RFP_32701-25-414_Amendment_3.pdf

RFP # 32701-25-414 – Amendment # 3 Page 1 of 12

STATE OF TENNESSEE

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 32701-25-414

AMENDMENT # 3

FOR STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUND PROGRAM DATA

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

DATE: December 30, 2025

RFP # 32701-25-414 IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

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

EVENT

TIME

(central time zone)

DATE

1. RFP Issued November 17, 2025

2. Disability Accommodation Request Deadline 2:00 p.m. November 20, 2025

3. Pre-response Conference 10:00 a.m. November 21, 2025

4. Notice of Intent to Respond Deadline 2:00 p.m. November 24, 2025

5. Written “Questions & Comments” Deadline 2:00 p.m. December 3, 2025

6. State Response to Written “Questions & Comments”

December 30, 2025

7. Response Deadline 2:00 p.m. January 16, 2025

8. State Completion of Technical Response Evaluations

February 12, 2026

9. State Schedules Respondent Oral Presentation February 13, 2026

10. Respondent Oral Presentation 8 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

February 23-24, 2026

11. State Opening & Scoring of Cost Proposals 2:00 p.m. February26, 2026

12. Negotiation February 27-March 5, 2026

13. State Notice of Intent to Award Released and RFP Files Opened for Public Inspection

2:00 p.m. March 6, 2026

14. End of Protest Period March 13, 2026

15. State sends contract to Contractor for signature March 16, 2026

16. Contractor Signature Deadline 2:00 p.m. March 18, 2026

RFP # 32701-25-414 – Amendment # 3 Page 2 of 12

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

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

RFP

SECTION

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

Pro Forma E.5.a.3

1. Our organization does not yet have a SOC 2 Type 2 examination, and we are preparing for SOC 2 Type 1 to be complete by 2027.

Our platform is web-hosted on public cloud environment with SOC 2 certificates and our organization follows SOC 2 controls.

Will TN DEC allow organizations who have not yet had SOC 2 Type 2 examination to perform under this opportunity?

The awarded vendor must be in compliance with all contract requirements at the time of contract execution.

6.2 A.4 2. Our organization is a non-profit

Community Development Financial Institution and is rated annually by Aeris Insight. Does that report suffice the required credit rating requirement?

For purposes of Section A.4. of RFP Attachment 6.2., “accredited credit bureau” includes any entity which is a “consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis” or a “consumer reporting agency”, as those terms are defined in 15 U.S.C.

§ 1681a.

3. Our technology implementation includes two platforms: one for matching and evaluating potential fit with program guidelines, and another for enrollment of loans / grants into a particular program.

Does TN DEP allow for this approach?

The proposed solution must seamlessly manage the end-to-end SRF loan and grant management process.

3.1.1.2 4. Does the 50-page limit include or exclude the mapping required in the 20-page Technical Response & Evaluation Guide?

Excludes. Maps, graphs, charts, resumes, as noted and included as an appendix will not count against this page limit.

6.2 B.13 5. This question requests estimated hours

for involved staff – how should this number be presented? Hours per week, month or life of program, etc?

The estimated hours for each proposed staff member should reflect the total hours each staff member is expected to participate in the project in said role for the life of the contract

6.2 B.12 6. Does the technical response require an

organizational chart for the entire organization (including employees not actively involved in the scope of this work)? Would a partial organizational chart featuring teams actively involved in this project suffice?

RFP Attachment 6.2. Section B.12 requires an organizational chart identifying the key people who will be assigned to deliver the goods or services required by this RFP.

7. Approximately how many times per month would an external user be logging into the new solution?

External user traffic will vary depending on solicitation activity. An average month could see external logins ranging from 500 to 1000.

8. Approximately how many total applications will the new solution process per year? Is that relatively stable month-to-month? If not, can you describe the flow of applications throughout the year?

Applicant submissions may occur quarterly and could vary depending on funding opportunities.

An average estimate of annually processed submissions across loans and grants may be greater than 250.

9. What systems must this new solution integrate with?

The proposed system will need to integrate with two existing systems. Refer to pro forma section C.3.

6.3 10. Will the State clarify whether this contract will be fixed price, time and materials, or hybrid, and specify the

Configuration, migration, integration, BPI enhancements, implementation, and training are milestone/deliverable based payment

RFP # 32701-25-414 – Amendment # 3 Page 3 of 12

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

payment mechanism (e.g., milestone, deliverable, monthly)?

mechanisms. Licensing is fix-priced payment mechanism. Solution support, professional services, and change orders are time-based payment mechanisms.

6.2 C.16 11. Will TDEC accept examples of solution

delivery to agencies with similar roles and functions to SRFs such as energy or infrastructure financing authorities?

All relevant examples will be considered, but responses with SRF experience will meet the mandatory requirement.

6.3 12. Several required templates (especially 6.5, Score Summary Matrix) are referenced in text but not always included or described; their roles aren’t explained in the main text. Will the State provide working versions of all referenced attachments/forms?

All referenced forms 6.1-6.6 are already attached. The scoring matrix on attachment 6.5 does not require any action from respondents.

This is completed by the solicitation coordinator following the evaluation of technical responses.

Attachment 6.6 is the separate pro forma/ terms and conditions.

6.2 Section

D

13. Based upon the items included in Section D and from past experience, we know that limiting an Orals Presentation to only two hours severely restricts the amount of time available for software demonstrations. Would the state consider a three- or four-hour Orals Presentation window, with a 10- or 15-minute comfort break in the middle of the presentation?

Oral presentations will remain limited to two hours per eligible vendor.

6.2 A.13 14. Please explain the expected scope of

work related to participation in BPI initiatives or collaborative sessions resulting from the State of Tennessee’s 2025 SRF program BPI initiative. How many areas of process improvement have already been identified? How many expected meetings should a respondent plan to participate in? Will the vendor need to prepare any current-state or future-state flows or diagrams, or has that all been done already? If so, please provide any materials, documentation, or current-state and future-state documentation or process flows as are available at this time so that we can accurately scope our level of involvement for this aspect of the engagement? And, once under contract to the state, is the state open to suggestions from the vendor as to process improvements that can be realized through the implementation of the new software? If so, please elaborate.

The State anticipates the vendor will evaluate our current state workflows for both the SWIG and SRF program and recommend any process improvements based on best practices for software capability.

The SWIG program has established workflows that could be improved, but the State anticipates only minor updates would be needed for SWIG.

SRF is currently undergoing mapping the late stages of the SRF process for loan borrowers.

This has been done as the program migrates into the grant management system currently used by

SWIG.

6.2 C.11 15. Where are all of the locations where

the data to be migrated resides and in what format?

Current data is stored in various locations and may require migration based on the following formats:

• Excel

• HTML

• CSV

• PDF

• JSON

6.2 C.11 16. It is typical for our client’s teams to take

an active role in data cleansing, data transformation, and post-conversion data validation. Please explain what level of involvement you expect the state staff to have in data migration.

State SRF staff will be involved under the guidance of the selected vendor as SRF loan and grant data is cleansed, transformed, and validated.

6.2 C.15 17. Please provide an example of this An example of a path would be Solicitation

RFP # 32701-25-414 – Amendment # 3 Page 4 of 12

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

situation and the different progression paths that would be triggered based upon the requirements that cannot be met.

response. In this path a Questionnaire is initiated by an Applicant interested in receiving SRF funds. The outcome of this step in the path will lead to one of the following results:

1. A Questionnaire is closed and the Applicant is unranked due to the Applicant initiating but not completing or submitting a Questionnaire. This is the end step for this Questionnaire.

2. A Questionnaire is completed and submitted and progressed to next step in the path for further assessment.

6.2 C.16 18. What is the size of the current

portfolio?

The current portfolio contains the distribution and management of $3 billion in SRF loan and grant funds over 30 years of program implementation.

C.3 19. We understand the Cost Proposal and Scoring as requested in Attachment 6.3.

Would the State be amenable to an alternative payment schedule that aligns with the completion of the vendor’s typical work product and milestone schedule?

(The schedule, as proposed in proposed contract, would be very “back-end loaded” with few payment points in the middle of the project.) Or would the state consider monthly “progress” payments against the fixed-fee total, not tied to completion of discreet milestones or deliverables? If either of these options are amenable, how would you like us to present this information in our RFP response?

The State prefers a milestone based payment structure for this project.

Pro Forma A.5

20. Will all expected 600 external users need to be trained on the system? Please explain, in detail, how the state sees this being handled so that we can properly scope this level of effort.

Yes. All internal and external users will need to be trained to ensure they are aware of how to interact with the system. Refer to pro forma section A.5.

Pro Forma A.7.c

21. Please explain what is meant by “Course Outlines”. We are not used to providing training course outlines until much later in the project, with our Training Plan deliverable, after we know the specific features and functionality that will be implemented for the State.

The State would like to understand the framework for the proposed training plan that will be delivered during implementation of the COTS.

Pro Forma C.3

22. Would the state permit a sprint-based project delivery approach that aligned with the components/modules of the system (that correspond with the major work areas of the programs)?

The State will consider all presented project delivery approaches that are submitted.

Pro Forma E.9

23. Because we are providing a license to existing software that we maintain ownership of and will be using tools and deliverables that we have developed to support our implementation projects, we cannot grant the State full ownership in these materials; we can grant licenses for you to use them in the normal course of your business. Please explain how we can submit alternative language to the Proforma Contract for your consideration.

Asking to remove E.9. through the Q&C was the appropriate route. E.9. applies to tangible personal property and has been removed in Version 2 of the Pro Forma

24. How much grant/loan funding is typically managed by the agency in a given fiscal year?

On average, the State manages over $500 million in loan and grant funding within a FY.

RFP # 32701-25-414 – Amendment # 3 Page 5 of 12

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

25. How many grant programs (other than Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund) are currently being managed by the agency that will also be managed in the new system? Do you anticipate adding other grant programs this year, and if so, how many?

State Water Infrastructure Grants currently manages:

2 grant programs using SRF set asides

3 grant programs that are unique EPA NOAs

SRF manages Clean Water and Drinking Water, including IIJA and Helene special appropriations.

26. Regarding data:

a) Will legacy data be migrated or will there be an expectation of an integration or data lake solution to “leave”data where it is?

b) In either case, please describe the legacy Grants Management platforms and include the rough numbers of key data points, numbers of Years, Programs, Financial and other data record counts (estimated).

c) Will files associated with Legacy Data be migrated to the new platform?

Yes. The State will require data migration from legacy systems. Legacy data and files will be available in Excel, HTML, CSV, PDF, Word, and JSON formats.

27. How many system integrations will be included? Please provide a list of needed integrations.

The proposed system will need to integrate with two existing systems. Refer to pro forma section C.3.

28. Do the systems you wish this solution to interface with have APIs available? If so, are they available for review? If not, please describe integration capabilities.

Yes, APIs are available for both systems (refer to pro forma section C.3) with which the Solution must integrate. Please note, the business flow may dictate more than API calling.

29. Are there any Security needs required to maintain the data? I.e., FEDRAMP and Audit requirements? If so, please describe.

Refer to RFP section 1.1 and C.31. Section E.5.

of the pro forma covers IT security requirements.

30. Does the agency hold licenses for an electronic signature tool you would like to use as part of this solution? If so, please provide the name. If not, do you have a preferred tool or would you like this to be included in the proposal?

Yes. The State’s general eSignature tool is Adobe Sign.

31. Can you confirm whether there is a selected/preferred document generation tool?

Microsoft Office documents and PDF are the standard document formats for the State.

32. Is there a preferred document management tool (e.g.

AWS/Azure/Other)?

TDEC’s preferred document management tool is FileNet and SharePoint.

33. Please elaborate on the agency’s preference for future systems maintenance. Does the agency prefer future support and maintenance is done by the selected partner, internal team or a combination of both?

Refer to pro forma sections A.5, A.6, A.13, E.3, and E.5.a.2

34. Is the vendor required to be on site for any portion of the contract term?

The State anticipates some onsite collaboration will occur during the course of implementation.

35. What is currently used to track loan applications and approved loan activity?

Microsoft Excel and Smart Simple’s GMS tool.

36. Is there a required amount that must be loaned by a set deadline?

Yes, federal grants must be issued in state executed loans or grants within 2 years of Notice

RFP # 32701-25-414 – Amendment # 3 Page 6 of 12

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

of Award by the EPA.

37. Will the agency be involved in underwriting and approval of loans as well as loan monitoring?

Yes. The State will be involved in loan underwriting, approval, and monitoring.

38. Where can we find compliance and reporting requirements?

Uniform Grant Guidance requires monitoring and reporting program performance in 2 CRF

200.329. Other environmental and financial

reporting requirements are established in 40 CFR 35.3162 and 35.3165.

More information can be found at:

DWSRF – 40 CFR 35.3570

CWSRF – 40 CFR 35.3165

https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/clean-water-state-revolving-fund-cwsrf-reports

39. Is there an existing or will there be a need for a public facing loan application?

No. Access to and completion of the loan application will not be public facing.

40. What is the name and type of the current system(s) holding the data (e.g., database type, proprietary software) that the data will be extracted from?

Current data is stored in various locations and may require migration based on the following formats:

• Excel

• HTML

• CSV

• PDF

• JSON

41. What is the specific cutoff date for historical transactional data (e.g., past payments, milestones) that must be migrated, versus static data (e.g., borrower details, contact information)?

The State will require data migration from legacy systems. Legacy data and files will be available in Excel, HTML, CSV, PDF, Word, and JSON formats.

All currently active loan data must be migrated and cover the life of the loan.

42. What is the specific statewide financial system (e.g., the name of the accounting or payment processing system) that the solution must integrate with for payment management and disbursement? What integration methods are supported or required by that financial system?

The TN Edison system is the state’s main Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system used for managing core administrative functions like payroll, benefits, HR, finance, and procurement. Also, refer to Q&C #28.

43. For the required integration with the Microsoft (MS) suite, is the scope limited to synchronizing MS Outlook calendars and emails, or are deep, functional integrations with MS Dynamics or other MS back-end systems necessary?

The state will rely on contractor expertise to advise on the full scope of integrations and routinely uses MS Outlook, Teams, Word, Excel, and SharePoint.

44. Does the State currently utilize an existing Document Management System (DMS) that the solution must either replace or integrate with to manage the long-term storage and retrieval of required documents?

The State utilizes FileNet and SharePoint for document management.

45. Regarding the integrity and security of data audit trails and history, what are the State’s specific requirements for audit log retention period and the mechanism for historical data retrieval?

Audit trails and history should record all users, status changes, and edits.

The expected retention period is for the life of the loan.

46. What are the specific State or Federal data retention policies that dictate when https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/clean-water-state-revolving-fund-cwsrf-reports https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/clean-water-state-revolving-fund-cwsrf-reports

RFP # 32701-25-414 – Amendment # 3 Page 7 of 12

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

records, particularly emails and related documents, must be purged from the system?

The expected retention period is for the life of the loan.

47. For the requirement to display geospatial visualizations, what is the source of the geographic data (e.g., latitude/longitude, GIS shapefiles), and is the intent to use a native solution feature or integrate with a specific external geospatial service?

The SRF does not currently require or manage geospatial data but intends to use a native solution feature (i.e., GIS layer that TDEC hosts) for point data, shape files, and line data.

48. Does the State have documentation detailing the exact file formats and data fields required to meet the EPA reporting requirements \for capitalization and non-capitalization grants?

This information cannot be uploaded to the EPA system; it has to be manually entered.

49. Do the completed forms 6.1 and 6.2, Sections A, B, & C count toward the 50-page limit for the Technical Response?

Or can those be included in the Appendix?

Completed forms will not count against the 50-page limit

50. Which internal and external user groups will use the system (e.g., SRF/SWIG staff, finance, legal, IT, local governments, utilities, other agencies), and approximately how many users are expected in each group at go-live? Will any external users (e.g., local government staff, engineering firms) need direct portal or online access to submit applications, documents, or reports?

Internal users include SRF/SWIG staff (25), Office of General Counsel (5), Fiscal (5), Office of Administrative Services (5), State Government Finance (5), DWR Executive Leadership (5).Comptroller/Auditors (5) Division of Internal Audit (4)

External user are hard to quantify. There are over 500 eligible utilities in the state and many other NGOs participating. These include local governments, utilities, engineering firms, financial consulting firms, and universities. The State requires an end-to-end program management solution. Therefore, all users should have access at the application stage through the project close out. Once project close out occurs, internal users only will access information.

51. Beyond application intake, award, and basic servicing, which business processes are in scope for this initial implementation (e.g., underwriting, construction/project monitoring, change orders/amendments, disbursement requests, compliance reviews, ongoing loan servicing, closeout)? If not all processes can be fully implemented in Phase 1, what are the State’s highest-priority processes for go-live?

All processes as listed in pro forma section A.8 are expected for initial implementation. If additional prioritization is necessary, loan servicing during repayment is the lowest priority.

The RFP references cash flow and portfolio management for SRF and SWIG. What level of sophistication is required for cash flow modeling (e.g., standard amortization schedules and draw tracking vs. forecasting by fund, scenario analysis, and “what-if” modeling)?

52. Which specific cash flow and portfolio analytics capabilities are mandatory for this project, and which are considered desirable but not required?

Mandatory Capabilities:

• Loan/Investment Amortization Tracking

• Capital Call and Drawdown Monitoring

• Repayment and Distribution Tracking

• Basic Cash Flow Forecasting at the Fund/Grant Level (must be able to differentiate between fund balance and available grants to draw down)

• Portfolio Summary Reporting (e.g., outstanding balances, scheduled payments)

RFP # 32701-25-414 – Amendment # 3 Page 8 of 12

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

Desirable (Not Required, but Valued) Capabilities:

• Scenario Analysis (“What-if” Modeling)

• Advanced Forecasting (multi-variable, predictive analytics)

• Automated Alerts for Cash Flow Events

• Integration with External Data Sources (e.g., market rates, state accounting system)

• Customizable Dashboards and Visualizations

• Portfolio Aggregation and Consolidation Reporting

• Real-Time Data Updating and Forecast Adjustment

53. The RFP references an “SRF-centric Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS)” solution. Can the State clarify whether solutions built on a configurable platform (with SRF/SWIG-specific configurations and templates) are considered acceptable COTS? Are there any specific preferences or guardrails regarding configuration versus custom development, particularly for accommodating future program changes (e.g., new federal requirements, new grant/loan types, or policy updates)?

Solutions built on configurable platforms can be considered; however, a customized tool is not in scope for this RFP. It is anticipated that a COTS SRF tool will remain in compliance will existing and new federal requirements as a standard function of the tool.

54. Which program types are in scope (SRF loan variants, SWIG grant variants, special initiatives)?

SRF and all loan variants associated with EPA SRF Capitalization Grants, SWIG grant variants limited to SRF set asides and ancillary EPA grants strongly structured like and recommended to be managed by the SRF programs. Special initiatives may arise, but those will be few and far between.

55. Are there any non-standard loan terms to support (balloons, step-down rates, refinancing, negative amortization)?

None of those are used at this time.

56. Is project scoring strictly rule-based, or multi-criteria optimization? Please share the current rule catalog.

It is likely that both rule-based and multi-criteria scenarios will be used.

57. Do you need appeals/ disputes/ enforcement features beyond standard workflow?

The State does not require appeals, disputes, or enforcement features beyond the standard workflow at this time.

58. How many source systems (DBs, spreadsheets, file shares) contain SRF/SWIG data, total records by domain, and total document volume (GB/TB)?

Current data is stored in various locations and may require migration based on the following formats:

• Excel

• HTML

• CSV

• PDF

• JSON

59. How many years of history should be fully migrated vs. summarized vs.

archived?

At a minimum, all active projects yet to be placed in loan repayment. All active grants (2 years).

Historical data from at least 2018 must be fully migrated.

60. Should we migrate all historical attachments (applications, plans, contracts)? What retention rules apply?

At a minimum, all attachments for active loans are grants must be migrated. Some inactive attachments may also require migration.

RFP # 32701-25-414 – Amendment # 3 Page 9 of 12

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

61. Do you have a data dictionary and any known data quality issues we should plan for?

A data dictionary is not available at this time.

62. Which systems must we integrate with (finance, identity/SSO, document management, GIS, email/Outlook, analytics), and for what use cases?

The Solution must integrate with the TDEC finance tracking system for receiving payments and the State’s document management system (FileNet). Refer to pro forma section C.3.b.

63. For each integration, what’s the data direction and frequency (real-time, nightly, on-demand)? Do you require a State iPaaS/ESB?

Data direction is bi-directional and near real-time.

64. Are there security/network constraints (VPN, allowlists, GovCloud regions) that affect integration design?

Yes. The State utilizes security/network tools such as VPN, Azure AD, MFA, Whitelist, and Zscaler.

65. Please provide the full list of required EPA and State reports/dashboards. Do you require exact template replication or functional equivalence?

Upon contract awarding, the State will work with vendor to identify the appropriate dashboards and reports based on State needs and vendor recommendations.

66. Do power users need ad-hoc/self-service analytics? Do any reports require near real-time data?

Yes. The State requires that power users have ad hoc/self-service analytics capabilities and that reports utilize near real-time data.

67. What are the desired SLA targets (support hours 24×7 vs. business hours, uptime %, response/resolution times)?

Refer to pro forma section A.6.

68. What is the expected peak concurrency and submission burst load during solicitations?

The expected peak is unknown as it depends on funding categories and total available dollars to award. For example, currently we have 3 grant applications open and 4 loan application categories open. This is a large number of independent applications open at one time. We expect no more than 100 submissions for any one application type. Many application types will have less than 20 submissions.

69. Are specific security/compliance certifications required (e.g., SOC 2, FedRAMP), and what are DR targets

(RPO/RTO)?

Refer to pro forma sections A.4, A.13, A.16, and E.5.

70. Please confirm internal vs. external user counts, 5-year growth, and needed role types. Can one external user represent multiple entities?

Yes, One external user can represent multiple entities as there can be a variety of consultants that manage grants and loans for a number of communities. Please refer to Q&C #50.

71. Do you prefer a big-bang or phased go-live, and are there fiscal/legislative deadlines? What SME availability can you commit (hours/week, blackout periods)?

It depends on the vendor, the breadth of the end product, the user-friendly nature of the system, and the length of time each option would take to fully implement.

72. What training delivery is preferred (on-site, virtual, hybrid)? Is a train-the-trainer model acceptable, and are there accessibility/language requirements (e.g., WCAG, Spanish)?

It depends on the vendor selected and their training capability. A mix of in-person and hybrid or virtual training is preferred without prior knowledge or context for selected vendor, product and training style.

73. What governance cadence and participants do you prefer, and where is the boundary between “base scope” and change orders over the next 2–3 years?

Currently, the State does not have any future change orders identified. However, as SRF is a federally overseen program, it is possible for federal regulation changes to occur that require a subsequent change to the solution.

74. Are there data residency or hosting location requirements?

The State requires data remain inside the contiguous United States and prefers cloud

RFP # 32701-25-414 – Amendment # 3 Page 10 of 12

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

hosting.

75. Should incidents/logs integrate with State tools (e.g., ServiceNow, Splunk)?

This is not a requirement of the State at this time.

76. What backup/archival retention periods are required (e.g., long-term for loan files)?

It depends on funding instrument and project type. The longest retention period we have is for SRF construction projects to disadvantaged communities which can extend to 40 years.

77. Please confirm accepted submission channels (per RFP) and whether a brief deadline extension would be considered.

Refer to RFP section 3 for submission channel details. Please see the schedule of events in this RFP amendment.

78. Is there a current system/vendor and contract value, and are they eligible to bid?

Yes, the State currently has an interim loan and grant management vendor solution. The value of the existing contract and any vendor that meets the requirements of this RFP is eligible to bid.

79. What feedback/debrief will bidders receive post-award?

A respondent must request a debrief from the solicitation coordinator via email.

80. Is there any software the State prefers (platform preference)?

The State has no platform preference.

81. Is this remote (for project execution/working model)?

Refer to Q&C question #34.

82. Looking for in-person training or virtual?

It depends on the vendor selected and their training capability. A mix of in-person and hybrid or virtual training is preferred without prior knowledge or context for selected vendor, product and training style.

83. What are the anticipated changes in project scope or priorities?

The State has not currently identified any changes in project scope or priorities. However, it is possible for changes to occur per federal directives.

84. Can you detail any previous challenges encountered in similar projects?

Previous challenges include a general misunderstanding of the nuanced requirements of the SRF program and/or vendors not explicitly familiar with SRF not approaching the project with the full scope in mind.

85. What are the existing infrastructures in place?

Currently, the State is utilizing a combination of loan and grant features from Smart Simple’s GMS tool as well as manual intervention and processing.

Attachment 6.3

86. Hosting and Maintenance can be accomplished in one of two ways: Please clarify which one of the two choices is proposed in the cost proposal:

A.Hosting Infrastructure Owned/Hosted by Contractor in Azure Cloud/Similar Cloud Platform. SRF application and database maintained by Contractor

B. Hosting Infrastructure Owned/Provided by TDEC/State of Tennessee with Secure access provided to Contractor. SRF application and database maintained by Contractor

The State will consider all hosting and maintenance proposals presented by vendors. It should be noted that the vendor will be required to comply with all security requirements within pro forma section E.5.

Pro Forma D.32

87. Can the Technology Professional Liability insurance minimum requirements be reduced from $10,000,000 to $2,000,000? Every state agency we are currently contracted with has a $2,000,000

Yes. See revised Section D.32. of RFP Attachment 6.6., SRF Pro Forma 32701-25-414 Version 2.

RFP # 32701-25-414 – Amendment # 3 Page 11 of 12

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

requirement.

88. Is Crime Insurance mandatory? None of the state agencies we are currently contracted with require this

Yes. Refer to pro forma section D.32.

Attachment 6.3

89. Please clarify if evaluation factor 4 [of the cost proposal] is four years of hosting and maintenance?

Yes. Evaluation factor of 4 is related to the four years of hosting and maintenance post implementation.

Attachment 6.3

90. Please clarify if evaluation factor 1260 [of the cost proposal] is the estimated number of hours for the contract term?

Yes. Evaluation factor of 1260 is related to the Solution Support expectations over the remaining 4 year contract term post implementation.

Pro Forma C.1

91. Please clarify if $4,000,000 is the maximum total contract amount for 5 years?

The State estimates the maximum liability for the entire 60-month term to be not more than $4,000,000. Refer to RFP section 1.1.

6.2 A.5 92. Please clarify what kind of

documentation is needed here?

Refer to pro forma section E.5.

6.2 C.1-

C.3

93. Items C.1-C.3 indicate the State has a defined project schedule. Could you please share this?

As noted in RFP section 1.2, refer to pro forma section A (Scope of Services and Deliverables).

The State has tentatively targeted a Q4 2026 implementation date for the Solution.

94. What is the current volume of loans In the SRF and SWIG Programs? (Annual applications, active loans, average loan amounts)

Not more than 200 annually. Grants can have a higher volume with much lower maximum liabilities. Loans are larger financial agreements.

95. Can you describe the differences between the SRF and SWIG program workflows that the system must accommodate?

SWIG is a grant program. Grant applications are more detailed. Once reviewed and approved are awarded prior to work commencing. Individual contract values are generally lower and focus on planning and design. However, there are some instances where construction is included in the project.

SRF is a loan program. Project work on the customer side for planning, environmental reviews, and design occur after application and ranking but prior to loan award. Multiple project deliverables, financial information, and governmental administrative steps happen prior to a contract with the state. The timelines between application and loan execution are 12 months. These activities also constitute eligible costs incurred by the external user. Those external users will need the ability to submit for review those pre-loan work products as well as recoup those expenses after the loan is executed.

96. What is the current loan servicing system being used?

The State is currently using the Smart Simple GMS tool for loan servicing.

97. How many loans must be migrated?

How many records (loans, borrowers, and lenders) that need to be migrated to the new system?

The State currently has 100 loans in disbursement and construction phase.

200 applicants in various pre-loan award stages, and about 700 loan borrowers in some stage of repayment to close out. This includes projects previously closed and reported to EPA.

98. Can the State provide specific examples of the "submission progression" workflows that need automation?

The stepwise submission of information from customers and the subsequent review and approval by the program. This occurs over the pre-loan and post loan workflow between customers and staff. Pre loan activities include submission of questionnaires, project ranking, RFP # 32701-25-414 – Amendment # 3 Page 12 of 12

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

financial sufficiency reviews, environmental determinations, loan package preparation, and loan document execution. Post loan subrecipient monitoring can include elements like procurement approval, reimbursements, site inspections, and project close out.

Each major step in the pre-loan and post-loan process involves workflows between customers and staff as well as workflows between technical and financial teams for SRF.

99. What GL/ERP system does the State use, and what level of integration is required?

The State currently uses Smart Simple’s GMS tool for the loan and grant management needs of the SRF program.

100. What are the top 3-5 pain points driving this replacement?

The top SRF program pain points include:

1. Complex, manual processes, data silos, lack of standardization, and difficulty tracking diverse funding streams (like BIL), leading to errors, delays, and poor reporting

2. Workflow inefficiencies (handoffs, rework)

3. Funding & Financial Complexity (mixing funds (combining loans and grants), credit & repayment hurdles, over or under subscription (too many or not enough qualifying projects can affect prioritization))

4. Challenges with data availability/transparency for project analysis and equity tracking

101. Can you share examples of your current workflow bottlenecks between the SRF Loan Program and SWIG Program?

Bottlenecks common in SRF are the pre-loan process from ranking to environmental determination. Integrated team workflows for technical and financial review of disbursement and procurement.

102. Who are the key stakeholders who will need to approve and adopt this solution?

The TDEC Division of Water Resources’ SRF program.

103. What is your expectation for ongoing support and professional services after go-live?

Refer to pro forma section A6, A.7, and A.9.

1. Delete SRF Pro Forma # 32701-25-414, in its entirety, and replace it with SRF Pro Forma #

32701-25-414 Version 2, attached to this amendment. Revisions of the original Pro Forma document are emphasized within the new release. Any sentence or paragraph containing revised or new text is highlighted.

2. RFP Amendment Effective Date. The revisions set forth herein shall be effective upon release.

All other terms and conditions of this RFP not expressly amended herein shall remain in full force and effect.