RFI # 31701-03850 – Amendment 2 Page 1 of 30

STATE OF TENNESSEE

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION, STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGY

SOLUTIONS

RFI 31701-03850

AMENDMENT 2

FOR STATEWIDE CASHIERING SYSTEM

DATE: 10/01/2026

RFI # 31701-03850 IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

1. 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.

# Vendor Questions RFI

Reference State Response

1 How many State agencies and physical/virtual collection locations currently use the existing cashiering solution, and is the scope of a resulting procurement limited to those agencies or intended to expand to additional boards, commissions, or agencies over time?

Section 2 – Background (scope/current solution)

53 Agencies with 310 Locations across all agencies.

2 What is the name and vendor of the current cashiering solution referenced in Section 2 (Background), and is it a bolt-on/add-on to Edison or a standalone system?

Section 2 – Background (current cashiering solution)

The current solution is a 3rd party stand alone application that interfaces with our ERP application.

Under Tenn. Code Ann. §10-7-504(i) vendor identity or a description of the goods or services provided by a vendor shall be confidential.

3 What is the approximate annual transaction volume (transaction count and dollar value) currently processed through the cashiering solution?

Not specifically stated in RFI;

Section 2 – Background

In the fiscal Year of 2026 (July 2025-June 2026) we approximately had a transaction count of 1.7 million and $3.77 Billion

4 How many concurrent cashier/user seats, and how many total named users, does the State anticipate needing?

Not specifically stated in RFI

Approximately 2,000 total Users. While we don't have an easy way to identify the concurrent cashier users, it would be no more than our current workstations, which is approximately 500.

5 Is there an incumbent vendor and, if so, when does the current contract expire?

Not specifically stated in RFI

Under Tenn. Code Ann. §10-7-504(i) vendor identity or a description of the goods or services provided by a vendor shall be confidential.

RFI # 31701-03850 – Amendment 2 Page 2 of 30

6 Which Edison ERP platform and version is in use, and which specific modules (AR, GL, etc.) must the cashiering solution integrate with?

Attachment 1 Requirements 37 & 114

(ERP

integration/pos ting)

We integrate with our ERP platform's AR module to submit deposits into the ERP application and select invoices to apply payments against. We also integrate with the GL module to pull in valid accounting distributions.

Under Tenn. Code Ann. §10-7-504(i) vendor identity or a description of the goods or services provided by a vendor shall be confidential.

7 Attachment 1, Item 111 references "Company, Business Unit, Department, and other required ChartFields." Can the State share (now or at the RFP stage) a data dictionary or entity relationship diagram for the Edison chart of accounts so vendors can accurately scope the accounting-distribution integration?

Attachment 1 Requirements 38 & 111 (data dictionary/ER D/accounting distributions)

At this point in time, we cannot provide this information;

however, this can be provided in future phases of this effort.

8 Item 41 asks vendors to identify a hosting model.

Does the State have a preference or requirement between State-datacenter hosting, vendor-hosted cloud, or a specific cloud provider (AWS, Azure)?

Attachment 1

– Requirement 41 (hosting model/cloud provider)

The preferred would be vendor hosted, with the alternative being state managed hosting in Azure or

AWS.

9 Which payment processor(s) are currently under contract?

Will the awarded vendor be required to integrate with the State's existing processor and merchant accounts, or may a vendor propose its own gateway/processor relationship?

Attachment 1

– Requirement 40 (contracted payment card processors)

Attachment 1, Requirement 40 identifies Worldpay and Fidelity Information Services (FIS) as examples of the State's contracted payment card processors. The proposed solution must be capable of interfacing with the State's contracted payment card processor(s). The State will provide any additional information regarding processor and merchant account requirements, as applicable, through the procurement process.

10 How many financial institutions currently receive Image Cash Letter (ICL) files under the current process, and is there a specific ICL/Check 21 file format or clearinghouse standard the State requires?

Attachment 1 Requirements 42, 53, 78 & 120 (Check

21/ICL)

We are sending our ICL files to one bank with 3 different accounts.

11 Does the State use a middleware or integration platform (ESB/iPaaS) that the cashiering solution would be expected to integrate through, or is direct API/file-based integration with Edison acceptable?

Attachment 1

– Requirement 37 (data exchange with State ERP/other applications)

Yes, we have middleware software between our ERP application and all interfaced applications. This would need to integrate with that.

RFI # 31701-03850 – Amendment 2 Page 3 of 30

12 For Item 39 (database connectivity), is this requirement describing a vendor-hosted database the State's team would query directly, or a data-extract/replication interface into State-managed infrastructure?

Attachment 1

– Requirement 39 (database connectivity/d ata extraction)

This is describing the application's database. Currently with our current solution, we can query the database with

SQL.

13 Section 5.9 permits use of a cooperative purchasing vehicle (NASPO ValuePoint, GSA, etc.) per Technical Item 5. Does the State have a preference for, or restriction to, a specific cooperative contract vehicle, or is direct solicitation also anticipated?

Section 5.9 + Technical Information Form #5 (cooperative purchasing)

This RFI is being conducted for information-gathering purposes. The State is currently gathering information regarding available cashiering solutions and implementation services, and the procurement approach and contracting vehicle for any future solicitation have not been determined at this time.

14 Is there a target budget range, estimated project value, or expected contract term (e.g., 3-year, 5-year) the State can share to help vendors scope an appropriately tiered response?

Not specifically stated in RFI;

Cost Information Form #1–4

The State has not established a target budget, estimated project value, or contract term at this time. This RFI is being conducted for information-gathering purposes.

15 Could you please extend due date for submission of response if possible as the answers to questions are published on Oct 1, 2026 and the response is due on Oct 5, 2026, technically 1.5 business days?

Section 4 – RFI Schedule of Events (Q&A 10/01/2026;

response due 10/05/2026)

The deadline for submissions has been extended to October 13, 2026 at 2:00 PM CST..

16 Is this RFI intended to support higher education institutions in Tennessee, or is the scope primarily State agencies and departments?

Section 2 – Background;

Section 5.10 (Attachment 1

– Business Needs)

No higher institutions taking payments in our current cashiering solutuion.

17 What ERP platform is currently being used for the State ERP referenced throughout the RFI?

Section 2 – Background;

Attachment 1 Requirements 37 & 114

We integrate with our ERP platform's AR module to submit deposits into the ERP application and select invoices to apply payments against. We also integrate with the GL module to pull in valid accounting distributions.

Under Tenn. Code Ann. §10-7-504(i) vendor identity or a description of the goods or services provided by a vendor shall be confidential.

18 If higher education institutions are included, what student information system(s) or ERP platforms

Not specifically stated;

Section 2 –

No higher institutions taking payments in our current cashiering solutuion.

RFI # 31701-03850 – Amendment 2 Page 4 of 30 would the cashiering solution need to integrate with?

Background / Section 5.10

19 Which Edison ERP applications and financial modules will the new cashiering solution be required to integrate with and what is the preferred integration mechanism (web services, file exchange etc.)?

Attachment 1 Requirements 37 & 114

(ERP

integration/pos ting)

We integrate with our ERP platform's AR module to submit deposits into the ERP application and select invoices to apply payments against. We also integrate with the GL module to pull in valid accounting distributions. Our current application integrates with web services.

20 Can the State provide approximate annual transaction volumes by payment type, including cash, check, credit/debit card, ACH/e-check and other electronic payments? If available, transaction volumes by agency or location would also be helpful.

Attachment 1

– Requirement (payment/tend er types);

volume data not specifically stated

The approximate annual transaction voulmes by payment type as follows: Cash- $30,106,076.15 (74,385 transactions), checks (physically delivered to the bank) – $319,581,161.76 (33,060 transactions), Check21 – $3,400,775,657.98 (1,332,443 transactions), and credit card – $21,240,303.54 (245,731 transactions). We currently have 59 agencies across 310 locations.

21 Can the State clarify whether checks are expected to be scanned at cashier workstations, through centralized processing, or through both methods?

Attachment 1 Requirements 74, 78 & 79 (check scanners/Che ck 21)

They are scanned at cashier workstations.

22 For Requirements 56, 57, 59 and 80, what types of documents does the State expect to capture and store with transactions, and what are the approximate annual document and page volumes? For invoice scanning, what information does the State expect the system to extract and use when populating payment transactions?

Attachment 1 Requirements 56, 57, 59 & (document/inv oice scanning)

The documents stored currently are images of checks that are scanned. Additionally we can provide an example invoice that we would scan in when taking payments.

See attached Invoice as example of one of these invoices that are scanned. The bottom portion would be detached and submitted with the payment and then scanned alongside the check.

23 For Requirement 72, can the State specify if offline payment processing will be required? It would also be helpful to understand the expected duration of interrupted connectivity, which payment types must remain available, and what information the State expects to synchronize once

Attachment 1

– Requirement 72 (offline mode/synchro nization)

Yes it would be required. No matter the duration of the connectivity issue, we would need to be able to at minimum take cash/check payments. Many of our locations take in person public facing payments. One example of this would be the local health departments and a citizen asking for a copy of a birth certificate and needing to pay for it.

RFI # 31701-03850 – Amendment 2 Page 5 of 30 connectivity has been restored.

24 For Requirement 95, can the State provide one or two examples of a payment type consisting of multiple allocation items, including the separate accounting distributions, revenue classifications and reporting expected for each allocation item?

Attachment 1

– Requirement 95 (payment type allocation items/accounti ng distributions)

An example for allocations would be an agency may use two allocations. Both of the allocations have the accounting split when they interface into our ERP application. The split is done within our ERP application based on the assigned accounting distribution codes.

25 Can the State identify the payment processors, acquiring banks and financial institutions that the new cashiering solution will be required to support or interface with?

Attachment 1 Requirements 40, 42, 78 & (processors/fin ancial institutions/ICL

Attachment 1, Requirement 40 identifies Worldpay and Fidelity Information Services (FIS) as examples of the State's contracted payment card processors. The proposed solution must be capable of interfacing with the State's contracted payment card processor(s). The State will provide any additional information regarding processor and merchant account requirements, as applicable, through the procurement process.

26 For Requirement 74, does the State expect the new solution to support existing check scanners, receipt printers, cash drawers, card terminals and other cashiering hardware, or does the State anticipate replacing some or all of the existing equipment? If existing equipment must be retained, can the State provide the applicable manufacturers and models?

Attachment 1

– Requirement 74 (cashiering hardware compatibility)

For check scanners, receipt printers, and cash drawers, because of the age of these we would consider replacing them if needed. For credit card terminals, many are new and only recently purchased so if there would be a way to use the existing terminals that would be preferred. The vendor can provide a list of supported hardware and we can use that list during evaluation.

RFI # 31701-03850 – Amendment 2 Page 6 of 30

27 Can you walk us through exactly how cashiering transactions flow today from cashier entry through batch close, deposit creation, reconciliation, and final posting into the State ERP/AR? Which system is the system of record at each step?

Attachment 1 Requirements 97–118

1. Cashier logs into the Cashiering application2. Starts new batch3. Choose the desired batch date, Office Location, starting Cash4. Cashier chooses the payment type (Service or Transaction category) or perform an AR invoice lookup from our ERP System5. Cashier enters Customer information6. Cashier selects the desired allocation(s) in correlation to the item(s) purchased.7.

Cashier has the option to add additional payment types (Service or Transaction category) to the same transaction or checkout8. Casher checks out and chooses the desired Tender (cashier has option to split desired tenders/ form of payment)9. Cashier enters the payment amount received and prints receipt if batch settings are set to print.10. Once all transactions are complete, Cashier submits the batch for Office Supervisor approval to close11. Office Supervisor approves and closes the batch12. Once the batch is closed, the total amounts for the day feeds over to our ERP system separated by BankThe ERP solution is the overall system of record.

Some documenation (such as check images) stays in the cashiering application and does not interface to our ERP solution. Outside of the check images, the cashiering application is mostly just the tool to submit deposit information to our ERP application.

28 How complex are the State's accounting distributions?

Specifically, do cashiers need to allocate one transaction across multiple Company/Business Unit/Department/ChartField combinations by dollar amount or percentage?

Attachment 1 Requirements 95, 111–113

Currently we have accounting distributions tied to the cashiering item being paid for and the accounting is split out in the ERP application.

29 What are the actual payment/tender scenarios by agency—cash, check, card, ACH/e-check, electronic payments, split tender, refunds, reversals, and agency-specific tenders— and which of these must be supported at every location?

Attachment 1 Requirements 60–66, 84, 94–95

While all offices may not currently use all payment/tender scenarios, there is the potential that an agency may want to implement a new payment method. Therefore it should be available at all locations.

30 How important is native offline operation, and what transactions must continue to be processed when connectivity to the central system or ERP is unavailable?

Attachment 1

– Requirement 72 (offline mode/synchro nization)

It is really important for some locations. Many of our locations take in person public facing payments. One example of this would be the local health departments and a citizen asking for a copy of a birth certificate and needing to pay for it.

RFI # 31701-03850 – Amendment 2 Page 7 of 30

31 For checks, what is the end-to-end business process today for scanning, Check 21/RDC, Image Cash Letter creation, transmission to financial institutions, returned checks, and retention/purge of check images?

Attachment 1 Requirements 42, 56, 59, 74, 78–79, 88, End-to-End Process:

1. Cashier receives a check for payment

2. Cashier starts a batch

3. Once payment type (Service or Transaction category) and Allocation is defined, user selects the Check21 Tender Type (payment method)

4. Once the Check21 tender is selected, the Check21 information box appears

5. The Cashier feeds the check through the check scanner

6. The check is processed by the scanner 6a. Once the check is scanned, the routing number, accounting number, and the check image auto populate in the check21 information box. Cashier also can enter the name of the Payer in the information field 6b. If the check is unreadable by the check scanner, the Cashier has the option to manually enter the MICR line of the check including symbols, and then the check image and check information auto populates

7. Once transaction is complete, a receipt is printed.

8. Cashier closes batch once all transactions are completed for the day

9. Once the check deadline arrives, Treasury creates an ICL file that sends the ICL to the Bank 9a. If for some reason the batch was not closed by the deadline, Treasury has the option to pick up that batch with the next business day's bank file.

10. Treasury manually downloads the ICL file and then send it to the bank on their end.

Retention Policy: The State’s general retention policy for these records is five years. However, certain deposits may be subject to different retention requirements depending on the funding source (for example: grants, bonds, or other specialized programs). Some of these funding sources are governed by longer retention periods due to applicable state or federal laws, as well as specific grant or bond agreements.

32 How standardized is the cashier experience across agencies, and how much variation is required in screens, fields, workflows, tenders, accounting rules, receipts, and transaction types by agency/location?

Attachment 1 Requirements 34, 52, 69, 81, 84, 94

It is mostly the same, however some locations may have a few extra fields to capture data for reporting purposes.

For example, one location may have additional customer information such as a field to capture a license number while others may not have this field.

33 What are the required integrations with hardware and payment processors today—card readers, receipt printers, cash drawers, check scanners, and processors such as Worldpay/FIS—and which existing devices must remain in service?

Attachment 1 Requirements 40, 41, 74

We currently have check scanners, receipt printers, cash drawers, and credit card terminals. For check scanners, receipt printers, and cash drawers, because of the age of these we would consider replacing them if needed. For credit card terminals, many are new and only recently purchased so if there would be a way to use the existing terminals that would be preferred, not mandatory. The vendor can provide a list of supported hardware and we can use that list during evaluation.

RFI # 31701-03850 – Amendment 2 Page 8 of 30

34 What are the State's security and deployment constraints for the production solution, particularly US-only data residency, US-based access, SSO/MFA, PCI DSS 4.0.1, SOC 2 Type II, and disaster recovery?

Section 5.4;

Attachment 1 Requirements 1–31

Unable to provide full details until a later phase of this effort.

US-only data residency, US-based access, SSO/MFA, PCI DSS 4.0.1, SOC 2 Type II, and disaster recovery/RTO/RPO.

35 What operational reporting do finance and agency managers actually need that they cannot get from the current system today—for example cashier variance, batch-to-transaction drill-down, deposit reporting, ICL reporting, and cross-agency dashboards?

Attachment 1 Requirements 43–55, 116–

Our biggest need here would be to at minimum replace existing reports used by our agencies. However, we do sometimes get a request for a new query and/or report and our current application is very limited in what we can build and deploy.

36 How will the cashiering solution be deployed and operated across the state?

Will there be one centrally managed cashiering service used by all agencies, separate POS deployments managed by individual agencies, or a combination of both?

Attachment 1 Requirements 69, 73, 92, 104–105

This would be one solution deployed across most agencies within the state. POS setups may vary with locations/agencies taking any combination of checks, cash, and credit cards. Currently only 9 agencies accept credit cards.

37 How many registers does the State currently have and how many do you anticipate having with this statewide solution?

Attachment 1

– Requirement 74 (cashiering hardware compatibility)

We currently have approximately 500 workstations with the cashiering hardware. Others may access the online management portion of this.

38 Is offline card-payment processing required, or should offline transactions be limited to cash and check payments?

Attachment 1

– Requirement 72 (offline mode/synchro nization)

In offline mode, we would only want cash or check due to PCI compliance rules.

39 What convenience-fee or surcharge policy should apply, and will the vendor or the State serve as the merchant of record?

Requirement 67 suggests fee-processing logic, but it does not specify which party will absorb interchange fees.

Please clarify, as this will materially affect the pricing model.

Attachment 1

– Requirement

The State would be the merchant of record. Currently all agencies absorb the processing fee, however we do have one agency that will soon start passing it on to their customers.

RFI # 31701-03850 – Amendment 2 Page 9 of 30

40 What retention schedule should apply to check images and transaction records? Additionally, what business purpose is intended for the configurable rounding described in Requirement 68, given that rounding to a denomination is uncommon in a state cashiering context?

Attachment 1 Requirements 59, 68, 86

The business purpose for rounding is intended to help with the rounding of cash payments with the elimination of the penny, therefore all payments must be rounded to the nearest 5 cents.

The State’s general retention policy for these records is five years. However, certain deposits may be subject to different retention requirements depending on the funding source (for example, grants, bonds, or other specialized programs). Some of these funding sources are governed by longer retention periods due to applicable state or federal laws, as well as specific grant or bond agreements.

41 Requirement 39 references AWS and Google Cloud, while Requirement 41 references AWS or Azure.

Which cloud platforms should respondents consider correct and in scope?

Attachment 1 Requirements 39, 41

AWS and Azure are preferred. Depending on solution, we may be able to get approval for other solutions.

42 Requirement 6 permits FIPS 140-2 or FIPS 140-3. Given that FIPS 140-2 has been sunset, should respondents treat FIPS 140-3 compliance as the required standard?

Attachment 1

– Requirement

FIPS 140-3 should be treated as the requirement now.

43 Cost Form Question 2 requests a “cost per case type,” terminology that appears to be associated with a case-management solicitation. What pricing unit should respondents use for this procurement?

Cost Information Form – Question 2

Vendors should provide their typical pricing methodology for the proposed solution and indicate the applicable pricing unit(s) for their offering.

44 Will the State accept a prime integrator working with a named product subcontractor, and may that team submit a single consolidated response?

Section 5.9;

Technical Information Form – Question 5

Yes. A prime integrator may submit a single response with a named product subcontractor. Any future business will be subject to applicable State onboarding and contracting requirements through the Prime.

45 Does the State expect a response to each numbered requirement with details, a simple Y or N, or can we describe how our solution addresses the requirements in the body of our response with a description and reference the relevant numbers?

Attachment 1 We would prefer if the vendor can describe it, but if they would like to only respond with Yes/No that is acceptable.

46 Is the State intending to retain its existing payment processing relationships and infrastructure, or is the selected cashiering solution expected to include

Attachment 1

– Requirement

The state will retain the existing contracted payment processing services.

RFI # 31701-03850 – Amendment 2 Page 10 of 30 replacement payment processing services?

47 Would the State view support for configurable service fees across multiple payment channels as a desirable capability?

Attachment 1

– Requirement

Support for configurable service fees across multiple payment channels would be beneficial. The ability to assess service fees for credit card processing is desirable for several agencies, and having this capability configurable would help the State manage these fees more effectively.

48 Would the State plan on managing their own service fees or expect the payment process to manage them?

Attachment 1

– Requirement

We would want the application to offer it as a configuration per agency/location, but it is offered and managed as part of our merchant services provider contract.

49 Should the future solution support agency-specific fee configurations, including the ability for participating agencies to independently enable or disable service fee programs?

Attachment 1

– Requirement

We would want the application to offer it as a configuration per agency/location, but it is offered and managed as part of our merchant services provider contract.

50 Is there an expectation that any service fee or cost recovery capabilities be consistently supported across cashiering, eCommerce, IVR, kiosk, and API payment channels?

Attachment 1 Requirements 67, 76-77

Yes

51 Does the State prefer a centralized statewide payment platform that supports web, cashiering, IVR, POS, mobile, and API payment channels through a common integration framework?

No direct RFI reference

Yes; however, unsure about IVR as we do not offer that currently.

52 Approximately how many agencies currently consume payment services through centralized State-managed payment APIs, payment portals, IVR systems, or cashiering applications?

Attachment 1

– Requirement

We have 53 agencies taking payments currently, however only about 10 are taking credit card payments.

The remaining agencies are mostly just checks with a few taking cash.

53 Is the State seeking a cashiering solution only, or is it interested in broader citizen payment capabilities such as hosted payment pages, APIs, IVR, mobile payments, and future omnichannel payment initiatives?

Section 1 - Statement of Purpose;

Attachment 1 - Requirements 76-77

The primary interest from the state is a cashiering solution, but there could be interest in some hosted payment pages. If used, hosted payment pages must authorize and settle using the state's contracted merchant services provider.

RFI # 31701-03850 – Amendment 2 Page 11 of 30

54 Is the State seeking a cashiering solution that integrates directly with Edison ERP, or would middleware and established integration platforms be considered acceptable architectural approaches?

Attachment 1 - Requirements 37, 114

The state currently uses middleware with all interfaces with its ERP application. Any new solution would require the integration with the same middleware.

55 Would the State consider existing production-proven integrations between cashiering providers and the State's payment processor to be advantageous in reducing implementation risk and accelerating deployment timelines?

Technical Informational Form - Questions 3-4;

Attachment 1 - Requirements 37, 40

Yes

56 What weight will the State place on minimizing implementation risk by leveraging existing payment processor integrations and currently deployed payment acceptance infrastructure?

Technical Informational Form - Question 4; no direct RFI reference

This RFI is being conducted for information-gathering purposes. Vendors should provide information regarding their proposed solution and implementation approach, including any capabilities or approaches that may help minimize implementation risk.

57 Does the State have any customer payment information saved as tokens that will need to be used by the new cashiering system?

Would a transfer be required?

No direct RFI reference

No we do not currently have this.

58 Is the State considering AI functionality as advantageous, if so are there specific AI functionalities or Agentic Payment solutions that the State is looking for?

Attachment 1 - Requirements 24-28

There is not specific AI functionality that the state is looking into with cashiering; however, all AI functionality will be evaluated.

59 For requirement #60, what other agency defined tender types are in scope?

Attachment 1

– Requirement

Right now we do not have anything specific, but were trying to leave the requirement open in the event there were other payment options available.

60 Please provide estimated counts for participating agencies, collection locations, cashier stations, named and concurrent users, and annual and peak transaction volumes by tender type, including cash, check, card, ACH/e-check, and other electronic payments.

Attachment 1 - Requirements 69, 73, 104

We currently have 59 agencies across 310 locations. We have approximately 500 cashier workstations and while we don't have an easy way to identify the concurrent cashier users; however, it would be no more than our current workstations, which is approximately 500. The approximate annual transaction volumes by payment type as follows: Cash- $30,106,076.15 (74,385 transactions), checks (physically delivered to the bank) – $319,581,161.76 (33,060 transactions), Check21 – $3,400,775,657.98 (1,332,443 transactions), and credit card – $21,240,303.54 (245,731 transactions).

RFI # 31701-03850 – Amendment 2 Page 12 of 30

61 Please identify the State ERP product, version, relevant accounts-receivable and general-ledger modules, integration middleware, and currently available APIs or file interfaces, and clarify whether the selected vendor or the State will be responsible for developing and maintaining each ERP interface.

Attachment 1 - Requirements 37, 39, 114

We integrate with our ERP platform's AR module to submit deposits into the ERP application and select invoices to apply payments against. We also integrate with the GL module to pull in valid accounting distributions. Can't provide specific platform name.

62 Please describe the current cashiering and payment systems to be replaced, including the incumbent products, processors, supported peripherals, and the expected volume and retention period of historical transactions, configurations, documents, and check images to be migrated.

Section 2 - Background;

Attachment 1 - Requirements 40, 74, 86

The RFI provides information regarding the State's current cashiering environment and the business needs for a future solution. Specific information regarding incumbent products, vendors, current configurations, and integrations is not provided at this time. Vendors should describe their proposed solution and approach to applicable data and document migration.

Under Tenn. Code Ann. §10-7-504(i) vendor identity or a description of the goods or services provided by a vendor shall be confidential.

63 Attachment 1 marks certain requirements “N” while most entries have no designation.

Please clarify whether blank entries represent mandatory requirements, what “N” signifies, and at what stage the current SOC 2 Type II report and any applicable PCI DSS Attestation of Compliance must be available.

Attachment 1;

Requirements 10-11

Blank entries in the “mandatory” column indicate that the requirement is mandatory. The “N” designation is used to identify items that are not considered must-have requirements. Compliance documentation, such as the SOC 2 Type II report and any applicable PCI DSS Attestation of Compliance, is typically required before a contract can be executed, but it is not required as part of an RFI submission.

64 Does the State expect the future solution provider to supply payment processing, merchant acquiring, hardware, device installation, and field support, or should the solution integrate with State-contracted processors and State-owned peripherals?

Please also provide the current processor, gateway, bank, and supported-device inventory.

Attachment 1 - Requirements 40, 74

For check scanners, receipt printers, and cash drawers, because of the age of these we would consider replacing them if needed. For credit card terminals, many are new and only recently purchased so if there would be a way to use the existing terminals that would be preferred, not mandatory. The vendor can provide a list of supported hardware and we can use that list during evaluation.

Under Tenn. Code Ann. §10-7-504(i) vendor identity or a description of the goods or services provided by a vendor shall be confidential.

65 What documents would you want to view?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

Images of scanned checks.

RFI # 31701-03850 – Amendment 2 Page 13 of 30

66 What model check scanners do you currently use?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

Specific information regarding incumbent products, vendors, current configurations, and integrations is not provided at this time. Vendors should describe their proposed solution and approach to applicable data and document migration.

Under Tenn. Code Ann. §10-7-504(i) vendor identity or a description of the goods or services provided by a vendor shall be confidential.

67 Do you scan any other documents outside of checks for your cashiering workflows? Is that something you are interested in?

Attachment 1 - Requirements 57, 74

We also scan money orders and also scan invoice slips to expedite processing of payments.

68 Do you already have the Kiosk hardware or would you expect the respondent to provide the full Kiosk hardware? What about the actual UI of the kiosk - is that something you already have and you would like the respondent to integrate directly with that system?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

Currently we do not have kiosks, but it may be something some of our agencies may be interested in this feature in the future.

69 Would this apply to all possible configurations? Do you have specific examples of what sort of configurations this would apply to?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

This would apply to all possible configurations. For example, an agency would submit a request to add a new allocation and they don't want to be available until 11/1/26.

70 How far back does this data look? What does this historical data contain?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

We are asking this in relation to the new solution's data long term. Does the solution offer archive functionality.

This does not involve archiving of prior solution's data.

71 Which agencies, divisions, offices, and locations currently use iNovah?

Section 2 - Background;

Attachment 1 - Requirement

The State's current cashiering environment includes approximately 53 agencies and 310 locations statewide.

The State is not providing agency-, division-, office-, or location-specific information regarding individual current solutions.

72 Which agency systems currently exchange data with iNovah?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

The State is not providing information regarding specific current system integrations. The State's current cashiering environment supports approximately 53 agencies and 310 locations statewide. Vendors may identify their solution's compatibility with iNovah, as applicable to their response.

73 How does each integration work today, and is it real time, batch, or on demand?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

This would be on demand, although some of it would be batched together during the interfacing between applications.

74 Which current integrations must be recreated, and which will be retired?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

Currently, we import accounting distributions, perform AR Invoice lookups to apply payments to, and send payments/deposits from our current solution to the ERP solution via web services. We would need to recreate these to some extent.

RFI # 31701-03850 – Amendment 2 Page 14 of 30

75 Which connected systems are scheduled for replacement or modernization, and when?

No direct RFI reference

The State anticipates modernization of certain connected systems; however, specific replacement timelines have not been established at this time.

76 How many locations, workstations, users, and annual transactions does each agency have?

Attachment 1 - Requirements 69, 74

We currently have 310 locations, approximately 500 workstations, with approximately 2,000 users. We received approximately 1,685,619 transactions across 310 locations.

77 What iNovah data must be migrated, and how much history must be retained?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

We do not plan on retaining historical data from our existing solution in the new application.

78 What does the State expect the vendor to own for UAT, training, rollout, change management, and support?

Technical Informational Form - Questions 4, 7-10, 12

This RFI is mostly for information gather purposes. The answer to this question will depend on the final solution and hosting option chosen.

79 How many agencies, divisions, and cashiering locations are expected to use the future cashiering solution?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

Approximately 53 agencies across 310 locations.

80 What were the annual statewide transaction volume and amount collected by payment type (cash, check, ACH, and credit/debit card) for the most recent full reporting year?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

The approximate annual transaction volumes by payment type as follows: Cash- $30,106,076.15 (74,385 transactions), checks (physically delivered to the bank) – $319,581,161.76 (33,060 transactions), Check21 – $3,400,775,657.98 (1,332,443 transactions), and credit card – $21,240,303.54 (245,731 transactions). We currently have 59 agencies across 310 locations.

81 Approximately how many cash drawers, cashiers, supervisors, and collection points exist statewide?

Attachment 1 - Requirements 64, 69, 74

Approximately 900 Cashiers with 500 workstations, 360 Cash Drawers, 1000 Supervisors and 310 locations.

82 Given the prohibition on embedded external links and the 20-page maximum response limit, would the State consider allowing respondents to include a supplemental appendix that does not count toward the page limit for the sole purpose of providing visual materials that support evaluation of the requirements in Attachment 1 (e.g., screenshots, workflow diagrams, sample user experiences, and other illustrative content)?

Sections 5.6- 5.7; Technical Informational Form - Question 6

No. The RFI response submission, including any supplemental appendices, reference materials, screenshots, workflow diagrams, sample user experiences, or other illustrative content, must not exceed twenty (20) pages total.

RFI # 31701-03850 – Amendment 2 Page 15 of 30

83 Given the prohibition on embedded external links, may respondents provide URLs in a supplemental appendix that does not count toward the page limit for purpose of providing publicly accessible product demonstration videos, knowledge base articles, and customer case studies?

Sections 5.6- 5.7

No. Supplemental appendices containing URLs will not be permitted outside the twenty (20) page limit.

Respondents must provide all information within the twenty-page response and in accordance with Section

5.7 regarding external links.

84 Please confirm respondents are not expected to submit line-by-line responses to the requirements in Attachment 1 and that Attachment 1 is intended solely to inform responses within the Technical Informational Form. If respondents are expected to provide responses to Attachment 1 requirements, would the State consider extending the response deadline to allow sufficient time for preparation of a complete and accurate submission?

Sections 5.6, 5.8-5.9;

Attachment 1

Yes, we would prefer if the vendor can describe how they may or may not meet each item, but if they would like to only respond with Yes/No that is acceptable. The deadline was extended to 10/13/2026 at 2:00 PM CDT.

85 What is the annual transaction count and dollar volume processed through the current cashiering solution, broken out by tender type (cash, check, credit card, debit card, ACH/e-check, other)?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

The approximate annual transaction voulmes by payment type as follows: Cash- $30,106,076.15 (74,385 transactions), checks (physically delivered to the bank) – $319,581,161.76 (33,060 transactions), Check21 – $3,400,775,657.98 (1,332,443 transactions), and credit card – $21,240,303.54 (245,731 transactions) We currently have 59 agencies across 310 locations.

86 What is the average transaction amount processed through the cashiering solution, by tender type?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

The average transaction amounts processed through our current cashiering solution by tender type are as follows:

cash – $404.73, checks (physically delivered to the bank)

– $9,666.70, Check21 – $2,552.29, and credit card – $86.44.

87 How many agencies, physical locations, and cashier workstations currently use the cashiering solution, and how many are expected to use the new solution?

Attachment 1 - Requirements 69, 74

Approximately 53 agencies across 310 locations with 500 workstations utilizing the cashiering hardware. Other users access the cashering application online for management purposes (ex: approve/close batches, reporting, etc).

88 How many named users are expected by role (cashier, supervisor, administrator, read-only/reporting)?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

Cashier - 500 Office Supervisor - 1000 Administrator -15 Inquiry (read-only/reporting) -74

89 What is the current cashiering system and vendor, and when does the

Section 2 - Background

Under Tenn. Code Ann. §10-7-504(i) vendor identity or a description of the goods or services provided by a vendor shall be confidential.

RFI # 31701-03850 – Amendment 2 Page 16 of 30 current contract or support agreement end?

90 Which payment card processor(s) currently hold the State's contract referenced in Requirement 40, and when do those contracts expire?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

Attachment 1, Requirement 40 identifies Worldpay and Fidelity Information Services (FIS) as examples of the State's contracted payment card processors. The proposed solution must be capable of interfacing with the State's contracted payment card processor(s). The State will provide any additional information regarding processor and merchant account requirements, as applicable, through the procurement process.

91 Is the State open to responses that include payment processing and merchant services as part of the cashiering solution, or must the solution interface only with the State's existing contracted processor(s)?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

At this time, it must support our current processor due to contracts.

92 Are card processing costs currently absorbed by agencies or passed to payers as convenience or service fees, and does the State permit a service-fee-funded pricing model for a future solicitation?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

It is currently mixed. Some agencies absorb the cost and some pass it on to the customers.

93 What does the State currently pay for cashiering software and for card processing (per-transaction, percentage, license, or subscription)?

Cost Informational Form - Questions 1-4

Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-504(i), vendor identity and information concerning goods or services provided by a vendor are confidential. Accordingly, the State is not providing current pricing information at this time. Vendors should provide their typical pricing methodology and applicable pricing structure for the proposed solution.

94 How many in-person payment devices are deployed today (card readers/terminals, check scanners, receipt printers, cash drawers), which makes and models, and does the State expect them to be replaced as part of this project?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

We currently have about 50 credit card terminals deployed. We do not have an exact count of the other hardware, however in a survey we performed last year with our agencies found that we have approximately 330 check scanners.

For check scanners, receipt printers, and cash drawers, because of the age of these we would consider replacing them if needed. For credit card terminals, many are new and only recently purchased so if there would be a way to use the existing terminals that would be preferred, not mandatory.

95 Please confirm the Edison ERP product and version (e.g., Oracle PeopleSoft Financials) and the preferred integration method for accounts receivable posting and customer/invoice lookup (Integration Broker, Component Interface, REST API, or file-based), including real-time vs. batch expectations.

Attachment 1 - Requirements 37, 39, 70, We integrate with our ERP platform's AR module to submit deposits into the ERP application and select invoices to apply payments against. We also integrate with the GL module to pull in valid accounting distributions.

This would be on demand, although some of it would be batched together during the interfacing between applications.

Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-504(i), vendor identity

RFI # 31701-03850 – Amendment 2 Page 17 of 30 and information concerning goods or services provided by a vendor are confidential.

96 Which and how many financial institutions currently receive Check 21 / Image Cash Letter files, and what is the annual volume of checks deposited through remote deposit capture?

Attachment 1 - Requirements 42, 78, 120

Currently we have 1 bank configured. The annual amount and volume of Check21 is $3,400,775,657.98 (1,332,443 transactions).

97 Requirement 77 (online self-service payment portal) and Requirement 76 (kiosk) are marked Not Required. Are online and self-service payments handled by another State system today, and should respondents describe those capabilities as optional?

Attachment 1 - Requirements 76-77

We currently do not offer this, but see it as potentially beneficial in a new solution.

98 For offline mode (Requirement 72), which tender types must be accepted while offline (cash and check only, or card as well)?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

In offline mode, we would only want cash or check due to PCI compliance rules.

99 How many years of historical cashiering transactions and check images must be migrated or remain retrievable (Requirement 86)?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

We are asking this in relation to the new solution's data long term. Does the solution offer archive functionality.

This does not involve archiving of prior solution's data.

100 Does the 20-page limit in Section 5.6 include the Attachment 1 requirement responses and the promotional materials, screenshots, and diagrams requested in Technical Informational Form Question 6?

Section 5.6;

Technical Informational Form - Question 6

The RFI response submission, including Attachment 1, promotional materials, screenshots, diagrams, and any other reference materials submitted as part of the response, must not exceed twenty (20) pages total.

101 Should respondents address each of the 120 Attachment 1 requirements individually, and if so is there a preferred response format (e.g., Yes / No / Configurable / Customization)?

Section 5.8;

Attachment 1

We would prefer if the vendor can describe it, but if they would like to only respond with Yes/No that is acceptable.

RFI # 31701-03850 – Amendment 2 Page 18 of 30

102 Section 5.8 refers to the 'Technical and Cost Information Form.' Please confirm this means both the Technical Informational Form and the Cost Informational Form.

Section 5.8 Yes. Section 5.8 refers to both the Technical Informational Form and the Cost Informational Form.

103 Cost Informational Form Question 2 asks for 'cost per case type.' What does case type mean for a cashiering solution (e.g., agency, location, tender type, transaction type)?

Cost Informational Form - Question 2

Vendors should provide their typical pricing methodology for the proposed solution and indicate the applicable pricing unit(s) for their offering.

104 Requirement 12 requires data within the continental United States while Section

5.4 requires the United States. Which standard applies?

Section 5.4;

Attachment 1 - Requirement

State data must be stored within the continental United States, and backup data may be housed in any U.S.

state or territory (including Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S.

Virgin Islands). Access to State data must be limited to onshore, U.S.–based personnel. While data storage may occur in U.S. territories, all processing of State data must take place within the continental United States.

105 What minimum cyber liability insurance coverage does the Reference Guide to Commercial Insurance for State Agencies require for this scope (Requirement 7), since that guide is not publicly available?

Attachment 1 - Requirement 7

The minimum cyber liability insurance coverage has not been determined at this time. This RFI is being conducted for information-gathering purposes.

106 For Requirement 18, will application-level multi-factor authentication satisfy the requirement, or is enterprise SSO with the State's Active Directory / Entra ID required?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

Application level MFA can satisfy the requirement

107 For Requirement 21, will IP address restriction enforced at the network or firewall layer in front of the application satisfy the requirement?

Attachment 1 - Requirement

In this situation, the requirement may not be for you to implement this specific restriction directly. Instead, it may only require that the application provides a way to enforce it, either inherently or through external controls.

108 What uptime and support SLA levels does…