RFP_33201-00926_Amd3_Questions_and_Comments.pdf

RFP # 33201-00926 – Amendment # 3 Page 1 of 12

STATE OF TENNESSEE

TENNESSEE HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 33201-00926

AMENDMENT # 3

FOR HOME STUDIES

DATE: NOVEMBER 25, 2025

RFP # 33201-00926 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 OCTOBER 15, 2025

2. Disability Accommodation Request Deadline 2:00 p.m. OCTOBER 22, 2025

3. Notice of Intent to Respond Deadline 2:00 p.m. OCTOBER 24, 2025

4. Written “Questions & Comments” Deadline 2:00 p.m. OCTOBER 31, 2025

5. State Response to Written “Questions &

Comments”

NOVEMBER 25, 2025

6. Response Deadline 2:00 p.m. DECEMBER 8, 2025

7. State Completion of Technical Response

Evaluations

DECEMBER 11, 2025

8. State Schedules Product Demonstrations DECEMBER 13, 2025

9. Product Demonstration DECEMBER 16-19, 2025

10. State Opening & Scoring of Cost Proposals JANUARY 5, 2026

11. Negotiations (Optional) JANUARY 7-8, 2026

12. State Notice of Intent to Award Released and

RFP Files Opened for Public Inspection

JANUARY 12, 2026

13. End of Protest Period 4:30 p.m. JANUARY 19, 2026

14. State sends contract to Contractor for signature

JANUARY 21, 2026

15. Contractor Signature Deadline 2:00 p.m. JANUARY 23, 2026

RFP # 33201-00926 – 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

RFP

Section 1.7.

1. Is filing a Notice of Intent to Respond a prerequisite for proceeding with this RFP?

Per RFP section 1.7. Notice of Intent to Respond; “A Notice of Intent to Respond creates no obligation and is not a prerequisite for submitting a response, however, it is necessary to ensure receipt of any RFP amendments or other notices and communications relating to this RFP.”

Please be mindful of the RFP Schedule of Events (RFP section 2.1.)

RFP

Section 1.7.

2. Is the intent to respond a requirement to respond to the RFP?

We missed the deadline and would like to respond if we are still permitted.

See the response to question 1.

RFP

Attachment 6.6., Pro Forma Contract

3. The RFP ATTACHMENT 6.6.

describes a maximum of 840 hours for custom development services (page 5) and states that the system shall allocate "up to forty (40) program development hours in Year 1 and up to twenty (20) program development hours per year in Years 2-7 for System, dashboard, and/or report customizations as needed" (p. 2).

Please clarify whether 840 hours is the limit for hours spent on the initial system design and development to ensure it is "specifically designed for GEAR UP grants" and that it "fully incorporates live, dynamic dashboards for every GEAR UP TN metric listed in Appendix I," as required by the RFP ATTACMENT

6.2 - Section A, or whether additional hours may be budgeted for initial system design and development.

The 840 hours referenced in Attachment 6.6 represents the maximum number of hours allocated throughout the entirety of the contract for customization of the system.

The 40 hours in Year 1 and 20 hours in Years 2 -7 are allocated for the ongoing program development and customization needs, such as updates to the system, dashboards, or reports, as they arise throughout the contract period. These hours are expected and must be accounted for within your pricing proposal for the applicable years.

RFP # 33201-00926 – Amendment # 3 Page 3 of 12

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

Section 1.1.2.

4. RFP page 2, 1.1.2 indicates that payments will align with the number of unique students actively served each program year. However, some deliverables reflect the previous program year, including supporting APR 2026 which reflects the program year prior to this contract’s start date. May we assume that deliverables provided within one program year about the previous program year’s students should be addressed in the cost proposal aligning with the previous program year’s number of students?

Yes. The APR is completed for the previous program year's students.

Assistance with the APR aligns with the program year for which those students were served.

RFP

Section 3.2.

5. On RFP pages 9 and 10, 3.2.2.2. E-mail Submission, it says:

3.2.2.2.1. Technical Response

The Technical Response document should be in the form of one (1) digital document in “PDF” format or other easily accessible digital format attached to an e-mail to the Solicitation Coordinator. Both the subject and file name should be clearly identified as follows:

“RFP #33201-00923 TECHNICAL

RESPONSE”

3.2.2.2.2. Cost Proposal:

The Cost Proposal should be in the form of one (1) digital document in “PDF” or “XLS” format or other easily accessible digital format attached to an e-mail to the Solicitation Coordinator. Both the subject and file name should be clearly identified as follows: “RFP

#33201-00923 COST PROPOSAL”

Can we also include our company name in our filenames of the technical response and cost proposal files we send, to differentiate the files from those emailed from other RFP respondents?

No. Please submit responses as outlined in the RFP. However, you may include the information specified in RFP Section 3.2.3 in the email subject line.

RFP # 33201-00926 – Amendment # 3 Page 4 of 12

PAGE

3.1.

6. On RFP, Page 9, 3.1.2.3 says, “A Respondent must sign and date the Cost Proposal.”

Page 20, Attachment 6.1 requires a signature of the respondent.

Page 32, Section 6.4 Email: (c) ii instructs the reference to “sign and date the completed reference questionnaire.”

Is an electronic signature (e.g., via pdf) permissible?

An electronic signature is permissible. Please ensure the use of electronic signature does not restrict access to the documents.

RFP

Attachment 6.2., 6.3., 6.4.

7. Can you please provide us with the RFP in MS Word form so we can complete the required forms within the document for inclusion in our proposal? If this is not possible, may we have just the required forms embedded in the RFP (RFP Attachments 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 on pages 22 – 31) in MS Word for ease of replication and completion?

The State does not provide Word versions of released solicitations.

Respondents may use Adobe Acrobat to extract the reference pages and edit the necessary text before sending them to individuals providing references.

RFP

Section 3.1.

8. On RFP page 8, 3.1.1.2 says, “A response, as well as any reference material presented, must be written in English and must be written on standard 8 ½” x 11” pages (although oversize exhibits are permissible) and use a 12 point font for text.” Is it permissible to use 11 point font for text within tables?

Please follow the RFP directions as detailed.

RFP

Attachment 6.6., Pro Forma Contract

9. RFP page 39, Attachment Pro

Forma Contract, A.3.i. says, “Allocation of up to forty (40) program development hours in Year 1 and up to twenty (20) program development hours per year in Years 2-7 for System, dashboard, and/or report customizations as needed; This totals 160 total hours.

However, in the RFP page 31, Attachment 6.3, Cost Proposal & Scoring Guide, it says, “Custom Development Services, As Needed

The 840 hours referenced in Attachment 6.6 represents the maximum number of hours allocated throughout the entirety of the contract for customization of the system.

The 40 hours in Year 1 and 20 hours in Years 2 -7 are allocated for the ongoing program development and customization needs, such as updates to the system, dashboards, or reports, as

RFP # 33201-00926 – Amendment # 3 Page 5 of 12

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

(maximum Eight Hundred Forty [840] Hours). Please confirm that the as needed maximum we should consider is 840 hours and not 160 hours.

they arise throughout the contract period. These hours are expected and must be accounted for within your pricing proposal for the applicable years.

RFP

Attachment 6.6., Pro

10. On RFP page 39, A.3.j., it says, “In-person training in Nashville, TN in fall or winter 2025.” So the training is to take place immediately after contract award, while it's still winter?

These dates will be adjusted due to the timeline of the RFP.

RFP

Attachment 6.6., Pro

11. RFP page 40, Attachment, Proforma

Contract, A. Scope, A.4 b. iii references biennial student surveys in Years 3, 5, and 7. In RFP Appendix 1: GEAR UP TN Project Narrative, page 33 references a college-going culture assessment at each high school when the first cohort enters 9th, and again in Year 6; it also mentions that this assessment will inform planning and assess students’ and families’ knowledge. Are the biennial student surveys intended to serve as these assessments as well (though the timing somewhat differs), or are they completely separate? If separate, is the college-going culture assessment a deliverable under this RFP? Are parent/family members to be surveyed as part of this college-going culture assessment, or as any other deliverable in this project?

For all the surveys, will they be in paper-based and/or online formats?

Will they only be needed in English?

The college-going culture assessment informs professional development plans and the extent to which GEAR UP TN meets its objectives of increasing students' and families' knowledge of postsecondary options, preparation, and financing, as well as increasing student postsecondary aspirations and expectations. The biennial student survey may be a component of this, but the college-going culture assessment should also include focus groups and/or interviews of students and family members. A biennial survey will also be conducted for site coordinators, administrators, and educators to gather feedback on project implementation, activities, challenges, and THEC supports and resources. THEC will refer to the expertise of the evaluator in developing these tools, including the required languages to comply with Title VI. We expect that they will most likely only need to be in English.

Attachment 6.6., Pro

12. RFP page 40, Attachment, Pro

Forma Contract, A. Scope, A.4 b. ii A. Scope, A.4 references qualitative

The interviews and focus groups will consist of individuals from our GEAR UP TN schools. THEC will

RFP # 33201-00926 – Amendment # 3 Page 6 of 12

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

Forma Contract research in the form of focus groups and/or interviews but does not specify participants.

RFP page 68, Appendix 1: GEAR UP TN Project Narrative, says:

"Qualitative data will be collected through interviews and focus groups of students and family members as well as open-ended survey questions." Will the required focus groups/interviews include students and parents/family members from each of the 10 high schools and 18 middle schools?

Regarding the referenced open-ended survey questions, what survey(s) will include these?

refer to the expertise of the evaluator in developing these tools.

RFP

Attachment 6.6., Pro

13. RFP page 41, Attachment, Pro

Forma Contract, A.5, references an additional custom handout per year.

Will this be something like a summary of data already compiled, or a report requiring new analyses?

The handout would be consistent of existing data but the content would need to be customizable depending on the recipient of the handout.

RFP

Attachment 6.6., Pro

14. RFP page 41, Attachment, Pro

Forma Contract, A.8. states, “CCREC Participation. The Contractor shall actively participate in the CCREC alongside THEC staff.

The Contractor shall attend two (2) in-person national meetings per year and serve as Tennessee’s designated project evaluator, as specified by the State.”

Will the evaluator also serve as the CCREC State Data Resource Contact for GEAR UP TN?

The Contractor will be responsible for submission of the annual CCREC data upload on behalf of

THEC.

RFP

6.3.

15. RFP pages 30 and 31, the cost proposal provides space for seven contract years. However, the seventh contract year would begin in early 2032, after the end of the seventh program year.

Should we assume there would be an additional no-cost-extension

THEC will apply for a no-cost extension but that is not guaranteed.

At this time, we do not expect students to be served during this last year.

RFP # 33201-00926 – Amendment # 3 Page 7 of 12

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

program year in determining the seventh contract year costs?

If so, would GEAR UP TN serve just 960 Cohort 2 students in post-secondary that year, or also another 1,450 priority seniors?

RFP

Attachment 6.6., Pro

16. Are all program objectives listed in

RFP page 79 and 80, Appendix 1:

GEAR UP TN Project Narrative, that pertain to 12th graders applicable to priority and cohort students, or will some be reported only for cohort students?

Program objectives pertain to cohort student outcomes. In the event that information is not yet applicable, we would also provide priority data, if available and applicable, for informational purposes only.

17. Please clarify the intended use and availability of comparison group data.

Will two comparison groups be needed each year to parallel the two cohorts?

Will comparison groups be needed for priority students?

This project requires a statistically matched comparison group of similar students attending non- GEAR UP TN schools to serve as the primary counterfactual to assess the impact of the project on cohort student outcomes relative to what those outcomes would have been in absence of GEAR UP.

THEC will work with the evaluator to refine and finalize the program evaluation.

RFP

Attachment 6.6., Pro

18. RFP page 68, Appendix 1: GEAR

UP TN Project Narrative references deidentified student-level data; will only deidentified data be available for development of the comparison group(s)?

If deidentified, but required each year for the cohorts, does this mean that new groups will need to be selected each year or is there a way to link data across years for students in the deidentified data?

Only deidentified student-level data will be available for the matched comparison group. Once established, data for these deidentified students will be available each year for evaluation.

19. Would the team be developing an entirely new data system or will it interface with previously developed external system?

This will be an entirely new data system.

RFP # 33201-00926 – Amendment # 3 Page 8 of 12

PAGE

20. What is the anticipated level of funding? Is there a budget ceiling?

At this stage, we are seeking cost proposals from vendors based on their assessment of the scope and the requirements outlined in the RFP. While there are no publicly stated budget ceiling, cost-effectiveness and value will be key evaluation criteria. We encourage vendors to propose a budget that reflects realistic and competitive approach to delivering the requested services.

Section 2.

21. When do you anticipate a contract being awarded?

Please refer to RFP Section 2 and any subsequently released amendments for the Schedule of Events and any potential revisions.

22. Is there an incumbent?

This is the first time THEC is procuring these services for the current GEAR UP cycle, so there is no incumbent.

Services similar to those outlined in this RFP have been procured during the previous GEAR UP cycles. This solicitation is open and competitive, and all qualified vendors are encouraged to submit proposals.

23. We are wondering if the state can share any information about the expected level of effort the contractor will provide to the state?

The level of effort will be commensurate with providing all the requested deliverables in the pro forma contract. While the state does not prescribe a specific number of hours or personnel, we expect the contractor to allocate sufficient resources to ensure timely, high-quality delivery of services.

RFP

24. In the cost proposal on page 30, the costs are broken down by years. Do these years reflect grant years?

Contract years? Should all seven years be reflected? Since the grant is currently in year 2, should the line item for year 1 be $0? Should Year 2 be for a full year (12 months) or

These years reflect contract years, Year 1 of the contract will be Year 2 of the grant.

RFP # 33201-00926 – Amendment # 3 Page 9 of 12

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

prorated for 8 months (Jan 19, 2026

- Sept 30, 2026)? What would the first year of the contract period be, and how should this table be completed by respondents?

RFP

Attachment

6.2. – Section D

25. Can you confirm that the product demonstration is only for the data management system?

Yes, the product demonstration will only be for the data management system.

RFP

Attachment

6.2. – Section A

26. On page 22, there are items without an item reference (e.g., the proposal was submitted on time). Is there an expectation that we respond to these items?

These items are for State Use Only.

RFP

6.4.

27. Are points associated with professional references?

References are not given individual points.

RFP

Attachment 6.6., Pro

28. On page 2 of the pro forma contract, item j calls for fall or winter 2025 training on the data management system. Is that timeline accurate?

These dates will be adjusted due to the timeline of the RFP.

RFP

29. On page 31, in the row for custom development services, are we required to report an/hourly rate for these services?

Yes, an hourly rate would be most effective for our needs as we are estimating at most 840 hours, but the actual number of hours may change depending upon the selected system. This will allow us the ability to project anticipated costs.

30. The RFP states that payment is based on the number of students served, but the cost proposal requires a firm-fixed-price per year.

How will these be reconciled if student counts vary from projections?

The student counts are the estimates from our proposal so the costs should be based on these numbers. Actual numbers will vary by an insignificant amount.

31. To price our services accurately, could you please provide definitions that distinguish between a "minor

Minor modifications include, but are not limited to, any updates to the system each year to ensure

RFP # 33201-00926 – Amendment # 3 Page 10 of 12

PAGE

QUESTION / COMMENT STATE RESPONSE

modification" (included in the fixed price), a "customization" (covered by allocated hours), and "custom development" (billed at the separate hourly rate)?

compliance with Federal, CCREC, and GEAR UP TN requirements.

Customizations include, but are limited to, the development of any new data fields, reports, dashboards as needed. Custom development is the initial development and configuration of the system.

32. Since access to the state's longitudinal data system is critical for performance and depends on an external committee, what is the typical approval timeline, and what is the contingency plan if access is delayed or denied?

THEC will work with the evaluator to modify the evaluation plan if needed; however, a three-to-six-month timeline is usually a safe range.

RFP

Attachment 6.6., Pro Forma Contract –

C.3.

33. The contract mandates travel to two national meetings but also prohibits travel reimbursement. Should the cost for this mandatory travel be included in the annual fixed price?

Yes, the cost for the required travel to the two national meetings should be included in the contractor’s annual fixed price.

Although the contract does not allow for separate travel reimbursement, attendance at these meetings is a mandatory component of the scope of work.

Therefore, all anticipated travel-related expenses should be built into the fixed annual cost proposal submitted by the vendor.

RFP

Attachment 6.6., Pro

34. Could you clarify the scope of the software license required?

Specifically, is it a perpetual or subscription-based license, and is it for a specific number of users or an enterprise-wide license?

At this time, THEC is not certain which specific software license the question is referring to. However, we can confirm that software license warranties are addressed in the pro forma contract and are a requirement if any software license is included as part of the vendor’s proposal.

Vendors should clearly specify the type of license (e.g., perpetual, subscription-based, user-based, or enterprise-wide) being proposed, along with any associated terms, as part of their response.

RFP # 33201-00926 – Amendment # 3 Page 11 of 12

PAGE

35. The RFP notes the contractor will

"complement" THEC's internal data team. Could you provide more detail on the specific responsibilities of the internal team versus those of the contractor to avoid duplication of effort?

THEC's internal data team provides oversight of GEAR UP TN's data and evaluation activities.

This includes program compliance and data collection from the state longitudinal data system and participating schools.

Responsibilities also include monitoring program service implementation and providing technical assistance to sites on the data management system.

THEC's internal data team works in coordination with the external evaluator to support these efforts.

36. The contract refers to metrics in a missing attachment. Could you please provide this attachment and also define the technical requirement for "live" dashboards (e.g., real-time vs. nightly refresh)?

Attachment C refers to the "Quality of Project Design". This is in the RFP as Appendix 1. Live dashboards are defined as real-time visualizations displaying GEAR UP TN outcomes and progress.

37. For the Propensity Score Matching

(PSM) study mentioned, can the State confirm the specific baseline covariates and preferred matching algorithm it expects to be used?

THEC will refer to the expertise of the evaluator to determine the preferred baseline covariates and preferred algorithm of the study.

38. For the embedded study on dual enrollment, could you provide clearer parameters, such as the definition of student "participation" (e.g., one course vs. multiple) and the specific outcome metrics for "academic achievement"?

THEC will refer to the expertise of the evaluator to determine parameters and outcomes of the study.

39. The contract requires FedRAMP certification. Would compliance with a state-recognized framework, such as the NIST Privacy Framework, combined with the required SOC 2 Type 2 examination, be an acceptable substitute?

While the contract currently requires FedRAMP certification, any proposed alternative, such as compliance with a state-recognized framework combined with SOC 2 Type 2 examination, would require review and approval by the State’s Strategic Technology Solutions (STS) Office.

RFP # 33201-00926 – Amendment # 3 Page 12 of 12

PAGE

Vendors are highly encourage to clearly describe any proposed alternative compliance frameworks in their proposal, including how they meet or exceed the security and privacy standards required by FedRAMP. This information will be submitted to STS for evaluation as part of the procurement process.

40. Could you clarify if the State has an existing enterprise agreement for Microsoft products, such as Power BI, that this project would be expected to operate under or could potentially leverage?

The State does have enterprise agreements in place for Microsoft products, including Power BI.

However, the specific applicability to this project would depend on the intended use.

We encourage all vendors to clarify their intended use or level of access needs so we can explore the most appropriate way to support those requirements within our existing infrastructure.

3. 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.