Vendor Inquiries & Agency Responses (RFI 2027000003) Page 1 of 12

Request for Information Number: DAAA 2027000003

Title: Request for Information: Online educator credentialing, preparation, and investigation/case management system

VENDOR INQUIRIES AND AGENCY RESPONSES

Vendor inquiries are stated exactly as received.

INQUIRY 1:

Please confirm whether the incumbent vendor will supply a complete data export (including binaries) in a relational format or whether the selected vendor will need to extract directly from the current Level Data environment.

CDE RESPONSE 1:

In CDE’s contract with Level Data, they are required to “Provide to the State, or any other contractor at the State's direction, all reports, data, deliverables and other information reasonably necessary for a transition as determined by the State or included in the most recent Closeout Plan or Closeout Plan Update that has been approved by the State.” CDE is currently working with Level Data to obtain an updated Closeout Plan to address the formats for exports, so we do not have that information at this time.

INQUIRY 2:

For each required external/internal system (CBI, NASDTEC, myColorado, Oracle DB, RITS, CORE, ETS), please specify the current integration method (e.g., REST API, SFTP batch, message bus) and whether those interfaces will be available for reuse.

CDE RESPONSE 2:

At this time, CDE does not have this information and is working on gathering it for any potential future solicitation. CDE would prefer that vendors, when providing pricing in response to this RFI, provide pricing assuming interfaces will be available for reuse and pricing in case they are not available for reuse.

Vendor Inquiries & Agency Responses (RFI 2027000003) Page 2 of 12

INQUIRY 3:

Does CDE prefer vendors to embed their own PCI-compliant payment gateway or to integrate with a state-standard processor? Please list any mandatory providers or fee-cap requirements.

CDE REPONSE 3: The State does not have a state-standard payment card processor. Contractor will be required to provide or subcontract to provide payment processing as part of the system. This is because applicants for an educator license pay a non-refundable licensing fee and those fees are transmitted to the state treasurer’s servicing bank account. Contractor’s system must allow an applicant to connect to a payment processor to allow payment of licensing fees through an online account.

The contractor's payment processing system will be required to interface with the State’s financial system, the Colorado Open Resources Engine (CORE).

Contractor’s system shall deposit fees daily to the state treasurer’s account via ACH, in most cases, within 24 hours. The deposit will be originated by the payment processor and will include the full amount of CDE’s fees collected.

The contractor may charge up to a 4% convenience fee to the applicant and may retain the convenience fee at the time of transaction. Contractor’s subcontractor providing this service shall not charge more than 4%.

The Payment Processing shall:

Integrate into the application via API for a seamless presentation of payment as part of the application process.

Allow for the following payment types with transparent, cost-based pricing:

● Visa and MasterCard

● American Express

● Discover

● Offline and Online Debit

Contractor’s system shall comply with the most recently updated Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard from the PCI Security Standards Council for all PCI (see https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/document_library for more information). “PCI” means payment card information including any data related to credit card holders’ names, credit card numbers, or other credit card information as may be protected by state or federal law. Contractor shall provide a compliance validation, reporting, scanning, and communications platform that meets the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCI DSS). Contractor shall provide its or its subcontractors’ Attestation of Compliance and Report on Compliance upon CDE’s request.

https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/document_library

Vendor Inquiries & Agency Responses (RFI 2027000003) Page 3 of 12

INQUIRY 4:

What are the peak concurrent applicant sessions today during renewal periods, and what SLA (response time, uptime) targets should the future system meet?

CDE RESPONSE 4:

CDE is busy throughout the year with some peak volume points that occur between June and October each year. Statute requires CDE to issue a determination on a completed application within 6 weeks of submission. CDE is currently meeting this requirement on a regular basis on the current system and current staffing levels.

See System Functionality Information Excel spreadsheet which lists “Provide a system that is highly available, with a minimum service level agreement (SLA) of 99.999% uptime.”

CDE is still considering response times to ticket support requests but is considering the following response times and would appreciate vendor feedback in response to the RFI:

o Urgent: These include system outages, security issues, or any issues that impede tasks for which there are no workarounds and pose the highest impact on users. Response time within 1 hour, resolution target within 4 hours of acknowledgment, using commercially reasonable efforts and subject to delays caused by third party systems, force majeure events, or factors outside Contractor’s reasonable control.

o High Priority: Significant functionality problems that affect essential features for one or more users, the system presents incorrect results, or the impact to users is significant but does not cause a complete system outage. Response within 2 hours, resolution target within 8 hours of acknowledgment and subject to verification and reproduction by Contractor.

o Medium Priority: Problems that affect a subset of users or non-essential features that do not prohibit the execution of critical operations but have the potential to do so if not resolved expeditiously. Response within 1 business day, resolution target within 5 business days of acknowledgment and subject to verification and reproduction by Contractor.

o Low Priority: Minor issues, general inquiries, or feature requests that do not significantly impact system usage. Response within 2 business days, resolution target within 10 business days and subject to verification and reproduction by Contractor.

Vendor Inquiries & Agency Responses (RFI 2027000003) Page 4 of 12

INQUIRY 5:

Given the existing contract runs through June 30 2030, what is CDE’s earliest planned production go-live window for a replacement system, and is a phased module deployment acceptable?

CDE RESPONSE 5: The RFI had a typo, and CDE has a contract with Level Data through December 31, 2030. Part of the purpose of this RFI is to seek feedback from vendors on how long a start-up period may be needed for most systems before they could be operational. See Attachment A, RFI Response 6.

CDE’s current plan, although subject to change, is to post a solicitation with enough time so that there is a contract in place that provides for an approximate 18-month contract start up term. As an estimate, CDE may post an RFP sometime between October 2028 and January 2029 with an estimated Contract execution date of July 1, 2029. The Department will require the system to go-live as of December 31, 2030, and all development work will need to be completed by approximately November 1, 2030.

In regard to a phased module deployment approach, if vendors believe that it will take longer than 18 months to develop the functionalities and features listed in the System Functionalities Information excel sheet, they should note which features/functionalities and the time greater than 18 months that would be required to develop them. See Attachment A, Response 6 which asks vendors, “the time to develop, set-up, modify or customize required features and functionalities in order for the vendor’s product to meet the required functionalities and features in the System Functionalities Information excel worksheet.” CDE plans to use the information obtained from RFI responses to determine when writing the future RFP if CDE should include a phased module deployment approach.

INQUIRY 6:

Please provide a breakdown of the number of CDE staff internal users would be using the new system by role, program, and how many CDE staff would be designated as “Super Users” / system administrators.

CDE RESPONSE 6:

CDE estimates approximately 55 to 65 state agency users, including users from CDE and the Attorney General’s Office, will need access to the system. CDE currently has two system administrators.

Current breakdown of internal users:

Vendor Inquiries & Agency Responses (RFI 2027000003) Page 5 of 12

Investigation Director - 1

Attorney General's Office - 10

Investigator - 3

Background Specialist - 3

Licensing Supervisors - 2

Licensing Evaluators - 17

State Employee - View Only - 15

System Administrators - 2

Program Specialist - 2

INQUIRY 7:

How many external educators, preparation-program users, district users, and other portal users should the future system support?

CDE RESPONSE 7:

The system currently supports 600,000 educators, 600 district users, and 40 preparation program users.

INQUIRY 8:

What costs has CDE incurred for the initial set up, ongoing maintenance, hosting, software licensing, support, and enhancements (i.e., “change orders”) over the lifetime of the current systems to be replaced by the new solution?

CDE RESPONSE 8: Vendors may obtain a copy of the State’s contract by submitting a Colorado Open Records Act request.

INQUIRY 9:

Does CDE desire to have the option for staff to be trained in application administration to make changes, updates, and add new capabilities to the system after go-live? Or is CDE anticipating the vendor to perform future updates and changes (such as addition of new license types, form configuration, business rule changes, etc.) to the system?

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSflZBlLha8J7Ezhxv8YfcRacQMP2qc7GekNeLdSpXSEmHLT8g/viewform

Vendor Inquiries & Agency Responses (RFI 2027000003) Page 6 of 12

CDE RESPONSE 9:

CDE's preference is for a highly configurable system that enables authorized CDE system administrators to independently manage routine business and administrative changes without requiring vendor intervention. Examples include adding or modifying license types, updating forms and workflows, maintaining business rules, revising system configurations to accommodate statutory or policy changes, and managing other day-to-day system administration functions.

To support this approach, CDE would require comprehensive administrator training prior to go-live, along with sufficient documentation and tools to perform these functions effectively and securely.

While CDE does not intend to perform custom software development, intensive coding, infrastructure hosting, or other highly technical system modifications, we recognize that major enhancements, custom development efforts, and significant architectural changes would appropriately be performed by the vendor and may require separate scoping and pricing. However, it is important that the solution maximizes CDE's ability to make routine operational and regulatory updates independently, reducing reliance on vendor resources whenever practical.

INQUIRY 10:

How many different or distinct license, authorization, and endorsement types will be supported in the solution? Please provide a comprehensive list.

CDE RESPONSE 10: See Section 1.2.2. of the RFI which lists the licenses, authorizations, and endorsement type numbers which the solution would need to support: “The Educator Talent Licensing Office certifies Colorado educators by evaluating applications and issuing licenses and authorizations to qualifying individuals. Four license types – teacher, special services provider, principal, and administrator – are issued with one or more of 60-plus endorsements, pending license type and applicant qualifications. Eighteen types of authorizations, including 40 different Career and Technical Education (CTE) credentials are also offered. All credentials have various lengths depending on the credentials and qualifications.”

INQUIRY 11:

Would CDE extend the response deadline by two to three weeks following the Q&A release to allow vendors sufficient time to complete a detailed functionality assessment and provide more precise budget information?

CDE RESPONSE 11: CDE has a firm deadline by which we must compile and

Vendor Inquiries & Agency Responses (RFI 2027000003) Page 7 of 12 share general information from the RFI responses with the Colorado Board of Education but also would like to give additional time for vendors, so CDE is extending the RFI response deadline by one week to August 17th at Noon Mountain Time. Vendors must provide their RFI responses and pricing estimates by this date. CDE appreciates any responses that could be in earlier.

If there are a few minor details that vendors are still working on, they may supplement their RFI response with a document containing those additional details up until Monday, August 31 at Noon Mountain Time.

INQUIRY 12:

Approximately how many standard, ad hoc, statutory, financial, operational, and public reports must be recreated or replaced?

CDE RESPONSE 12:

We have approximately 400 standard reports, templates, and notifications, but system administrators will need the ability to add an unlimited number of custom reports.

INQUIRY 13: Please confirm the comprehensive list of all the distinct application/renewal forms to be supported in this solution?

CDE RESPONSE 13:

Below is a list of the applications in our current system, but we will need the ability to create/edit applications independently of the vendor.

Forms

● Teacher License

● Special Services Provider License

● Principal License

● Administrator License

● Alternative Teacher License

● Adjunct Instructor Authorization

● Emergency Authorization

● Career and Technical Education (CTE) Authorization

● Substitute Authorization

● Special Services Intern Authorization

● School Speech-Language Pathology Assistant (SLPA) Authorization

● Exchange Educator Interim Authorization

● Temporary Educator Eligibility (TEE) Authorization

● Educational Interpreter Authorization

● Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) Instructor Authorization

● Adult Basic Education Authorization

● Add an Endorsement

Vendor Inquiries & Agency Responses (RFI 2027000003) Page 8 of 12

● Reactivate an Inactive Professional License

● Name Change

● Inactivate an Active Professional License

● Emergency Educational Interpreter Authorization

● Renew or Advance an Initial Teacher License

● Renew a Professional Teacher License

● Renew or Advance an Interim Authorization - Teacher

● Advance an Interim Authorization - Teacher

● Advance an Initial Teacher License

● Renew or Advance an Initial Special Services License

● Renew a Professional Special Services Provider License

● Advance an Interim Authorization / Special Services - Counselor

● Advance an Initial Special Services License

● Add Master Certificate to Professional License

● Add a Designation

● Renew or Advance an Initial Principal License

● Advance an Initial Principal License

● Advance a Principal Authorization

● Renew a Professional Principal License

● Renew or Advance an Initial Administrator License

● Advance an Initial Administrator License

● Renew a Professional Administrator License

● Renew or Advance an Interim Authorization - Principal

● Advance an Interim Authorization - Principal

● Renew or Advance an Interim Authorization - Administrator

● Advance an Interim Authorization - Administrator

● Advance an Initial CTE Authorization

● Renew an Emergency Authorization

● Renew a Professional CTE Authorization

● Renew a School Speech-Language Pathology Assistant (SLPA) Authorization

● Renew an Educational Interpreter Authorization

● Renew a JROTC Instructor Authorization

● Renew an Adult Basic Education Authorization

● Advance an Alternative Teacher License

● Native American Language & Culture Instructor Authorization

● Add a CTE Endorsement

● SSN Verification

● ERR Financial Assistance

● Reinstatement

● Multiple Measures of Content Competency

● Disclosure Application

● Teacher Apprenticeship Authorization

● TDAP Statement of Assurance Submission Only

Vendor Inquiries & Agency Responses (RFI 2027000003) Page 9 of 12

● Advance a Teacher Apprenticeship Authorization

INQUIRY 14:

For data conversion requirements, please inventory ALL existing data sources, file formats, and size of the current data sets to be converted and migrated into the new system.

CDE RESPONSE 14:

Per the RFI section 1.4.3.2 - The current online educator credentialing, preparation, and investigation/case management system contains approximately 93MB of educator data. The system also contains approximately 4 TB of supporting information, such as scanned identification and records in approximately 3 to 4 million files. A more detailed breakdown of all migration data would be provided later in the solicitation process as we do not currently have this information in the requested level of detail.

INQUIRY 15:

Please provide an approximate number of standard email/letter templates that will be used by each board that are to be integrated and automated by the system.

CDE RESPONSE 15:

CDE has approximately 300 standard email/letter templates/notifications, but system administrators will need the ability to add an unlimited number of templates.

INQUIRY 16:

Identify ALL other systems that the new solution will need to integrate with (i.e.

payment processor, other systems such as financial, etc.) along with an inventory of which interfaces will need to be one-way (import or export) or two-way data exchange?

CDE RESPONSE 16:

See Sections 1.6.4. and 1.6.5. of the RFI which lists all system integrations:

“1.6.4. External systems with which the system should integrate include, but are not limited to, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation’s LogiKCo system, the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC) and myColorado App.”

“1.6.5. Internal systems the system should integrate with include, but are not limited to, CDE’s internal Oracle Database, CDE’s internal Human

Vendor Inquiries & Agency Responses (RFI 2027000003) Page 10 of 12

Resources Collection, CDE’s internal RITS system, our financial system Colorado Operations Resource Engine (CORE) for fees/reports, and Educational Testing Services Exam.”

The following table shows whether the interfaces are one-way or two-way data exchanges:

Interface One-Way (Import or Export) or Two-Way Data Exchange

Colorado Bureau of Investigation One-Way Import

National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification

One-Way Import myColorado App One-Way Export

CDE’s internal Oracle Database Two-Way

CDE’s internal Human Resources Collection

Two-Way

CDE’s internal RITS system Two-Way

The State’s financial system Colorado Operations Resource Engine (CORE) for fees/reports

One-Way Export

Educational Testing Services Exam One-Way Import

INQUIRY 17:

To better understand CDE's modernization goals, can CDE categorize the primary limitations of the legacy system? For example, are the most pressing pain points related to the external applicant experience (e.g., lack of self-service), internal processing inefficiencies, or system maintenance/inflexibility?

CDE RESPONSE 17:

The current system is very vendor dependent. The CDE system administrators are limited in what updates can be made.

Vendor Inquiries & Agency Responses (RFI 2027000003) Page 11 of 12

INQUIRY 18:

Are there specific statutory or legislative requirements that the current system struggles to support, adapt to, or report on effectively?

CDE RESPONSE 18:

Currently, fiscal notes for potential legislation that involve system upgrades are coming in higher in cost than CDE expected. The current vendor has cited the higher-price of development due to the age of the system and the increasing difficulty of adding new developments while updating existing functionalities within the current system.

INQUIRY 19:

How difficult is it to keep the current system running? For example, is the current system nearing its end-of-life (EOL) where keep business running is costlier, or does it suffer from frequent downtime or slow performance during peak renewal seasons?

CDE RESPONSE 19:

On the front end from the user standpoint, CDE does not believe the system is in the end-of-life phase yet. The system continues to function mostly as-expected from a performance perspective.

INQUIRY 20:

Item 1.1.3 of RFI states how Level Data, LLC is the current vendor contracted through June 30, 2030. Is this RFI being issued as standard practice in light of no mechanism for extending their contract beyond that date, or is the Department not satisfied with the current solution?

CDE RESPONSE 20: CDE staying on the current Level Data platform beyond December 31, 2030 (there was a date typo in the RFI) is likely not an option.

Any subsequent request for proposal will be a fair, open, and transparent process to choose the vendor that is most advantageous to the State price and other evaluation factors considered. The most advantageous vendor could be determined by the evaluation panel to be a new system from a new vendor or a new platform that Level Data provides. For any subsequent RFP, CDE would encourage vendors to bid as competition is desired to find a technology system that is innovative, adaptable, and flexible and supported by a responsive, efficient, and customer-service focused vendor team.

INQUIRY 21:

Of the functionalities listed within the System Functionality Information spreadsheet, please list the items (by ID #) the current system from Level Data, LLC does not provide?

Vendor Inquiries & Agency Responses (RFI 2027000003) Page 12 of 12

CDE RESPONSE 21:

The Level Data system provides the majority of the functionalities listed on the System Functionality spreadsheet except for AU1, AU2, AU3, AU5, AU9, CU3, CU8, CU9, CU12, CU13, EW7, EW10, EW13, EW14, EW15, DT5, DB2, DB3, DB4, IN2, IN4, IN5, IN6, IN8, IN11, IN18, HS5, LP6, LP9, LP12, EPD1, EPD2, EPD3, EPD4, EPD5, EPD6, EPD7, EPD8, EPD9, EPD10, EPD11, FT3 and it partially provides CU1, CU5, CU7, CU10, CU11, CU18, CU21, CU22, CU23, EW1, EW6, EW8, DB1, IN9, IN12, IN16, IN17, EL3, LP2, LP8, LP11, PP7, FT1, TS2, TS3, TS4, TS5, TS6, TS7.

Note that part of the intent of this Request for Information is to obtain market feedback from vendors not only on the feasibility of the desired and required functionalities as listed in the System Functionality Information spreadsheet (see RFI response 2 and 3) but also to find out if there are any functionalities or features that are available in the marketplace that would benefit educators or CDE Users (see RFI Response 4) that CDE should consider adding to its functionalities matrix in a subsequent RFP. CDE hopes to use the information obtained from this RFI to write an RFP with innovative functionalities while also ensuring functionality requirements are not overly restrictive.

INQUIRY 22:

Is a configurable SaaS/COTS platform acceptable when requirements can be satisfied through configuration, integrations, and supported extensions rather than custom ownership by CDE?

CDE RESPONSE 22: Part of the intent of this Request for Information is to obtain market feedback from vendors on the benefits/risks of a SaaS/MOTS/COTS or custom owned product. CDE at this time does not know whether any subsequent Request for Proposal would be a MOTS/SaaS/COTS request or a custom-build owned by CDE. CDE hopes that via vendor responses to the RFI, we will obtain a better understanding of the existing market and the costs/risks/benefits of alternative information technology paths and whether there are existing products or products that via configurations, integrations, and extensions could provide the functionalities. CDE will use the feedback to determine whether to seek in an RFP a COTS/MOTS/SAAS or custom-build solution. See Attachment A RFI response 2 and 3 which seeks feedback from vendors on the listed functionalities.

Vendors are requested to complete Attachment A, response question worksheet which includes an RFI response 5 which asks vendors using their expertise and experience to answer the following: “What type of solution does your company recommend in response to this RFI (COTS/MOTS/SaaS, a custom solution, etc.)?

Please explain your recommendation in detail. What type of hosting options does your company provide? Is it hosting directly through your company or is the hosting a third party vendor? Describe the intellectual property ownership associated with your product.”