture supervisor relationships?

Response: Workday

102. If automated, how frequently would you like to update user data in the LMS? (Daily via an inbound data feed, real-time via web services/API, or ad-hoc manually)

Response: At a minimum we seek daily.

103. Will you need to track certifications in the LMS? If so, how many certifications will you need to create in the LMS for go-live?

Response: No

104. Will you need to track continuing education credits in the LMS? If so, how many and what types?

Response: This is not required but would be nice to have.

105. Will your team be able to extract and transform your training data and historical completion data or you are looking for the vendor to get raw data files from you and transform the data into the required format to load into the new system?

Response: We are open to options.

106. Please describe specific integration requirements to exchange data between the LMS and other systems. Include the type of data (specific fields, if possible), destination system, frequency, method (APIs or flat files), scenarios.

Response: User data, completion data, organization data, course data etc. Systems include LMS, Workday, Datawarehouse. At a minimum is daily. Method to be determined.

107. Are you looking for the vendor to provide a COTS content library offering with the LMS? If so, what type of training are you looking for that offering to include and for how many users?

Response: Not required. But we would be interested in employee and manager trainings

108. Does your organization require the system to support multiple languages based on end-user audience? If so, which specific languages do you require are included?

Response: Not required.

109. What other systems or platforms is your organization currently utilizing or considering to achieve your talent management and skills-based goals (i.e., performance management, recruiting, and onboarding) for your user population?

Response: Workday

110. Please can you confirm and provide current LMS Hierarchy Structure for multi-institutional configurations?

Response: The A&M System is comprised of 23 members. Each member is an independent organization.

111. Please confirm if we need to submit a HECVAT assessment in original Excel format or this need to convert into PDF as well?

Response: Please submit the HECVAT in Excel format.

112. Several items reference manager relationships and integration considerations. Is Workday integration a mandatory requirement (e.g., for org hierarchy and manager assignment), or is it an example of an HRIS and vendors may propose an alternative integration approach?

Response: Vendors may propose an alternative integration approach.

113. Is SSO required for all user populations, including non-employee/guest users, or may vendors support a combination of SSO for employees and local authentication for external/guest accounts?

Response: Combination

114. Will TAMUS conduct vendor demonstrations as part of evaluation? If yes, do you have preferred dates/time windows and a required demo script/use-cases?

Response: The A&M System will determine if demonstrations are needed and will provide sufficient notice to those selected to prepare.

115. Our subscription pricing is based on Active Course Registrations (ACR) (i.e., each time a user registers for a course, one ACR license is consumed). For pricing comparability and to ensure we submit an accurate cost proposal, can TAMUS provide an estimated annual volume of course registrations (total registrations per year across all participating institutions/agencies)?

Response: Data not available.

If TAMUS prefers, we can also propose tiered pricing based on ACR ranges; please confirm whether tiered ACR pricing is acceptable for Section 4.5.

Response: Please provide a recommended pricing structure based on their proposed solution.

116. In Section 3.1, the A&M System notes the Solution should ‘allow for automatic course assignments as well as a training records management system that integrates with other training platforms.’ Can the A&M System provide a list of the specific external training platforms/LMSs and/or learning content providers that must be integrated (e.g., LinkedIn Learning or other systems), including any required integration methods (API, LTI, xAPI/LRS, file-based, etc.)? If no specific platforms are required, should Respondents simply describe their general capability and prior experience integrating with external training platforms and importing external completion records?.

Response: Yes, describe in general.

117. Section 3.2.8(5) asks whether the system allows for the purchase of registrations for courses and to describe ‘what payment options are built-in’ and whether ‘third-party applications are included.’ Does the A&M System have a preferred or required payment processor and/or gateway (e.g., Stripe, PayPal, Authorize.net, TouchNet, etc.) and any required merchant-of-record model (A&M System as merchant vs vendor as merchant)? If no specific processor is required, should Respondents propose their recommended payment processor options and integration approach, including PCI-DSS responsibilities and any additional costs?

Response: “The Texas A&M System has a standing merchant processing agreement with JP Morgan Chase for card processing. Members are expected to be the merchant of record rather than vendors. No payment facilitator (such as Stripe and PayPal) is authorized for use at this time.

System members use a variety of payment gateways. Support of JP Morgan Chase’s Orbital Gateway would be preferred, but Authorize.net is another commonly used option. Some members use TouchNet, but it is not licensed System-wide.”

118. The RFP references native mobile app expectations (including mobile authentication and use of device accessibility features). If the proposed LMS provides full-feature parity for both administrators and end users through a 100% responsive, mobile-optimized web application (including support for SSO/MFA in mobile browsers and compatibility with iOS/Android accessibility features such as VoiceOver/TalkBack, font scaling, and screen readers), will this meet the mobile requirements? If a true native app is required, please confirm whether the A&M System requires (a) iOS and Android apps, (b) offline access, (c) push notifications, and (d) any specific MDM/MAM or mobile SSO requirements.

Response: Mobil app should be a true native app the supports iOS and Android.

119. Is the primary objective to replace a current enterprise solution, consolidate multiple platforms, or support net-new functionality across member institutions?

Response: Replace and support new functionality.

120. In evaluating proposals, how will best value be balanced between functional depth, implementation risk, and total cost of ownership?

Response: We do not release the evaluation weighting utilized. All information available on our selection process is provided within Section 2.6 of the RFP.

121. What specific systems or platforms are involved, and which protocols or connection methods are used to link them?

Response: This question is unclear.

122. In 3.2.1 (System Overview), you ask about multi-institution support and concurrent users. How many distinct institutions/agencies within the A&M System will use the LMS, and what level of data segregation (e.g., per institution) is required?

Response: All members of the A&M System as provided in Section 1 will use this system. No additional information is available other than what is contained within the RFP.

123. Is there a way to document why a role was given? To clarify: Are you asking if there's a way to record or document the reason for assigning a role at the role level (a general explanation for that role type) or individually for each user assignment?

Response: Individually for auditing purposes but only for roles with additional access beyond just a user.

124. To clarify: Are you asking whether the same user account can be a manager in multiple organizations simultaneously? For example, could one person have full manager access in both Organization A and Organization B at the same time (overseeing learners, approving courses, viewing reports in each), without the roles conflicting or combining the data?

Response: Yes. Employees can have a primary job, and an additional job. We are asking if the manager of the additional job would be able to be designated as a manager of that individual for a position in order to see relevant training completions and progress and assignments.

125. If a non-employee uses the system and then becomes an employee, can the data from their use while not an employee be merged with their employee record?

Response: Our current LMS does not have the capability to combine. Respondent shall include in their proposal response if the proposed solution offers this functionality.

126. Do non-employees receive their own individual login credentials, or do they simply use a shared/generic guest account?

Response: Unique login credentials.

127. In other words, how should non-employee access be managed (e.g., guest accounts, limited visibility), and what bulk creation processes are needed?

Response: What options does your system allow?

128. For change management in 3.2.5, how involved do you expect to be in the vendor's roadmap (e.g., voting on features), and what is your preferred frequency for major updates?

Response: We are always strong partners with our vendors and interested in the road map.

129. Can you provide a list of media tools that you currently or plan to utilize?

Response: The current LMS does not use media tools.

130. Can the A&M System provide estimated counts for: Employees; Non-employees/external learners; Managers and Administrators (system vs. local)?

Response: We have approximately 50,000 employees, non-employees will vary but is less, administrators is less than 30 across the system and there are approximately 9000 managers.

131. Are there known peak concurrency periods (e.g., annual compliance deadlines)?

Response: There is normally a peak of around 13K in September.

132. Will you consider FedRAMP Moderate certification satisfactory in place of TX-RAMP certification?

Response: If the respondent has FedRAMP Moderate authorization, they can request TX-RAMP reciprocal certification, but they must secure that certification--we do not directly recognize FedRAMP.

133. Is native course authoring considered essential, or is the expectation that most content will come from external tools (Articulate, vendors, etc.)?

Response: Yes.

134. Is Workday the authoritative HR system across all Members?

Response: Yes

135. Are there exceptions or local HR systems that must also be supported?

Response: Non applicable.

136. Does the A&M System expect the selected LMS to natively provide an LRS, or solely to publish and/or consume learning records via standards such as xAPI and cmi5 to an external LRS? Please specify any required standards or profiles.

Response: We are open to options.

137. If an external LRS is used, which system is considered the authoritative source for compliance reporting, audit, and historical learning records—the LMS, the LRS, or another enterprise system?

Response: An LRS is not used at this time.

138. What additional LMSs or related course delivery platforms are in use by the institution, including any department-specific, program-specific, or legacy systems?

Response: Any content within other LMSs at members are not managed by the A&M System and therefore we are unaware of how many may exist.

139. For mobile in 3.2.10, what percentage of users do you anticipate accessing the LMS via mobile devices, and are there specific accessibility features (e.g., offline sync) that are priorities?

Response: Unknown and no.

140. In 3.7.1-3.7.4, you ask about real-time reporting and analytics. What are the top 3-5 reports needed (e.g., compliance dashboards)?

Response: We do not have a designated set of reports to share.

141. For surveying in 3.7.2, do you have a preferred integrated tool (e.g., Qualtrics), or is native functionality sufficient?

Response: We do not have a preferred tool

142. In 3.8, you list potential add-ons. Which of these (e.g., predictive analytics, payment) are highest priority, and what budget is allocated for them?

Response: No established priority.

143. Section 4.5 requires pricing details. Can you provide an estimated budget range or user volume tiers to help structure pricing options?

Response: No.

144. In Section 5 (General Terms), the draft SaaS Agreement is attached. Are there any non-negotiable clauses (e.g., data sovereignty, termination rights) we should be aware of?

Response: Exhibit D is our standard SaaS agreement but is intended to be a template only. Details regarding negotiation of clauses would be discussed after an award is made.

145. Exhibit C specifies insurance requirements. Are there any unique risks related to A&M’s education data that might require additional coverage?

Response: Exhibit C shows the expected insurance coverages, but could be subject to change during contract negotiations.

146. On average, how many monthly active users would you expect?

Response: Data not available.

147. How many members of your team would be contributing to course creation? Licenses required for Course Authoring Tool.

Response: This number would consistently change.

148. Is there a requirement for Data Migration? (For e.g. Migration from existing LMS to New LMS)

Response: Plans for historical data have not yet been

149. Do you have a need for supporting multiple Sub-Domains?

Response: Potentially.

150. Is there a requirement for Data Visualization Dashboards for Analytics and reporting?

Response: It is preferred.

151. Is there a requirement for an off-the-shelf content library? If yes, could you please provide an overview of the type of content you are looking for?

Response: No.

152. What is your fiscal year?

Response: September through August.

153. How is content currently developed in the existing system?

Response: Anything that can publish a SCORM file.

154. Is every institution required to use the LMS for training of employees and external personnel, or will each institution be allowed to opt-in?

Response: Required by all Members.

155. Are separate URLs required for each institution?

Response: No

156. Is administration of the LMS centralized between institutions or is administrative autonomy required? If autonomy is required, can you provide the typical jobs to be done by the sub-admins?

Response: Centralized. However individuals at the Member will have development access for courses, course assignments etc.

157. Is there a need to maintain separation of learner data between institutions? And if yes, is there a central administrator or team that can manage the decentralization of the data for the teams that require reports?

Response: Yes. Yes.

158. Regarding implementation, will the same team work to implement the LMS across institutions or are there different teams for each institution?

Response: Same team as it is one roll out.

159. Will your historical data include records that will expire? If yes, is that expiry based on being valid for a period of time from the date the certification is achieved, or a different condition?

Response: No

160. Will you be tracking records that have previously expired? If yes, will you still be tracking those records if they have since been renewed?

Response: Yes

161. In section: 3.2.1 System Overview, requirement 5.d. you reference “Evaluations”, could you further define the intention behind the evaluations. Is it employee performance or assessment feedback?

Response: Course evaluations. Feedback for the instructor or course owner.

162. How is Sailpoint used in your ecosystem?

Response: SailPoint in not implemented yet, but it is on the TAMUS roadmap with intentions to consolidate and centralized authorizations, access, and entitlements across all shared applications.

163. Is your System of Record Workday and is it currently connected to your LMS? If yes, how is it currently connected?

Response: Yes it is our system of record and no it is not currently connected.

164. How much CMI5 content do you have?

Response: None at this time.

165. Do you currently support external, public-facing courses for purchase and registration? If yes, how many courses are you supporting? And what solution are you currently using?

Response: No

166. For waitlisting, are you looking to provide waitlists for external and/or internal users? And if both, is it just to keep a course at a specific capacity?

Response: Internal.

167. Could you give an example of what data would be contained in an employee record? Is it completion of course information? Or user profile information?

Response: Course transactions, course number, course title, date assigned, due date, date completed, notification history etc; employee profile information and a comment section. These are examples.

168. Do you currently offer stackable credentials? If so, which platform do you currently use?

Response: no

169. What is your process for tracking attendance? LMS Participation, student reported, or instructor tracked?

Response: Only tracked for in-person courses.

END OF ADDENDUM NO. 1