S-DASOBO-00010967 RFP Questions Answers For Information Purposes Only.pdf

Solicitation S DASOBO-00010967 EDS RFP Questions

Question Question Subject Question Response

1 Oversight Compliance Can the Agency confirm which Stage Gate deliverables will be required from the vendor during implementation? Will the Agency provide templates or guidance for meeting EIS and IQMS documentation standards?

Section 2.4.7 - Testing: input into an Agency-developed Test Plan and UAT Plan.

Section 2.4.10 - Maintenance, Support, and Service Levels and 2.4.4 - Software Components, Development, Configuration, and Integration: content input into Operations and Maintenance Plan.

Section 2.4.12 - Security: delivery of a System Security Plan and Cloud Workbook.

Section 2.4.5 - Data Conversion and Migration: delivery of a Data Dictionary.

Section 2.4.1 - Professional Services and Deliverables: input into an Agency-developed Disaster Recovery Plan.

Section 2.4.3 - Solution Architecture and Design Documents and Services: input into an Agency-developed/maintained Requirements Traceability Matrix.

Yes, the Agency will provide both templates and guidance.

2 Legacy System Data Migration

Can the Agency clarify the expected volume and structure of data to be migrated from the Legacy LS system? Specifically, are there any known data quality issues, duplicate records, or schema inconsistencies that the selected vendor should anticipate?

See RFP Section 2.4.5 - Data Conversion and Migration and Attachment G: Agency has contracted with a 3rd party consultant to migrate all relevant data into a single staging database. As part of that process, Agency intends to address all known data quality issues prior to the Solution Vendor performing data migration from the staging database to the target solution data schema. The results of the data issue resolution will be available to the solution vendor.

3 Third-Party System Interfaces

Will the Agency provide technical documentation or API specifications for the third-party systems that the EDS must integrate with (e.g., payment processor, state accounting system)? Are any of these integrations currently in use or will they be newly developed?

The TSPC project team will take the lead in any coordination with third-party agencies/organizations regarding acquisition of technical API integration specifications.

TSPC's current system does not utilize true system integration(s) and the future EDS may or may not, depending on joint evaluation between TSPC and the solution vendor recommendations.

4 Hosting Environment Does the Agency have a preference between vendor-hosted cloud infrastructure and hosting within the State’s data center? If multiple hosting options are proposed, should pricing be separated accordingly in Attachment C?

RFP Section 2.4.11 (Hosting) states that the preference is a vendor hosted solution.

5 Budget Can you give me an idea of what the budget is for this project?

The preliminary budget (+/- 50%) for all Implementation activities and deliverables by the Solution Vendor, based on comparable solutions reviewed during Market Analysis, is currently set at $2.5 million. A further $100,000 per year is estimated for Operations & Maintenance support by the Solution Vendor.

6 Market Can you share which platforms or solutions were included in the market research phase leading up to this RFP?

See Response to Question 59

7 Project Timeline When do you expect the new system to go into production?

The current Preliminary (+/- 50%) Project Schedule aims to have the new system go-live on (or before) May 2027. After evaluating vendor proposals and their proposed Implementation timelines, the Preliminary Schedule will be updated and baselined.

8 Budget Is there a budget or price range or expectation price wise that you can share? See response to Question 5

9 Procurement One quick clarification about this solution. OregonBuys includes a bid holder list:

can you confirm you are accepting responses from any vendor, regardless of their status on that list?

Any vendor with an active OregonBuys profile can bid on the RFP. For any additional questions please contact us at support.oregonbuys@das.oregon.gov or 1-855-800-5046 for assistance.

10 Scope of Work Can you clarify the expectation of work samples? The language in the RFP implies it might be optional, but also says we "should" include them. It also references Attachment I, but Attachment I is the "Scope of Work Response"

See RFP Section 3.1.2 - Volume 2 and also specific work sample requirements as stated in Attachment I. Beyond the specifically required work samples, Proposer is free to submit additional materials, beyond what is mandated, that support their narrative approach.

11 Schedule The requested depth of response is quite extensive, particularly given the holidays occurring prior to the bid opening date. Would TPCS consider an extension of the deadline?

See Addendum 1

12 General Information 1.1 TPSC mentions being primarily interested in previously implemented software, which implies a desire for the software to be relatively 'off the shelf'. Has the agency made any assumptions about the scope or scale of implementation?

Proven systems for comparable business operations with little/no code customization is the preferred solution. TSPC has stated their desired scope of work and business requirements in this RFP, but will make good faith considerations of alternate solutions, modification of business processes, reduction/modification to scope, and phased implementation.

13 2.4.1 Professional Services Can TSPC clarify which business areas are expected to need reengineering and which must remain aligned to current statutory or policy constraints?

TSPC is open to explore creative reengineering of existing business processes. Of the three TSPC business units, Professional Practices and Educator Preparation & Pathways currently have the least systemic processes and are candidates for improvement. All three business units do have existing policy and statutory constraints that will need to be considered when configuring the solution.

2.4.1c Professional Services and Deliverables

The RFP references TPCS' Organizational Change Management consultants. What is the scope of their support, and have they been engaged yet?

Execution of the existing OCM plan will include coordination of project communication, training, and monitoring of transition readiness. The OCM consultant will lead project communication, assist in developing training for the various system user groups, periodically track KPIs, document any changes to business processes, and support activities of the change agent network. Procurement of the OCM consultant is in-progress and expected to be completed prior to selection of the Solution Vendor.

2.2.1.e 2 Professional Services and Deliverables

RFP references "contractor shall perform requirements defining and validation".

Can you elaborate on what requirements are perceived to be missing or incomplete, or what precisely is desired of the contractor here?

TSPC is interested to view solutions we may not have considered, whether that be a small or significant change to business processes and procedures. TSPC may not know that something is possible, therefore it might not be included in the requirements

Attachment F Final requirements

Does TSPC consider Attachment F – Business Requirements to be the complete and final set of functional and non-functional requirements, or should we anticipate additional requirements during the discovery phase?

TSPC believes that the existing set of Business Requirements reflects a full and comprehensive view of what the agency would like to see in the solution. TSPC anticipates that the Business Requirements will be modified based on the solution vendor's system functionality and collaborative design discussions.

17 1.4.16 Definition of Terms What is the specific scope of IQMS / NTTData as part of Stage Gate reviews?

The project's IQMS consultant will be providing Quality Control reviews of the following project deliverables: Functional Design document, Technical Design document, Data Migration Plan and results, System Testing Plan and Test Cases, System Testing Results, Training Plan, Disaster Recovery Plan, Operations & Maintenance Plan, UAT Plan and Results,

2.4.2 Project Management, paragraph 1, Delivery approach

RFP references PMBOK; is TPCS open to Agile delivery methods as defined by iterative delivery (eg in the form of 2-3 week work increments), frequent reprioritization of work based on new learnings as things evolve, identification of a single business owner to guide decisions and prioritization, etc

The Agency is open to utilizing Agile implementation methodology where applicable, provided that the implementation will ultimately be based on a fixed price payment .

2.4.2 Project Management, paragraph 1, Delivery approach

To support risk reduction and user readiness, is TPCS open to deploying the Solution in sequenced releases tied to functional areas, possibly with reduced scope based on prioritization by business users, assuming all oversight and documentation requirements remain fully satisfied?

Yes, assuming phasing supports logical and complete business processes and does not introduce redundancies between work flows internal to EDS and external to EDS.

2.4.2 Project Management, paragraph 6 - personnel

How many TSPC personnel will be allocated to the project (SMEs, PMO, technical teams), what roles are they expected to play, and what level of availability should be assumed for each role?

The TSPC project team currently consists of 3 agency staff and 1 contractor. Procurement of an additional 3 contractors is in-progress. Availability of all 30 TSPC staff has been prioritized by TSPC leadership/management.

2.4.7 Testing, paragraph 3 -

roles

The RFP references that the Agency will develop the test plan. What is the expected division of responsibility between TSPC and the contractor for test planning, script creation, execution, defect management, and UAT orchestration?

TSPC will take the lead in development of the test plan and conducting UAT. It is expected that the contractor support the overall testing by conducting and providing the results of unit testing, reviewing and contributing to the development of test scripts, coordinating with the TSPC project team on tracking and reporting on the mitigation of identified defects, and coordinating with the TSPC project team on the timing of performing UAT and evaluation of UAT results.

22 2.4.7 Testing - automation Do you currently employ any test automation tools? If so, what are they? No

Proposal components and arrangement, Table 2 pg 22

Is Attachment I content to be submitted as a separate document, or just embedded in the Volume 2: project proposal?

Attachment I content should be included in the Volume 2 response.

Software components - Attachment I, item 3, pg 2

"Scope of proposal" requests to specify where the solution is config vs custom, but this is also requested in Attachment F. Can the Volume 2 Project Proposal reference Attachment F for answers on this and similar questions?

Answering the approach (Column S of Attachment I - Business Requirements) for each individual business requirement will enable TSPC to compare proposed solutions from a quantitative perspective. Section 3 of Attachment I provides an opportunity for the vendor to provide a more narrative description of their overall SDLC approach. The question of Configuration, Third-Party Integration, and Customization is relevant for both areas of the response, but will vary in their level of granularity.

1.1 Introduction & 2.3 Project

Purpose and Objectives - gaps

Can you elaborate on the gaps of the current system i.e. can you elaborate how the current systems falls short in terms of customer service, efficiency, data confidence and integration ?

TSPC developed the current Business Requirements to both address current system limitations and to take the opportunity to improve agency process and efficiencies.

1.1 Introduction - Preference

for tested solutions

Do you have any preferred platforms - such as Salesforce, ServiceNow, Microsoft Dynamics (as examples) ?

Agency has no platform preference

General question - location of vendor personnel

Are you open to offshore resources during delivery ? E.g., personnel from Central or South America

The State is open to consider offshore resources, however, this is not the preferred approach. Any proposals involving offshore work would be subject to additional State security and legal review and may require a more complicated development/testing enviornment to be deployed in order to maintain appropriate security for PII and other Level 3 data.

28 Accessibility Are there any specific ADA or WCAG requirements expected for this project, per Oregon statute 276.200?

See Business Requirement 38.3.28

2.4.12.5 - Access to state systems, confidentiality

Which project roles does TSPC anticipate will require CJIS fingerprinting and training? Is this just part of SSO?

Any vendor project staff involved in the potential integration of the EDS and CJIS will need to be CJIS certified. See also Response to Question 35.

30 Attachment F - Entra ID How should TSPC’s external users (educators, districts, EPPs) authenticate via Entra ID? Is the Agency expecting federation, Entra ID B2C, or another IAM pattern?

The State does not currently have a standard to address external user authentication. The agency would be open to recommended solutions such as leveraging Azure B2C or integration with a 3rd party authentication service.

2.4.5 and Attachment G - MIgration

Will TSPC provide the Clean Staging Database complete with the ERD, consolidated tables, and documented transformation logic before the SI begins migration activities?

Yes

Attachment F - record counts for migration

Can TSPC provide approximate record counts (educators, licenses, investigations, EPP data) and the number and size of documents to be migrated or archived?

Data Documentation analysis has classified 38,748,431 records that have been identified for possible/likely migration. As part of the Data Staging work currently being performed by a 3rd Party consultant, it is expected that this number will decrease due to de-duplication ETL processes. However, data related to licensing will continue to be collected in the current licensing system between now and the point of EDS go-live. Not accounted for in the above record number is roughly 81,000 PDF documents (currently residing in the Vortex system and totaling about 35GB) that will need to be included in the Data Migration process.

Attachment G - data logic requirements

For the data issues listed in Attachment G (DI-01 to DI-17), should the contractor propose logic to resolve each issue, or will TSPC provide authoritative business rules?

TSPC will remedy these known data issues as part of the Data Staging work being performed by a 3rd Party.

2.4.6 Integration/ Interfaces -

Requirements

Can you provide technical documentation or API specifications for all required integrations (e.g., NASDTEC, OSP, LEDS, ODE, OLDC) prior to contract award, or should vendors budget for discovery and reverse engineering?

See Response to Question 3

2.4.6 Integration/ Interfaces -

technical documentation

For LEDS integration, what specific technical requirements, protocols, and CJIS boundary rules must the contractor plan for?

Although interfacing with LEDS is a part of TSPC's method for conducting background checks, the agency would like to explore alternate ways to satisfy this particular business process.

This would be a collaborative analysis of potential options by the agency-contractor team.

2.4.6 Integration/ Interfaces -

LEDS

What is the current data exchange method with ODE (API, SFTP, batch), and does ODE expect push-based or pull-based flows?

TSPC currently provides a file to ODE each week via an SFTP. ODE retrieves the file on Tuesdays. The desired approach would provide ODE with an Access Right to generate the data extract "on demand".

2.4.a.5 Scope of work - ODE exchange

Which payment processor does TSPC currently use, and what is the expected integration pattern (hosted payment page, API, batch settlement)?

NICUSA is currently used as per Oregon State Treasury requirement. The preferred integration would be to divert the user to a hosted payment page, perform the transaction, then return the user to the EDS.

General question - enterprise integration

Does TSPC currently use an enterprise integration platform—such as MuleSoft, Boomi, or another ESB/iPaaS—for system integrations and API management? If so, please identify the platform and indicate whether the EDS solution is expected to leverage it.

No

2.4.2 Project Management, CI/CD tools

Do you currently employ any CI/CD DevOps tools? If so, what are they? No

Requirements - testing companies

How many testing companies do you expect the system to integrate with to receive test scores electronically? Do these companies provide API services or do they deliver files?

TSPC's testing providers are ETS and Pearson. True system-to-system integration is not required. However, TSPC desires the ability to upload/download test information between EDS and the appropriate testing provider.

Requirements - document generation

Do you currently have a document generation tool, if so, what is it? No

Requirements - document management

Do you currently have a document & content management system, if so, what is it?

No

43 Requirements - migration What is the state's expectation for migrating documents and files? If this is included, please provide details - # of files, types of files, # how many should be archived, etc.

See response to Question 32

44 Requirements - OCR Does TSPC currently employ any OCR capabilities for validating documents? No

45 Requirements - users

Can you please provide numbers for the following along with other metadata that is relevant to the RFP: # of external users, # of internal users (admins, inspectors, etc.), # of license types, # of applications per day, month, year, # of licenses issued etc.

See responses to Questions 54, 55, 84, 86

46 Requirements - reporting Does TSPC currently employ a reporting/analytics tool? If so, what is it? No

47 Requirements - HR districts What software does HR districts use and how is the data delivered to them currently?

See response to Question 104

Requirements - language translations

How many language translations should the solution support? Please list the languages.

The idea around Requirement 38.3.27 is that the EDS application itself does not need to contain native translation functionality. Since the requested solution is web-based, then translation modes/function in the browsers utilized could be leveraged for increased user access.

49 Requirements - data redaction For data redaction - what is the expected level of redaction? Should the solution support masking only (e.g., last four digits) or do you require irreversible redaction of these fields in all user-facing views and system logs?

The EDS application is not required to have integrated redaction functionality. A TSPC staff person will be fulfilling records requests and should have the ability to adjust a database query and subsequent report export to ensure PII is not included for external distribution.

2.4.1.e.6 - data migration requirements

Does the State require all 38 million+ rows of legacy data to be migrated into the new platform for real-time access and reporting, or is a hybrid approach (with externalized/archived data) acceptable?

The preference is for full migration of all records identified in Attachment H (Data Documentation), however solutions involving hybrid access will be considered. If a hybrid access solution is proposed, TSPC will want to understand the business drivers and benefits to this configuration versus retaining the data in a single production database.

51 2.4.5.b - data deduplication What is the expected vendor role in data deduplication, cleansing, and mapping?

Will the State provide business rules, or is the vendor expected to define and execute them?

See RFP Section 2.4.5 - Data Conversion and Migration and Attachment G: Agency has contracted with a 3rd party consultant to migrate all relevant data into a single staging database. As part of that process, Agency intends to define and document all necessary business rules. The solution vendor will be responsible for mapping from the Staging database into their data model and for determining and documenting the transformation logic. See also response to Question 2.

2.4.6, 2.4.7 - facilitation of integration testing

Will the State facilitate technical contacts with external systems for interface development and testing, or should vendors budget for that integration effort and risk?

See response to Question 3

Attachment I and price proposal - Scope of work response, implementation plan

Are there any blackout periods or critical dates (e.g., school year milestones) that must be considered in the implementation timeline and resource planning?

TSPC receives the highest volume of license applications during the summer months of (June- September). Transitioning to a new system could be made more difficult during this timeframe.

54 Number of Internal Users How many total internal TSPC staff will use the system? Please provide a breakdown by role (e.g., licensing analysts, investigators, supervisors, admin staff, leadership)

Current total TSPC staffing is at 29 users. Executive Team: 8, Licensing: 9, Professional Practices: 9, Educator Preparation & Pathways: 3. Total Commission users is 17.

55 Number of External Users How many external users are expected to access the system? Please provide approximate numbers for each group (Educators, Educator Preparation Providers (EPPs), School District HR staff, Other agency partners)

Total active user accounts: 134,644. EPP user accounts: 34. School District user accounts:

699.

56 Number of Public Users How many public users are expected to use the Public Lookup/Search interface annually?

TSPC does not have access to this metric.

57 Artificial Intelligence Is TSPC open to including AI features and capabilities in the proposed solution?

TSPC is open to consider solutions that incorporate AI features. Any solution must comply with State of Oregon policies, procedures, and guidance around the use of AI as outlined here: https://www.oregon.gov/eis/Pages/policies.aspx. Any proposed AI components in the solution would be subject to review/approval by the State's Enterprise Information Services (EIS) Cyber Security Services (CSS) and Strategy & Design.

58 Budget What is the budget range allocated for the implementation and O&M support? See response to Question 5

59 Market Research What solutions or platforms did the State review when conducting the market research that informed the RFP? Which of these vendors, if any, provided a product demonstration?

TSPC investigated product capabilities of the following systems: inLumon License and Permitting System v2.0 (i3 Verticals), Thentia Cloud (Thentia), Evoke (System Automation), system name unknown (Tyler Technologies)

61 On-site work (RFP 2.4.1 d) For what activities in the scope of work does the Agency anticipate requiring vendors to be on site?

Unknown. To be determined if this is necessary during contract negotiations.

62 Travel policy (RFP 2.4.1 d) For on-site requirements, will travel reimbursement be available? To be determined during contract negotiations.

63 Third party oversight groups Will the vendor be required to interact with any third-party oversight groups—such as IV&V or QA—and if so, what level of engagement are expected?

Solution Vendor will not interface directly with the Agency's IQMS consultant.

64 Platform ownership For a SaaS solution, what level of platform ownership does TSPC expect from the vendor versus the State?

TSPC's preferred solution is one where the operation is wholly hosted and managed by the vendor. This would include the application, data, runtime, middleware, O/S, Virtualization, Servers, Storage, and Networking.

65 O&M Support (RFP 2.4.10) What level of O&M support is expected after go-live? Will TSPC provide its own Tier 1 support, or is the vendor expected to handle all support tiers?

TSPC expects to handle Tier 1 support and to be the interface between system users and the solution vendor for Tier 2 and 3 issues.

O&M Enhancements (RFP 2.4.10)

Should O&M support include enhancements and minor configuration updates, or only break/fix activities?

Application updates, patches, and enhancements should all be part of periodic updates.

Should be performed in a way that does not interfere with or modify implemented functionality unless approved through an official change process.

67 Go-live date (RFP 2.4.9) What is the desired Go Live date for the EDS solution? Is a phased Go Live approach being considered or required?

See responses to Questions 7 and 19

68 Gate review criteria (RFP 2.4.2) What are the specific deliverables and acceptance criteria required for each gate review, and who needs to be involved in preparing and presenting them?

See response to Question 1

Gate review schedule (RFP 2.4.2)

What is the typical duration and lead time for scheduling, preparing, and completing each gate review, including time for addressing feedback or required changes?

Preparation time varies by deliverable. Upon delivery of a draft product, TSPC review time is generally 10 business days. May require multiple review cycles before final acceptance.

70 Workflows (RFP 2.4.a.1) Do license management and other core business processes in the EDS solution follow a unified workflow, or are there distinct workflows tailored for each type?

If it is not unified, approximately how many distinct workflows are needed?

Each TSPC business unit (Licensing, Professional Practices, Educator Preparation & Pathways) has their own portfolio of business processes. These are mostly independent. Intersection points generally consist of data exchange.

71 Users for training (RFP 2.4.8) How many users will need to receive vendor training? Approximately 40 TSPC staff and key partner representatives.

Attachment F - Business Requirements, ID 6.2.2

Does the Agency desire that courses and professional development opportunities be available on the solution or does this refer to integration(s) where candidates can be redirected to courses/opportunities portal(s)?

Due to potential organization decisions in the state's Education policy area, the tracking and management or Professional Development information is an area that is undergoing change.

It is currently unknown if this requirement area will be retained, revised, or removed.

Attachment F - Business Requirements, ID 38.3.32

Are there any in-scope integrations required in addition to the five integrations named under section 2.4.6 of the RFP? If so, how many?

No additional integrations have been identified at this time.

Attachment F - Business Requirements, ID 24.2.2

What is the preferred method of moving the legacy profiles to the new solution?

Is that included in the scope of the data migration?

Existing educator profile information is included in the scope of data migration. The solution must provide a secure method for existing educators to access their migrated profile information.

Attachment F - Business Requirements, ID 31.6.1N

We request clarification on this requirement; does the Agency require bulk upload functionality?

Yes

Data Conversion and Migration

(RFP 2.4.5)

Does the Agency have any existing ETL tool/capabilities? No

77 Data Archiving (RFP 2.4.5) What is the preference for migrated data that needs to be archived? Is there a requirement that the data remain within the new solution or can it be moved to a data lake and retrieved by the solution as needed?

At this point, any data identified for migration should be considered to be candidates for "live" records in the solution's production database. Anything not migrated will be archived by TSPC. The agency has not developed business rules around eventual archival of production data. This will be a point to consider when finalizing the Data Migration Plan.

How many TSPC staff users and Commission members will access the new system? Please provide a breakdown of the number of TSPC employees that will be using the new solution by TSPC program and role.

See responses to Questions 54 and 55

Does TSPC have a preferred timeline for initial system implementation? When ideally does TSPC want to have this system “go live”?

See response to Question 7

Is TSPC open to a phased implementation approach? If a phased implementation approach is acceptable, what is the desired order for which TSPC programs are to be implemented? Please elaborate upon any timing considerations for when specific programs / areas / functions will need to be fully transitioned to the new solution.

See response to Question 19

Please confirm the implementation budget and what, if any, is subject to expire by a certain timeframe and when? Please elaborate.

See response to Question 5

What amount is being budgeted for ongoing support, software licensing, hosting, and support of the new system post-Go-Live.

See response to Question 5

Please provide an approximate number of standard reports and email/letter templates that will be used by TSPC that are to be integrated and automated by the system.

Approximately 15-20 email letter templates. Currently TSPC's system contains no more than 6 standardized reports. More critical to the solution is the ability for TSPC to develop and deploy their own queries and reports.

How many different or distinct educator license application types will be supported in this solution? Please provide a comprehensive list.

The current business process utilizes a single application form that encompasses all requests made by an applicant. TSPC's preference is that the workflow center around applicant request type and not by the various license types. The current requests include new, renew, add/change endorsement, reinstate, fingerprinting, gold seal license, out-of-state license, expedite.

Please confirm which of the system integrations listed within section 2.4.6 of the RFP will need to integrated prior to Go-Live. Please inventory ALL interfaces to be incorporated into the initial system implementation and indicate which are a one-way (import or export) or two-way data exchange?

NASDTEC, OSP, and LEDS (all components of the Background Check process) will require integration at Go-Live. All others are potential future integrations.

86 Please provide the annual number of applications / renewals processed by TSPC. In Fiscal Year 2024/2025, TSPC received 25359 applications.

Page 16 of RFP indicates TPSC desires future training for staff after Go-Live. Can TSPC elaborate as to how and at what frequency these training may be delivered in the future?

Post Go-Live training will only be required in the event of major system changes/updates that will impact use, functionality, and/or process.

Due to the proposal due date falling the day after the New Year’s holiday, as well as several other holidays, for which many vendor and government offices will be closed, can the response due date be extended by at least 3-4 weeks?

See response to Question 11

89 Which vendors attended the pre-proposal conference? See OregonBuys Attachment Tab

Requirement item 35.2.13 indicates system needs to “electronically link” test scores from testing companies which seems to imply an interface. Please elaborate on what TSPC envisions for this process and confirm all the testing companies that will interface with the new system (if needed).

See response to Question 40

For requirement item 31.2.12, will TSPC confirm that an electronic signature would be supported on the form within the new system and not using some external electronic document signing platform, such as DocuSign.

TSPC is open to consider any/all electronic validation/signature/approval methods and tools.

For requirement item 35.5.3, please share more details on a fingerprint sub-process and how TSPC envisions the new system to support that scenario.

The system needs to be able to determine whether or not fingerprints are required for the application and to charge the appropriate fee.

For requirement item 6.2.2, please define what “easy access” is to courses, etc.

for candidates. What does TSPC envision?

See response for Question 72

For requirement item 29.1.5 regarding legacy data from Vortex (as well as item 33.3.1), is it fair to assume that the relevant data currently in Vortex (or legacy / archived sources) will be subject to migration into and availability withing the new system, and that Vortex will be decommissioned?

All relevant data from TSPC legacy databases/systems have been documented and individual data elements flagged for migration. Once the Staging database has been completed, and subsequent Data Migration performed, all legacy systems will be decommissioned.

For requirement item 29.1.8, please provide the number of notification templates, method, and frequency TSPC desires related to the misconduct report process.

Notifications and status update communications are currently not part of the existing Incident Case Management System (ICMS). The business process for how EDS might handle such functionality has not been defined. It is expected that the frequency of such notifications would be relatively low, the number of response types minimal, and the method would be constrained by whatever contact information was included in the misconduct report.

For email capture requirement item 25.3.2, is it fair to assume that TSPC requires more than the ability to upload an email file and associate to a record, but rather a real-time interface with TSPC email server? If so, please define the email system interface.

TSPC requests that the solution has the ability to interface with the State's email server, identify email address matches with existing profile information, and manage incoming emails in some (currently undetermined) system interface.

Regarding requirement item 27.1.6, can TSPC specify the number of different templates the new system will use for texting, the frequency, and approximate annual volume for each? Reason being, there are pricing implications based on the volume of texts a system generates.

The current TSPC system does not have texting communication functionality. The current system does have internal messaging capabilities. In 2024 there were 111,260 "broadcast" messages sent from the system out to external users.

For requirement item 8.2.13, please define and specify what “communication and messaging features” are to be incorporated into the system.

In order to proactively keep system users informed about things like application status or upcoming actions, the system should be able to send messages via a variety of methods (i.e., system message, text, email). See Attachment F (Business Requirements) Communication Section (line 126-140).

The solution shall allow Admins to design, build, and add new report templates to the solution.

Yes

Please confirm that requirement item 25.4.3 refers to the same testing companies indicated within item 35.2.13.

Both requirements reference the same testing companies.

Regarding item 38.3.25, asise from initial system implementation project including data migration (ETL), etc, how does TSPC enfision data quality checks to be performed and how often?

The concept around this requirement is the ability for an application administrator to define a set of database queries/filters and then run a audit report based on the query results. The frequency of report generation should be configurable and/or on-demand.

Given the new system will have the ability for data validations to be configured for each object in the new system, what scenario(s) does TSPC envision that data quality will be degraded?

Data validations cover the Quality Control aspect of the database. Running data quality audit reports (as stated in Question 101) would cover the Quality Assurance aspect of system operation.

For requirement 7.1.1, can TSPC provide a list of District Portal roles and the varying access permissions that would apply to each?

Currently there is only one School District user role. Their permissions allow an expanded view of an educator profile (as compared to a Public user search). They should be able to upload certain document types to an educator's profile and enter sponsor information.

Regarding item 7.1.6, please specify the “district HR software” that would be exporting to the new system. Is there more than one? Either way, if there is a defined format for importing data from district HR software, is it fair to assume that it would occur over a one-way data exchange interface?

There are multiple software systems being utilized by school districts. The intent of this requirement is for EDS to allow permissioned district users to make an on-demand request for licensure information through the District Portal interface. This would not be a direct integration, but rather generate a standard format data file extract that the districts could upload/consume.

For 31.1.1, does TSPC expect notifications to be made via email and/or the District Portal?

TSPC is open to vendor-suggested solutions for school district user notifications.

Requirement 6.1.5 seems implies that the new system will be importing and exporting ODE, HECC, school district, USID, and TSPC identification numbers for each educator. Please confirm if this will be accomplished via interfaces, and if so, provide an accounting for all systems that will require interfacing from / to. If the intent of this requirement is not to build interfaces to import and export data, will the ability to enter the data in appropriate fields and export via reporting functions within the new system suffice?

To improve the state's efficiency in connecting various related record systems, TSPC intends to engage with other state agencies (ODE, HECC) to develop an ID crosswalk methodology.

This is an area of "exploration" for the agency, and is not necessarily a 'Must Have' requirement for EDS core functionality.

For item 31.5.7, please elaborate on the rubric criteria and how ideally TSPC envisions ths system to support this process.

The wording of this requirement gives the impression that the system itself must perform some sort of automated analysis of a decision rubric. This is not the case. The Program Review process consists of two separate reviews of an EPP program. Each review collects a set of standard information. TSPC staff then meet to evaluate the review results and consolidate them into a single draft report. That draft is then sent to the EPP for their comments. The comments are then considered by TSPC and incorporated into a final report.

The overarching goal for Program Review is to manage the data collection, tracking of decisions/status, and then report generation based off of the review data collected.

For 28.1.6, please elaborate upon what the Site Review process entails and how the new system will support the various stakeholders involved.

Unit Review is related to national accreditation requirements for EPPs. The workflow that EDS should support is straightforward data collection about the site visit related to Unit Review. TSPC would like the means to store information (including, but not limited to) about when a site visit has occurred, what the results of the site visit are, and when the next site visit is due.

Regarding requirement 33.2.1, please specify the functionalities and user group(s) to access the Title II portal.

Upon further discussion with TSPC SMEs, the requirements around HEA Title II Reporting are still indefinite and may not fully apply in the context of the EDS solution. All 10 business requirements related to HEA Title II Reporting will be removed from the quantitative scoring of Attachment F responses.

For 33.2.10, what ‘data’ would TSPC be requesting that would be outside of the forms integrated into the system. Please provide examples.

See Response to Question 109

Please define what a “configurable PDF report” is as specified within requirement item 33.3.10A.

See response to Question 113

For requirement item 33.3.8, how does TSPC envision the system to enable individual users to transfer files to DOJ, and DOJ admins to receive notifications?

This sounds very ad-hoc and challenging to implement. Would providing DOJ their own portal to access / submit information, as well as receive system notifications suffice for this use case?

This business process is not fully detailed. TSPC would be open to vendor recommendations for how to implement secure hearing file documentation transfer to-from DOJ.

Does TSPC have a defined format for how the data, documents, exhibits, etc.

should be exported into PDF format? Please share.

Assume this question relates to Requirement 33.3.10A. TSPC desires the ability to define and save repeatable queries and resulting reports that draw from database elements for which the user has permission to access. See also Attachment F, Query and Reporting section.

For requirement item 33.5.4, does TSPC have a schema for how important dates are established and what outcome / function the system should perform after a specified amount of time has elapsed. Please elaborate.

The details of this remain to be detailed and will depend largely on the inherent capabilities of the system. The concept for this requirement is that an investigator should be able to set time-based calendar reminders for future dates that will appear in their work queue and/or be sent to them as a system message in their communication management interface.

Regarding requirement item 15.2.1, please specify the benchmark(s) for determining “improved data acquisition” and what TSPC envisions for this process.

The solution should have a way to acquire, store, and make available for query and reporting information related to Multiple Measures Assessment.

Sheet1