RFI_30901-64426_Amendment_1.pdf

RFI 30901-64426 Amendment 1 Page 1 of 10

STATE OF TENNESSEE

TREASURY DEPARTMENT

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION # 30901-64426

AMENDMENT # 1

FOR COLLATERAL POOL SOLUTION

DATE: October 29, 2025

RFI # 30901-64426 IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

1. This RFI Schedule of Events updates and confirms scheduled RFI dates. Any event, time, or date containing revised or new text is highlighted.

EVENT

TIME

(Central Time Zone)

DATE

(all dates are State business days)

CONFIRMED

OR

UPDATED

1. RFI Issued October 1, 2025

CONFIRMED

2. Written “Questions & Comments” Deadline 2:00 p.m. October 15, 2025

3. Treasury Response to Written “Questions and Comments” October 29, 2025

4. RFI Response Deadline 2:00 p.m. November 19, 2025

CONFIRMED

5. Scheduling of Oral Presentations December 1 – December 3, 2025

UPDATED

6. Oral Presentations December 15 – December 18, 2025

UPDATED

2. State responses to questions and comments in the table below amend and clarify this RFI.

Any restatement of RFI text in the Question/Comment column shall NOT be construed as a change in the actual wording of the RFI document.

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

1. While reading the RFI document I saw that the Treasury currently utilizes a 3rd party vendor suppor software application to support the Collateral Pool Program and State Depository Program which includ a Treasury database that connects real time to the Collateral Management System web portal. I was wondering, is it possible to ask who this incumbent vendor is?

Broadridge/QED.

2. Additionally, although this project is only in the RFI stage, I was wondering if the state had an estimated contract value that would potentially be awarded if this project moved past the RFI stage.

The State respectfully declines to reveal whether there are any budget limitations or ceilings.

RFI 30901-64426 Amendment 1 Page 2 of 10

3. What system is Treasury currently using for collateral management, and what limitations or pain points are driving this RFI?

See response to Question 1 above.

Operational and reporting improvements in functionality, efficiencies, and automation, enhancements with user-friendly interface, enhanced accuracy and maintenance of collateral holdings pricing and market values, and increased controls within the platform.

4. How does Treasury source deposit information from participant banks today to determine collateral requirements?

Banks submit monthly reports via email and staff manually enters the information into the platform.

5. Does the pooled collateral sit in a single custody account with one custodian, or are multiple accounts and custodians involved?

Multiple custodians and multiple accounts.

6. What is the asset pricing and reference data source for bond collateral today?

Currently we access ICE/IDC and SIRS but are open to other options and functionality that improves the process and accuracy.

7. Does Treasury apply a multiplier or margin factor when calculating required collateral coverage?

Yes, we apply pledge level multipliers. Refer to RFI for current levels in use.

8. For any cash collateral held, is interest paid to participants, or is it maintained as non-interest-bearing?

Any interest arrangements for any cash collateral holdings are between the bank and the custodian.

We don’t calculate or track this information. In our system, collateral and value is dollar for dollar.

9. Are there specific integration requirements to support the integration with the 14 safekeeper/trustee custodians (e.g., SWIFT, API, custom formats)?

Integration is currently file-based. Treasury is interested in other capabilities that the vendor recommends and/or supports.

10. What collateral types are currently allowable under the State Deposit Programs?

Generally, cash, letters of credit and securities are allowed under the State Deposit program. A list of detailed eligible collateral can be found on our public website at: Bank Collateral Pool and clicking the “Eligible Collateral” icon.

11. Is there an anticipated hosting model for the solution (cloud-hosted vs. on-prem) and are there mandatory hosting or security standards?

It is anticipated that the hosting model will be cloud. State security standards can be found here:

Enterprise-Information-Security-Policies-v2-3-ISO- 27002-12-21-2018-Internal-FINAL- with-Sigs

12. How will the new system connect with existing Treasury banking, accounting, and data systems, and with external custodians and banks?

The purpose of this RFI is to source those solutions with the service provider. We are open to recommendations from the vendor that will meet our needs in an efficient and effective manner.

13. Could you please describe the existing reconciliation process with the safekeeping agents?

Safekeeping/trustee custodians send an electronic file monthly that is reconciled against our internal https://treasury.tn.gov/Investments/Investment-Management/Bank-Collateral-Pool https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/finance/sts/security-documents/300-POL-001_EISP%20Policy.pdf https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/finance/sts/security-documents/300-POL-001_EISP%20Policy.pdf

RFI 30901-64426 Amendment 1 Page 3 of 10 system to identify any variances. We are open to improvements in this process as part of the RFI.

14. Current Data Storage

● 1.1. Where is all data currently stored (e.g., Oracle or other systems)?

● 1.2. What is the total volume of data currently being managed?

Data is currently maintained in a proprietary database.

There are approximately 3,000 transactions annually, and approximately 30 years of transactions maintained, with the number of transactions having increased over time.

15. Existing Systems

● 2.1. What systems and applications are presently in use to support the Collateral Pool program?

iPAS/Collateral Management System for the web portal and Broadridge/QED and Perceptive Content for the internal systems.

16.

3. Data Migration Requirements

• 3.1. During a potential data migration, what integrations will be required with existing systems or third-party tools?

If vendors are changed as a result of this RFI or other procurement efforts, the specific integration needs will have to be determined at that time.

17. Blob Data Migration

• 4.1. Will the migration process need to include binary large objects (BLOBs), such as documents, files, or attachments?

See response to 16 above.

18. External Data Integration (Deposits and Releases)

• 5.1. When deposit and release transactions originate from the Tennessee State Account System, how is that data expected to be transmitted to the new platform?

• 5.2. Which middleware or integration tool will be used to facilitate this data exchange?

See response to 12 above.

19. Authentication and Security

• 6.1. Will Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) and Single Sign-On (SSO) be required for internal users, external users, or both?

We are interested in how you support both MFA and SSO for internal and external users.

20. Current Workflow Inventory

• 7.1. How many workflows or automated processes regardless of Business type are currently in place within the existing system?

The main processes we manage are: Daily Collateral Sufficiency; Collateral Requests (pledging and releasing) Setting collateral targets (monthly); Quarterly Bank performance monitoring (Reset Bank Pledge levels for collateral pool banks); Reporting; Reconciliation. With each of these processes, there will be numerous workflows. We feel that interested vendors with the capabilities we are seeking should be able to generate a ballpark approximation of the reasonable workflows associated with each process.

21. Business Types and Program Structure Collateral Pool Banks, State Depository Banks, Trustee Custodian/Safekeepers. Within these

RFI 30901-64426 Amendment 1 Page 4 of 10

• 8.1. What are the different business types or entities that participate within the Collateral Pool program?

• 8.2. How many distinct business types currently exist?

types we would be seeking the ability to group them by internally assigned labels for reporting and monitoring purposes. For example:

Community Bank Leveraged Ratio (CBLR), Non- CBLR, etc.

22. Workflow Specifics by Business Type

• 9.1 What specific workflows or processes exist for each business type?

• 9.2. Examples such as:

○ Account Opening

○ Account Withdrawal

○ Account Mergers

○ Account Detail Updates

Please see response to 20 above. The specific workflows or processes as referenced in this question would be the standard processes and workflows associated with each of the processes we manage.

23. Business Type Agreements

● 10.1. Which agreements correspond to each business type?

Each business type has a specific corresponding agreement with the state, not the service provider.

24. Collateral Eligibility Rules

● 11.1. What process rules or validation criteria determine which business types are eligible to hold specific collateral under their accounts?

Refer to response to question 10 above. The process rules or validation criteria are developed based on eligible collateral.

25. Implementation Approach and Timeline

● 12.1. Does Treasury have a preference for a particular implementation approach (cloud-based SaaS, on-premise solution, or hybrid model)?

● 12.2. What is the Treasury's target timeline for implementation from contract award to full production deployment?

● 12.3. Are there specific go-live dates or fiscal year deadlines that must be met?

12.1. See response to Question 11 above.

12.2. A target timeline has not been established.

12.3. No.

26. Project Management Methodology

● 13.1. Does Treasury have a preference for a particular project management methodology (Agile, Waterfall, or Hybrid)?

• 13.2. What level of involvement will Treasury staff have during implementation? Will a dedicated team of subject matter experts be available?

13.1 and 13.2 - Treasury utilizes Agile for its own in-house developed projects, but has experience with all project management methodologies, and is interested in what the vendor believes is the best approach for this project.

Treasury staff will be heavily involved in implementation, and a dedicated team of subject matter experts will be available throughout the implementation period.

Treasury will be actively engaged in the implementation and is interested what the vendor needs from Treasury to successfully complete the project.

27. Custodian and External System Integration

● 14.1. What specific APIs, data exchange formats, or integration protocols are required

14.1 Refer to response to Question 9 above.

RFI 30901-64426 Amendment 1 Page 5 of 10 to communicate with the 15 safekeeping agents/trustee custodians?

● 14.2. Are custodian integrations standardized across all 15 custodians, or will custom integration work be required for each?

14.2 There will be some customization needed for

certain safekeepers/trustee custodians based on their requirements.

28. Pricing Service Integration

● 15.1. Does the Treasury currently use a specific third-party pricing service or vendor for daily collateral valuation?

● 15.2. Will the new solution need to integrate with an existing pricing service, or should vendors propose their own pricing solution?

15.1 Refer to response to Question 6 above.

15.2 We are open to recommendations for efficient

and effective process improvements as part of the

RFI.

29. User Licensing and Access

● 16.1. How many internal Treasury staff users will require access to the system?

● 16.2. How many external bank participant users are anticipated (across 100+ Pool participants and 50 state depository banks)?

● 16.3. What is the expected year-over-year growth rate in bank participants?

16.1, 16.2, 16.3 - We are currently not limited to a defined set of users, participants, etc. Treasury needs the ability to add/remove users and participants as necessary. Additionally, the participant banks need the ability to have as many users as required for their operations. In our current solution, the banks manage their own access and users through the web portal. It is important that they maintain this ability with any solution we implement.

30. Support and Service Level Agreements

● 17.1. What are Treasury's expectations for post-implementation support hours (24/7 or business hours 8 AM - 5 PM CT)?

● 17.2. What are Treasury's expectations for Service Level Agreements (SLAs), including response times for critical versus non-critical issues?

● 17.3. What system availability percentage and disaster recovery capabilities are required?

Standard support hours are expected to be Monday through Friday, excluding NYSE holidays, from 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM EST.

System availability is expected to be 99.99%.

We expect redundant facilities to be maintained, configured, and staged with State data and made available in a reasonable time in the event there is a failure of the primary server for a period exceeding 24 continuous hours.

Recovery point objective and recovery time objectives are 2 hours and 4 hours respectively.

31. Training Requirements

● 18.1. Should user training be provided on-site in

Tennessee, remotely, or hybrid?

● 18.2. Should "train-the-trainer" options be included for Treasury staff?

● 18.3. How should end-user training be delivered to the 100+ bank participants - by Treasury staff or directly by the vendor?

18.1 We are open to a hybrid approach with the

understanding that some training will be more effective when held on-site.

18.2 Yes.

18.3 The expectation is for the vendor to provide

user manuals that will be distributed to the participants and Treasury staff can assist the participants as needed. We are expecting a solution that is very user-friendly for the participants so that extensive training outside of a user manual in not necessary.

32. Data Quality and Migration Scope

• 19.1. Are there any known data integrity issues or inconsistencies in the current system that may impact migration?

Treasury is unaware of any data integrity issues with the current solution. It is expected that all

RFI 30901-64426 Amendment 1 Page 6 of 10

• 19.2. What is Treasury's expectation for historical data migration - should all historical transactions be migrated or only active/current data?

transactions for the past 30 years will be maintained.

33. Budget and Contract Structure

● 20.1. Can the Treasury provide guidance on available budget or funding for this project?

● 20.2. Is funding allocated for both initial implementation and ongoing annual maintenance/licensing?

● 20.3. Should vendors assume a multi-year contract (e.g., 3-5 years) or annual contracts with optional renewals?

20.1 - The State respectfully declines to reveal whether there are any budget limitations or ceilings.

20.2 – Yes.

20.3 - The State anticipates a multi-year contract.

It might also consider a multi-year contract with an option to renew.

34. Procurement Process

• 21.1. Does Treasury anticipate issuing a formal

RFP following this RFI, or might other procurement methods be used?

• 21.2. Has the Treasury worked with any consultants to develop requirements for this RFI? If so, will those vendors be eligible to respond to future procurements?

21.1 - An RFP or another procurement method might be utilized depending on the responses to the RFI and the State’s ultimate decision after reviewing the responses.

21.2 - No.

35. Reporting and Monitoring Capabilities

● 22.1. Beyond Excel and PDF output, are there other reporting formats or business intelligence tools that Treasury requires (e.g., Power BI, Tableau)?

● 22.2. For daily collateral sufficiency monitoring, does Treasury need real-time monitoring capabilities or is end-of-day batch processing acceptable?

22.1 While Excel and PDF output are the current

reporting formats, we would be interested in a solution with the capability to expand into other reporting formats if the opportunity arose.

22.2 Real-time monitoring capabilities.

36. System Customization and Flexibility

● 23.1. How configurable is the solution to accommodate changes to business rules (e.g., pledge levels, collateral targets) without requiring custom development?

● 23.2. Does the solution utilize low-code/no-code capabilities that would allow Treasury staff to make future modifications without vendor involvement?

The current solution is configured by the vendor.

Treasury is interested what configuration capabilities the vendor recommends and/or supports.

37. Data Migration Details Can you provide more information about the current collateral management system’s data structure and export capabilities to better assess migration requirements?

The data structure of the current vendor is proprietary. It is assumed that an export specification would be established.

38. Integration Requirements:

Are there any existing systems (e.g., accounting, reporting, or authentication platforms) that the new solution must integrate with? If so, please specify which ones and the preferred integration methods.

The current system integrates with Treasury’s ECM solution to support digital signatures.

Treasury is interested in how you would perform this activity and what integration methods you recommend and/or support.

RFI 30901-64426 Amendment 1 Page 7 of 10

39. Integration Requirements:

Does the system need to connect to banks in order to retrieve daily balance information, if so, how many banks and accounts?

We are interested in solutions with capabilities for direct connectivity to banks and trustee custodians that also includes digital signatures.

40. User Roles and Permissions:

Could you clarify the expected number and types of user roles (e.g., Treasury staff, bank admins, custodians) and any specific permission requirements for each User Roles and Permissions:

Refer to response to Question 29 above.

41. Security and Compliance:

Are there additional state-specific cybersecurity or data privacy requirements beyond NIST 800.53 that the solution must meet?

Refer to response to Question 11 above.

42. Volume and Performance Expectations:

What are the anticipated transaction volumes (e.g., pledge/release requests per day, number of collateral investment items held, etc.)?

Our positions average 5,000 and approximate transaction volume on an annual basis is 3,000.

Daily activity can have large swings, so providing the annual average.

43. Reporting Needs:

Are there any required report templates or formats (beyond Excel and PDF) that must be supported?

Can you provide examples of current reports?

We have a high level of reporting that is handled outside of the current system. We would be interested in a solution with functionality to significantly reduce the level manual effort currently required. We will include automation desires in any subsequent procurement process.

44. Support and Training:

What are the expectations for vendor-provided training and ongoing support for Treasury staff and bank participants?

Refer to response to Question 31 above. We intend the service provider to adequately train Treasury staff to be self-sufficient (whether this is train-the-trainer, joint implementation, etc.). We expect the vendor to provide adequate training materials and/or videos custom for our implemented system for us and the participants.

We would also expect there to be some degree of ongoing support by the vendor in the event Treasury staff or bank participants need further assistance. We expect the ability to have two days on training per each 12-month period if needed.

45. Future Enhancements:

Is there a roadmap for future enhancements or additional features that Treasury anticipates needing after initial implementation?

Our goal would be to work with the solution provider to identify enhancements and features address those as part of the implementation plan rather than after implementation.

46. Collateral Position Structure:

What is the current collateral position structure? Is collateral pledged by each financial institution?

The Collateral Pool sounds as if members of the pool have to collateralize deposits at other financial institutions: Under the Collateral Pool, should a financial institution default with insufficient collateral to cover public deposits, then

The Collateral Pool is a contingent liability program. Collateral is pledged by each financial institution for their public deposits and in the event of default and inability of a bank’s collateral to cover those public deposits, then the rest of the pool would make up the difference on a pro rata basis.

RFI 30901-64426 Amendment 1 Page 8 of 10 the other financial institutions participating in the Pool must make up the difference on a pro rata basis. Please confirm.

47. Collateral Sufficiency:

How often is collateral sufficiency evaluated? The RFI indicates daily market values of collateral but also mentions: The collateral target is based on the aggregate average balance of all public funds for the month multiplied by the pledge percentage level assigned to the participant by the Board.

Collateral sufficiency is evaluated daily with targets being revised monthly based on the newest aggregate average balance or if revisions are required in the interim.

48. Collateral Sufficiency:

Is the State requiring daily review of bank balances and comparison to collateral provided or is the state setting a target amount and comparing collateral pledged to the target amount?

We do not require daily review of bank balances.

The collateral target is set monthly, and daily collateral monitoring is performed to ensure compliance with that established target.

49. Instruments What is the percentage of instruments distributed among various areas, accounts, or departments?

We cannot answer this question since it is unclear what is being requested.

50. Instruments Would the vendor be tracking the cumulative of a bank or amounts for each area? (i.e., $X for department A, $X for department B, etc)

We cannot answer this question since it is unclear what is being requested.

51. Solution Deployment & Architecture Does Treasury intend to fully replace the existing collateral management platform, or would it consider enhancement/integration with the current system?

Our intention is full replacement.

52. Solution Deployment & Architecture What is the preferred deployment model — cloud, on-premises, or hybrid?

See response to Question 11 above.

53. Solution Deployment & Architecture Are there any uptime, performance, or scalability SLAs expected from the future solution?

We expect an uptime SLA of 99.9%

54. Solution Deployment & Architecture Does Treasury require multi-tenant architecture or will each program operate in a single-tenant instance?

No decision has been reached. Treasury is interested in what capabilities the vendor recommends and/or supports.

55. Data Migration & Integration Will Treasury provide database schema or export documentation from the existing system to support structured data migration?

Yes.

56. Data Migration & Integration Does Treasury expect real-time API-level integration with external systems such as custodian feeds, pricing data providers, or internal treasury tools?

Yes.

RFI 30901-64426 Amendment 1 Page 9 of 10

57. Data Migration & Integration Should the solution support bulk upload/import tools for onboarding new bank participants or collateral records?

Yes.

58. Functional Capabilities & User Access Should bank participants and safekeeping custodians both have direct portal access, or will custodial operations be managed exclusively by Treasury?

Bank participants should have direct portal access, and we are open to possibility for safekeeping custodians who would utilize access.

59. Functional Capabilities & User Access Will participant onboarding workflows be fully managed by Treasury, or should the system enable self-registration with approval workflows?

Treasury currently manages the initial onboarding of a single user sign-on per bank. The bank is then responsible for creating and removing any additional user access for bank staff. We are open to changes if they result in a more efficient and effective process.

60. Functional Capabilities & User Access Should the system support multi-stage approval workflows for collateral pledge/release requests (e.g., preparer → approver → Treasury validation)?

Yes.

61. Functional Capabilities & User Access Will role-based access control (RBAC) require support for temporary delegation, impersonation, or dual control (maker-checker) capabilities?

The current solution does not support anything outside standard access control. Treasury is interested in what the vendor may recommend and/or support.

62. Reporting, Audit & Notifications Beyond Excel and PDF, should the reporting framework support API export, Power BI connectors, CSV scheduling, or automated distribution lists?

Treasury is interested in what capabilities the vendor recommends and/or supports.

63. Reporting, Audit & Notifications Are there specific regulatory or board reporting templates that must be replicated?

We have a high level of reporting that is handled outside of the current system. We would be interested in a solution with functionality to significantly reduce the level manual effort currently required.

64. Reporting, Audit & Notifications Should notification workflows support email only, or also SMS, Teams/Slack, or webhook/API alerts?

Treasury is interested in what capabilities the vendor recommends and/or supports.

65. Reporting, Audit & Notifications What level of audit logging granularity is expected — e.g., field-level change tracking, timestamped event logs, IP-based access history?

Treasury is interested in what capabilities the vendor recommends and/or supports.

66. Security, Compliance & Disaster Recovery Treasury references the NIST Cybersecurity Framework — should compliance be demonstrated at framework alignment level, or via specific NIST 800-53 control families?

See response to Question 11 above.

RFI 30901-64426 Amendment 1 Page 10 of 10

67. Security, Compliance & Disaster Recovery Is SOC 2 Type II or ISO 27001 certification required as a baseline?

Yes.

68. Administration, Support & SLAs Should daily operational support (e.g., participant access, recon support, collateral exception resolution) be vendor-managed or Treasury-managed using admin tools?

We anticipate Treasury-managed.

69. Administration, Support & SLAs What support window coverage is expected — business hours only, extended hours, or 24/7?

Refer to response to Question 30 above.

70. Administration, Support & SLAs Will Treasury require sandbox or training environments separate from production?

Yes. Please indicate in your response what you typically recommend.

71. Evaluation & Vendor Coordination Should high-level cost ranges or pricing models be included at this RFI stage, or reserved for the RFP phase?

Yes, it should be included in the response to the RFI. See Cost Informational Form of Section 6 of the RFI.

72. Evaluation & Vendor Coordination Will Treasury distribute all vendor clarification questions — along with Treasury’s responses — to all participants, or will responses be provided individually?

All responses to all questions will be distributed to all potential respondents.

3. Add the following as a new Section 7 to the RFI (any sentence or paragraph containing revised or new text is highlighted):

7. ORAL PRESENTATIONS:

7.1 The Solicitation Coordinator referenced in RFI Section 3.2 above will invite each Respondent to make an oral presentation. The presentations will be conducted remotely via web conference, hosted by the State, during the period indicated in RFI Section 4, Schedule of Events.

7.2. The Oral Presentations are not mandatory. The oral presentations provide an opportunity for

Respondents to explain and clarify their responses with respect to addressing the items detailed in Section 6 of this RFI above. Each presentation should be limited to one (1) hour and demonstrate functionality specifically addressing items within the RFI.

7.3. Respondent Presentations are only open to the invited Respondent, State stakeholders, and the Solicitation Coordinator. NOTE: It is the State’s preference that employees of the Respondent who will be directly responsible for the system implementation attend.

4. RFI Amendment Effective Date. The revisions set forth herein shall be effective upon release. All other terms and conditions of this RFI not expressly amended herein shall remain in full force and effect.