ESBD_494237_1777666257492_RFP 515-26-0001 Q and A Document 2.doc
DOC document 30 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Prescription Monitoring Program
- Solicitation number
- RFP_515-26-0001
- Issued by
- Travis County, Austin City, Texas
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers addendum document issued by the Texas State Board of Pharmacy (TSBP) in response to vendor inquiries regarding Request for Proposal 515-26-0001 for the Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP). The RFP seeks a qualified vendor to develop and operate a comprehensive PMP database system capable of managing prescription data from approximately 6,000 dispensers and supporting over 200,000 authorized users including prescribers, dispensers, healthcare regulatory agencies, and law enforcement. The system must process approximately 25 million monthly information requests and manage over 134 million existing records while integrating with electronic health records, health information exchange systems, and pharmacy dispensing systems. Proposal submissions were due May 20, 2026, at 4:00 PM Central Time, with questions due by April 20, 2026. Demonstrations are scheduled for June 1-5, 2026, with an expected contract award date of July 1, 2026, and work commencement on September 1, 2026. The initial contract term is one year with four optional one-year renewals at TSBP's discretion, subject to termination without penalty upon 30 days' written notice or immediately for cause.
This Q&A addendum addresses vendor concerns regarding data migration risks and incumbent vendor conflicts of interest during the transition process. A respondent questioned whether TSBP would strike the "Delivery" clause in Attachment A, which authorizes the state to purchase services elsewhere and charge increased costs to the contractor in the event of delivery failure. The vendor expressed concern that this clause creates a conflict of interest for the incumbent vendor and imposes unbounded financial risk for a new vendor. TSBP declined to remove the "Delivery" clause but provided mitigation by confirming that an incoming vendor would not be held in default or penalized for implementation delays caused by the incumbent vendor's willful failure to transition historical data rapidly and seamlessly. The contract includes a 3.5 percent Historically Underutilized Business subcontracting goal and requires compliance with multiple statutory certifications regarding boycotts, cybersecurity, E-Verify, and debarment status, along with mandatory insurance coverage including workers compensation, commercial general liability, and privacy and network security insurance.
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
RFP 515-26-0001 Q&A DOCUMENT
STATE OF TEXAS
TEXAS STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 515-26-0001
PRESCRIPTION MONITORING PROGRAM
ADDENDUM 2
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: Reference: Attachment A (Terms and Conditions - "Delivery"), RFP Section 8.2 & 8.3 (Data Records), and Section 1.11 (Schedule)
The "Delivery" clause in Attachment A states that a default in promised delivery or failure to meet specifications authorizes the TSBP to purchase the services elsewhere and charge any increased costs to the respondent.
For a non-incumbent vendor to successfully meet the State's go-live requirements, it will be entirely dependent on the incumbent vendor fulfilling its obligations under Sections 8.2 and 8.3 to execute a "smooth and efficient turnover of data" and transfer all electronic files in a timely, cooperative manner. In our experience, this is a key risk in any state PDMP system migration.
Because the default clause in Attachment A allows the state to re-award the contract to the incumbent and penalize the incoming vendor for transition delays, it creates a severe conflict of interest, incentivizing the incumbent to make data migration as difficult as possible. In addition, this scenario creates unbounded financial risk for the incoming vendor as the potential cost is not defined. Will the State strike the "Delivery" clause in Attachment A? If not, how does the TSBP intend to mitigate the risk described above, and will the State confirm that a new vendor will not be held in default or penalized for implementation delays caused by the incumbent vendor’s failure to rapidly and seamlessly transition the historical data?
Answer: TSBP declines to strike the "Delivery" clause in Attachment A. TSBP agrees that an incoming vendor would not be in default due to willful delay by the incumbent vendor to transition historical data.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .