RFI 2027-032 - ADD 1 - Questions and Answers.pdf

RFI 2027-032 Automated Cross-Checking Solutions ADDENDUM NO. 1

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

BUREAU OF CONTRACTS, GRANTS AND PROCUREMENT

MANAGEMENT SERVICES

325 West Gaines Street 344 Turlington Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Addendum #1

BID NO.: RFI 2027-032

Automated Cross- Checking Solutions

September 25, 2026

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

Please be advised that all questions are keyed as submitted.

1. Section 7(2)(b) of HB 5003E requires cross-checking against attendance records and reports data required by s.

1003.23, F.S., "maintained by school districts, including the Florida Virtual School." Does the Department intend the platform to source that attendance data directly from each district and FLVS, or to operate against enrollment and attendance data the Department already receives through its existing survey reporting?

The platform is expected to operate primarily against enrollment and attendance data made available to the Department through existing statutory reporting and data collection processes.

Respondents may also describe options for direct district or FLVS integrations where such integrations would improve timeliness, accuracy, or operational efficiency.

2. Where the Department already holds attendance data centrally, at what granularity and frequency is it available:

daily attendance events, aggregate period totals, or survey-period snapshots?

The Department currently receives student enrollment and attendance information through established survey reporting. Respondents should describe how their solution can support survey-period or batch-based data, as well as more frequent or event-driven data feeds if made available by participating entities.

3. Would participating school districts and FLVS be required to provide data to the

Participation and data exchange expectations will be governed by platform, or would participation be established through individual agreements with each entity?

applicable law, Department requirements, and any future procurement or data-sharing agreements. Respondents should identify assumptions regarding mandatory participation, onboarding, and agreements needed among the Department, districts, FLVS, and scholarship-funding organizations.

4. The RFI and Section 7(2)(f) both require that the Department and school districts retain authority over student data.

Operationally, does that permit the platform to hold a working copy of student data in a vendor-operated cloud environment, or must storage and processing occur within a Department-controlled tenant?

The requirement that the Department and school districts retain authority over student data does not, by itself, preclude use of a secure vendor-operated cloud environment. Any such environment would need to meet applicable FERPA, Florida student-data privacy, cybersecurity, access-control, audit, retention, and contractual requirements, and preserve Department and district control over data use and disclosure.

5. How many school districts, eligible scholarship-funding organizations, and other entities would be expected to exchange data through the platform at full deployment?

For planning purposes, respondents should assume statewide participation may include all Florida school districts, FLVS, eligible scholarship-funding organizations, and relevant Department systems. Final counts, participating entities, and onboarding sequence would be defined in a future solicitation or implementation plan.

6. Approximately what percentage of records on the scholarship payment files submitted by eligible scholarship-funding organizations currently include a valid

FLEID?

The Department is not providing a definitive completeness profile for FLEID on scholarship payment files in this RFI.

Respondents should describe how their solution validates records containing FLEID and supports approved secondary matching methods when FLEID is missing, incomplete, or inconsistent.

7. For records without a FLEID, which demographic attributes are reliably available to support matching for example; legal name, date of birth, gender, district of residence, or address?

Respondents should assume that available attributes may include student name, date of birth, district or school information, and other data elements lawfully available for the program.

Respondents should clearly state which demographic attributes their matching approach requires and how the solution manages incomplete, inconsistent, or missing data.

8. When the platform identifies a probable near match rather than a direct match, who adjudicates it— Department staff, Probable or near matches should be routed for review by authorized users designated by the Department, which district staff, the scholarship-funding organization, or a combination — and does the Department have an expected turnaround for resolution?

may include Department staff and, where appropriate, district, FLVS, or scholarship-funding organization staff.

Respondents should propose configurable workflows, roles, escalation paths, and target resolution timeframes.

9. Does the Department have an existing or target standard for match accuracy, or a stated tolerance for false positives versus false negatives? We ask because an incorrect match may delay payment to an eligible student while a missed match may permit duplicate funding, and the two errors carry different costs.

The Department has not established a specific accuracy threshold for this RFI.

Respondents should describe their recommended matching methodology, confidence scoring, validation approach, auditability, and controls to minimize both false positives and false negatives.

10. Approximately how many students are currently identified on both a scholarship payment file and a public-school enrollment record in a typical review cycle, and how many require manual research to resolve?

The number of students identified in both record sets varies throughout the school year. Respondents should state sizing assumptions for scholarship, enrollment, attendance, withdrawal, and reconciliation records and describe how the solution scales for quarterly cycles, peak processing windows, and more frequent updates.

11. The RFI notes that real-time notification "may require additional features related to student attendance and reporting." Should respondents scope attendance data collection from districts and FLVS as in scope, or scope only consumption of attendance data the Department already receives?

Scope attendance data collection

12. Should the platform manage the standard withdrawal form process referenced in Section 7(2)(e) including capture, storage, and verification of completed forms or consume a withdrawal status determined elsewhere?

The Department is seeking information on solution capabilities. Respondents may describe whether the platform can manage withdrawal form receipt, storage, verification, and association with a student record, as well as whether it can consume a withdrawal status from an existing Department or district process.

13. Is the platform expected to generate and transmit the pre-payment eligibility list into an existing Department payment process, and if so, which system or interface would receive it?

The Department anticipates the solution should at minimum produce eligibility information, notifications, and records needed to support payment review.

Whether the solution directly initiates payment holds into an existing Department payment process or transmits hold instructions would be determined by future program, legal, and system integration requirements.

14. Section 7(2)(a) requires nationally recognized education data standards.

Does the Department have a preferred standard or existing investment — for example Ed-Fi, SIF, or CEDS that the platform should align to?

The Department expects respondents to align with nationally recognized education data standards where practical.

Respondents should identify supported standards such as Ed-Fi, SIF, CEDS, or other relevant models, including any Florida-specific extensions or mappings that would be required.

15. Which existing Department systems would the platform integrate with rather than replace — for example the FLEID system, the automated student database, or the Family Empowerment Scholarship payment system?

The solution is expected to integrate with, rather than unnecessarily replace, applicable Department systems and data sources. Respondents should identify assumed integrations, including FLEID, statewide student data collections, scholarship program/payment processes, identity services, reporting tools, and any relevant integration platforms.

16. Is this effort intended to align with any current Department interoperability or data modernization initiative?

Yes. Respondents should describe how their proposed approach can align with current and future Department interoperability, data modernization, integration, cybersecurity, and governance initiatives, while still meeting the specific program objectives described in the RFI.

17. Does the Department require hosting within a State of Florida-managed cloud environment, or is a vendor-operated cloud environment (AWS or Azure) acceptable, subject to applicable security requirements?

A vendor-operated cloud environment may be acceptable if it meets all applicable State of Florida, Department, FERPA, Florida student-data privacy, cybersecurity, data-governance, audit, and contractual requirements.

Respondents should clearly describe hosting location, data protection, administrative controls, disaster recovery, and compliance posture.

18. What security assessment or certification would the Department require or accept — for example the Florida Cybersecurity Standards under s.

282.318, F.S., SOC 2 Type 2, StateRAMP, or FedRAMP? Would a current SOC 2 Type 2 report combined with a state RAMP authorization issued by another state be considered responsive?

Respondents should identify all relevant security certifications, assessments, and control frameworks, including alignment with Florida cybersecurity requirements, SOC 2 Type 2, StateRAMP, FedRAMP, or equivalent independent assessments.

The Department will consider the adequacy of submitted evidence in the context of any future procurement requirements.

19. Section 7(2)(f) names FERPA and s.

1006.1494, F.S. Would the Department

Any future implementation would require appropriate data-sharing, privacy, and require a specific data-sharing or privacy agreement instrument among the vendor, the Department, districts, and scholarship-funding organizations, and is a template available for review?

contractual instruments among applicable parties. If templates or required terms are applicable, they would be provided or identified in a future solicitation or during contract negotiations.

20. Certain supporting materials — such as an independent SOC 2 Type 2 report

— are issued under restricted-use terms limiting their distribution. Will responses to this RFI be treated as public records, and does the Department have a preferred method for submitting confidential or trade secret material separately so that it is not subject to disclosure?

Responses to the RFI are subject to Florida public records laws. Respondents are responsible for clearly identifying any materials they assert are confidential, exempt, or trade secret and should submit such materials in accordance with the instructions in the RFI and applicable Florida law. Final determinations regarding disclosure will be handled consistently with public records requirements.

21. The RFI requests information on cloud-based commercial off-the-shelf solutions. Would the Department consider a configurable commercial platform requiring program-specific configuration and extension to be responsive, or is interest limited to products that perform Florida scholarship cross-checking without modification?

A configurable commercial platform may be responsive if it is cloud-based, commercially available, and capable of meeting the program objectives through configuration, integration, or limited extension. Respondents should clearly distinguish standard product capabilities from customization or program-specific development.

22. Would the Department consider a phased implementation — beginning with a subset of districts or a single review cycle — before statewide rollout?

Yes. Respondents may describe a phased implementation approach, including a pilot or limited initial deployment with selected participants or a single review cycle, followed by statewide rollout once business rules, integrations, reporting, and operational processes are validated.

23. Given that Section 7 of HB 5003E expires July 1, 2027, does the Department anticipate seeking an implementation appropriation during the 2027 legislative session, and is the platform expected to be operational for a particular school year?

The Department is using this RFI to gather information to inform planning and potential future procurement or legislative budget considerations. The RFI does not establish an implementation appropriation, procurement commitment, or operational date. Any future timeline would be subject to legislative direction, funding, procurement, and implementation planning.

24. What is the Department's anticipated timeline for issuing a competitive solicitation, and its target date for the platform to support a quarterly payment cycle under s. 1002.394(12), F.S.?

The Department has not established a competitive solicitation timeline through this RFI. Respondents should provide realistic implementation schedules and identify the time required to support reconciliation and eligibility-list production in advance of quarterly payment cycles.

25. Does the Department currently maintain or receive a centralized statewide dataset containing the enrollment and attendance information required for cross-checking, or should respondents anticipate integration with individual school district systems?

The Department maintains and receives statewide student data through existing reporting processes. Respondents should assume that centralized Department data may be used where available, while also describing how the solution could integrate with individual district, FLVS, or other source systems if needed to meet timeliness or completeness requirements.

26. What existing data-exchange mechanisms are currently available or anticipated for the Department, school districts, Florida Virtual School and scholarship-funding organizations (for example, APIs, secure file transfer, scheduled batch files or nationally recognized education data standards)?

Respondents should describe all supported data-exchange methods, including secure file transfer, scheduled batch processing, APIs, standardized education data models, and event-driven interfaces. The Department has not prescribed a single exchange method for purposes of this RFI.

27. For budget-planning purposes, approximately how many distinct source systems or interfaces should respondents assume will participate in the proposed solution?

Respondents should assume multiple participating interfaces across Department systems, school districts, FLVS, and scholarship-funding organizations. Respondents should describe pricing and implementation impacts for both standard interfaces and nonstandard or entity-specific connectors.

28. What approximate volumes of scholarship, enrollment and attendance records should respondents assume per reconciliation cycle, and how frequently are the underlying datasets expected to be updated?

The Department is not providing definitive record-volume estimates in this RFI.

Respondents should state sizing assumptions for scholarship, enrollment, attendance, withdrawal, and reconciliation records and describe how the solution scales for quarterly cycles, peak processing windows, and more frequent updates.

29. With respect to the RFI's real-time notification objective, does the Department envision event-driven processing as source records change, or notification immediately following receipt and reconciliation of scheduled data feeds?

The Department is interested in understanding both approaches.

Respondents should describe whether their solution supports event-driven notification when source records change, notification after scheduled data-feed receipt and reconciliation, or a hybrid model, including the operational and cost implications of each.

30. Should respondents anticipate migration and reconciliation of historical records? If so, approximately how many years of historical information should be assumed for planning purposes?

Respondents should not assume full historical migration unless proposed as part of their recommended approach.

Respondents may describe options for initial conversion, limited historical lookback, audit support, and reconciliation of prior records, including how scope and cost would vary by the number of years included.

31. Does the Department currently maintain established business rules, confidence thresholds or disposition procedures for probable/near matches using FLEID and demographic attributes, or should respondents propose an approach for collaboratively developing and validating those rules?

The Department has not established final business rules, confidence thresholds, or disposition procedures for purposes of this RFI. Respondents should propose a configurable approach for developing, validating, documenting, and refining matching rules in collaboration with the Department and participating entities.

32. Are there specific State of Florida cloud-hosting, cybersecurity, identity/SSO, data-residency, audit, disaster-recovery or security-certification requirements respondents should assume when describing their proposed architecture and estimating lifecycle costs?

Florida Administrative Code Chapter 60- GG Cybersecurity Standards

33. Is the current manual file-exchange process (DOE providing an extract file to districts, which districts then update and return to DOE) a strict programmatic or statutory requirement, or are other data transfer methods acceptable?

The current manual file-exchange process should not be assumed to be the only acceptable approach. Respondents may propose alternative secure transfer methods, including automated file exchange, APIs, standardized education data interfaces, or other methods that meet statutory, privacy, security, and operational requirements.

34. Are the enrollment data and the scholarship payment files sent to DOE in different formats and file types?

Respondents should assume that enrollment data and scholarship payment files may originate from different systems and may use different formats, layouts, and delivery methods. Respondents should describe their ability to ingest, validate, normalize, and reconcile data across multiple formats.

35. Is the enrollment and attendance data compiled at the district level before being provided to DOE, or does DOE (or the district, internally) work with data from individual schools separately?

Enrollment and attendance data are generally reported through district-level processes before submission to the Department. Respondents should also describe how their solution could accommodate school-level detail if available or required for reconciliation, audit, reporting, or exception review.

36. Do the scholarship payment files The Department is not providing a definitive completeness profile for FLEID contain the FLEID’s of each student? on scholarship payment files in this RFI.

Respondents should describe how their solution validates records containing FLEID and supports approved secondary matching methods when FLEID is missing, incomplete, or inconsistent.

37. Are FLEID always unique by student? FLEID is intended to uniquely identify a person within Florida’s educational data systems and serves as the primary identifier for state and local databases.

Respondents should still describe controls for identifying and resolving data-quality issues, duplicate records, or conflicting identifiers.

38. If a student withdraws from public school and then reenrolls, do they maintain the same FLEID as previously assigned?

A student is expected to retain the same FLEID when withdrawing and later reenrolling, because the FLEID is assigned to the person rather than to a single enrollment event. Respondents should describe how their solution supports continuity of student identity across withdrawals, reenrollments, district changes, and updated demographic information.

39. Please identify the anticipated source systems, file formats, transfer methods, update frequencies, and approximate annual record volumes for scholarship-funding organizations, school districts, and Florida Virtual School, including whether any participants currently support Ed-Fi or other standardized APIs.

The Department is not providing a complete data-source inventory or record-volume estimate in this RFI. Respondents should state assumptions regarding source systems, file formats, transfer methods, update frequencies, annual record volumes, and support for Ed-Fi or other standardized APIs and should identify how those assumptions affect cost and implementation planning.

40. For purposes of solution architecture and pricing, what notification latency does the Department consider “real-time,” and should vendors assume event-driven source-system integrations, scheduled file processing, or both?

The Department has not established a single latency definition for “real-time” in this RFI. Respondents should describe event-driven, near-real-time, scheduled-feed, and hybrid options, including expected notification latency, dependencies on source-system availability, operational impacts, and cost implications.

41. What business rules, confidence thresholds, and review procedures should govern direct and probable near matches, and which organization or user role will have final authority to resolve disputed duplicate-funding cases?

Respondents should propose configurable business rules, confidence thresholds, review workflows, and audit controls for direct and probable near matches. Final authority for disputed duplicate-funding cases would be determined by Department policy, applicable law, and any future implementation governance model.

42. Please identify the anticipated security, hosting, identity-management, audit-retention, and compliance requirements beyond FERPA and applicable Florida student-data privacy laws, including any required state security framework, independent assessments, or single sign-on standards.

Respondents should address applicable State of Florida cybersecurity requirements Florida Administrative Code Chapter (60-GG), Department security standards, identity and access management, audit retention, encryption, disaster recovery, incident response, and independent assessment expectations.

Specific requirements beyond FERPA and Florida student-data privacy laws would be defined in a future solicitation or contract.

43. Should cost estimates assume that the vendor will build and maintain separate integrations for every participating district and scholarship-funding organization, or may respondents propose a phased onboarding model using standard interfaces with separately priced nonstandard connectors?

Respondents may propose a phased onboarding model using standard interfaces where practical and separate identifying costs, assumptions, and timelines for nonstandard or entity-specific connectors. Cost estimates should clearly distinguish core platform costs from integration, configuration, onboarding, and recurring support costs.

44. Will the solution be used solely by FDOE and District staff, or is there a public-facing component to the project?

Public facing

45. Can you list the known FDOE/District systems, portals, and tools the solution would potentially integrate with and receive data from?

The Department is not providing a definitive integration inventory in this RFI.

Respondents should assume potential integration with FLEID, statewide student data collections, enrollment and attendance reporting processes, scholarship payment or program administration systems, identity services, reporting tools, and relevant district, FLVS, and scholarship-funding organization systems.

46. Is FDOE hoping to implement a solution that could eventually be owned, hosted, and managed internally by FDOE without outside vendor support, or license a vendor tool?

The Department is seeking information on commercially available cloud-based solutions and related implementation models. Respondents may describe vendor-hosted, Department-hosted, licensed, managed-service, or transition-to-state-operation options, including the cost, risk, staffing, security, and support implications of each model.

47. Regarding the program objective of executing direct and probabilistic near-

The Department may consider approaches that use artificial intelligence matching across datasets, would FDOE consider the application of artificial intelligence or machine learning technologies?

or machine learning if they are explainable, auditable, secure, privacy-preserving, and subject to appropriate human review and governance.

Respondents should clearly distinguish deterministic matching, probabilistic matching, and any AI or machine-learning components, including training data, bias mitigation, model validation, and override controls.

48. Does the Florida Department of Education prefer or permit proposals that leverage, integrate with, or extend the Department’s existing technology assets (i.e. currently owned integration platforms) and software licenses in order to maximize cost savings and reduce overall deployment costs?

Yes. Respondents may propose approaches that leverage, integrate with, or extend existing Department technology assets and software licenses when doing so would reduce cost, improve interoperability, or accelerate implementation without increasing security, operational, or program risk.

Respondents should identify any dependencies on existing assets.

49. Are there any reporting/analytic requirements (Legislative or otherwise) from this solution? i.e. Control reports, Performance reports, Mandated reports, Executive KPI's, etc.

Respondents should assume reporting and analytics will be needed to support program operations, reconciliation oversight, auditability, executive visibility, performance monitoring, exception management, and any future legislative or mandated reporting requirements.

Respondents should describe standard reports, dashboards, configurable KPIs, data export capabilities, and audit reporting.

50. Does FLDOE require a government-authorized cloud environment, such as FedRAMP Moderate or High, and what production/non-production, disaster-recovery, and availability requirements apply?

The Department has not specified a required FedRAMP or StateRAMP authorization level for this RFI.

Respondents should identify relevant cloud authorizations, security certifications, production and non-production environment controls, disaster-recovery capabilities, availability targets, backup and recovery objectives, and how the proposed environment satisfies applicable state and Department requirements.

51. Is the Department seeking to, or open to, extending the existing MuleSoft platform supporting School Choice, including its hosting, security, API-management, and identity/access model, or is a separate platform/environment

The Department is open to understanding whether existing integration assets, including MuleSoft or other Department-supported platforms, could be leveraged.

Respondents should describe both extension and separate-platform anticipated? approaches, including hosting, security, API management, identity/access, cost, schedule, and long-term maintainability considerations.

52. RFI mentions the primary goal of finding information on COTS solutions.

How much configuration or customization is deemed acceptable? Is the state also modified off the shelf solutions?

A configurable or modified commercial off-the-shelf solution may be responsive if it remains commercially available, cloud-based, supportable, and capable of meeting the RFI objectives. Respondents should clearly identify which capabilities are standard, configurable, customized, or newly developed, and describe the impact on cost, timeline, risk, and future maintenance.

53. Does the state have a current source for student identifiers? What technologies are used for that solution?

The Department uses the Florida Education Identifier as the statewide student identifier. Respondents should assume integration or alignment with the FLEID process may be required and should describe any technical assumptions, while recognizing that detailed technology specifications would be provided, as applicable, in a future solicitation or implementation phase.

54. Do scholarship funding organizations, public schools, and FLVS use a Single Sign On solution? If so, what technology is used? If not, is the state open to implementing an SSO option?

Microsoft Azure

55. Does FL DOE have a business rules engine that should be leveraged for this work? If so, please describe the tool.

The Department is not identifying an existing business rules engine for required use in this RFI. Respondents should describe whether their solution includes a configurable rules engine or can integrate with an existing Department rules capability if one is later designated.

56. How many organizations by type will be interfacing with this solution?

Respondents should assume statewide participation may include the Department, Florida school districts, FLVS, eligible scholarship-funding organizations, and relevant supporting systems. Final organization counts by type would be defined in a future solicitation or implementation plan.

57. What is the source for scholarship payment files? Is an API integration available for this data? If not, what in is the expected integration and frequency?

Scholarship payment files are expected to originate from eligible scholarship-funding organizations or associated program administration processes. Respondents should describe options for receiving these files by secure file transfer, batch upload, API, or other secure exchange method, and should state assumptions regarding update frequency and reconciliation timing.

58. How should real-time notifications be exposed to users? Toast notifications, email, or some other mechanism?

The Department is interested in understanding available notification options. Respondents should describe supported channels such as in-application alerts, dashboards, email notices, workflow queues, configurable reminders, escalations, and system-to-system notifications, including role-based controls and audit logging.

59. Regarding the eligibility list, should that be an on-screen display or an exported CSV or Excel file?

The eligibility list should be available in a format that supports both operational review and downstream processing.

Respondents should describe on-screen display, dashboard review, secure export to CSV or Excel, system-to-system transmission, and any controls for versioning, approval, and audit history.

60. Are there regulations or compliance beyond FERPA that apply to the solution?

e.g. StateRAMP, FedRAMP, COPPA, etc.

Respondents should address all applicable legal, privacy, cybersecurity, accessibility, and contractual requirements, including FERPA, Florida student-data privacy laws, applicable State of Florida cybersecurity requirements, and any relevant independent assessment or cloud-security frameworks such as SOC 2 Type 2, StateRAMP, FedRAMP, or equivalent controls. Applicability of COPPA or other requirements would depend on the final solution scope, user population, and data processed.

61. What levels of access to individual records should be governed; are we talking row level access or simple RBAC based role access?

Respondents should describe role-based access, record-level access controls, and any row-level or organization-level segregation needed to ensure users only access records appropriate to their role and organization. Final access rules would be defined through Department governance, privacy, and security requirements.

62. Is the state interested in a non-COTS based solution should the pricing be competitive?

The RFI is focused on cloud-based commercial off-the-shelf solutions.

Respondents may provide information regarding alternative approaches, but any non-COTS approach should clearly explain how it meets the stated objectives, reduces risk, remains supportable, and compares cost, timeline, security, and lifecycle maintenance.

63. Regarding a possible non-COTS based solution, could the state speak to any existing cloud infrastructure or preference for cloud hosting?

The Department is seeking information on viable hosting models and has not prescribed a single cloud environment for this RFI. Respondents should identify any assumptions regarding State of Florida, Department-controlled, vendor-hosted, or government-authorized cloud environments and describe related security, cost, support, and operational implications.

64. Data-source inventory: Will FLDOE provide a definitive list of source systems, owners, formats, volumes, refresh frequencies, and current interfaces?

The Department is not providing a definitive data-source inventory in this RFI. Respondents should state assumptions regarding source systems, data owners, formats, volumes, refresh frequencies, and current interfaces, and should describe how those assumptions affect implementation scope and cost.

65. Authoritative sources: For each data element, which entity is considered the system of record?

Authoritative source designations would be determined through Department data governance and applicable program rules. Respondents should describe how their solution can document systems of record, manage source precedence, track overrides, and preserve audit history for data used in matching and eligibility decisions.

66. Standards: Which nationally recognized education-data standards does FLDOE prefer or currently support, including specific versions and Florida extensions?

The Department expects respondents to align with nationally recognized education data standards where practical.

Respondents should identify supported standards such as Ed-Fi, CEDS, SIF, or other relevant models, including versions, implementation experience, and any Florida-specific mappings or extensions.

67. Security: What state security framework, authorization process, independent-assessment requirement, and incident-reporting standard would apply?

Respondents should address applicable State of Florida cybersecurity requirements, Department security standards, independent assessment options, incident response and reporting, audit logging, encryption, identity management, disaster recovery, and continuity requirements. Specific framework and authorization requirements would be defined in a future solicitation or contract.

68. Accessibility and languages: Which WCAG version and conformance level will be required, and which languages must be supported at launch?

Respondents should assume the solution must meet applicable accessibility requirements, including current WCAG standards and any State of Florida or Department accessibility requirements.

Language-support requirements have not been finalized for this RFI; respondents should identify available multilingual capabilities and any cost or implementation implications.

69. What constitutes “real-time” for source ingestion, matching, notification, and resolution?

The Department has not established a single definition of “real-time” for this RFI.

Respondents should describe source ingestion, matching, notification, and resolution options across event-driven, near-real-time, scheduled batch, and hybrid models, including latency assumptions and operational dependencies.

70. Is FLEID present and validated in all scholarship-funding organization records?

If not, what demographic attributes may legally be used for secondary matching?

The Department is not confirming that FLEID is present and validated in all scholarship-funding organization records for purposes of this RFI. Respondents should describe FLEID validation and secondary matching using lawfully available attributes such as student name, date of birth, district or school information, and other approved demographic data.

71. What workflow is required after a duplicate is identified, including notices, response deadlines, appeals, overrides, and final disposition?

Final workflows have not been established for this RFI. Respondents should propose configurable duplicate resolution workflows that may include notices, assignments, response deadlines, documentation, appeals or reconsideration steps if applicable, supervisory review, overrides, final disposition, and audit history.

72. Must the solution cause or initiate a payment hold, or only produce an eligibility list and notification?

The Department anticipates the solution should at minimum produce eligibility information, notifications, and records needed to support payment review.

Whether the solution directly initiates payment holds or transmits hold instructions would be determined by future program, legal, and system integration requirements.

73. What historical data must be migrated, and must prior payment periods be reprocessed?

Respondents should not assume a broad historical migration or reprocessing of prior payment periods unless proposed as part of their recommended approach.

Respondents may describe options for limited historical lookback, audit support, conversion, and prior-period reconciliation, including related scope and cost impacts.

74. What are the expected record volumes, concurrent-user volumes, district counts, scholarship-provider counts, and peak-processing windows?

The Department is not providing definitive volume estimates in this RFI.

Respondents should state assumptions for record volumes, concurrent users, district and scholarship-funding organization counts, peak quarterly processing windows, transaction volumes, and scalability requirements.

75. Must districts interact through a central portal, APIs, their existing SIS, or all three?

The Department is interested in understanding multiple interaction models. Respondents should describe support for a secure central portal, APIs, secure file exchange, integration with existing student information systems, or a hybrid approach, including onboarding, support, data-quality, and cost implications.

76. What are your expectations regarding district-level access to reporting?

District-level reporting should be role-based and limited to information appropriate for the district’s responsibilities. Respondents should describe standard and configurable reports, dashboards, exception queues, export capabilities, audit views, and controls that prevent unauthorized access to records outside the user’s permitted scope.

77. The RFI states that the Department is seeking information regarding cloud-based Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) solutions. Would the Department consider a commercially licensed, cloud-based application platform with prebuilt and reusable solution components that can be configured to meet the cross-checking requirements, or is the Department specifically seeking a fixed-function packaged COTS product?

A commercially licensed, cloud-based application platform with prebuilt reusable components may be responsive if it can be configured to meet the cross-checking requirements while remaining commercially available, supportable, secure, and cost-effective. Respondents should distinguish fixed product capabilities, reusable platform services, configuration, and any custom development.

78. Does the Department envision the Automated Cross-Checking Solution as a stand-alone application, or would the Department value an enterprise platform approach in which common capabilities -such as identity and access management, integrations, workflow, rules, notifications, audit trails, reporting, and document handling could be reused for other Florida Department of Education programs and future modernization initiatives?

The Department is open to understanding both stand-alone and enterprise platform approaches. Respondents should explain how reusable capabilities such as identity, integration, workflow, rules, notifications, audit trails, reporting, and document handling could support this use case and potentially benefit future modernization initiatives without increasing implementation risk.

79. If a future solicitation is issued, would the Department be open to proposals that establish a reusable interoperability and workflow platform while delivering the cross-checking solution as the initial use case, provided the approach does not increase implementation risk or delay required program outcomes?

Yes. Respondents may describe a reusable interoperability and workflow platform approach if the cross-checking solution remains the initial priority and the proposed approach does not delay required outcomes, increase risk, or create unnecessary cost or complexity.

80.The RFI references nationally recognized education data standards. Are there specific standards or models the Department expects respondents to support or prioritize (for example, Ed-Fi, CEDS, or another Department-adopted standard)?

The Department expects respondents to align with nationally recognized education data standards where practical.

Respondents should identify supported standards such as Ed-Fi, CEDS, SIF, or other relevant models, including versions, implementation experience, and any Florida-specific mappings or extensions.

81. What are the anticipated source systems and data providers for the initial implementation, including the number of scholarship-funding organizations, school districts, FLVS, and Department systems that would participate in the automated exchange?

The Department is not providing a definitive count of source systems or data providers for initial implementation through this RFI. Respondents should assume participation may include Department systems, Florida school districts, FLVS, eligible scholarship-funding organizations, and related program administration processes, and should identify implementation assumptions by participant type.

82. What integration methods are currently available or preferred for participating entities - for example, REST APIs, secure file transfer, event/message services, database interfaces, or an existing Department integration layer?

The Department has not prescribed a single integration method for this RFI.

Respondents should describe supported options such as REST APIs, secure file transfer, scheduled batch files, event or message services, database interfaces, standardized education data interfaces, and use of any existing Department integration layer.

83. For the requirement to provide real-time notifications when a student appears in both a scholarship payment file and a public-school enrollment record, how does the Department define "real-time" for planning purposes: event-driven/immediate, near-real-time within minutes, or processing at defined intervals?

The Department has not defined “real-time” as a fixed latency requirement for this RFI. Respondents should describe the feasibility, cost, and dependencies of immediate event-driven processing, near-real-time processing within minutes, processing at defined intervals, and hybrid approaches.

84. Can the Department provide estimated record volumes and peak processing expectations, including the approximate number of student records, cross-check transactions, file submissions, and concurrent users expected during quarterly payment cycles?

The Department is not providing definitive record-volume, transaction-volume, file-submission, or concurrent-user estimates in this RFI. Respondents should provide sizing assumptions for quarterly payment cycles, peak processing windows, batch and real-time activity, and user concurrency, and explain how the solution scales.

85. The RFI calls for direct and probable near-match capabilities using FLEID and other demographic attributes. Does the Department have existing matching rules, confidence thresholds, or data-quality standards that should be preserved, or should respondents propose a configurable matching and scoring methodology?

The Department has not identified final matching rules, confidence thresholds, or data-quality standards for this RFI.

Respondents should propose a configurable matching and scoring methodology that supports direct matches, probable near matches, exception review, validation, auditability, and refinement over time.

86. Should probable or ambiguous matches be routed to authorized users for human review and disposition, with the decision, supporting data, and audit history retained as part of the official record?

Yes. Probable or ambiguous matches should be capable of routing to authorized users for human review and disposition. The solution should retain the decision, supporting data, user actions, notifications, timestamps, and audit history needed to support program oversight and compliance.

87. Does the Department anticipate that eligibility, duplicate-funding, withdrawal, attendance, and payment-related business rules will change as statutes, policy, or program guidance evolve? If so, is the ability for authorized administrators to configure rules and workflows without significant software redevelopment a desired capability?

Yes. Respondents should assume that eligibility, duplicate-funding, withdrawal, attendance, and payment-related rules may evolve due to statutory, policy, or program changes. The Department is interested in configurable rules and workflows that authorized administrators can adjust without significant software redevelopment, subject to governance and testing controls.

88. What is the expected process for resolving duplicate-funding situations, including the roles of the Department, school districts, FLVS, and scholarship-funding organizations, and are there target service levels or timeframes for resolution before quarterly payments are issued?

Final duplicate-funding resolution procedures have not been established for this RFI. Respondents should propose configurable workflows that support Department, district, FLVS, and scholarship-funding organization roles, assignments, documentation, escalation, approval, resolution before quarterly payment cycles, and auditable disposition history.

89. The RFI references completed withdrawal forms. Should the solution include secure receipt, storage, validation, and association of withdrawal documentation with the applicable student record and reconciliation case, or will document management remain in an existing Department system?

Respondents should describe options for secure receipt, storage, validation, association, and retrieval of withdrawal documentation, as well as integration with any existing process or repository.

90. Should the solution provide a case-management style workspace for exceptions and duplicate-funding situations, including assignment, status, notes, evidence, approvals, escalation, and complete disposition history?

Yes. Respondents should describe case-management capabilities for exceptions and duplicate-funding situations, including assignment, status, notes, evidence, approvals, escalation, notifications, role-based access, and complete disposition history.

91. What notification channels should be supported for districts, scholarship-funding organizations, FLVS, and Department personnel (for example, in-application alerts, email, dashboards, or integration to existing communication services), and should reminders/escalations be configurable by role and due date?

Respondents should describe supported notification channels, including in-application alerts, dashboards, email notices, workflow queues, configurable reminders, escalations, and system-to-system notifications. Reminders and escalations should be configurable by role, organization, case status, due date, and applicable business rule, with appropriate audit logging.

92. Approximately how many internal and external users are anticipated, and does the Department prefer federated identity/SSO for Department and district users, separate identity management for external organizations, or integration with an existing statewide identity service?

The Department is not providing definitive user-count estimates in this RFI.

Respondents should identify assumptions for internal Department users and external users from districts, FLVS, and scholarship-funding organizations, and should describe supported identity models such as federated identity, SSO, multifactor authentication, external-user provisioning, deprovisioning, and role-based access control.

93. Beyond FERPA and applicable Florida student data privacy requirements identified in the RFI, are there specific Department security standards, cloud hosting requirements, data residency requirements, cybersecurity frameworks, or third-party security certifications that respondents should address in a future response?

Respondents should address applicable State of Florida cybersecurity requirements, Department security standards, FERPA, Florida student-data privacy requirements, data governance, encryption, audit logging, incident response, disaster recovery, continuity, and any relevant independent assessment or cloud-security frameworks such as SOC 2 Type 2, StateRAMP, FedRAMP, or equivalent controls.

Specific requirements would be defined in a future solicitation or contract.

94. The RFI states that the Department and school districts must retain authority over student data. Are there specific data-governance, retention, deletion, access-segregation, data-sharing agreement, or records-management requirements that the solution should enforce at the organization or record level?

The solution should be capable of enforcing data-governance,…