RFI_34201-02431_GMS_Amendment_2.docx
DOCX document 87 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Grants Management System - UPDATED
- Solicitation number
- RFI 34201-02431
- Issued by
- Davidson County, Tennessee
About this file
This is Amendment #002 to Request for Information #34201-02431 issued by the Tennessee Emergency Management Authority (TEMA) for a Grants Management System. The RFI seeks vendor information on a centralized platform to manage the complete grant lifecycle for state-funded disaster aid programs, including support for individual applicants, local government entities, reviewers, and State personnel. The system must accommodate normal grant operations and disaster-response surges of up to approximately 10,000 individual applicants, support multiple programs and funding sources, integrate with Tennessee Edison for payment processing and reconciliation, and include authenticated electronic signatures, role-based access controls, WCAG accessibility compliance, and comprehensive reporting capabilities. The amendment updates the RFI schedule: the deadline for questions and comments was September 23, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. Central Time; RFI responses are due September 30, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. Central Time; the State will complete its review and schedule demonstrations by October 14, 2026; and demonstrations are scheduled for November 9-23, 2026. TEMA anticipates the solution to be operational by spring, ahead of the winter/spring disaster season, though this is a planning objective rather than a committed go-live date.
The RFI does not establish mandatory eligibility requirements regarding existing product experience, reseller status, Tennessee registration, insurance at the RFI stage, or minimum contract size; however, future contractors would be required to meet applicable State contracting requirements, including Tennessee Edison registration. TEMA has not allocated a preliminary budget or established final contract terms at this stage. Vendors must comply with State security policy requiring U.S.-based data handling and access, with all State Data remaining within the United States and its territories while processed, stored, transmitted, or at rest. Canada-based vendors may perform development using synthetic or test data provided U.S.-based resources handle production hosting and administration. TEMA will consider established commercial grants-management platforms and qualified configurable or purpose-built hosted solutions, and will evaluate vendor maturity, existing production deployments, configuration versus custom-development approaches, implementation risk, and long-term support models. Respondents should identify standard capabilities, certifications, service commitments, assumptions regarding licensing and capacity, anticipated user volumes, support models during application windows and disaster-response periods, and any optional business analysis or process redesign services. No funding amount, contract term, renewal options, or formal procurement timeline have been specified, as the State remains in the information-gathering phase to inform a future solicitation.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFI_34201-02431_GMS_Amendment_3.docx | DOCX document | |
| Amendment_1.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFI_34201_02431_GMS.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
STATE OF TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (TEMA)
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION # 34201-02431
AMENDMENT # 002
FOR Grants Management System (GMS)
DATE: 09/24/2026
RFI # 34201-02431 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)
| 1. |
| RFI Issued |
09/01/2026
| 2. |
| Deadline for Questions/Comments |
| 2pm CST |
| 09/23/2026 |
| 3. |
| RFI Response Deadline |
| 2pm CST |
| 09/30/2026 |
| 4. |
| State Completes Review of Responses and Schedules Demonstrations |
10/14/2026
| 5. |
| RFI Demonstration |
11/09/2026-11/23/2026
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.
| RFI SECTION |
| PAGE |
| QUESTION / COMMENT |
| STATE RESPONSE |
| RFI §5.1–5.2 |
| p. 2 |
| May respondents identify or mark specific portions of their submission as confidential or proprietary? If so, what marking and submission process applies? |
RFI responses will not be available until after the State completes evaluation of any subsequent procurement responses. If the State does not proceed with a future procurement, the RFI responses will be considered confidential by the State. The RFI does not prescribe a separate proprietary-marking process. Respondents may identify specific information they consider proprietary, but should not mark the entire response proprietary.
| Technical Informational Form Q12 |
| p. 3 |
| What is meant by “authenticated signatures”? |
This refers to the proposed system’s capability to support authenticated electronic signatures within grants-management workflows, along with timestamps, version control, and non-repudiation. Respondents should describe available signature methods, audit records, and any third-party e-signature integrations or dependencies.
| RFI §3.1 |
| p. 1 |
| May the RFI response be submitted electronically by email, or is a hard-copy submission required? |
Responses should be submitted electronically by email to Sara Cox at the address listed in Section 3.1 of the RFI by 3:00 p.m. Central Time on September 24, 2026.
| Cost Informational Form Q2 |
| p. 3 |
| Is there an allocated budget or estimated funding range for this project? |
TEMA is not providing a preliminary budget at this time.
| RFI §5.1 |
| p. 1 |
| Are there mandatory existing-product, reseller, Tennessee-registration, insurance-at-submission, or minimum-contract-size requirements for respondents? |
The RFI does not establish eligibility requirements concerning existing-product experience, reseller status, Tennessee registration, insurance at the RFI-response stage, or minimum contract size. Any future solicitation may establish applicable requirements. A future contractor would be required to meet applicable State contracting requirements, including Tennessee Edison registration. Insurance requirements, if applicable, would be specified in the future contract.
| RFI §§1–2, |
| p. 1 |
| Will TEMA consider a qualified custom-platform vendor proposing a purpose-built hosted solution, or is an existing commercial grants-management product required? |
TEMA will consider established commercial grants-management platforms and qualified configurable or purpose-built hosted solutions. Respondents should identify the maturity of the product, existing production deployments, configuration versus custom-development approach, implementation risk, and long-term support model.
Not addressed in RFI
May an overseas technology provider participate at the RFI stage?
The RFI does not establish a geographic eligibility restriction for submitting information. However, any future solution that accesses, processes, stores, transmits, or supports State Data must comply with applicable State security requirements. Those requirements include U.S.-based State Data handling and U.S.-based access to State Data. Vendors should disclose the location and role of all proposed personnel, subcontractors, hosting, support, and administrative resources.
Not addressed in RFI
If the procurement advances, will the prime contractor be required to have U.S. incorporation, Tennessee registration, U.S.-based staffing, data residency, or other local presence?
TEMA has not established a requirement for U.S. incorporation or a specific local staffing model at the RFI stage. A future contractor would be required to meet applicable State contracting requirements, including Tennessee Edison registration. State security policy requires all State Data, including backup data, to remain in the United States and its territories while processed, stored, transmitted, or at rest. Access to State Data must be limited to U.S.-based resources. System and application administration must be performed in the continental United States.
Not addressed in RFI
May a Canada-based vendor perform development using synthetic/test data while U.S.-based resources or subcontractors provide production hosting and privileged production administration?
Yes, subject to the following State security requirements: Any testing performed outside the United States must use fake data. Production data, or a copy of production data, may not be transmitted or used outside the United States. State Data access must be limited to U.S.-based resources. System and application administration must be performed in the continental United States. Software designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons owned or controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of, a foreign adversary is prohibited. Respondents should clearly identify the location and role of all development, testing, hosting, support, administrative, and subcontractor resources.
RFI §4;
Technical Informational Form Q14
| p. 2-3 |
| What implementation start date and target go-live date does TEMA anticipate? |
TEMA would like the solution operational by spring, ahead of the winter/spring disaster season. This is a planning objective, not a committed go-live date. Respondents should provide a realistic implementation schedule, dependencies, and phased options.
| RFI §2, p. 1; Technical Informational Form Q3 and Q7 |
| p. 3 |
| Are there specific program launches, funding cycles, or disaster-readiness milestones the system must support? |
The system must support recurring grant activity and potential disaster-response surges. Respondents should describe how their approach supports rapid program configuration, increased application volume, service availability, and operational readiness during disaster events.
| RFI §2, p. 1; Technical Informational Form Q3 |
| p. 3 |
| Can TEMA provide additional detail on the state-funded disaster-aid program, including the types of assistance and the anticipated lifecycle from application through closeout? |
The Governor’s Response and Recovery Fund has expanded eligibility to include individuals in addition to local-government aid. The intended solution must support the grant lifecycle from application through review, award, reimbursement/payment tracking, reporting, and closeout.
Not addressed in RFI
Will the initial solution support one disaster-aid program, or multiple programs, funding sources, disaster events, and grant types over time?
TEMA anticipates that the solution should support multiple programs, funding sources, disaster events, and grant types over time. The initial implementation scope has not been finalized. Respondents should identify how their solution supports separate programs within one platform.
| Technical Informational Form Q14–Q15 |
| p. 3 |
| Is TEMA seeking platform implementation around defined business processes only, or should the selected vendor also provide business analysis, process redesign, policy/SOP development, or program-design services? |
TEMA is primarily seeking a grants-management platform and implementation services. Respondents may identify optional business analysis, process design, policy/SOP development, or program-design services separately, including associated cost and assumptions.
| Not addressed; related Technical Informational Form Q13 |
| p. 3 |
| Approximately how many users are anticipated for applicants/grantees, reviewers, internal staff, and administrators? |
A large disaster scenario could involve up to approximately 10,000 individual applicants. TEMA has not established final counts for reviewers, internal staff, administrators, or concurrent users. Respondents should identify applicable licensing, capacity, and scalability assumptions.
| Technical Informational Form Q3 and Q7 |
| p. 3 |
| What volumes should vendors plan for during normal operations and disaster-response surges, including applications, awards, payments, external users, reviewers, and concurrent users? |
The first GRRF funding round following Hurricane Helene involved 108 competitive grants. A larger disaster could involve up to approximately 10,000 individual applicants. TEMA has not finalized projected volumes for awards, payments, reviewers, or concurrent users. Respondents should describe capacity assumptions and surge-management capabilities.
| Not addressed; related Cost Informational Form Q2 |
| p. 3 |
| What annual grant volume and total grant dollar value does TEMA anticipate managing? |
TEMA has not established a final annual grant volume or dollar value for this RFI. Respondents should identify assumptions used for pricing and capacity planning.
| RFI §2, p. 1; Technical Informational Form Q10 |
| p. 3 |
| Will applicants and recipients primarily be individuals, organizations, local governments, or a combination? |
The solution must support individual applicants and local-government entities. Respondents should describe how their solution supports different applicant, recipient, reviewer, and program-administrator roles.
| Technical Informational Form Q15 |
| p. 3 |
| What level of training is expected: administrator/power-user and train-the-trainer support, direct training for broader user populations, or both? |
TEMA has not finalized its training model. Respondents should describe available administrator, power-user, train-the-trainer, applicant-facing, and end-user training options, with associated costs and assumptions.
| Technical Informational Form Q16 |
| p. 3 |
| Will the selected vendor be expected to provide applicant/recipient helpdesk or Tier 1 support, particularly during application windows and disaster-response periods? |
TEMA has not determined whether the selected vendor would provide applicant/recipient Tier 1 support. Respondents should describe available support models, including support during high-volume application periods and disaster-response operations.
| Technical Informational Form Q16 |
| p. 3 |
| What does “disaster-response support” mean in practice: SaaS availability and technical support only, or dedicated staffing, extended-hours/24x7 support, accelerated SLAs, or operational assistance? |
“Disaster-response support” refers generally to maintaining service availability and providing responsive technical support during elevated operational demand. Respondents should describe available support tiers, extended-hours options, surge capacity, service-level commitments, business-continuity capabilities, and any operational assistance offered.
| Technical Informational Form Q7, Q10, and Q16, p. 3; related RFI §5.1–5.3 |
| p. 2 |
| What contractual, insurance, security/privacy, hosting, accessibility, SLA, and disaster-recovery requirements should vendors consider for feasibility and indicative pricing? |
Final contract terms and service levels have not been established for this RFI. Respondents should identify their standard capabilities, certifications, service commitments, and assumptions. For planning purposes, State vendor-security policy requires security controls to be considered in the future solicitation and contract according to the vendor’s risk tier, system criticality, data classification, access model, integrations, data residency, and subcontractor reliance. The minimum security baseline may include: Data residency requirements; Business-continuity requirements, including recovery time and recovery point objectives; Multi-factor authentication, as appropriate to the data type; Encryption in transit and at rest; Role-based access control and least privilege; Secure disposal of State Data; Breach notification to STS/CCC within 24 hours; and Security assurance artifacts such as FedRAMP/GovRAMP, HITRUST, an independent NIST 800-53 audit, SOC 2 Type II, or ISO 27001, as applicable. State policy also requires cloud services that host or process State Data to use security language approved by the Department of General Services, Central Procurement Office. Accessibility, insurance, final SLA, and disaster-recovery terms would be defined in a future solicitation and contract, if issued.
| Technical Informational Form Q6 |
| p. 3 |
| What State payment, accounting, ERP, or financial systems must the Grants Management System integrate with for payment processing, tracking, and reconciliation? |
TEMA anticipates integration with Tennessee Edison for reimbursement-based grant payment processing, tracking, and reconciliation. Respondents should describe available approaches for Edison integration.
| Technical Informational Form Q6 |
| p. 3 |
| What information must flow between the Grants Management System and those financial systems? |
The intended integration should support payment-status information flowing back to the Grants Management System to support grant tracking and reconciliation. Detailed interface requirements, data elements, and workflow specifications have not yet been defined.
| Technical Informational Form Q6 |
| p. 3 |
| Will TEMA require real-time or near-real-time bi-directional integrations, or are scheduled APIs, middleware, or file-based exchanges acceptable? |
TEMA has not established whether Edison integration must be real-time, near-real-time, scheduled, middleware-based, or file-based. Respondents should identify supported options, recommended architecture, dependencies, and associated costs.
| Technical Informational Form Q12 |
| p. 3 |
| Beyond payment and financial systems, which other integrations should vendors include in scope and pricing, such as SSO/identity management, e-signature, document management, GIS, data warehouse/reporting platforms, or State portals? |
TEMA has not finalized other required integrations. Respondents may describe available integrations and options for identity/SSO, e-signature, document management, GIS, reporting/data warehouse platforms, and State portals, as applicable.
| Technical Informational Form Q15 |
| p. 3 |
| What existing data must be migrated, and what is its expected format, volume, and complexity? |
TEMA does not anticipate a migration from an existing grants-management system because this is a new implementation. Historic application, grant, or document records have not been identified as a defined migration scope. Respondents should identify any recommended discovery, import, retention, or archival options separately.
3. 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.
| RFI # 34201-02431 – Amendment # 002 |
| Page 1 of Pages |
image1.jpeg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .