ESBD_507804_1777378453879_802-26-74062_Addendum 1.pdf

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road

Austin, Texas 78744

IFB

802-26-74062

Addendum 1

ADDENDUM

Addendum Number: 01 Date: April 28, 2026

Solicitation Number: 802-26-74062 Solicitation Title: Online Training Management System

Due Date/Deadline: NEW: May 13, 2026; 2:00PM CT

Purchaser: Vanessa D Contreras CTCD, CTCM

PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM: EXTENSION OF BID DUE DATE/ QUESTION AND ANSWERS

Except as provided herein, all Terms and Conditions of the document referenced herein, remain unchanged and in full force and effect. The following are specifications to this solicitation. This Addendum may be attached to and form a part of the referenced solicitation document and any resulting awarded contract and may be considered in response.

The solicitation Due Date is being extended as follows:

NEW: May 13, 2026; 2:00 PM C.T.

1. Could TPWD please clarify whether the current Target Solutions/Vector platform will remain in operation during transition, and whether historical training records and TCOLE reporting integrations must be migrated into the proposed solution?

Answer: The current system is still being used.

2. Section 4.1.5 references that the successful respondent must be an approved TCOLE provider. Can TPWD clarify whether this approval is required at the time of proposal submission, or if respondents may demonstrate the capability and obtain approval post-award?

Answer: TCOLE provider must be currently approved by TCOLE.

3. Does TPWD expect the awarded contractor to provide TCOLE-certified training content, or is the primary requirement limited to tracking, reporting, and compliance management of training delivered through existing or third-party providers?

Answer: Contractor is expected to provide info listed for TCOLE training in addition to the other requirements.

4. For the Field Training Officer Program (FTOP), can TPWD clarify whether existing evaluation workflows, DOR formats, and phase progression models must be replicated exactly, or if alternative workflow designs that meet TCOLE compliance requirements will be considered?

Answer: The workflows for DORs are expected to match the current breakdown that is formatted for the needs of TPWD and not TCOLE.

5. Does TPWD prefer a fully standalone replacement system, or would a solution that integrates with existing TCOLE reporting mechanisms and external training providers be considered acceptable if it improves usability, automation, and reporting efficiency?

Answer: TPWD wants the system to work as it is listed in the offer.

6. How many chronological years of historical compliance data is TPWD legally mandated by state retention schedules to migrate into active production versus archiving in cold storage?

Answer: We follow state retention guidelines.

7. Does the legacy system contain custom-built SCORM wrappers or proprietary Flash-based modules that deviate from standard HTML5/xAPI protocols?

Answer: No legacy system exists.

Austin, Texas 78744

IFB 802-26-74062

Addendum 1

8. Will TPWD IT personnel secure direct administrative backend database access to Vector for the MGRM/TSCTI engineering teams, or must extraction be managed strictly via vendor-requested flat files?

Answer: Current standard is via Flat files.

9. Are historical Daily Observation Reports (DORs) currently stored as queryable, structured database entries or as unstructured flat files (e.g., flattened PDFs) within the Vector database?

Answer: No legacy system exists.

10. How frequently is the incumbent Vector Solutions database backed up, and can TPWD provide a recent backup schema for preliminary ETL pipeline testing?

Answer: No legacy system exists.

11. Which specific version and topological structure of Microsoft Active Directory is currently deployed (e.g., Azure AD / Entra ID cloud-native, or a hybrid on-premise legacy synchronization)?

Answer: Hybrid.

12. Will TPWD IT security support the utilization of the SCIM (System for Cross-domain Identity Management) protocol for automated user lifecycle provisioning and deprovisioning?

Answer: While SCIM itself is not specifically designed for CJIS, organizations that handle criminal justice data must ensure that any identity management solutions, including SCIM, comply with CJIS security policies. CJIS compliance requirements include implementing security controls for authentication, access control, data encryption, and auditing to protect sensitive criminal justice information. It is crucial to align SCIM implementations with CJIS standards to ensure compliance and security when handling sensitive information. Potential security risks associated with implementing SCIM in CJIS environments include over-permissioned integrations, which can increase the attack surface, and the possibility of delayed or failed deprovisioning, leading to orphaned accounts that pose security threats. Additionally, if vendors handling SCIM integrations do not enforce strong security controls, sensitive user data could be at risk.

13. Are there specific, nested organizational units (OUs) within the Active Directory schema that must map directly to the M-Star Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) hierarchy?

Answer: No.

14. For CAPPS integration, will the data exchange utilize the standard Texas Digital Identity Solution (TDIS) API gateways, or are custom flat-file batch transfers required by the Comptroller?

Answer: CAPPS integration is not needed.

15. How frequently does TPWD require synchronization between the training platform and CAPPS to affect payroll (e.g., real-time webhooks, nightly batch runs, weekly synchronization)?

Answer: There is no CAPPS connection.

16. Are there any existing Ellucian Banner, Oracle ERP, or localized shadow-IT database dependencies remaining in the network architecture that intersect with HR payroll data?

Answer: No.

17. Does the agency utilize any middleware or an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (e.g., MuleSoft, Boomi) to orchestrate data traffic between CAPPS, Salesforce, and internal databases?

Answer: No.

18. Will TPWD require the M-Star system to ingest historical payroll adjustments from CAPPS to correlate past training achievements with compensation milestones?

Answer: No.

Austin, Texas 78744

IFB 802-26-74062

Addendum 1

19. Will the platform need to dynamically ingest, translate, and track external law enforcement certifications from states outside of Texas for lateral officer transfers?

Answer: No. All transfer certifications are routed through TCOLE.

20. Are there any secondary state oversight bodies, aside from TCOLE, that require automated reporting of specific specialized training (e.g., marine safety, environmental hazard handling)?

Answer: No.

21. Does the system need to accommodate temporary or provisional TCOLE certifications, and how are these distinguished from permanent credentials in reporting?

Answer: No.

22. Has TPWD secured a formal Data Center Services Exemption from the Texas DIR to permit vendor-hosted public cloud deployments, or must the solution interface with the Texas Private Cloud (TPC)?

Answer: No exemption, solution must interface with Texas Private Cloud or Texas Public Cloud.

23. What specific Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) authenticator application (e.g., Microsoft Authenticator, Duo, Okta) is standardized and deployed across the TPWD workforce?

Answer: Microsoft Authenticator.

24. Does TPWD require real-time integration with its existing SolarWinds IP Address Manager or proprietary SIEM (Security Information and Event Management) platforms for centralized security event logging?

Answer: Realtime integration with SW IPAM is not required. Must be integrated with current SIEM platform for security event logging.

25. Under TAC 202 mandates, what is the specific, legally required data retention and deletion protocol for personnel who are terminated for cause versus standard retirement?

Answer: We follow state law.

26. Is there a rigid requirement for the system to support FIPS 140-3 validated cryptographic modules exclusively, or is the FIPS 140-2 standard acceptable during the initial transition period?

Answer: Yes, FIPS 140-3 is required.

27. Beyond the baseline TX-RAMP Level 2 authorization, are there specific CJIS (Criminal Justice Information Services) compliance overlays required for the storage of these specific training records?

Answer: CJIS requires FIPS 140-3 validated encryption for data at rest and in transit. Subsequent versions of approved cryptographic modules that are under current review for FIPS 140-3 compliancy can be used in the interim until certification is complete. FIPS 140-2 certificates will not be acceptable after September 21, 2026.

28. Will TPWD explicitly accept an AWS GovCloud US-East deployment, or is geographical distribution across multiple domestic availability zones mandated for disaster recovery?

Answer: TPWD prefers geographical distribution across multiple domestic availability zones.

29. What is the expected absolute peak concurrent user load during statewide mandated training rollouts (e.g., maximum simultaneous logins out of the 700 total users)?

Answer: Approximately 700.

30. Does TPWD require the vendor to conduct independent annual penetration testing, or will the agency utilize DIR-provided Network Security Operations Center (NSOC) resources for vulnerability scanning?

Answer: Contractor shall perform security penetration and web application scans annually and mitigate and remediate any findings.

Austin, Texas 78744

IFB 802-26-74062

Addendum 1

31. What is the specific Recovery Point Objective (RPO) and Recovery Time Objective (RTO) demanded by TPWD command staff in the event of a catastrophic ransomware event?

Answer: Contractor must provide a Disaster Recovery site that allows the system to be back online and fully operational within 24 hours in the event of a major system disaster at the primary processing site.

32. What is the maximum acceptable synchronization delay (measured in hours) once a mobile device reconnects to a cellular network after a prolonged offline period in the wilderness?

Answer: Game Wardens often operate in remote areas where prolonged periods without connectivity are normal.

We believe a two-hour synchronization window balances the need to keep training records current, but long enough to account for unstable or intermittent rural cellular coverage.

33. Are Game Wardens exclusively issued state-owned mobile devices managed under a strict Mobile Device Management (MDM) profile, or does the agency utilize a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policy?

Answer: MDM.

34. If utilizing MDM, which specific platform (e.g., VMware AirWatch, Microsoft Intune, MobileIron) is used to deploy, containerize, and remotely wipe native iOS/Android applications?

Answer: Microsoft Intune.

35. Do the current Daily Observation Reports (DORs) require complex, multi-tiered electronic signatures (e.g., Trainee -> FTO - > Shift Supervisor -> Division Commander)?

Answer: Yes.

36. Can the agency provide sanitized, exemplary copies of the current three phases of the FTOP rubrics prior to contract execution to ensure exact mathematical and algorithmic replication?

Answer: See Exhibits A and B.

37. Does the mobile application require integrated geofencing capabilities (via GPS) to restrict evaluations from being executed outside of designated operational district boundaries?

Answer: No.

38. How does TPWD currently handle discrepancies if a trainee and an FTO submit conflicting evaluations while both are offline, before synchronizing with the central database?

Answer: There is only one DOR, it can’t conflict or be accessed except for one person at a time.

39. Are there specialized marine or aviation operational environments where the mobile devices require integration with specialized ruggedized hardware or satellite uplinks?

Answer: Just regular mobile connectivity where it is accessible.

40. What exact percentage of the current active curriculum is natively authored by TPWD internal staff versus content licensed from external providers like TEEX or CLEAT?

Answer: We don’t have any TEEX or CLEAT content from those entities.

41. Are there specialized Spanish for Law Enforcement modules currently utilized that require specific Unicode/UTF-8 character support within the LMS assessments and mobile interfaces?

Answer: There are no Spanish modules.

42. Will the system be required to host heavy, high-definition (4K) video assets natively within the LMS cloud, or will they be embedded via external, agency-approved streaming servers (e.g., Vimeo, Kaltura)?

Answer: Some videos will be hosted.

Austin, Texas 78744

IFB 802-26-74062

Addendum 1

43. Does the agency require the platform to support dynamic, adaptive learning pathways where subsequent courses are automatically assigned based on a cadet's performance in preliminary modules?

Answer: Not currently.

44. Is the 700-user baseline expected to remain statically flat over the entire three-year contract term, or should pricing models accommodate a specific, forecasted annual cadet growth percentage?

Answer: There is potential for growth.

45. Will TPWD definitively utilize the TX GoodBuy Purchasing Cooperative contract explicitly, or are other DIR cooperative vehicles (e.g., TIPS-USA, BuyBoard) preferred or mandated?

Answer: TPWD is not authorized to use cooperative purchasing programs unless they are set up in the Texas Smart Buy System.

46. Is the estimated budget for this procurement wholly derived from general state appropriations, or does it rely on fractional federal grant funding that introduces supplementary federal compliance clauses (e.g., Davis-Bacon, Buy American)?

Answer: State Funds.

47. Does TPWD allow for the submission of a formal Letter of Bondability in the initial RFO response, with the finalized Performance Bond issued strictly upon contract award?

Answer: Not applicable for this solicitation.

48. Will the agency permit a 30-day grace period post-award for the acquisition of an overriding Commercial Umbrella insurance policy to bridge any gaps with TPWD minimum liability limits?

Answer: Not applicable for this solicitation.

49. In calculating strict SLA penalties, does TPWD define "system downtime" exclusively as total regional cloud outages, or does it punitively include scheduled, off-hours maintenance windows?

Answer: TPWD system downtime is defined as anything other than off-hours maintenance windows.

50. Regarding the handling of PII. Can we ask them what PII data they expect to be stored?

Answer: PII as it relates to open records and CJIS compliance.

51. You refer to Sensitive data in the system. Can we get a definition of this and their expectations of the LMS to store/process this type of data?

Answer: Sensitive data as it is referred to PII and meeting state requirements for open records and redaction.

52. Is there an already approved approximate budget range or a not-to-exceed figure to help proposers right size their solutions appropriately?

Answer: Cannot disclose.

53. Must a Respondent hold TCOLE-approved provider status at the time of offer submission (May 5, 2026), or is it acceptable for the awarded Contractor to obtain TCOLE approval post-award and prior to go-live?

Answer: Must have TCOLE approval at time of award.

54. Does the three (3) year requirement apply specifically to law enforcement training management, or does experience with online training management systems for other public sector or government agencies also qualify?

Answer: Looking for specific experience with law enforcement training management.

55. Is there an estimated maximum user ceiling TPWD anticipates reaching during the contract term, to assist vendors in accurate pricing?

Answer: TPWD is looking at approximately 700 officers.

Austin, Texas 78744

IFB

802-26-74062

Addendum 1

56. Has TPWD established a budget range or not-to-exceed amount for this engagement? If so, please advise so Respondents can submit appropriately scoped proposals.

Answer: Cannot disclose budget.

57. Will TPWD require the awarded Contractor to assist with data migration from the current Target/Vector Solutions platform? If so, is there a data format or export specification available.

Answer: Step 1-Assess existing configurations, Step 2-Extract and transform data for schema compatibility. Step 3- Perform post-migration validation.

58. Does TPWD have a preferred Recovery Point Objective (RPO) in addition to the 24-hour Recovery Time Objective (RTO)?

Answer: See Q&A #42.

59. We request clarification as this section requires a "wet" signature on an original copy, but in a later section, (section 4.1), the State’s information indicates that emailed submissions are preferred. Further, the Response Submission Checklist includes several items indicative of a physically mailed submission. Could the State please clarify how final proposals are to be submitted?

Answer: Email submissions are preferred. However, if mailing a submission, a wet or electronic signature is required.

60. Could the State please clarify as to whether pricing information should be segregated into a separate volume apart from our Technical Response, etc.?

Answer: Yes, whether submitting via email or mail, there should be two attachments. 1 Original response containing all Exhibits and 1 response without Exhibit B- Price Sheet.

Austin, Texas 78744

IFB 802-26-74062

Addendum 1

EXHIBIT A

End of Phase 3

��!���� �0�1

��8 ��9��8��� �� ��7�������8�����:

��-��..�/ ��0+11

0�6��� ���6 �

��8� ��

��9�:+�����

Austin, Texas 78744

IFB 802-26-74062

Addendum 1

EXHIBIT B

Phase 3 Daily Observation Report (DOR)

���6���7�8� ������9 �2:2�� �265�52� �;4� ��� ��<4���9�=

���4��� 5��8�>6?�@A8BC7�3��6�����>�� �������D�:��E�����CF��=�

�����D���CF=�����CF��=�

�����D�65�5��6������� ���D�65�5�5���6����������������� �����?C6C�8B�8

C8�86AC35�

����4������� �GGHI-JKLMNGJGOP !GGPI"QKGRPSPTMOI "QRGGHI"QKGRPSPTMOI �U'U �U(U%U8��>���C�5�A�������������� V� �GGHI-JKLMNGJGOP !GGPI"QKGRPSPTMOI "QRGGHI"QKGRPSPTMOI �U'U �U(U%UW5�A�������������B

1�C�9� =����� �GGHI-JKLMNGJGOP !GGPI"QKGRPSPTMOI "QRGGHI"QKGRPSPTMOI �U'U �U(U%U

������0AA�9

�B�C ���������������� ����� !��"�#�$��� !"���� !��"�#�$��� �%&% �%'%(%D��5� 6�� 6 ��+.5E�:

� ���������������� ����� !��"�#�$��� !"���� !��"�#�$��� �%&% �%'%(%FG��5� 6�:

��A����� 6 ��2�,�� �9� � ���������������� ����� !��"�#�$��� !"���� !��"�#�$��� �%&% �%'%(%50-3�H1I)+/�,+H)�FF��/ �A7)�� �

@�A�

AA

9 �8 �J ���������������� ����� !��"�#�$��� !"���� !��"�#�$��� �%&% �%'%(%

5-2��0� ��������������� !�� �"#��$ % &��� "#$����"#��$ % &��� �'(' �')'*'

! "##$%&'()*+#'#,- .##-%/0(#1-2-3*,% /01##$%/0(#1-2-3*,% "454 "464748� �9�� ��� "##$%&'()*+#'#,- .##-%/0(#1-2-3*,% /01##$%/0(#1-2-3*,% "454 "46474�:��� ! "##$%&'()*+#'#,- .##-%/0(#1-2-3*,% /01##$%/0(#1-2-3*,% "454 "464748� �9�� ��� "##$%&'()*+#'#,- .##-%/0(#1-2-3*,% /01##$%/0(#1-2-3*,% "454 "46474����@�� ���A���� �B�� ! "##$%&'()*+#'#,- .##-%/0(#1-2-3*,% /01##$%/0(#1-2-3*,% "454 "464748� �9�� ���

"##$%&'()*+#'#,- .##-%/0(#1-2-3*,% /01##$%/0(#1-2-3*,% "454 "46474<@��CD8E

�CFCD���GH<<��I��E99��

����9 �J���!�����������KK����A "##$%&'()*+#'#,- .##-%/0(#1-2-3*,% /01##$%/0(#1-2-3*,% "454 "46474�L�����9��������������M��� ��� ��!� "##$%&'()*+#'#,- .##-%/0(#1-2-3*,% /01##$%/0(#1-2-3*,% "454 "46474

���� ��������������� !�� �"#��$ % &��� "#$����"#��$ % &��� �'(' �')'*'�0��,-��� �-�� 1 ���� ��������������� !�� �"#��$ % &��� "#$����"#��$ % &��� �'(' �')'*'�2��3�� ���45��/ ��6�����.� ������������������� !�� �"#��$ % &��� "#$����"#��$ % &��� �'(' �')'*'�7��3�� ���45��/ ��6��� �-�� 1 ������������������� !�� �"#��$ % &��� "#$����"#��$ % &��� �'(' �')'*'89��:�/�����..1���� ���� ��������������� !�� �"#��$ % &��� "#$����"#��$ % &��� �'(' �')'*'8;��<�=-� �6� ��� ��������������� !�� �"#��$ % &��� "#$����"#��$ % &��� �'(' �')'*'8���>��-�

�?�@AB��������������� !�� �"#��$ % &��� "#$����"#��$ % &��� �'(' �')'*'

�/�0������1� ������2���� ��������� !���"# $��#�%&��'#(#) "� %&'����%&��'#(#) "� �*+* �*,*-* 3 ��45�6��45�������1�� ���7� ��� ��������� !���"# $��#�%&��'#(#) "� %&'����%&��'#(#) "� �*+* �*,*-*8���9��������:�;8�8���9��������:�8������<���������=��>���:�;8�<���������=��>���:�8������

Austin, Texas 78744

IFB 802-26-74062

Addendum 1

Respondents are to acknowledge receipt of the Addendum and return a signed copy with proposal submission.

I acknowledge receipt of the Addendum.

Respondent’s Authorized Signature Date

Company Name