ESBD_506954_1779139008725_OT_Continuing Education Tracking System_2026_ Responses.pdf

Answers to RFO No. 533-26-20261 Questions

1. Should the CE Tracking System be scoped as a standalone solution, or does the Board anticipate any required integration with existing systems (e.g., licensing systems managed by

TBOTE or HPC)?

Both. The CE System should be scoped as a standalone solution with integration into the

Board's Licensing Application. The extent of the integration would be via an API to automate the transfer of CE completion status to the Board’s database (e.g., Compliant or Not Compliant).

Please also see the following from Section II.E.6 of the RFO.

a) The Vendor will host all data and provide for the following:

i. Uploading and downloading the data through the Board’s gateway.

ii. The Vendor will provide for a method (e.g., flat file, API) to upload licensee data from the Board’s database, including:

A. Individual Licensee Information;

B. New License Data; and

C. Modifications to existing licensee data.

b) The Vendor will provide an API to interface with the Board’s database so that upon submission/creation of the appropriate transaction in the database (e.g., renewal) or other call/request from the Board’s database, there is a check against the data in the CE Tracking System to determine the CE completion status and return the result to the Board’s database (e.g., Compliant or Not Compliant).

2. Will historical CE data need to be migrated into the new system? If so, can you provide an approximate volume and format?

Certain historical information, which may include, for example, previous license renewal and expiration dates, etc., will need to be migrated in order to facilitate RFO requirements for the first renewal period in which the system is in use. It is not anticipated that previous specific CE activity information (e.g., activity titles or completion dates) will be migrated; however, if the system can allow for such, it may be something that might be considered during the development of the system, in coordination with the Vendor. If so, the volume and format would be determined at that time; CE documentation (e.g., certificates of completion) would not be migrated.

3. Approximately how many CE Providers are currently active within the TBOTE ecosystem, and is their participation in the system expected to be mandatory?

The Board cannot provide a figure as the Board does not approve CE Providers and does not retain a list of providers from which licensees may complete activities. Likewise, CE Providers will not be required to utilize the CE Tracking System.

4. Does the Board have any data or estimates on:

o The average number of courses offered per CE Provider annually o The average number of licensees per course or completion submissions per year

No. See also the response to No. 3.

5. Are there any guidelines or constraints the Board would like vendors to follow when proposing CE Provider pricing models?

Transparency and adherence to the zero cost to agency and licensees.

6. Post-implementation, does the Board expect the vendor to fully operate and support the system (including ongoing administration and updates), or will Agency Staff assume partial system administration responsibilities?

See below.

Post-implementation, does the Board expect the vendor to fully operate and support the system (including ongoing administration and updates), Yes.

or will Agency Staff assume partial system administration responsibilities?

No.

7. Please confirm the total number of active licensees.

20,829

8. How does the Board currently track the validity of CE taken in the month of expiration counting towards the next cycle in relation to an early renewal date in the 2 months prior to the license expiration month as outlined here? Is the expectation for the Vendor to modify CE cycles based on this logic?

Please see the following from 40 TAC Sec. 367.1.(b) with regard to CE completed during the license’s expiration month and the next renewal period. Also note that the link given in the submitted question is to an entire webpage with multiple tabs, etc., addressing continuing education, in general.

(4) Licensees who submit their renewal with all required items prior to the month when their license expires may count CE completed during their license's expiration month for their next renewal period.

https://ptot.texas.gov/continuing-education/

As referenced above, licensees who submit their renewal with all required items prior to the month when their license expires may count CE completed during their license's expiration month for their next renewal period. If an individual’s renewal date meets the requirement above, then such may be eligible for CE for the next renewal period, as described above. The vendor will need to incorporate whatever logic necessary to allow for the individual to include

CE from the previous renewal cycle’s expiration month, if eligible for such, as per 40 TAC Sec.

367.1.(b).

9. Does the Board acknowledge that the data collection outlined in Section II.E.6(c) and (g) starts with the current License/CE cycle in which CE Broker is launched for the Board?

It is anticipated that the collection of elements under Section II.E.6.c of the RFO will begin with the license renewal period in which the CE Tracking System described in the RFO begins;

however, such is to be determined during the development of the system in coordination with the Vendor.

See also the response to No. 8 and note that historical licensee information, which may include, for example, the prior renewal date, will need to be employed by the system to determine CE parameters, for example, CE eligibility dates, for the license renewal period in which the system is launched. See such, for example, with regard to II.E.6.g. Though it is not anticipated that the system will check for the duplication of specific activities pertaining to renewal cycles prior to the launch of the CE Tracking System, as noted, historical licensee information will still need to be considered.

10. Does the Board consider transparently advertised, entirely optional premium subscription tiers to be in violation of the "no hidden or additional fees" clause, provided the core compliance reporting functionality remains 100% free for all licensees? [Section II.D.3]

The Board will make such considerations during the evaluation of submitted RFOs. See the RFO for further information. For example, see the following, excerpted from Section VII.F.1.d.

The proposal must include an explanation of the manner in which the Vendor plans to fund the CE Tracking System. The proposal must also address any fees, if applicable, it may charge CE Providers for basic access to the CE Tracking System, as well as any fee-based enhanced features, programs, services, etc. it might offer licensees and/or CE

Providers.

11. Will the Board mandate that all approved CE Providers utilize this specific tracking system to directly report course completions? [Section II.E.13.b]

The Board does not approve CE Providers and does not retain a list of providers from which licensees may complete activities. Likewise, CE Providers will not be required to utilize the CE

Tracking System.

12. For the random sample selected for audit, should the CE Tracking System execute the randomization algorithm natively based on a board-defined parameter (e.g., 5% of renewing licensees), or will the Board manually upload a targeted list of specific license numbers to trigger the audit? [Section II.E.8.1 & II.E.8.2]

The CE Tracking System will select a random sample of licensees using parameters defined by the Board.

13. The RFP indicates that phone support should be available for both licensees and education providers. Could you please clarify the expected scope and format of this support, including whether real-time assistance via phone is required, or if alternative support models (such as automated or technology-assisted solutions that meet defined service levels) would be considered acceptable?

See the following from Section II.E.12.e of the RFO with regard to Licensee Help.

Prompt technical support during, at the very least, standard business hours through phone and email, as well as an on-demand online chat feature (e.g., live, webchat, AI powered), if applicable.

See the following from Section II.E.13.d of the RFO with regard to CE Provider Help.

Technical support through phone and email, as well as an online chat feature (e.g., live, webchat, AI powered), if applicable;

Note that submissions to the RFO will be evaluated according to the criteria therein and note the following, excerpted from Section VII.F.1.b of the RFO.

The proposal must indicate any requirement the proposal does not meet. This includes any continuing education requirement in the appendices that the proposal cannot track.

14. Given the statutory mandate to have the system operational by September 1, 2026, and the proposal submission deadline of June 22, 2026, what is the anticipated date of the actual contract award [Section I.F]

See Section I.F and Section III with regard to the contract award date and term, in addition to the full RFO. The award date is to be determined.

15. 8.3 : The ability to contact and communicate with selected licensees, both on a batch and individual level, concerning the audit and related information/functions, including pertaining to being selected for the audit, any audit deficiencies, the status of the audit and the passing or failing of the audit. Any communication, including that sent on a batch-level, will have the capacity to be personalized for the individual and ensure that licensee details (including name, license number, contact information, etc.) are only included on the communication sent to that licensee. If communication is made through the CE Tracking

System, the system will allow for notifications (including a notification that a related update, etc. is available in the system) via email to be sent, including automatically, to the licensee and/or Board.

a. Are there any other information or functions we should be aware of that are not stated here?

Please refer to the RFO for information. Please also note that further details will be addressed with the Vendor during the development of the scope of work, contract, etc.

b. Are there any examples of how you may send a custom batch audit communication vs individual communication?

Example custom batch communication: communication regarding being selected for the audit and information regarding submitting items for such; such may include licensee’s name, audited renewal period dates, etc.

Example individual communication: specific email regarding certain elements/components of the individual’s submission, etc.

16. Does the agency require license record exports to be provided specifically in Microsoft

Excel format, or would other commonly used formats be acceptable?

The following formats are acceptable and are to be determined during development: pipe-delimited, CSV, XML, JSON.