TU-2640 - Addendum #1 - RLR & QA #1 - Final - 20260721.pdf

Procurement 8000 York Road

Towson, MD 21252-0001

Tiger Success Degree Planning & Audit Solution Solicitation No. TU-2640 eMMA ID: BPM057841

July 21, 2026

ADDENDUM #1

To All Offerors:

This addendum is being issued on the Request for Proposal for TU-2640 Tiger Success Degree Planning & Audit Solution for Towson University. All prospective Offerors must acknowledge the clarifications, revisions, additions and/or deletions listed below for this Addendum No. 1 by completing EXHIBIT K – Addenda Acknowledgement and submitting with their proposal. Failure to complete Exhibit K and including in the proposal submittal may result in rejection.

Please be advised that the Proposal delivery date for this solicitation is 2:00pm ET on August 6, 2026. Proposals received after the deadline will not be accepted no matter how transmitted.

As a part of this Addendum #1, TU has included a list of registrants for the pre-proposal meeting completed on July 10, 2026 at 11:00 am EDT. This list is located at the very end of the addendum.

Pen and Ink Changes

Please note the following changes to TU-2640 Request for Proposal issued July 6, 2026.

New language has been double underlined and marked in red bold, (e.g., new language). Language deleted has been marked with a double strikethrough (e.g., language deleted).

Original #1: Section II. Execution of Proposals

Proposals shall be typewritten or written legibly in ink, and signed in ink as follows, depending on the offeror's form of business organization:

REPLACE WITH :

Change #1: Section II. Execution of Proposals

Proposals shall be typewritten or written legibly in ink, and signed in ink or digitally signed as follows, depending on the offeror's form of business organization:

Questions and Responses No. 1:

The deadline for questions for this solicitation was at 2:00pm ET on July 15, 2026.

The following questions were received prior to the deadline. The responses are provided for clarification to all prospective offers in BOLD after the questions.

Question 1: Is ink signing necessary or are electronic signatures ok?

Response: See Pen and Ink Change #1 of this Amendment #1

Question 2: In Section VI, B1d you ask about supporting schedule changes with immediate impact analysis. What do you mean by “immediate impact analysis?” What would you expect to see?

Response: The expectation would be that if a student makes a change to their schedule, it would be reflected in the degree audit and degree plan.

For example, if the schedule change puts the student off their plan / required courses, the student and/or advising staff would be notified. Towson University is agnostic as to the method of the notifications, but acceptable examples would be email, in-app notification, etc.

Question 3: In B2a you ask about intuitive language for drop/withdrawal.

Drop/withdrawal happens in your registration system and/or SIS. What kind of intuitive language would you expect in an audit and/or planner?

Response: Currently, when a student drops through Peoplesoft with a Highpoint HCX interface, they are greeted with a generic fixed popup that warns of some of the potential repercussions of dropping / withdrawing. If students are permitted to make schedule adjustments directly from the planner / audit with this solution, we would like to see something similar continue, especially if the student is making changes that deviate from their approved plan.

Towson University is agnostic for how this information is delivered to the student.

Question 4: In B3d you ask about delegated access controlled by the student. Could you expand on what you are looking for?

Response: The goal would be for the student to be able to designate a third-party (ex. Parent) to be able to view their degree plan and/or audit by a means other than credential sharing. This would be something akin to a guest account for a student.

Question 5: In Section VI, D2b you ask if the solution provides a “unified experience.” Can you provide more definition around what you mean/are looking for—a unified experience of what?

Response: Currently our degree planner and audit solutions both function and are stored independently. A unified solution would bring them both under one location with the expectation that they would interact with each other. Ie. Planned courses showing as planned in the audit module to show how they fit into the students’ degree plan.

Question 6: Insurance requirements. Section I (Insurance) requires Commercial General Liability of $1,000,000 per occurrence, while Exhibit A, Provision 34 requires $2,000,000 per occurrence. Which limits govern for this contract?

Response: Per Exhibit V – Sample Agreement, the RFP supersedes the Exhibit A – Required Contract Provisions.

Question 7: Contract term. The Key Information Summary Sheet describes one contract for a three (3) year subscription, while Exhibit V (Sample Agreement), Article 4 describes a one-year term with four annual renewal options at the University's sole discretion. Please clarify the intended term structure for the resulting contract.

Response: Exhibit V – Sample Agreement is provided for a sample only. The RFP information will be used to populate the agreement at time of award.

Question 8: Pricing basis. The Key Information Summary Sheet and Section V.A state that subscription pricing should be based on full-time enrollment as outlined in the National Center for Education Statistics. Please confirm whether the University intends full-time headcount or full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment, and which NCES reporting year offerors should use, so that all price proposals are calculated on the same basis.

Response: The University intends to use the “Unduplicated 12-month headcount” from NCES for pricing. The website, as of publication of this addendum, lists 21,858 total enrolled.

Question 9: Enrollment from the planner (Section V.B.2.c). Does the University expect the solution to execute enrollment transactions directly against PeopleSoft Campus Solutions in real time (for example, via enrollment APIs or component interfaces), or is deep-linking students into existing PeopleSoft self-service enrollment acceptable?

Response: The goal would be for it to execute enrollment transactions directly against Peoplesoft Campus Solutions in real time. Students should be able to enroll directly from either their degree plan or by selecting a course from their degree audit without having to navigate back and forth to Campus Solutions.

Question 10: Integration responsibilities (Section V.D.1.c). Given that data integrations are currently managed in Informatica Data Management Cloud, will the University's integration team build and manage IDMC pipelines with vendor support, or is the vendor expected to deliver and maintain all integrations end to end?

Response: The University’s integration team will build and maintain all Informatica integrations.

Question 11: Chatbot scope (Section V.B.4). Is the chatbot's knowledge domain limited to registration, advising, and continued enrollment content, or does the University envision university-wide content across institutional offices? Additionally, what form of evidence will satisfy the requirements in V.B.4.b (for example, third-party test reports, benchmark results, or live demonstration during orals)?

Response: The chatbots knowledge domain should be limited to registration, advising, and continued enrollment content. Any other domains would be considered out of scope for this project. Towson University will combine benchmark results along with live demonstration of the chatbot to evaluate it against the requirements.

Question 12: Accessibility (Section V.B.1.i). Please confirm the required WCAG 2.2 conformance level (A or AA) and whether a current VPAT/ACR will satisfy the pre-implementation compliance evidence requirement.

Response: Everything Towson University publishes or shares online must meet recognized accessibility standards outlined in WCAG 2.1 AA. The VPAT/ACR would suffice for the proposal, but Towson University would do its own assessment during the demonstration / implementation process. WCAG 2.2 is set to go live in April 2027 and the expectation is for the vendor to be fully compliant prior to the federally mandated deadline(s).

Question 13: Implementation target (Section V.C.2.a). Within the one calendar year maximum, does the University have a target go-live term or academic milestone (for example, registration for a specific semester) that offerors should plan toward?

Response: The goal would be to have this live for registration for Fall 2028 which would begin in April 2028. We would not be opposed to going live with select programs or catalog years before that date, but we would like it live for all students by the April 2028 registration date. This is with the understanding that a large portion of the implementation would be reliant on how quickly Towson University can build the requirements. The expectation would be the selected contract awardee subscription for their product would not begin until after implementation is complete and Towson University goes live with the product.

Question 14: Current environment. To inform migration and integration scoping, can the University share which systems currently support advising records and student communications, and whether any chatbot solution is currently in production?

Response: The primary systems that are used for advising purposes are Peoplesoft Campus Solutions for degree audit and EAB Navigate for appointments and advising notes. Any other systems that advisors use would be out of scope for this project.

Question 15: Program scope. Approximately how many degree programs, majors, minors, and certificates, and how many active catalog years, would be in scope for requirement encoding at implementation?

Response: We have approximately 200 majors, minors, certificates, and grad programs that would need to be coded. Catalogs at Towson University remain active for 10 years at the undergraduate level, but we are not committed to going 10 years back before going live. We expect this to be a conversation with the vendor selected on what has been determined to be best practices from previous implementations. Towson University would be responsible for building the requirements in the selected platform both during and post implementation.

Question 16: Do you currently have a degree audit solution?

Response: Towson University currently uses Peoplesoft Campus Solutions 9.2 for their degree audit solution. We currently do not have a solution used for degree planning across the university.

Question 17: Are you looking to replace or buy a degree audit through this RFP?

Response: This solution would be to replace our current degree audit solution which is currently the delivered Academic Requirements module in Peoplesoft 9.2 Campus Solutions. Towson University currently manages degree plans via excel, PDF documents, etc. and this would be a fresh implementation of a planner solution.

Question 18: If a vendor solution relies on integration with an existing degree audit, will that be a valid bid or will the bid be disqualified?

Response: The proposal would not be disqualified, and it would still be rated on evaluation criteria for the degree audit solution requirements.

Question 19: The RFP requests that required forms be signed in ink (p. 13). Will Towson accept a scanned image of a wet ink signature on the required forms? Or should vendors include scanned copies of the signed, physical forms?

Response: See Pen and Ink Change #1 of this Amendment #1

Question 20: Per the Required Contract Provisions section on p. 14, would Towson allow vendors with existing pre-negotiated terms for similar services to rely on those terms, if awarded, rather than including exceptions of the Terms and Conditions included in the RFP as part of the proposal submission?

Response: The University, at its sole discretion, may leverage existing master agreements and/or existing terms and conditions for this contract award.

Question 21: The RFP notes on p. 20 that the MBE Utilization Affidavit–Exhibit E is included in the solicitation and it appears that vendors are required to complete the form with our bid. However, we are unable to locate this form within the RFP. Additionally, the RFP states that there is no MBE goal (p. 11). Would Towson be able to clarify whether the MBE Utilization Affidavit–Exhibit E is required for a set MBE goal, as well as provide the form if vendors should enclose it with our bid?

Response: There is no Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) goal established for this RFP. Therefore, none of the MBE forms in Exhibit E are required.

However, offerors who are Maryland MBE certified or those offerors who wish to subcontract a portion of work to Maryland MBE entities can complete and submit the D-1A (all Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part

4) with their proposal. The Exhibit E is included to all interested parties for consideration only – again, these forms are not required.

Question 22: Can Towson please provide the decision timeline for this RFP?

Response: The tentative timeline is to have a final decision for contract award in October / November 2026 and have a signed contract on or before January 1st, 2027. Towson University reserves the right to expedite, delay, or cancel the RFP at our discretion.

Question 23: Limitation of Liability (Exhibit V, Article 7). The clause excludes indirect and consequential damages for the University only and places no cap on the Contractor's liability. We request this be made mutual, with each party's aggregate liability capped at the fees paid or payable in the twelve (12) months preceding the claim, with customary carve-outs.

Response: TU will negotiate terms with the contractor selected for award.

Many terms and conditions are governed by the State of Maryland, to which TU is a part of. Offers may provide a redlined version of our terms, if they choose to do so, and submit with their RFP response. TU reserves the right to use contract terms and conditions redlines as a part of our evaluation process and contractor selection.

Question 24: Indemnification (Exhibit A §§18, 32, 34, 47; Exhibit A-3 §8; Exhibit A §33). The RFP contains multiple uncapped, one-way indemnities from the Contractor (confidentiality, IP, general claims, and data), while §33 states the University assumes no indemnification obligation. Combined with Article 7 above, this creates unlimited one-way exposure. We request: (a) indemnities be subject to the agreed liability cap (with a mutually agreed super-cap for data-breach indemnity if required); (b) the Contractor retain the right to control the defense and settlement of indemnified claims; and (c) the §18 indemnity be limited to harm caused by the Contractor's breach or negligence rather than "all harm."

Response: See Response #23 of this Addendum #1

Question 25: Ownership of Documents and Materials (Exhibit A §42). As written, all materials prepared "by or for" the Contractor become the exclusive property of the University. Because the solution is a commercial SaaS platform, we request a carve-out confirming the Contractor retains all right, title, and interest in its pre-existing intellectual property, software, configurations, and derivative improvements, with the University owning its data and any deliverables created specifically and solely for the University.

Response: See Response #23 of this Addendum #1

Question 26: Use of Data (Exhibit A-3 §2(k)). The Addendum limits any use of TU Data to fulfilling obligations under the Contract. We request a limited carve-out permitting use of aggregated and de-identified data that does not identify the University or any individual, for purposes of maintaining and improving the services.

Response: See Response #23 of this Addendum #1

Question 27: Security Incident Provisions (Exhibit A-3 §§1(f), 6(e), 6(f)). "Security Incident" includes suspected, alleged, or potential events, and §6(e) permits immediate termination upon any Security Incident without materiality threshold or cure opportunity. We request termination rights apply to confirmed Security Breaches, or material incidents uncured within a reasonable period, and that §6(f) cost reimbursement be limited to reasonable, documented costs arising from the Contractor's negligence or breach.

Response: See Response #23 of this Addendum #1

Question 27: Cyber Insurance Limits (Exhibit A-3 §7(b)). Given FERPA data is involved, the Addendum requires $5,000,000 in network security/privacy liability coverage. Will the University consider $3,000,000, consistent with coverage commonly accepted for solutions of this type, or accept a combination of primary and umbrella coverage to reach the required limit?

Response: See Response #23 of this Addendum #1

Question 28: Term and Renewal Pricing (Exhibit V, Article 4; Key Information Summary Sheet). The Summary Sheet describes a three (3) year subscription, while the Sample Agreement provides a one (1) year term with four (4) renewal options at the University's sole discretion, with all pricing locked through renewals. Please clarify which term structure governs, and whether the University will consider a modest annual price escalator (e.g., 3%) for renewal periods in lieu of flat pricing across up to five years.

Response: The Key Information Sheet stipulates the correct contract term. The Sample Agreement provided would be updated, where appropriate, to align with the requirements of the RFP. Offerors may propose price escalators during the price proposal phase of the procurement.

Question 29: Fry? Termination for Convenience (Exhibit A §56). Currently, the University may terminate at any time. We request both that cancellation may only occur outside of breach of contract for non- appropriation of funding, rather than blanket convenience, as well as the natural ending of the contract term-length. We also request a minimum notice period of sixty (60) days and confirmation that the University will pay all fees for services rendered and reasonable non-cancellable costs incurred through the effective date of termination.

Response: See Response #23 of this Addendum #1

Question 30: Insurance Cancellation Notice (Section I – Insurance; Exhibit A §34(d)).

The required endorsement obligates the insurer to provide 45 days' advance written notice to the University. Most carriers will not endorse third-party notice obligations; we request the Contractor instead provide such notice within the same period.

Response: See Response #23 of this Addendum #1

Question 31: Insurance Cancellation Notice (Section I – Insurance; Exhibit A §34(d)).

The required endorsement obligates the insurer to provide 45 days' advance written notice to the University. Most carriers will not endorse third-party notice obligations; we request the Contractor instead provide such notice within the same period.

Response: See Response #23 of this Addendum #1

Question 32: Point of Clarification (MBE). The MBE Exhibit E is not included in the RFP document, and there is no MBE requirement in the document either, however, the document suggests that we need to submit the MBE Utilization affidavit on Page 11. Can you provide clarity here?

Response: See Response #21 of this Addendum #1

Question 33: Is replacement of PeopleSoft Academic Requirements considered a fixed mandate?

a. Section V.A.1.g states that the solution “should replace” the PeopleSoft Campus Solutions Academic Requirements module. Please clarify whether “should” represents a mandatory minimum requirement, an evaluated preference, or an optional implementation approach.

b. Would a solution that helps setup and retain PeopleSoft Academic Requirements as the authoritative degree audit, while providing a unified degree-planning experience, be considered responsive to

c. If not, please identify the specific required business outcome that Towson cannot achieve while retaining PeopleSoft as the authoritative degree-audit system. the RFP and evaluated without penalty as it may not replace the underlying audit?

Response: While not a fixed mandate, the requirements outlined in Section V are geared towards the Academic Requirements and the Planner working in tandem on one platform. Since the requirements and planner function on the same academic structure, the goal would be to build the academic structure once and only have to maintain it in more than one place. We are trying to avoid students having to navigate to multiple different platforms to access all pieces of their academic record.

Question 34: What known or documented problems necessitate the replacement of the audit engine?

a. The current-state description identifies inconsistent degree-planning practices and indicates that the PeopleSoft Academic Requirements experience is not aligned with current student expectations. Please distinguish between:

• deficiencies in the student-facing presentation of academic requirements;

• deficiencies in the accuracy of the underlying degree-audit calculations; and

• challenges with configuring and maintaining degree requirements in PeopleSoft.

Response: The largest concerns with the current audit engine are:

• Time consuming to code and maintain requirements in the current SIS. Maintaining the requirements requires specialized staff and the interface is not intuitive, which makes it difficult to bring in additional support during peak periods.

• The interface is not mobile-friendly. Most students are accessing their academic records from mobile devices, and the current platform is not supported in this format.

• Graduation clearance tools are inadequate and require a large amount of manual review outside of the SIS.

• Exception handling is largely manual and requires us to manage requests outside of the SIS.

• Towson University’s current degree planning tools are not adequate, so in addition to the audit, the proposed solution should provide a planner. We want to deliver a unified experience where students aren’t going to one place for a planner and then another for their audit since they are inextricably linked.

Question 35: How do you plan to reconcile data from multiple system for degree audit, degree completion or leveraging AI?

a. If a proposed external (outside of PeopleSoft) solution is selected, how will Towson handle different results from PeopleSoft and external systems for the same student or AI queries? Which result will govern the University’s official academic decision?

Response: If Peoplesoft Degree Audit is replaced and planner is implemented;

the new product would be considered the system of record for the students' academic requirements, degree planning, and graduation clearance. We would only manage the requirements in the newly proposed system, so we would not expect there to be discrepancies to review.

Question 36: What do “immediate” and “real-time” mean for Towson?

a. Sections V.A.2.d and V.B.1.d mandate real-time insights and immediate impact analysis, while Section V.D.1.c permits vendor-hosted SFTP integrations (not-real time). Please define the maximum acceptable end-to-end latency time for reflecting events in the degree planning experience for typical situations described below:

• a failed or newly posted grade;

• a course withdrawal or drop;

• a major, minor, or concentration change;

• course catalog changes;

• newly evaluated transfer credit

b. For example, if a failing grade or major change is recorded in

PeopleSoft at 10:00 a.m., by what latest time must the student’s and advisor’s degree plan and degree-progress results reflect that change? Is an overnight or periodic batch update acceptable for any of these events?

Response: We are open to hearing all vendor approaches to integration, including timeframes. Given the nature of the platform (dealing with the students’ academic record), as close to real-time taking latency into account is preferred. Since students use their planner and requirements to determine course enrollment, we’d like to avoid delays.

Question 37: Is manual reconciliation considered acceptable?

a. If student, enrollment, grade, curriculum, or degree-progress information differs between PeopleSoft and the proposed platform, please describe the acceptable experience for a student, advisor, academic department, and Registrar to reconcile differences.

Response: We expect a level of integration where there should not be discrepancies between Peoplesoft and the proposed platform. If there is a data discrepancy, the assumption is that this would mean there is an issue with the integration tools that would need to be reviewed by Towson University and the vendor.

Question 38: If it is absolutely mandatory to switch to a new external degree audit system, what would be the scope of rebuilding and validating a new degree audit?

a. Please provide the anticipated number of degree programs and catalog years that must be migrated, rebuilt, configured, and validated in the proposed solution

b. Please clarify any anticipated comparison percentage requirements are needed to successfully cutover between a proposed external system and PeopleSoft before go-live. (ex audit results, the process for resolving non-matching results, and whether the vendor or the University will be responsible for correcting discrepancies.)

Response: See Response #15 of this Addendum.

Question 39: How will the one-year implementation limit accommodate audit replacement if Towson is also replacing PeopleSoft Academic Requirements?

a. The RFP mandates that full implementation should not exceed one calendar year. Please explain the approach for accommodating teams to extract, interpret, rebuild, test, and certify degree requirements while implementing the planner, an advising system, AI, and analytics that must integrate with PeopleSoft.

Response: See Response #15 of this Addendum.

One year would be expected to cover implementation of integrations and initial setup, and Towson University would be responsible for the ongoing build out of the academic requirements / plans.