ESBD_494237_1777403883903_RFP 515-26-0001 Q and A.doc

RFP 515-26-0001 Q&A DOCUMENT

STATE OF TEXAS

TEXAS STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 515-26-0001

PRESCRIPTION MONITORING PROGRAMADDENDUM 1

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

It is the responsibility of respondents to read and acknowledge the questions and responses below. Respondents must sign and return the acknowledgement with proposals.

Organization Name:____________________________________________________

Signature of Authorized Representative:___________________________________

Date:_________________________________________________________________

Printed Name and Title:_________________________________________________

Question 1: Reference: Section 1.1 (General Information), Section 1.11 (Schedule), and Section 3.11 (Convert and Store Live Program Data) The RFP Schedule in Section 1.11 anticipates a contract award date of July 1, 2026, and requires that the system be ready for testing by TSBP by August 1, 2026, with a final go-live date of September 1, 2026. While the total implementation timeline is two months, the requirement to be ready for User Acceptance Testing (UAT) by August 1 gives a new vendor only 30 days from the date of award to provision infrastructure, configure the platform, and securely migrate the estimated 134 million historical records referenced in Section 1.1.

Given the massive data volume and the strict security and TX-RAMP compliance requirements (Section 1.13), a 30-day window to achieve UAT readiness and a 60-day window for go-live are not commercially reasonable for any non-incumbent vendor and heavily biases this procurement toward the incumbent. To ensure a fair and competitive bidding process, will the State consider extending the UAT readiness deadline to November 1, 2026, and the final go-live date to January 1, 2027?

Answer 1: TSBP intends to award this solicitation to the proposal that offers the best value to the State. The incumbent PMP contract expires on August 31, 2026, with a possible extension of up to three months (i.e., to November 30, 2026). TSBP cannot allow a gap in service between systems. Therefore, TSBP will consider proposals with UAT readiness of no later than October 31, 2026, and a final go-live date of no later than December 1, 2026.

Question 2: Reference: Section 9.0 (Integration of Electronic Medical Records), Section 9.2 (Integration Service) Section 9.11 (Required Services) explicitly names Bamboo Health's proprietary integration solution, "PMP Gateway," multiple times as a mandatory system component. The five pillars listed in the RFP—"Managed Service API," "Requestor Provisioning Service," "Authorization Module for PMP Administrator," "Run-Time Services," and "Reporting Services"—along with their exact corresponding descriptions, are the exact proprietary architectural components Bamboo Health uses to describe its PMP Gateway in its developer and API documentation online. Moreover, Section 9.2 states that the vendor’s integration service “must also facilitate integration of multi-state PMP information within the clinical workflow.” It is known to be the case that the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) maintains a strict, exclusive policy that permits only one commercial vendor with whom it has a financial relationship (the incumbent, Bamboo Health) to integrate PMP InterConnect (PMPi) data into third-party clinical workflows.

This exclusive arrangement is currently the subject of scrutiny under the HHS Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) Information Blocking rules (21st Century Cures Act) for materially discouraging competition, unnecessarily driving up costs for state and federal agencies, and interfering with the seamless access, exchange, and use of Electronic Health Information (EHI). Given that NABP actively prohibits any vendors or third-parties other than Bamboo Health from providing this specific in-workflow integration, does the TSBP acknowledge that Section 9.2 effectively limits consideration to a single vendor, thereby making this a de facto proprietary purchase under Texas Government Code Section 2155.067? To ensure a fair, competitive procurement that aligns with federal interoperability goals, will the State (a) strike the requirements for Gateway and multi-state integration within the clinical workflow, (b) amend the requirement to allow an alternate interstate network (RxCheck) to be used for this purpose, and/or (c) confirm that it has secured a waiver in writing from NABP allowing any new, non-incumbent vendor of the State’s choice to integrate PMPi data for Texas providers?

Answer 2: TSBP clarifies that “PMP Gateway” and associated terminology to be non-vendor specific and includes alternative interstate networks (e.g., RxCheck). The solution does not need to match the five-pillar system architecture of the incumbent vendor’s system. TSBP will consider and score the vendor’s integration solution based on its ability to fulfill the services described in Section 9.11.

Question 3: Reference: Section 9.2 (Integration Service) and Section 15.1 (Best Value) Following up on the requirement in Section 9.2 regarding multi-state PMP integration: The federal Information Blocking rules were specifically designed to prevent monopolies that restrict EHI access and force “toll booth” fees on healthcare providers. If a non-incumbent bidder proposes a highly qualified, TX-RAMP compliant integration solution that meets all technical standards of the RFP, but cannot provide the multi-state PMPi workflow integration solely due to NABP’s exclusionary, single-vendor policies, will that bidder’s proposal be deemed non-responsive? Or will the State evaluate the proposal based on the integration components the vendor is actually permitted by third-party hub operators to provide, rather than penalizing bidders for a third party’s exclusionary and discriminatory practices?

Answer 3: The solicitation does not require the integration service to utilize NABP PMP InterConnect. TSBP will evaluate the proposal based on the integrate components the vendor is permitted by third-party hub operators to provide.

Question 4: Reference: Section 7.1 (Patient Risk Scores and Usage Patterns) The technical requirement in Section 7.1 mandates that the vendor "Provide prescribers and dispensers with patient risk scores and an interactive visualization of usage patterns based on aggregated PMP data." This specification appears to be lifted verbatim from the incumbent vendor’s (Bamboo Health) public marketing materials and product overviews for its NarxCare product.

Texas competitive bidding statutes and rules are designed to stimulate competition, prevent favoritism, and place all vendors upon the same plane of equality. Furthermore, Texas Government Code § 2155.004 prohibits awarding a contract to an entity that participated in the preparation of the specifications.

Given the use of the incumbent's proprietary marketing language as a state technical requirement, how will the TSBP ensure a fair, impartial, and unbiased evaluation of competing platforms that use different, equally effective methodologies for risk analysis? To preserve the integrity of a competitive procurement, will the State revise this requirement to use vendor-neutral language focused on the desired public health outcomes rather than a specific vendor's proprietary product description? An example approach would be to remove the language specific to "risk scores," which are controversial from a public health standpoint and often proprietary, and instead reference "risk indicators" or "clinical decision support."

Answer 4: TSBP declines to remove the phrase “risk scores.” The phrase is not vendor-specific or inherently proprietary. That said, TSBP clarifies that Section 7.1 does not require a “risk score” identical to that of the incumbent vendor. TSBP seeks an enhancement that provides a concise synthesis of risk factors that would allow prescribers and dispensers to quickly understand a patient’s risk factors for accidental overdose death and harmful drug interactions.

Question 5: TxRAMP Compliance: Section 1.13 (page 10) states that the Respondent must provide evidence of compliance with TX-RAMP Level 2 requirements. Can you confirm whether TX-RAMP compliance is a mandatory requirement for eligibility, or if not, whether it is considered as part of the evaluation scoring?

Answer 5: Tx-RAMP compliance is a mandatory requirement that is not scored.

Question 6: Attachment B HUB Subcontracting Plan: In Attachment B (HUB Subcontracting Plan), the HUB goal is listed as “NN.N%.” Can you clarify if there is a defined HUB participation goal for this procurement, and how HUB participation is factored into the evaluation criteria?

Answer 6: All proposals must be accompanied by a signed and completed HUB Subcontracting Plan. Failure to provide a signed and completed form may be grounds for disqualification. HUB Subcontracting is not scored. The percentage was a placeholder as goals for the VETHUB Program (Veteran Heroes United in Business) have changed greatly in recent months. The goal should read 3.5%. Attachment B has been updated with the correct goals.