RFI 2026-17 Addendum #1 Q&A.pdf

RFI 2026-17 ADDENDUM NO. 1 Page 1 of 8

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

BUREAU OF CONTRACTS, GRANTS AND PROCUREMENT

MANAGEMENT SERVICES

325 West Gaines Street 344 Turlington Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Addendum #1Questions

BID NO.: RFI 2026-17

Educator Certification Solution

October 10, 2025

This addendum is being issued to provide the Answers to Questions submitted timely by vendors during the Question and Answers period.

SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

Please be advised all questions are keyed as submitted.

1. In addition to technology vendors, would the Department welcome responses from firms that provide managed staffing / subject-matter experts (program managers, business analysts, trainers, helpdesk and administrative staff) to support implementation and operations?

Answer: The RFI requests potential replacement solution(s) for the current system. All vendors are encouraged to respond to the requirements of the RFI.

2. I wanted to reach out to see if Appendix A was posted somewhere separately on the MFMP or DOE website? The RFI references the Appendix, but I don’t see it as a separate link or within the RFI (and I apologize in advance if this is a technical issue on my end.)

Answer: Appendix A is attached

3. There in a reference to an Appendix A - but that attachment does not appear to be available within the RFI document or as a separate attachment on.

Answer: Appendix A is attached.

4. Could the Department please make it available for download?

Answer: Appendix A is attached.

RFI 2026-17 ADDENDUM NO. 1 Page 2 of 8

5. How many unique application/certification types does the agency currently manage?

Answer: The Department manages 8 primary certification types with combinations of subject mastery, professional status, temporary status, and additional endorsements.

The proposed solution will need to provide the ability to accept and process new applications, add subject mastery to existing unprocessed applications, update data and status within the applications, extensions, upgrades, deactivations, revocations, etc.

6. What is the current volume of FileNet documents?

Answer: 2.6 TB

7. Is there a defined records management standard for retention and destruction of documents?

Answer: Certification records have indefinite retention.

8. Has the agency had any demonstrations of vendor solutions prior to the release of this RFI?

Answer: No

9. Has the Agency engaged a vendor for the development of requirements and procurement support?

Answer: No

10. Has the Department developed any strategic standards regarding the use of AI in solutions?

Answer: No. Responses should include strategic standards required to implement the potential solution.

11. Can the Department provide the number of current reports used?

Answer: Database reports are generated via SSRS and through Ad Hoc SQL scripting.

The response should outline the potential solution’s reporting capabilities, limitations and dependencies.

12. Is the Department currently paying for support and maintenance of the Versa system?

Answer: Yes.

13. Has DOE confirmed that Versa can export or extract more than eight years of certification data?

Answer: Exports of data are completed on a regular basis. The proposal may include the proposed solution’s capabilities, limitations, and/or dependencies for migrating data.

RFI 2026-17 ADDENDUM NO. 1 Page 3 of 8

14. What assurance has DOE received that the existing data is intact (i.e., not corrupt or missing components)?

Answer: Exports of data are completed on a regular basis. The proposal may include methods for normalizing data into the proposed solution.

15. Does DOE have full administrative access today to all certification data, configurations, and system integrations?

Answer: Yes, yes, and No

16. Regarding Obsidian: could DOE clarify which specific product is in use and whether it is actively supported?

Answer: The RFI requests potential replacement solution(s) for the current system. The response may include need for Obsidian and what version is needed for the potential solution.

17. For CJIS-related requirements, does DOE anticipate needing additional clearance or certification steps to ensure the new solution is fully compliant?

Answer: The Department is not expecting the potential solution to be CJIS compliant, only to potentially integrate with FileNet (which is CJIS compliant). Responses should include CJIS compliance capability, limitations, and dependencies for potential solutions.

18. For the IVR/Chatbot feature, does DOE expect vendors to replicate existing queries through reverse-engineering of the current IVR system?

Answer: The RFI requests potential replacement solution(s) for the current system. The response may include capability for reverse-engineering of the current IVR

19.Is there a plan or expectation for decommissioning the current Versa system once the new solution is implemented?

Answer: The RFI requests potential replacement solution(s) for the current system, so yes, once all data is migrated.

20. Could you please send us a copy of Appendix A at your earliest convenience?

We would like to review the complete details to assist us with the bidding process.

21. Can you please provide the appendix A referenced in the RFI?

22. How many internal DOE employees access the BEC system

RFI 2026-17 ADDENDUM NO. 1 Page 4 of 8

Answer: The RFI references 86 internal users and there are approximately 400 district/other users across the state.

23. How much record data (in GB) is needed to migrate to the new system?

Answer: Over 11 TB with indefinite retention. The proposal may include the proposed solution’s capabilities, limitations, and/or dependencies for normalizing and migrating data.

24.How many certifications need to be migrated to the new system?

Answer: The number of active certificate holders was 284,624 as of August 14.

However, all historical data for expired, revoked, etc. will need to be migrated as well.

25.How much unstructured file data (in GB) needs to be migrated to the new system?

Answer: Unstructured file data is not considered to be within scope of this RFI.

26. How much historical data must be kept in the new system?

Answer: All historical certification-related data will be migrated to the replacement system.

27. Does the new system need to be CJIS compliant?

Answer: The Department is not expecting the potential solution to be CJIS compliant, only to potentially integrate with FileNet (which is CJIS compliant). Responses should include CJIS compliance capability, limitations, and dependencies for potential solutions.

28. Does the new system need to integrate with IBM FileNet?

Answer: The potential system will need to potentially integrate with FileNet. Responses should include integration capability, limitations, and dependencies for potential solutions.

29. Please elaborate/clarify on the reference “thus FileNet until all applicant background checks are incorporated into the Clearinghouse housed at the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA)”.

Answer: Background checks now expire after 5 years, so any CJIS information will be retained in Filenet until retention is met or until all applicants’ information is stored in the AHCA clearinghouse.

30. Does the new system need to integrate with the existing IVR system? If so, what is the vendor, system, and version number? Or should a new IVR system be positioned?

RFI 2026-17 ADDENDUM NO. 1 Page 5 of 8

Answer: The RFI requests potential replacement solution(s) for the current system. The response may include capability for reverse-engineering of or integration with the current IVR.

31. Does the new system need to integrate with NIC for payment processing?

Answer: Per the RFI, NIC provides support for these payments via a link to NIC available through the Versa application. The response should include the potential solution’s capability for integration with the State of Florida payment card vendor (currently NIC) and capability to reconcile payment records with active applications.

32. Can you provide details on the batch jobs that run on scheduled basis?

Answer: Batch jobs are generated via SSRS. The response should outline the potential solution’s capabilities, limitations and dependencies as related to job scheduling and performance.

33. Can you provide more details on Parse files from the line “ability to flag fields based on Parse files related to background check results and professional practices determinations”?

Answer: The potential solution must be able to ingest data from the AHCA Clearinghouse and flag certain UI field based on information included in that data.

34.The number of internal users who will access and use the system.

Answer: The RFI references 86 internal users and there are approximately 400 district/other users across the state.

35. The total number of distinct application types and endorsement forms to be developed.

Answer: The Department manages 8 primary certification types with combinations of subject mastery, professional status, temporary status, and additional endorsements.

The proposed solution will need to provide the ability to accept and process new applications, add subject mastery to existing unprocessed applications, update data and status within the applications, extensions, upgrades, deactivations, revocations, etc.

36. The total number of tables, records, and files that need to be migrated from the existing environment.

Answer: Total amount of data is over 12 TB in various formats. Database size is over 600GB. The proposal may include the proposed solution’s capabilities, limitations, and/or dependencies for normalizing and migrating data.

37. Appendix A Availability: The RFI references “Details on the specific requirements of our existing web application… attached as APPENDIX A.” We could not locate Appendix A. Could you please provide it (or a link)? If unavailable, a summary of current workflows, data entities, roles/permissions, standard reports, and integrations would be

RFI 2026-17 ADDENDUM NO. 1 Page 6 of 8 beneficial. We anticipate that the appendix will answer some of the questions listed below.

Answer: Appendix A is attached.

38. Implementation Approach & Timeline: What is the preferred sequencing and high-level timeline for standing up core capabilities (applicant/educator portal, BEC back office, reporting/analytics, and integrations)? Do you anticipate a phased rollout or a single cutover?

Answer: This has not been determined. Responses should include the vendor’s methodology, capability, limitations, and dependencies for potential solution delivery.

39. Users & Roles: Please confirm expected internal user counts by role (e.g., BEC analysts, supervisors, district users/read-only) and the external user groups who will access the portal (applicants, certificate holders, district staff, program providers).

Answer: The RFI references 86 internal users and there are approximately 400 district/other users across the state. These users all have the same role within the system. The Department would like a new, read-only, role for users who may need to view but not update data. External user groups include applicants (cannot estimate – based on volume of graduates, interest, etc.), active certificate holders (284,624), inactive/expired certificate holder (have not calculated – cannot estimate usage), District staff (approx. 400), program providers (varies), etc.

40. Volumes & Seasonality: Could you share monthly volume patterns, peak concurrency targets, and typical attachments per application to size capacity, especially during the March–October peak?

Answer: For 24/25, BEC processed an average of approximately 13,000 applications and peak per month average of 15,000 per month between March-September, 2025.

41. Required Integrations (Target State): Please confirm the full list of required integrations and whether they remain in scope: NIC (payments), FASTER/SPEEDE (e- Transcripts), IVR, FileNet, AHCA Fingerprint Clearinghouse, Employment Screening, Teacher Certification Fee Waiver, and any exam/score providers.

Answer: The list above includes but is not a complete list of current integrations. Others include NASDTEC, Professional Practices alerts, etc.

42. For each, is real-time API or scheduled exchange preferred?

Answer: This has not been determined. Responses should include the capabilities, limitations, and dependencies for potential integration points.

43. Identity & Access: The RFI requires Azure AD SSO; could you confirm internal vs.

external user authentication patterns (e.g., Azure AD for staff; Azure AD B2C/other IdP for applicants/districts)?

RFI 2026-17 ADDENDUM NO. 1 Page 7 of 8

Answer: This has not been determined. Responses should include the potential solution’s capability, limitations, and dependencies for SSO/Azure AD integration.

44. CJIS / Background Checks: For background-check artifacts, should the new solution integrate with FileNet and/or AHCA’s Clearinghouse as systems of record, or is the expectation that the new system store/manage those records directly (and therefore meet CJIS requirements)?

Answer: The Department is not expecting the potential solution to be CJIS compliant, only to potentially integrate with FileNet (which is CJIS compliant). Responses should include CJIS compliance capability, limitations, and dependencies for potential solutions

45. Data Migration Scope: Please provide approximate record counts by major entity (applicants, certificates, endorsements, activities) and file counts/sizes by document type, desired historical depth, retention/purge rules, and any deduplication/canonical ID standards.

Answer: Total amount of data is over 12 TB in various formats. Database size is over 600GB. The proposal may include the proposed solution’s capabilities, limitations, and/or dependencies for normalizing and migrating data.

46. Documents & E-Signature: Which document types should reside in the document repository vs. application records?

Answer: Responses should include the potential solution’s capabilities, limitations, and dependencies. It is expected that all documents will be migrated and stored within the proposed solution.

47. Is electronic signature(e.g., DocuSign/Adobe Sign) in scope for applicant or internal approvals?

Answer: The RFI requests potential replacement solution(s) for the current system, so yes, once all data is migrated.

48. AI-Enabled Capabilities: Please confirm whether AI outputs are advisory only or may trigger automated actions (e.g., placing/maintaining a hold, auto-routing, or eligibility determinations). Is human review required prior to certificate issuance, and what auditability (reason codes, reviewer sign-off) is expected for AI-assisted decisions?

Answer: This has not been determined. Responses should include the potential solution’s AI capabilities, limitations, and dependencies. Human review will be required for certificate issuance.

RFI 2026-17 ADDENDUM NO. 1 Page 8 of 8

Potential proposers have 72 hours from posting of addenda to protest the requirements of each addendum. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.

YOUR PROPOSAL WILL NOT BE COMPLETE WITHOUT THIS PAGE

SIGNED AND INCLUDED!

Vendor Name – written:

Authorized Signature:

Authorized Signature - written:

Mailing Address:

City, State & Zip Code:

Telephone: Fax: E-Mail Address: