Working Copy of Questions and Answers 8.10.26_.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 51 KB Posted Jul 24, 2026

Attached to: DFSAG RFI Integrated Cloud-Based Software Platform Solution (AMS, LMS/TMS) for MFA
Solicitation number: BD-27-1021-DFS-DFS01-131735
Issued by: Massachusetts

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Aug 31, 2026

This document is a working copy of Questions and Answers for a Request for Information (RFI) issued by the Massachusetts Department of Fire Services (DFS) for an integrated cloud-based software platform supporting Academy Management System (AMS), Learning Management System (LMS), and Training Management System (TMS) capabilities for the Massachusetts Firefighting Academy (MFA). The Commonwealth seeks a unified solution to replace its legacy Technomedia LMS application (installed 2016-2017, currently managed by CEGID) that will serve three primary MFA campuses (Stow, Springfield, and Bridgewater) and support up to 400+ remote fire department locations statewide. The platform must support approximately 28,000 total users, including Gateway rollover accounts, with 3,500-5,000 active users, and accommodate 500+ instructors, 40+ program coordinators, and approximately 618 total administrative staff. The RFI requires respondents to demonstrate platform support for at least 70% of MFA's functional requirements across ten capability categories weighted as follows: Academy Management Administration Readiness (14%), Workflow Enablement Capability (14%), Multi-Campus Operation (14%), Supplier Solution Components (14%), Curriculum Independence (10%), Supplier Financial Stability (10%), Ongoing Support Services and Training Platform (9%), Low Implementation Complexity (5%), Consulting Resources for Onboarding (5%), and Public Safety Domain and State Adoption (5%). The original RFI response deadline of September 7, 2026 at 2:00 PM ET (Labor Day) was adjusted to the first business day following the holiday; questions were due August 14, 2026 with answers posted by August 21, 2026. An 18-month project timeline commencing May 1, 2026 targets completion by November 1, 2027 with phased rollout across the three campuses, and the Commonwealth anticipates proceeding to demonstrations, formal procurement solicitation (RFR), vendor evaluation, and potential contract award by approximately Q1 2027.

The Commonwealth is not disclosing budget information during the RFI phase and will address funding requirements and cost structure in subsequent procurement phases. The incumbent supplier (CEGID managing the legacy Technomedia system) has agreed to participate in the RFI but faces no guarantee of selection; all suppliers must respond according to the same requirements. The solution must replace the entire existing platform and support migration of approximately 28,000 electronic user records from a SQL database dating back to 2000 (with records maintained in multiple formats and sources), while the Commonwealth retains unique learner identifiers throughout the migration process. The platform must operate on approved cloud hosting environments (Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, or Google Cloud Platform only), comply with Commonwealth Enterprise Information Security Standards and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Levels A and AA across the entire platform and uploaded instructional content, and support configurable workflows for administrative processes including enrollment, attendance, cancellations, and refunds. The Commonwealth prefers native AMS/LMS/TMS functionality but will consider best-of-breed integrated solutions with third-party components; solutions requiring custom coding or heavy configuration must clearly identify risks, timelines, and long-term impacts. Respondents must indicate current approval status with Massachusetts OSD or Statewide Contract ITS86 (the expected procurement vehicle) and provide high-level billing structure information without indicative total costs. The current application process workflow (revised January 2026) must be supported or improved through out-of-the-box platform capabilities, and the new solution must replace the current payment process with built-in payment processing or integration with Commonwealth-contracted third-party processors. The NERIS integration requirement has been removed from scope and will be addressed separately. All RFI responses become public record.

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
DFS REQUEST FOR INFORMATION - Amendment 1 - Final.pdf	PDF	Jul 24, 2026
DFS REQUEST FOR INFORMATION - final.pdf	PDF	Jul 24, 2026

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Sheet1

	Question #	Created Date	User Created	Question Subject	Question	Answer	Show All	Show Original Vendor Only	Delete All
	1	7/27/26	Scheree Reed/Meridian Knowledge Solutions	Number of Users	Do you have an estimate of the number of users for the system?	~28000 total users including Gateway rollovers, ~3500-5000 "active" users we need to define this I think -HO	Yes
	2	7/27/26	Matthew Combs/CEGID INC.	Submission Deadline	Good Afternoon - The current submission deadline for this RFI is Monday, September 7, 2026. As this date is a statutory holiday (Labor Day), does the State wish to maintain this date or modify it?	Yes, The first business day after the holiday. (Labor Day)	Yes
	3	7/28/26	Amy Vilaysane/Absorb Software North America, LLC	User Count	What is the approximate user count of this solution?	~28000 total users including Gateway rollovers, ~3500-5000 "active" users we need to define this I think -HO	Yes
	4	7/29/26	Viren Kapadia/Gyrus Systems	Training Management System (TMS) Scope	The RFI references an integrated Training Management System (TMS). Could the Commonwealth clarify whether the expected TMS functionality extends beyond course scheduling and resource management to include capabilities such as instructor qualification management, prerequisite enforcement, recurring certification management, training readiness tracking, equipment and facility coordination, and operational reporting across the complete training lifecycle?	The functionality you describe in your question are mandatory functionality for your proposed solution.		Yes
	5	7/29/26	Viren Kapadia/Gyrus Systems	Historical Data Migration	Could the Commonwealth provide an estimate of the volume and format of historical student records, certifications, transcripts, and related training data expected to be migrated as part of the implementation? Specifically, what portion of the historical information is currently maintained in structured electronic systems versus paper or scanned records?	~28000 user records - HO	Yes
	6	7/29/26	Viren Kapadia/Gyrus Systems	Organizational Administration	Could the Commonwealth clarify the anticipated administrative model for the solution? Specifically, should respondents assume centralized administration by the Massachusetts Firefighting Academy, or should the platform also support delegated administration for regional academies, municipal fire departments, instructors, or other authorized organizations while maintaining centralized oversight and reporting?	Yes, Centralized but flexible, The tool should have an administration model that is not site reliant but user based. The DFS and by extension the MFA will determine the system admins during pilot testing and these users should be able to be credentialed by system regardless of where they sit.		Yes
	7	7/31/26	Stephanie Andrews/ADVANCED PROBLEM SOLVING, LLC	User Numbers	For planning purposes, what user population should respondents assume? And should we assume any anticipated statewide growth in the number of users over the contract term?	~28000 total users including Gateway rollovers, ~3500-5000 "active" users we need to define this I think -HO	Yes
	8	7/31/26	Stephanie Andrews/ADVANCED PROBLEM SOLVING, LLC	Single, Native System	Is the Commonwealth seeking a single, native system to perform the tasks associated with its desired Academy Management System (AMS), Learning Management System (LMS), and Training Management System (TMS)? Or would the Commonwealth consider an integrated solution consisting of multiple purpose-built products operating together as a unified platform?	We would prefer a native system but we would accept an integrated solution that will satisfy the requirements of each separate system, AMS, TMS, and LMS.		Yes
	9	7/31/26	Stephanie Andrews/ADVANCED PROBLEM SOLVING, LLC	Budget	Has the Commonwealth established an anticipated budget range or funding allocation for this initiative that can be shared to help vendors provide appropriately scaled responses?	We are not sharing budget or spend in this phase , The Commonwealth is trying to ascertain what is out in the market place available to the MFA.	Yes
	10	7/31/26	Stephanie Andrews/ADVANCED PROBLEM SOLVING, LLC	Schedule	Can DFS provide an anticipated procurement schedule following this RFI, including the expected timing of any future RFP issuance, contract award, project kickoff, and implementation start?	Yes, it will be provided in the future when we have fully evaluated all of the supplier responses from the RFI.		Yes
	11	8/6/26	Nate Markoff/Thought Industries, Inc.	Questions Regarding RFI	Before we go further, can you verify two things so we don't waste anyone's time? TMS needs: We can cover pretty much everything else, but I want to understand how deep the TMS requirement really goes. Our LMS handles the resource management piece well, but if your expecting full TMS-level resource management, that could be a gap. Can you find out if this is a hard requirement or a dealbreaker? I'm also wondering what the budget is on your end. If there's room, we could bring in Administrate as a partner for the TMS piece. WCAG 2.1 compliance: We're not fully WCAG 2.1 compliant, though that's rarely treated as a hard requirement. We're close, except for content pages, which fall under the customer's responsibility rather than ours. Can you confirm whether this is a hard requirement? If it is, we may need to withdraw from consideration	Requirement was "if you can meet 70% of the requirements , please respond." If you have work arounds or need to partner with another supplier , please indicate that in your response. We are not picking suppliers in this RFI round, we are trying to understand what is out in the market for solutions.
7.1.2.1 , Please refer to the requirement, we are asking what level of compliance your platform currently has. We are not asking it to be 100%.		Yes
	12	8/7/26	Proposals Team/Blackboard T&L, LLC	NERIS Integration Scope, Data Exchange Requirements, and Technical Interface Specifications	Please clarify the specific NERIS integration requirements. What data elements-such as firefighter profiles, department affiliations, certifications, CEUs, course enrollments, completions, or examination results-must be exchanged, in which direction, and at what frequency? Please also identify whether MFA expects a real-time API integration, scheduled batch exchange, or file-based export, and whether a NERIS interface specification or approved vendor integration process is available.	Please ignore the NERIS requirement, It will be removed from the requirements. DFS will keep it separated from the MFA requirements for a new LMS.
	Yes
	13	8/7/26	Proposals Team/Blackboard T&L, LLC	Physical Resource Management: Native Scheduling vs Third-Party Integration	Section 7.5 addresses classroom, facility, and equipment scheduling, and Section 7.5.5 references integration with external asset and equipment management systems. Does the Commonwealth intend for physical resource management to reside natively within the proposed platform, or would an integration with a dedicated facility, asset, or equipment management system satisfy this requirement? If integration is acceptable, does the Commonwealth have a preferred integration method or existing system of record for these resources?	We would prefer a native system but we would accept an integrated solution that will satisfy the requirements of each separate system, AMS, TMS, and LMS as defined by 6.4.1, 6.4.2 and 6.4.3 in the RFI.		Yes
	14	8/7/26	Proposals Team/Blackboard T&L, LLC	Current System of Record for Training Facilities and Equipment Scheduling	Does the Massachusetts Firefighting Academy currently maintain a system of record for scheduling physical training resources such as burn buildings, mobile training units, apparatus, and props across the Stow, Springfield, and Bridgewater campuses? If so, is the Commonwealth open to retaining that system and integrating it with the proposed platform, or is consolidation into a single platform a requirement?	Yes , we do have a system of record, and No we are not open to retaining it or integrating it with the proposed platform.		Yes
	15	8/7/26	Proposals Team/Blackboard T&L, LLC	Classification of Certification and Recertification Management Requirements	Section 6.4 distinguishes AMS, LMS, and TMS components. For evaluation purposes, would certification and recertification pathway automation - including credential expiration tracking, automated re-enrollment when a credential approaches expiry, and configurable completion rules across multiple courses - be assessed under 6.4.1 (AMS), 6.4.2 (LMS), or 6.4.3 (TMS)?	Yes, - assessed under 6.4.1 (AMS), 6.4.2 (LMS), or 6.4.3 (TMS).		Yes
	16	8/7/26	Proposals Team/Blackboard T&L, LLC	Scope of Accessibility Requirements for Platform and Training Content	The Commonwealth's Enterprise Digital Accessibility Policy is referenced in Section 2.4.2, and accessibility requirements appear again in Sections 7.1.2 and 7.6.6.1. Do the Commonwealth's Digital Accessibility Standards apply solely to the platform user interface, or do they also extend to instructional content authored and uploaded by MFA staff and instructors, such as course documents, presentations, and media? If the latter, is the Commonwealth interested in capabilities that evaluate and remediate uploaded instructional content on an ongoing basis?	Yes , the Commonwealth's Digital Accessibility Standards will apply across the entire platform's solution proposed by the Supplier.		Yes
	17	8/7/26	Proposals Team/Blackboard T&L, LLC	Current Learning and Training Management Environment	What platform or platforms currently support MFA course registration, learning delivery, and training records management? Is the incumbent provider expected to respond to this RFI and any subsequent solicitation?	The incumbent supplier has agreed to participate in the RFI. Their current contract expires 10.31.2027. There is no guarantee they will be selected on this contract. The requirements of this procurement exceed the current LMS capabilities. They need to bid like every other supplier.		Yes
	18	8/7/26	Proposals Team/Blackboard T&L, LLC	Prior Market Research and RFI Version History	The RFI is marked Version 2.0. Did a prior version of this RFI, or a prior market research effort, inform the requirements in this document? If lessons learned from a previous learning management system implementation shaped these requirements, are those available to respondents?	No, the versioning is drafts of this document only and marked the number of new versions after the initial draft was completed. This document was created new and does not owe its content to any other project or content.		Yes
	19	8/7/26	Proposals Team/Blackboard T&L, LLC	Definition of Academy Management System (AMS)	Section 6.4.1 refers to an Academy Management System. Does the Commonwealth use this term to describe a distinct commercial product category, or as a functional grouping of administrative capabilities that may be delivered within an integrated platform?	We would prefer a native system but we would accept an integrated solution that will satisfy the requirements of each separate system, AMS, TMS, and LMS as defined by 6.4.1, 6.4.2 and 6.4.3 in the RFI.		Yes
	20	8/7/26	Proposals Team/Blackboard T&L, LLC	Learner Volumes, Historical Records, and Licensing Basis	The RFI references approximately 13,000 active fire service professionals trained annually. Does this figure represent unique individuals per year, or total enrollments across all courses? Additionally, what is the anticipated total number of learner records after migration of historical training data, and does the Commonwealth expect licensing to be based on active users within a defined period or on the total record count including historical records?	This refers to total registrations, not unique users. (sub Certification) Total Registrations including certification in 2025 was 18161 - ~28000 total users including Gateway rollovers, ~3500-5000 "active" users we need to define this I think -HO	Yes
	21	8/7/26	Proposals Team/Blackboard T&L, LLC	Administrative User Population and Licensing Model	Approximately how many instructors, program coordinators, and administrative users are expected to require system access, and does the Commonwealth expect these users to be licensed separately from learners?	500+ Instructors, 40+ Program coordinators , 20 Logistics , 25 Media / Registrations, 15 Functional managers (Sub admins) 3-5 Admins -HO.The number and access of users would be determined after we know more about the licensing model.	Yes
	22	8/7/26	Proposals Team/Blackboard T&L, LLC	Scope of Deployment Across Massachusetts Fire Services Organizations	Is the proposed platform intended to support only Massachusetts Firefighting Academy programs, or is it also expected to support training delivered by other units within the Department of Fire Services or the Commonwealth, such as the Department of Conservation and Recreation Bureau of Forest Fire Control?	Only DFS and Massachusetts Firefighting Academy	Yes
	23	8/7/26	Proposals Team/Blackboard T&L, LLC	Historical Data Migration Strategy and Source Systems	Section 7.6.4.3 references migration of legacy training records spanning 1968 to the present. Is the Commonwealth's expectation that all historical records be migrated into the production system, or would a tiered approach - full migration of recent records with archival access to older records - meet the requirement? Are the historical records held in a single system of record or across multiple sources and formats?	We are looking to move over the electronic records going back to 2000 (SQL database).	Yes
	24	8/7/26	Proposals Team/Blackboard T&L, LLC	Planned Procurement Vehicle and Statewide Contract Alignment	Section 5.2.4 invites respondents to identify participation in relevant Commonwealth statewide contracts. Does the Commonwealth anticipate procuring this solution through an existing statewide contract vehicle, and if so, which vehicle or category is expected to apply?	5.2.4 Customization and Contracting Context. The MFA wants to know how much effort it will take to make the software fit the needs of Massachusetts Fighting Academy or If the software does require custom coding or heavy configuration, the vendor must outline the risks, timelines, and long-term impacts.

Is your firm currently vetted with the Massachusetts OSD group or State Contract ITS86? (which we will be using for this procurement) If the vendor answers "Yes": It means they are already an approved state vendor. The MFA can buy their software almost immediately using existing procurement rules.

If the vendor answers "No": It means the agency would have to go through a more complex, independent purchasing and bidding process to hire them.

	Yes
25	8/7/26	Proposals Team/Blackboard T&L, LLC	Confirmation of RFI Response Due Date	The deadline for supplier responses is listed as September 7, 2026 at 2:00 PM ET, which falls on the Labor Day federal holiday. Please confirm whether this date is correct as published or whether an adjusted date will be issued.	Yes, The First Business days after the holiday	Yes
26	8/7/26	Proposals Team/Blackboard T&L, LLC	MFA Governance Committee Role and Evaluation Participation	The RFI distribution list references an MFA Governance Committee. Is this the Massachusetts Fire Training Council established under M.G.L. c. 6, 164, or a separate internal governance body? Will the Council participate in the evaluation of any subsequent solicitation?	This refers to assigned members of the project team representing the MFA and extended out to the DFS leadership team.	Yes
27	8/7/26	Proposals Team/Blackboard T&L, LLC	Project Timeline Commencement and Deployment Approach	The RFI references an 18-month project timeline. Does this period commence at contract execution, at notice to proceed, or at award? Does the Commonwealth anticipate a phased deployment across the three campuses, or a single simultaneous go-live?	The 18 month time started on May 1, 2026. It is an estimated project duration. Yes, We will be doing a phased rollout across the three campuses. Timing is flexible and dependent on success of the previous deliverables in the project plan	Yes
28	8/7/26	Proposals Team/Blackboard T&L, LLC	Support for January 2026 Application Process and Workflow Flexibility	A revised MFA application process took effect in January 2026. Is the proposed platform expected to support that process as currently designed, or is the Commonwealth open to workflow configuration that may adjust the process to take advantage of platform automation capabilities?	The current workflow meets all requirements, we are open to an out of box solutions that checks the same requirements (document verification and uploading , signatures, date selections etc., preference to solutions that can bring this workflow in house instead of continuing to rely on in-house forms. -HO	Yes
29	8/10/26	Allison McLaughlin/University of Massachusetts - Chan Medical School	New Training Materials	Will new training materials need to be developed as part of this project? If so, please provide an estimate of the number of courses or learning modules, topic areas, and training hours requiring development. If new training materials are needed, will subject matter experts be identified by MFA?	We are anticipating using the existing Academy curriculum and loading it in to the procured solution.	Yes
30	8/12/26	RFP Team/Instructure	70% Requirement Threshold	Section 2.3 advises respondents to ensure that their platform supports at least 70% of MFA's requirements. Is this a mandatory eligibility threshold for the RFI response? If so, how should respondents calculate the 70%, such as by numbered functional requirements, weighted evaluation categories, or another method?	The point of the 70% was intended to be just the opposite. We am trying to get as many responses as we can. if you feel your platform can meet the requirements, please respond. The weighting categories should help you make that determination.	Yes
31	8/12/26	RFP Team/Instructure	Applicability of EOTSS Specification	Does the newly distributed EOTSS Cloud-Based Software Requirements Specification constitute a formal amendment to the RFI? Do its mandatory requirements apply to responses to this exploratory RFI, or are they intended to inform a future solicitation and procurement?	Your platform need to meet those requirements. If is not a modification to the existing RFI.	Yes
32	8/12/26	RFP Team/Instructure	Required Security Documentation	The EOTSS specification requires suppliers to provide "security documentation," but it does not define the documentation expected for this RFI. Please clarify which security documents respondents should include and whether a high-level, publicly releasable security summary will satisfy this requirement at the RFI stage.	For now, the EOTSS specs were provided to help you understand the requirements for cloud based platforms, intended to help you respond to the RFI. You can skip the security documentation referenced at this time, know we will need it later in the program.	Yes
33	8/12/26	RFP Team/Instructure	Response Packaging	Does DFS require one consolidated PDF response, or may respondents upload separate supporting attachments, such as a VPAT, architecture diagrams, or other documentation?	One PDF Please. If that just isn't possible , Yes, Provide multiple documents.	Yes
34	8/12/26	RFP Team/Instructure	COMMBUYS File Requirements	Please confirm whether COMMBUYS imposes a page limit, file-size limit, filename convention, or maximum number of attachments for the RFI response.	Yes, COMMBUYS enforces a systemic file-size limit for individual electronic attachments, while constraints like page limits, filename conventions, and the total number of files are dictated by the specific RFI's Strategic Sourcing Team (SST)

The exact platform limits and guidelines break down as follows:

File-Size Limit

• 10 MB Individual File Restriction: Platform guidelines dictate that COMMBUYS will not accept individual response files that approach or exceed 10 MB. If a response document exceeds this capacity, it must be split into multiple smaller components Filename Convention

•	System Requirements: Avoid special characters or symbols that can interfere with browser transfers
•	Multi-Part Submissions: If a file must be split due to size constraints, you are required to append a part number to the end of the matching description and filename (e.g., _Part1, _Part2)
•	RFI-Specific Rules: Always check the exact Electronic Quote Submission Instructions document attached to your specific RFI posting, as individual sourcing teams often mandate a prefix containing your business name or the Bid Number

Page Limit

•	No Platform Maximum: COMMBUYS does not programmatically block responses based on page counts.
•	Solicitation Caps: Page restrictions are established purely at the discretion of the procuring agency. Review the specific RFI's text boxes and guidelines, as character or page limits are frequently outlined inside the Vendor Response Template.

📎 Maximum Number of Attachments

•	Uncapped Attachments: There is no hard platform ceiling for the total count of files uploaded to the "Attachments" tab of a quote response
•	Workflow Best Practice: You are allowed to repeat the "Add File" step to attach all necessary documentation, provided each distinct file adheres to the individual file-size rule		Yes
	35	8/12/26	RFP Team/Instructure	Electronic Signature and Cover Letter	Section 4.2 requires a cover letter signed by an authorized representative. Is an electronic signature acceptable, and may the signed cover letter serve as the first page identifying the official responding entity?	Yes, E-Sig is fine., Yes , the first page should identify the official responding entity.	Yes
	36	8/12/26	RFP Team/Instructure	Labor Day Response Deadline	The response deadline is Monday, September 7, 2026, which is Labor Day. Will the deadline remain September 7 at 2:00 p.m. ET, and will COMMBUYS support be available that day? If not, will DFS consider moving the deadline to the next Commonwealth business day?	Yes, The First Business days after the holiday	Yes
	37	8/12/26	RFP Team/Instructure	High-Level Cost Model	The RFI requests a high-level cost model but states that this is not a pricing request. Would estimated ranges and descriptions of the primary licensing, implementation, and service cost drivers satisfy this requirement, or does DFS expect an indicative total cost for the proposed solution?	What we are looking for is how your billing structure works. Again How , not how much. Does DFS expect an indicative total cost for the proposed solution? NO	Yes
	38	8/12/26	RFP Team/Instructure	Enterprise Architecture Documentation	Section 2.3 of the EOTSS specification states that DFS will submit an Enterprise Architecture Assessment through its ServiceNow system. Please clarify whether DFS requires supporting documentation from respondents during the RFI process. If so, please identify which architecture materials should accompany the RFI response and which will be requested later if a solution advances to formal review.	That is not a requirement of the RFI phase. For now, the EOTSS specs were provided to help you understand the requirements for cloud based platforms, intended to help you respond to the RFI. You can skip the documentation referenced at this time, know we will need it later in the program.	Yes
	39	8/12/26	RFP Team/Instructure	NERIS Integration	Section 7 of the EOTSS specification identifies integration with the National Emergency Response Information System (NERIS) as mandatory. Please describe DFS/MFA's envisioned use cases, data exchanges, and system-of-record responsibilities for this integration, including how NERIS is expected to interact with the learning management system.	Please ignore the NERIS requirement, It will be removed from the requirements. DFS will keep it separated from the MFA requirements for a new LMS.	Yes
	40	8/12/26	RFP Team/Instructure	DFS Payment Systems Integration	Section 7 of the EOTSS specification identifies integration with "DFS payment systems" as mandatory. Does this refer to payment systems operated by the Department of Fire Services or to a specific product or provider known as DFS Payment Systems? Canvas Catalog currently supports the following payment gateways: Authorize.net, CCP, CommWeb, CyberSource, Flywire, Mercado Pago, MySchoolBucks, Nelnet, OneStop Secure, PayU, PayPal, PalPay, Payflow, Paystack, Rapyd, Stripe, TouchNet, Transact, and Xendit. Please advise whether any of these integrations would align with the intended requirement.	To Clarify, We are looking for a solution with built in Payment processing.
	41	8/13/26	RFP Team/Instructure	Approved Hosting Platforms and Rackspace	Section 2.1 of the EOTSS Cloud-Based Software Requirements Specification limits approved hosting platforms to Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud Platform and states that solutions hosted on unapproved private clouds are ineligible. Would an Oracle-based solution hosted in a Rackspace-managed environment comply with this requirement? Please confirm whether Rackspace is an approved hosting provider or whether an alternative hosting arrangement may undergo review and approval.	Rackspace is not listed as an approved hosting provider, and compliance is achieved by hosting on AWS, Azure, or GCP.
	42	8/13/26	RFP Team/Instructure	Third-Party Asset-Management Integration	Sections 7.5.1 through 7.5.5 of the RFI address equipment scheduling, inventory, asset tracking, conflict detection, and integration with external equipment-management systems. Please confirm whether respondents may satisfy these requirements through an integrated third-party asset-management solution.	If your solution requires using a third party , please indicate that in your response and explain how it would work. So confirmed , third party integrations are allowed for the proposed of responding to this RFI
	43	8/13/26	RFP Team/Instructure	Single Vendor or Best-of-Breed Ecosystem	Does DFS/MFA envision contracting with a single prime vendor for the complete AMS/LMS/TMS solution, or would DFS/MFA consider a best-of-breed ecosystem comprising integrated platforms or separately contracted systems?	We have not considered a solution as of yet, The purpose of this RFI is to see what is available in the marketplace. So yes, a solution involving integrated platforms would be considered if it made sense.
	44	8/13/26	RFP Team/Instructure	NERIS APIs and Integration Standards	Has DFS/MFA engaged with NERIS to define available APIs, integration standards, access prerequisites, and implementation responsibilities? If so, please provide or identify any technical documentation or guidance available to respondents.	Please ignore the NERIS requirement, It will be removed from the requirements. DFS will keep it separated from the MFA requirements for a new LMS.

45	8/13/26	RFP Team/Instructure	Required NERIS Data Exchanges	Please identify the specific NERIS data elements, transactions, and reporting workflows the proposed solution must support, including the expected direction and frequency of each data exchange.	Please ignore the NERIS requirement, It will be removed from the requirements. DFS will keep it separated from the MFA requirements for a new LMS.
46	8/13/26	RFP Team/Instructure	Evaluation of Integrated Functionality	How will DFS/MFA evaluate capabilities delivered through integrations compared with native platform functionality, particularly under Sections 6.1, 6.3, and 6.4? Will proven, seamlessly integrated functionality be eligible for the same evaluation credit as native functionality?	We are not favoring one solution over another in this RFI, We are using this RFI to evaluate all proposed solutions and trying to see what is available in the marketplace.
47	8/13/26	RFP Team/Instructure	Campus Operational Autonomy	Please describe the current and desired level of operational autonomy for the Stow, Springfield, and Bridgewater campuses, including local control over scheduling, instructors, resources, enrollment, and reporting and the functions that must remain centrally governed.	The cloud solution we are looking for will provide the same functionality regardless of location.
48	8/13/26	RFP Team/Instructure	Campus Administrative Structure	Should each campus function as a distinct business or administrative unit with separate permissions, workflows, resource pools, and reporting, or should all campuses operate within one shared organizational structure using campus-level filters and permissions?	The cloud solution we are looking for will provide the same functionality regardless of location.
49	8/14/26	Kareena Waters/Onecard Group Pty Ltd	Current Systems	Could DFS please confirm what systems are currently being used to manage the Academy, including online learning and course authoring, payments, asset management, course and instructor scheduling, certification records, equipment and resources, and workforce rostering? Which of these existing systems does DFS expect to replace as part of this project, and are there any that are expected to remain and integrate with the proposed solution? Apart from NERIS, are there any other Commonwealth systems that the proposed solution will be expected to integrate with, and what information will need to be exchanged?	If you look at the listed requirements and weightings provided in the RFI , We are replacing the installed LMS system and looking to solve for the requirements provided. Please ignore the NERIS requirement. We are removing it from the program. It will operate separately from the new solution.
50	8/14/26	Kareena Waters/Onecard Group Pty Ltd	Integrated Specialist Systems	Is DFS seeking to replace all existing AMS, LMS and TMS functionality within a single application, or would DFS consider a solution where a core platform integrates with specialist systems to provide the required functionality, with the data brought together and managed through a single source of truth?	Yes , DFS seeking to replace all existing AMS, LMS and TMS functionality within a single application and Yes, DFS will consider a solution where a core platform integrates with specialist systems to provide the required functionality, with the data brought together and managed through a single source of truth. Show us what is possible.
51	8/14/26	Kareena Waters/Onecard Group Pty Ltd	Integrated Training Record	Where AMS, LMS and TMS components are integrated, does DFS expect one platform to hold the master training, certification and compliance record for each person, with information from the other systems feeding into that record, or is DFS expecting records to remain within each individual system?	Present one solution with the elements of each , we want everything in one place, and or show us how you would solve for this. Perhaps there is a better way.
52	8/14/26	Kareena Waters/Onecard Group Pty Ltd	Rostering and Scheduling	Where the RFI refers to rostering and scheduling, is this for MFA training, instructors, Academy staff and resources, or does DFS also expect the system to have visibility of learners' normal work rosters to determine their availability for training?	MFA training, instructors, Academy staff and resources only.
53	8/14/26	Kareena Waters/Onecard Group Pty Ltd	Fire Department Training Management and Workflow	For the 400+ fire stations and departments, is each department expected to have visibility of its own workforce training and compliance requirements and manage the approval and booking of personnel into MFA training, or does MFA identify required training and notify or allocate personnel to training? Is a combination of both models currently used?	Each remote location will training using the new LMS system of the MFA.
54	8/14/26	Kareena Waters/Onecard Group Pty Ltd	Historical Records and Data Retention	What format are MFA's historical training and certification records currently held in, including records dating back to 1968? For current personnel, is all historical training and certification history expected to remain visible as part of their active profile, or can older records be retained in an accessible archive? Does this also include records for former personnel, and if so, how long are these records required to be retained? Are there specific Commonwealth retention requirements that the proposed solution will need to meet?	We would like to load all of the data into the new solution, we are anticipating a complete data migration.
55	8/14/26	Kareena Waters/Onecard Group Pty Ltd	Training Assets and Equipment	For the equipment and resource management requirements, are the assets primarily vehicles, equipment and other resources owned by MFA and shared across the three Academy campuses, or does each Academy manage its own equipment and resources? Does this also include operational firefighting vehicles and equipment owned by individual fire departments that may be made available for MFA training? How are these assets currently tracked and maintained, does DFS/MFA currently use an asset management system, and approximately how many individual assets would need to be managed or scheduled through the proposed solution?	The new cloud based system should provide one scheduling and resources solution that will operate across all three campuses. Some equipment needs to be shared with other sights, some doesn't. The system should be able to seamlessly schedule Equipment and instructors across all three campuses.
56	8/14/26	Kareena Waters/Onecard Group Pty Ltd	Facility and Safety Management	Where the RFI refers to facility management, is the requirement primarily to schedule classrooms and training facilities, including availability, capacity and conflict management, or is the proposed system expected to also manage maintenance, inspections, equipment or facility issues and safety concerns? If maintenance and safety are currently managed through a separate system, could DFS identify the system and confirm whether integration with the proposed AMS/TMS solution is expected?	The proposed system is expected to manage maintenance, inspections, equipment, facility issues, and safety concerns across all three sites.
57	8/14/26	Kareena Waters/Onecard Group Pty Ltd	Workflow Configuration	Does DFS expect its administrators to be able to set up and change their own workflows, including approvals, notifications and compliance triggers, or would these workflows normally be set up during implementation and changed by the software provider when required?	Yes, that functionality would be desired , The workflows should operate across the platforms seamlessly. Being able to manage that would be optimal, but if the proposed solution need to manage them in "updates" , please indicate that in your response.
58	8/14/26	Kareena Waters/Onecard Group Pty Ltd	Third-Party Training Content	In addition to MFA's own training curriculum, does DFS expect the proposed solution to include access to a library of generic online training courses, or would any third-party training content be sourced separately by DFS and integrated with the platform where required?
59	8/14/26	Kareena Waters/Onecard Group Pty Ltd	Unique Person Identifier	Does DFS currently use a unique identifier for each learner that remains with the individual throughout their training and certification history, including where they move between fire departments or locations? If so, what identifier is currently used, and is this expected to be the primary identifier when historical records are migrated into the new platform?
60	8/14/26	Kareena Waters/Onecard Group Pty Ltd	External Training Providers	Does DFS/MFA use external training providers for any training or certification requirements? If so, is the proposed solution expected to manage the approval and enrolment of personnel into external training, and how would DFS expect completion records and certification results to be returned to the individual's training record?
61	8/14/26	Kareena Waters/Onecard Group Pty Ltd	Administrative Workflows	Does DFS expect the configurable workflow capability to manage existing Academy processes such as attendance and no-shows, suspensions, appeals, cancellations and refunds, including the associated notifications, approvals and escalation rules? Are these processes currently managed through the existing LMS, another system, or manually by MFA staff? Are there other Academy administrative processes that DFS expects to be automated as part of the new solution?	Yes, that functionality would be desired , The workflows should operate across the platforms seamlessly. Being able to manage that would be optimal, but if the proposed solution need to manage them in "updates" , please indicate that in your response.
62	8/14/26	Kareena Waters/Onecard Group Pty Ltd	Course Registration and Payments	MFA provides training at no cost to eligible municipal personnel, while fees apply to some training and examinations. Are payments, invoicing, refunds and any discount codes currently managed through the existing LMS or through a separate Commonwealth payment system? Does DFS expect the new solution to replace the current payment process, or integrate with the existing payment provider?	DFS expects the new solution to replace the current payment process.
63	8/14/26	Kareena Waters/Onecard Group Pty Ltd	: Implementation and Training Delivery	For implementation, onboarding and training of MFA personnel, does DFS have a preference or requirement for face-to-face delivery at the Academy campuses, or would remote delivery via Teams or similar platforms be acceptable? If face-to-face delivery is required, could DFS indicate which implementation and training activities they would expect to be delivered onsite?	TBD, Please keep your Reponses to how your solution aligns to the functional requirements in the RFI. We will address training requirements in later phases.
64	8/14/26	Kareena Waters/Onecard Group Pty Ltd	Licensing and User Volumes	For ongoing licensing, does DFS expect a single statewide enterprise licence covering MFA and Massachusetts fire service personnel? For online learning and any fee-for-service training provided to users outside the Massachusetts fire service, could DFS provide an indication of the number of users accessing these services each year? Would these users be expected to sit under the same enterprise licence, or should the LMS component be priced separately based on active users or usage?	~28000 total users including Gateway rollovers, ~3500-5000 "active" users we need to define this I think -HO
65	8/14/26	Jenna Lane/D2L Ltd.	Resource Reservations	Could the Academy provide additional details about its vision regarding Resource Reservations?	The new cloud based system should provide have one scheduling and resources solution that will operate across all three campuses. Some equipment needs to be shared with other sights, some doesn't. The system should be able to seamlessly schedule Equipment and instructors across all three campuses.
66	8/14/26	Jenna Lane/D2L Ltd.	Asset Management	* The Academy has outlined two requirements associated with asset management - one, inquiring about the native capabilities of the platform around asset management, including the ability to track usage and maintenance requirements, and another around the possibility of integrating with a specialized asset management platform. Could the Academy confirm if it has a specialized Asset Management platform currently in production that your Learning Management platform should aim to integrate with?	The proposed system is expected to manage maintenance, inspections, equipment, facility issues, and safety concerns across all three sites. The new cloud based system should provide have one scheduling and resources solution that will operate across all three campuses. Some equipment needs to be shared with other sights, some doesn't. The system should be able to seamlessly schedule Equipment and instructors across all three campuses.
67	8/14/26	Jenna Lane/D2L Ltd.	Operational Outcomes	1. What business or operational outcomes is DFS/MFA seeking to achieve through this initiative, and what measures would the Commonwealth use to determine that the implementation has been successful 12-24 months after go-live (e.g., administrative effort, scheduling efficiency, compliance visibility, learner experience, reporting timeliness, or other measures)?	We are attempting to install a platform that will meet the operational requirements of the Massachusetts Firefighting Academy, the specific weightings and requirements were provided in the RFI. It is the expectation that the new system will provide efficiencies and operational improvements over the current legacy platform.
68	8/14/26	Jenna Lane/D2L Ltd.	System and Tools	What current systems, tools, and manual processes are used today to support academy administration, learning management, training management, certification/credentialing, scheduling, and reporting, and which of these are expected to be replaced, retained, or integrated with the future solution?	The current LMS was installed in 2016/2017.We are not providing suppliers a budget at this time. Its is a legacy Technomedia application, it is currently managed by CEGID. Yes, we are replacing the entire platform and building from scratch.
69	8/14/26	Jenna Lane/D2L Ltd.	Weighted Criteria	Among the weighted criteria in Section 6, are there specific capabilities that DFS/MFA considers essential or potentially disqualifying even if a respondent satisfies the stated expectation of supporting at least 70% of requirements?	Please remember what is the intended purpose of the request for information. We are not picking a provider or awarding a contact in this phase. We are trying to have the market provide us with capability and solutioning ideas. We assigned percentages to each weighting that provides that information.
70	8/14/26	Jenna Lane/D2L Ltd.	RFP	If this RFI results in a formal RFR/RFQ, what is the Commonwealth's anticipated decision process, including evaluation stages, demonstrations or proof-of-capability activities, stakeholder groups involved in evaluation, and anticipated timing from solicitation through award and implementation kickoff?	1. RFI evaluation 2. Demo of selected suppliers 3. RFR 4. RFR evaluation 5. Possibly more demos 6. Vendor Selection 7. Contracting 7. Onboarding Implementation 8. Testing 9. Pilot , Timing is not possible at this moment. The RFI evaluation and demos could take months given the number of suppliers involved. I think we would like to have a solution in hand by Q1 2027.
71	8/14/26	Jenna Lane/D2L Ltd.	Budget	What funding or budget planning has been established or is anticipated for this initiative, and is funding expected to be available within a particular fiscal year or subject to specific approval milestones?	We have not provided a budget, we are trying to see what is available for a solution, cost will be covered in the next phase of the procurement.
72	8/14/26	Jenna Lane/D2L Ltd.	Stakeholders	Which DFS/MFA stakeholder groups will ultimately own the business outcomes and operational success of the platform, and which organizations or governance bodies are expected to participate in requirements validation, evaluation, implementation, and final approval?	MFA personal, and the EOTSS PMO, and the DFS leadership team will make the final determination,
73	8/14/26	Jenna Lane/D2L Ltd.	Timeline	Regarding the 18-month project timeline, what event or operational milestone is driving that timeframe, and is there a required target date for initial production use or full statewide deployment?	Yes, we have set a final target date. Each phase of this implementation is scheduled.
74	8/14/26	Jenna Lane/D2L Ltd.	Training Records	For the legacy training records dating from 1968 to present, can DFS/MFA provide approximate volumes, source systems/formats, data quality considerations, and which historical records must be migrated versus retained through archival access?	Approx 28000 user records
75	8/14/26	Jenna Lane/D2L Ltd.	Adoption	For the approximately 13,000 active fire service professionals trained annually and the 400+ remote locations referenced in the RFI, what growth, usage, or statewide adoption assumptions should vendors use when proposing architecture and commercial models?	We are attempting to install a platform that will meet the operational requirements of the Massachusetts Firefighting Academy, the specific weightings and requirements were provided in the RFI. It is the expectation that the new system will provide efficiencies and operational improvements over the current legacy platform.
76	8/14/26	Jenna Lane/D2L Ltd.	AMS LMS TMS	Does DFS/MFA have a preference between a single vendor providing native AMS/LMS/TMS capabilities and a best-of-breed architecture in which an LMS integrates with specialized academy/training management capabilities? If both approaches are acceptable, how will integration maturity versus native functionality be evaluated?	We are looking for a single vendor providing native AMS/LMS/TMS capabilities and a best-of-breed architecture. Evaluation will be on the total solution and how it meets requirements.
77	8/14/26	Matthew Combs/CEGID INC.	EOTSS CLOUD-BASED SOFTWARE REQUIREMENT SPECIFICATIONS	On August 4, 2026, we received an email from Ken Larson containing the following additional document for this bid: EOTSS CLOUD-BASED SOFTWARE REQUIREMENT SPECIFICATIONS. Could you please confirm if this document requires suppliers to include with their proposal all of the additional documents listed in Section 11. Supplier Response Requirements? Alternatively, can the information requested in Section 11 be included within the responses to sections 5 and 7 of the RFI within our main proposal document?	That is not a requirement of the RFI phase. For now, the EOTSS specs were provided to help you understand the requirements for cloud based platforms, intended to help you respond to the RFI. You can skip the documentation referenced at this time, know we will need it later in the program. Yes, Section 11 information can be included with the responses to sections 5 and 7. Thanks
78	8/14/26	Ari Vidali/Envisage Technologies LLC	Legacy data migration scope	For the ~60 years of training records in scope (Section 7.6.4.3), can DFS identify the legacy source systems, approximate record volumes, available export formats, and known data-quality issues - and confirm whether source-data cleansing and remediation are expected to be performed by the selected vendor or by DFS?	We would like to load all of the data into the new solution, we are anticipating a complete data migration. Specifics of that data migration will be addressed during the contracting phase of this project. It is "assumed' that the selected supplier will have the necessary resources to assist in said data migration. Assume we may need assistance.
79	8/14/26	Ari Vidali/Envisage Technologies LLC	Mandatory vs. desired requirements	Are all capabilities in Sections 6 and 7 mandatory, or are some "nice-to-have"? If the latter, please identify which are mandatory and which are desired.	Please tell us how your proposed solution aligns with those requirements, For the sake of this response, Please assume they are all mandatory.
80	8/14/26	Ari Vidali/Envisage Technologies LLC	NERIS integration scope	Can DFS identify the anticipated NERIS use cases, the data elements/transaction types expected to flow, and the direction (inbound, outbound reporting, credential exchange, or bidirectional) and indicate whether a technical integration specification or API documentation is available?	Please ignore the NERIS requirement, It will be removed from the requirements. DFS will keep it separated from the MFA requirements for a new LMS.

81	8/14/26	Ari Vidali/Envisage Technologies LLC	"Native" AMS/LMS/TMS vs. integrated solution	Will a single-platform solution that delivers the required academy, learning, and training-management functionality be evaluated on functional capability, rather than on whether individual features are commercially labeled as separate "AMS," "LMS," and "TMS" products?	We are looking for a single vendor providing native AMS/LMS/TMS capabilities and a best-of-breed architecture. Evaluation will be based on the total solution and how it meets requirements.
82	8/14/26	Ari Vidali/Envisage Technologies LLC	18-month timeline	Does the 18-month timeline represent a required production go-live for the full solution, or may vendors propose a phased implementation within that period?	No , This procurement has a project plan , a phased implementation will not make sense and we are hoping to go live with full and complete solution.
83	8/14/26	Ari Vidali/Envisage Technologies LLC	EOTSS-managed database requirement (Section 2.2)	For a vendor-managed SaaS solution hosted on an approved hyperscale cloud platform, must the vendor's production/application database be deployed into an EOTSS-managed database environment, or is interoperability/data exchange with those environments sufficient?	For now, the EOTSS browser specs were provided to help you understand the requirements for cloud based platforms, intended to help you respond to the RFI. Please keep your Reponses to how your solution aligns to the functional requirements in the RFI. We will address technical requirements in later phases.

This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Aug 31, 2026.