Attachment J13 - Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 030ADV22R0036
- Issued by
-
Library of Congress
View the file
Other files
Show all 21
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Answers
| Questions and Clarifications for Solicitation 030ADV22R0036 | |||||
| Page # | Section Number or Attachment | Reference Text | Questions or Other Observations | Library of Congress Response | |
| Attachment J12 has been added to the solicitation; Unpriced option periods have been added to this IDIQ contract, extending the full possible length of the IDIQ contract to 20 years. | |||||
| 4-5 | 030ADV22R0036.pdf | ||||
| Section B.3 | PRICE/COST SCHEDULE | ||||
| The price /cost schedule is provided as part of IDIQ Item Information. | Please confirm that summary prices should be provided on that form, in addition to completing Attachment J11, Pricing Workbook. If that is correct, please confirm if we should insert those tables into our Volume III Pricing document or in another location of our response. | Yes, the offeror may insert the Section B CLIN table in their pricing volume, either in the workbook or as an attachment. | |||
| 55 | 030ADV22R0036.pdf | ||||
| Section L | Submission of Proposal | ||||
| All proposals must be submitted electronically via email to Sophie Chen at schen@loc.gov, with a copy to Michael Schuman at mschuman@loc.gov, no later than 5:00pm ET on June 3rd, 2022. | Would you consider extending the RFP due date by two weeks, making the deadline June 17th, 5:00 PM ET? | The Library has extended the proposal due date to June 15, 2022, 5:00pm ET. See Amendment -0002. | |||
| 57 | 030ADV22R0036.pdf | ||||
| Past Performance Questionnaires | The Past Performance Questionnaires states “Offeror is encouraged to provide the Library with the most current data on each example (POC information) within their past performance proposal submission. The information must be clear as to whether the work was done by the prime contractor or a subcontractor." | Can you please confirm that to fulfill this, the offeror should simply provide point of contact and prime/subcontractor designations for each reference in Volume II – Past Performance, or should the offeror complete Section 1 ONLY of the three Past Performance Questionnaires and submit those forms with our response? | The former. The questionnaires should be sent to previous clients, who will then send the questionnaires to the Library. | ||
| 17-54 | 030ADV22R0036.pdf | ||||
| Sections G - K | Contract Administration Data; Special Contract Requirements; Contract Clauses; List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments; List of Attachments; Representations and Certifications | Where in our response should we provide any Comments regarding contract terms (e.g., regarding Sections G through K in the Main RFP document). Would in an Appendix suffice? | There is a section in the pricing workbook for pricing terms. For all other terms, please provide assumptions or terms in the technical approach as an appendix. | ||
| 55 | Section L | The format for all documents is 8.5 x 11 inches pages, single-spaced, 1-inch margins, 12-point font in text. | Are offerors permitted to use a limited amount of smaller font for text in tables and graphics? | Tables and graphics may use a minimum of 8pt font. | |
| N/A | N/A | N/A | Would the LoC consider an extension of soliciation 030ADV22R0036 submission due date and time by one or two weeks? It will assist us with providing a more complete response from various Subject Matter Experts. | The Library has extended the proposal due date to June 15, 2022, 5:00pm ET. See Amendment -0002. | |
| 55 | 030ADV22R0036 (1).pdf - Section L - Insructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors | (b)Offer Format: Offers must be submitted electronically in either Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF formats. Each page mustbe numbered and labeled with the name of the offeror and solicitation number. The format for all documents is 8.5 x 11 inchespages, single-spaced, 1-inch margins, 12-point font in text. | Can it be confirmed if Attachment J3 - Mandatory Requirements for Task Order can remain as an excel file for submission? Or should those questions be incroporated into a Word document for submission requirements? | It can remain an Excel document. | |
| 56 | 030ADV22R0036 (1).pdf - Section L - Insructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors | Cover Letter/Minimum Requirement: Offerors shall have: a) provided integrated library system and/or library management platform products and related services for a minimum of three (3) years, AND b) implemented an integrated library system and/or library management platform in a library that has a minimum of ten (10) million bibliographic records. | The length of time indicated in the Cover Letter instructions notes "offers shall have provided...services for a minimum of three (3) years..." elsewhere in the document it indicates that services shall be provided for a seven-year ordering period. |
| Can the LoC please confirm if the cover letter requirements should address seven years, or no less than three years for services to be provided? | The ordering period is for the upcoming contract. It describes the length from which we can order services off the upcoming awardee's overarching IDIQ contract. In the cover letter, we are not requiring verification of executing a project of similar size for seven (7) years--only three (3) years. | ||||
| 030ADV22R0036 Section L | All proposals must be submitted electronically via email to Sophie Chen at schen@loc.gov, with a copy to Michael Schuman at mschuman@loc.gov, no later than 5:00pm ET on June 3rd, 2022. | We respectfully request an extension of the submission date to June 17th. Would this be possible? | The Library has extended the proposal due date to June 15, 2022, 5:00pm ET. See Amendment -0002. | ||
| 030ADV22R0036 Section L | Offerors’ clients must submit the attached questionnaires for a maximum of three (3) current contracts and/or completed contracts (Government or commercial) performed within three (3) years from the solicitation release date that are relevant to this procurement. | In the main notice it states that the offeror should have a separate volume for past performance and attach the completed questionnaires, however in the instructions on the questionnaires it states that the reference is to complete and email them directly to the contract officers and NOT to the offeror. Is the offeror to include the forms that were emailed to the reference without the references' comments in Volume 2? Or would a simplied list of 3 contacts with brief project details and contact information suffice? | The latter. The contractor should ask their past client to fill out the past performance questionnaires. The client will then email those questionnaires directly to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist at the Library of Congress. The vendors themselves should only provide a simple list of clients and projects from which they expect to receive questionnaires. | ||
| J3 - "2.0 Acquisitions" | J3 – 2.1.1 | The Library needs customizable workflows that can be configured to support a wide variety of acquisition types and approval plans. | Please describe the tracking requirements for these internal workflows | The Library has an assembly-line approach to processing materials for the collections, and processing often involves many staff over long period of time (sometimes years) so in order to improve efficiency, staff need to be able to ascertain at a glance where the item is in its processing, what the next steps are, where the items is physically and the staff member who is currently processing it. Managers also need to be able to assign work, report out on the status of item or set of items as well as how long it has been in that status. Staff need to be able to assign each other tasks, flag exceptions, and message each other to ensure items move efficiently through a work flow. This functionality is not available in the Library's current workflows, so it is achieved through inefficient manual processes. | |
| J3 - "2.0 Acquisitions" | J3 – 2.1.4 | incorporate the use of digital signatures in acquisitions workflows. | What current system is used for digital signatures? | Adobe Acrobat | |
| J3 - "2.0 Acquisitions" | J3 – 2.1.8 | The Library needs the ability to exchange data between LCAP and systems used by the Overseas Operations Offices | Please describe the current method of data exchange between these systems. | Currently the Library uses Z39.50 to query the LC Voyager database for bibliographic records to be used in OFORS to support the Cooperative Acquisitions Program (CAP) which is supported by revolving funds. The Library welcomes innovative proposals that enhance the efficiency and functionality of this process. | |
| J3 - "2.0 Acquisitions" | J3 – 2.3.2 | The Library needs the ability to assess the impact of acquisitions | To better understand this requirement, please describe the current and desired workflows and triggering conditions for communication between divisions. | Staff need a way to identify all divisions impacted by a potential acquisition and assess the impact of a given acquisition on those divisions so that they all can be involved in both negotiation and approval. Areas of impact include preservation costs, processing requirements, storage requirements (both physical and digital), and access restrictions. The Library welcomes innovative proposals that enhance the efficiency and functionality of this process. | |
| J3 - "2.0 Acquisitions" | J3 – 2.3.6 | The Library needs the ability to comply with federal records requirements | Please summarize the implication of federal record-keeping guidlines on the Library's acquisitions processes. | Federal law specifies that the Library have a records management plan for formal records retention and disposal throughout the acquisitions process because L-CAP will be the system of record for our collection acquisition operations. This requires that staff have access to these records for the life of the collections in some cases. | |
| J3 - "2.0 Acquisitions" | J3 – 2.4.6 | The Library needs the ability to enforce controls on data elements on systems used downstream (MOM to LCAP) | Is MOM an alias for Momentum, the library's central accounting system? If not, what is "MOM". | Yes, MOM is an abbreviation of Momentum. | |
| J3 - "3.0 Bibliographic Control" | J3 – 3.4.13 | The system should support a solution for saving records that may not yet be complete. | Does this mean that the system should be able to save and retrieve records for which the cataloguing process has not been completed, to not index them on the discovery system? | This requirement is intended to address staff inability to save a backend record that contains validation errors. The Library needs a way to save these records to a file; the records do not need to be indexed. |
All backend records that have been saved must be indexed. Backend records that are not suppressed to be available in the discovery layer.
| J3 - "3.0 Bibliographic Control" | J3 – 3.6.1/3.6.3 | The system must support synchronization with OCLC WorldCat records for management of serials records. As part of this process, LC must be able to protect local metadata fields (e.g. 9xx fields) from being overwritten by WorldCat records. | Is there any further information regarding the current LC workflows for managing serials that can be shared? | Like all CONSER libraries, LC catalogs its serials that require CONSER treatment in OCLC. OCLC sends LC a file of new and updated CONSER records on a daily basis; we load all of the records to the Cataloging Distribution Service database (for the MDS-Serials distribution product), and those records with an 'LC interest' (based on 050 fields) to the LC Voyager database. The daily file includes new records created by LC staff working in OCLC, and updates to any CONSER record made by LC or any other CONSER participant. We do some minor pre-processing on the records (e.g., remove OCLC local data) before loading. There is often a record already in the LC database (e.g., an earlier version for updates, or a stub record used for acquisition purposes); we need the OCLC CONSER records to merge with the existing LC records whereby certain fields in the existing records are retained in the merge. The fields to be retained are usually 'local' MARC fields (9XX fields) used for LC-only purposes, as well as 856 fields that have been assigned locally. To assure that we are merging the correct records, we use dual match points-- the LCCN (MARC 010$a) and the OCLC control number. Records that fail the dual match point are reported to staff who evaluate the problem and adjust records accordingly. |
| J3 - "3.0 Bibliographic Control" | J3 – 3.7.7 | If an authorized authority record indicates that a heading is “split” into two or more new headings (e.g., 008/05 value “s” Deleted; heading split into two or more headings), the system should provide a mechanism for the cataloger to manage the change process. | If possible, can you share anything further about how you would like to see this mechanism work in practice? | When loading subject authority records that contain value "s" in 008/05 (Deleted; heading split into two or more headings) we would prefer that the authority record not be automatically loaded/deleted. Instead, we would like a report from the load indicating that a 'split' record was rejected for manual review. Ideally, the report would include information from that record (e.g, an LCCN of the delete, the heading used in the delete, and the data from the MARC 682 Deleted Heading Information field indicating the replacement headings). Split headings require a qualified specialist to review existing occurrences of the heading being deleted to determine whether more than one replacement heading would be appropriate for existing bibliographic records (a different decision may be made for different records, as appropriate). A split heading report would be used to trigger such a review. |
| J3 - "5.0 Inventory and Circulation" | J3 – 5.15.6 | The Library needs to be able to issue various types of notices and print products (receipts, paging slips/lists, book bands, hold shelf tags, pickup and overdue notices) in print or via email. | What requirements are there for the layout of these slips? Do they need to include specific branding or any particular fields? | See Attachment J12 - Sample Layout and Content for Notices and Print Products. |
| J3 - "5.0 Inventory and Circulation" | J3 – 5.18.7 | The system must be able to indicate to a staff member whether physical access is allowed or denied to an individual patron. | Is a human-mediated process (e.g., a visible block/pop-up) or is it a door-swipe restriction? | Currently this is a human-mediated process so a visible block or pop-up is acceptable. In the future, the Library is interested in exploring options for expanding this functionality to include door swipes but that is not a requirement for task order 1. |
| J3 - "7.0 Library Cards" | J3 – 7.1.7 | The system that issues library cards must be compatible with peripheral hardware: camera, card printer, bar code scanner. | Is it acceptable to upload a picture, or must the software capture the picture directly. | At a minimum, the system must be able to upload a picture; however, the Library is open to solutions that include functionality to capture pictures directly, either natively or via integration of an additional application. |
| J3 - "8.0 Staff Search" | J3 – 8.2.3. and 8.2.4. | Keyword Search: Normalization rules must be configurable by the Libray | Will the library accept a model where this configuration is completed by the hosting company as part of its normal service? | The contractor may complete the normalization as part of its normal service as long as the contractor will change the normalization according to the Library's specifications within an agreed-upon period of time. |
As an example, if a keyword starts with index is used for shelflisting, the normalization shall enable a logical search and sorted display of LC Classification call numbers found in the Library's bibliographic records.
| J3 - "9.0 Public Discovery - Delivery" | J3 – 9.1.1 | discovery layer enhancements (reference guides, tables of content, license terms, digital content thumbnails, linked data, embedded digital object metadata (if accessible), etc.) | To what extent is the supplier expected to provide these discovery layer enhancements? What APIs exist at the Library to support these enhancements in the supplier's discovery layer? | The Library is invested in enhancing the end-user search experience as much as possible. The discovery layer must be able to consume and display data retrived from other sources via APIs. The contractor is not required to furnish these APIs; however, the Library is open to innovative proposals on how it might improve the search experience in this way. |
| J3 - "9.0 Public Discovery - Delivery" | J3 – 9.1.11 | To engage Library users its collections in new ways, the system should be able to develop support for non-text based search and display interfaces | This requirement lists a number of needs prefaced by "for example". Are all of these required? Please describe the data and APIs available to use in the discovery layer to meet these needs. | At a minimum, the contractor should demonstrate a commitment to exploring innovative non-textual means of improving the search experience. All descriptions prefaced by "for example" should be considered possible ways the vendor could satisfy this requirement, not as presecriptive requirements. |
| J3 - "9.0 Public Discovery - Delivery" | J3 – 9.2.13 | Ability to integrate keywords into the discovery layer search from ingested metadata for content not held in the backend application | To clarify the requirement, please share examples of this functionality as it presently exists. | The Library needs the ability to ingest keyword data from multiple systems in addition to the library services platform that will serve as the primary backend application for LCAP. This functionality does not exist in the currently Voyager ILS; however, the federated search interface on loc.gov, referred to internally as "Project One" or "P1", does provide this functionality by indexing LibGuides, some linked open data, and non-MARC records derived from EAD container lists for LC content digitized content. This is something the Library expects to replicate in the LCAP discovery layer. |
Examples referenced in the requirement include descriptive keywords for:
- LibGuides
- Tables of contents files
- Open linked data (for example: information for authors/creators)
- Names, titles, and subjects from e-resource target objects
- EAD finding aids front matter and container lists Keywords for this content should be searchable along with bibliographic, holdings, and authority/thesauri record metadata published from the backend application.
| J3 - "9.0 Public Discovery - Delivery" | J3 – 9.5.3 | Support for the aggregation/clustering and deduping of brief search results | Please describe the Library's desire to have this aggregation/clustering happen in the discovery layer (where this requirement is placed) versus the metadata in the inventory. | Aggregation/clustering and deduping should take place in the brief search results. How that is accomplished or whether it is dependent on the metadata may be system-dependent. | |
| J3 - "9.0 Public Discovery - Delivery" | J3 – 9.6.7 | The Library is interested in exploring alternative presentations of browse results, including gallery and grid thumbnail views, slideshows, etc. Browsable thumbnails associated with bibliographic records are especially important for LC's special collections, but also useful for text covers in the Library's closed stack collections. | Please describe the metadata and APIs available to pull thumbnails into the discovery layer. | For links to LC-controlled digital content, LC includes handles in our distributed bib records. LC digital presentations use handle metadata to access stored files including those marked as thumbnails. We need a method to query LC's locally stored metadata in order for the discovery layer to access and display these thumbnails. | |
| J3 - "9.0 Public Discovery - Delivery" | J3 – 9.8.10 | Ability to facet/filter searches by access information, rights information, license terms, and item availability | Is real-time circulation status considered a part of availability for faceting purposes; if so, is a delay between circulation status changes and representation in the facet function acceptable? | The Library will accept delays of less than 24 hours. The attachment has been amended to reflect this. | |
| Attachment J3 - | |||||
| Mandatory Requirements | For example: |
Tab 1.0 Cross-functional: 1.16. Staff need the ability to utilize pre-existing or to create new standard or “canned” reports that can be triggered to run in certain situations, scheduled to run at specific times, or run on demand. Please describe the canned reporting functionality offered by the solution.
Tab 8.0 Staff Search: 8.1.1 The system must ingest metadata from sources other than the backend application to enhance and expand search and discovery. Please explain how this is accomplished in the system.
| Tab 11.0 Unicode Support: 11.1.3. Users must have access to efficient keyboard input without loss of Unicode characters. Describe all methods for data input, e.g., browser support, Input Method Editors (IMEs), and other standard tools. Describe how easily staff can enter diacritical marks even in Latin scripts (e.g., an acute accent over an alphabetic letter “a”). | For the requirements that indicate that the offeror should “describe” or "explain" how the requirement will be met, please confirm that it is acceptable to add that description to Column F where the Yes/No responses are provided. | Contractors are not required to provide a line-by-line response to the requirements. All references that imply this have been removed from Attachment J3. | |||
| Attachment J3 - | |||||
| Mandatory Requirements | Tab 6 Digital & Special Collections | Please confirm there are no other specific requirements in Attachment J3 Tab 6 Digital & Special Collections beyond the seven requirement categories currently listed there. If there are not, please clarify how you would like us to respond to that section. | None of the requirements for Digital and Special Collections Support are mandatory for task order 1. They have been provided in J4 as context and analysis for the Library's long term goals in this area. | ||
| N/A | N/A | N/A | Who is the incumbent contractor supporting the Voyager ILS system today? | Ex Libris North America Inc. | |
| 16 | Section F | The place of performance shall be: The Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave SE, Washington, DC 20540 | |||
| Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, access to the Library’s facilities is being restricted for the health and safety of all parties. If Library buildings remain restricted at the commencement of this order, the contractor will work remotely unless otherwise requested to work on-site. | Will the Government consider remote resources that are not based in the Washington DC area? | Yes. | |||
| 10 | Section C | The contractor shall provide all software licenses required, excluding third-party software licenses, for the implemented solution, and on-going support for the duration of the contract. | Can the Government please confirm that license quotes should only be provided for products that the bidder directly produces, and any software licenses for associated products will be procured by the Government directly? | If licenses for software that the vendor does not directly produce are required for the vendor to implement the proposed solution, the vendor should procure them or include the cost of the licenses as part of the proposal. The Library should not have to procure additional software licenses and deliver them to the vendor. See Section C.3.6. | |
| 7.0 - Library Cards Tab | 7.1.10 - J3 - Mandatory Requirements for Task Order | [blank] | In Attachment J3 Mandatory Requirements, on the Library Cards tab, question 7.1.10 is blank. Please let us know if there should be a requirement listed there | This was an error - the cell was unintentionally blank and has been removed from Attachment J3. | |
| 8.0 Staff Search | 8.1.5 - J3 - Mandatory Requirements for Task Order | Library ability to apply customized backend UI branding that follows Library web design best practices. Backend look and feel must follow Library web design best practices. Core display and navigational elements must remain consistent across backend pages. | In section 8.0 Staff Search of Attachment J3 Mandatory Requirements, what level of customization is the Library looking to do for the Staff search interface and/or the Discovery search interface? | Staff search interface: we expect minimum interface customization as long as the backend meets the Library's accessibility and responsive design requirements. As a web platform, the Library expects to incorporate institutional branding. It must also be aparent to staff which database they are working in. For instance, NLS staff often work in both the main Library of Congress database (LCDB) and the NLS database (NLSDB). The requirements have been updated to reflect this. |
Discovery layer: depending on the product chosen, the Library may incorporate substantial customization, as it has done with the current LC catalogs. Attachment J3 has been updated accordingly.
| 9.0 Public Discovery-Delivery | 9.10.1 - J3 - Mandatory Requirements for Task Order | Search History: Support for saving all search queries performed in a single session in search history. Search history should save all searches from a single session in the order in which they were executed. Saved searches should include the: search query, type of search conducted, number of returned records, pre- and post-search faceting/filtering decisions, staff sorting decisions. | Could the LoC please clarify what they mean by 'staff sorting decisions' in this context? | This is a typographical error. The requirement has been updated to say "user" sorting decisions. | |
| Attachment J9 | Can you confirm the number of unique e-journal titles in the Library's collection? | The Library's electronic resource management system holds approximately 573,000 unique titles. | |||
| Attachment J9 | Can you confirm the number of digital item records held by the Library? | The Library's digital collections include a wide variety of published and unpublished materials in many different formats; some are born digital and some represent digitized content. At present, these items are managed in a variety of systems, and not all of the items are represented in the ILS. Many of the bibliographic records in the ILS for analog items include links to digital content (i.e., no separate record for the digital content), which further complicates counting. There are currently 1,180,000 856 links in Voyager bibliographic records that have handles (using the hdl.loc.gov naming authority) linking to digital content managed and presented by the Library. Additionally, Stacks, the Library's primary platform for rendering rights restricted materials to end users, currently holds 137,000 book titles, 224,000 newspaper issues, 90,000 periodical issues, and 700,000 journal articles. Items available in Stacks are associated with titles or collection level records in the current ILS and or EAD finding aids. These numbers do not include audiovisual content managed by the National Audiovisual Conservation Center or the Library’s digital repository platform. In the future, the Library intends to provide unified access to the metadata for these items through LCAP. | |||
| Attachment J3 – Mandatory Requirements for Task Order | If the offeror’s solution already does or will meet the stated requirement, they will respond “Yes” on the right-most column; if the offeror does not already or does not anticipate meeting a specific requirement they must indicate “No.” If an offeror responds with a “No,” then they must attach an explanation of why they cannot meet that requirement or how they will provide an equivalent solution. | In cases where a narrative response is required (for a "no" or qualified response) should we respond with a supplemental Word/PDF document with a reference to the requirement tab and number? | Yes this is acceptable. | ||
| 1 | Attachment J.8, C.1 | Software Development for Chronicling America 2021-2022 | Please provide the incumbent contractor name for the Chronicling America development platform noted in Attachment J8. | This is not relevant. It is been stated that this is a sample to be used as a reference for offerors' SOW's. Offerors shall emulate the format of Attachment J8 to respond to the Task Order SOO. | |
| 24 | H.8 | The Library retains ownership of any user created/loaded data and applications hosted on contractor’s infrastructure, as well as maintains the right to request full copies of these at any time. | If enhancements and new modules are developed as part of the base proprietary platform serving as LCAP, please clarify the ownership of any such software code in which the development of the code was a requirement of the Library and paid for under a Task Order. | The Library does not expect to own the code. If it is an open source platform, the Library retains the right to share the code with third party entities. See Section C.3.6. The contractor shall indicate compliance with this in their approach. | |
| 8 | C.3.1.2 | Solutions that are not yet FedRAMP-certified may submit a Service Organization Control (SOC) SOC-1, SOC-2 and SOC-3 report for review before or after award. | For systems not FedRAMP certified, will the Library sponsor FedRAMP certification post-award? | No. The vendor will instead submit a SOC -1 report, at minimum. | |
| 11 | C.3.12 | Personnel that require access to Library IT Systems (on premise or cloud) will need to meet these minimum qualifications at the time the task order begins: | |||
| • U.S. Citizenship with a minimum of Public Trust security clearance | Given the U.S. Citizenship requirement, please confirm this restricts any user accessing the LCAP platform in a system administrator role to being a U.S. Citizen. | This requirement only applies to access to systems behind the Library's firewall. It does not apply to vendor-hosted applications. For migration operations that require access to systems behind the Library's firewall, contractor will provide consultation and oversight, but Library staff can extract data. | |||
| 8 | C.3.1.2 | Solutions that are not yet FedRAMP-certified may submit a Service Organization Control (SOC) SOC-1, SOC-2 and SOC-3 report for review before or after award. | To confirm, the proposed platform does NOT have to be FedRAMP certified as long as there is a minimum of a SOC-1 report and the application is hosted in the GovCloud. | Correct. The vendor must submit a minimum of a SOC-1 report and the application must be hosted in a FedRAMP moderate certified environment. At present the majority of the Library’s SaaS applications are hosted in AWS Public Cloud. The solicitation has been updated accordingly. | |
| 26 | H.12 | All contract deliverables shall comply with accessibility standards set forth in the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board Electronic and Information Technology (EIT) Accessibility Standards (36 CFR part 1194). | Please confirm the Section 508/WCAG accessibility requirements are applicable to both public facing screens as well as those used by LCAP System Administrtors | Yes. Accessibility standards apply to systems used by LC staff as well as public-facing systems. | |
| 26 | H.12 | All contract deliverables shall comply with accessibility standards set forth in the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board Electronic and Information Technology (EIT) Accessibility Standards (36 CFR part 1194). | Please confirm the Section 508/WCAG accessibility requirements are applicable to all deliverables such as the Systems Requirements Document (SRD), Systems Design Document, etc. | Yes. Documentation provided by the vendor should also meet accessibility requirements. The solicitation has been updated accordingly. | |
| General | Will there be a need for LCAP integration with the loc.gov web application? If so, please provide the incumbent contractor responsible for loc.gov development. | LCAP hosted metadata should be accessible via an API to loc.gov for ingest and display – loc.gov currently indexes and provides links to all of the catalog records in the Library’s ILS, and uses catalog data describing digital assets to provide access to collections items on loc.gov. Records in the current ILS also contain links to digitized items available on loc.gov. The loc.gov application is primarily developed and maintained by a team of Library staff. Artemis consulting holds a small support contract, but does not have responsibility for the architecture, design, and main development of the platform. | |||
| General | Will there be a need for LCAP integration with the Packard Campus Workflow Application or AVCMS? If so, please provide the incumbent contractor responsible for this development | AVCMS is being implemented by a combined team of staff from Axiell and the Library. LCAP data should be accessible via API to AVCMS. | |||
| Spreadsheet | J4 - Tab 6 Digital and Special Collections | In order to maximize efficiency and unified management of these disparate materials, the Library is exploring incorporating this functionality into LCAP manage the complex relationships between and among component files and series, master files and access copies, in an archival collections. | Would the Library of Congress consider a separate bid for the Digital and Special Collections component of this bid that was designed to and has been successfully integrated with LSP products that will make up the LCAP? | No, offerors must propose a solution that includes the full scope of the statement of objectives. However, vendors must include any relevant pricing information up to Ordering Period 07 for those possible services. | |
| J3 - "2.0 Acquisitions" | J3 – 2.1.2 | The Library needs the ability to support unique Library workflows and data elements for different acquisition types | Are there any mandatory associated documentation or data elements not specified in the subsequent requirements in this section? | No. If new requirements for associated documentation or data elements not specified in J3 are identified during the course of requirements analysis or conceptual solution design, the Library may address them in a subsequent task order, if issued. | |
| J3 - "2.0 Acquisitions" | J3 – 2.1.6 | The Library needs the ability to comply with required separation of duties | In situations where separation of duties is required, is this separation based on roles such that the same user always fulfils the same role? | Yes, in cases where the separation of duties applies, the the same user typically fulfills the same role. No single user should be able to do do more than 1 of the following 3 actions: |
1. approve a purchase order
2. approve an invoice
3. create/update vendor (bank) information There are exceptions and in some circumstances, the ability to do 2 out of 3 may be acceptable.
| J3 - "2.0 Acquisitions" | J3 – 2.4.4 | The Library needs the ability to automate invoicing and related transactions | Please define "full EDI functionality". What specific functionality is required to be viable? | Full EDI functionality includes support for cancellations, claims, invoicing, purchase orders, and order responses. LC currently receives invoices from 2 vendors via EDI, using incoming EDI functionality only. We would like to expand the use of incoming EDI to additional vendors and would also like to be able to potentially use outbound EDI functionality to send POs to vendors and to process serial claims if possible. |
| J3 - "5.0 Inventory and Circulation" | J3 – 5.16.1 | The system needs to accommodate two types of charges for collection items: internal charges (for materials that will not leave the Library premises once charged) and external charges (materials that may leave the premises once charged). | What are the requirements for reading room loans? | Reading Rooms do not charge materials for usage within the reading room. Guards at the exit check for external or internal loan slips when the patron leaves and do not allow exit if they are not present. |
| J3 - "5.0 Inventory and Circulation" | J3 – 5.16.4 | Library circulation staff have a need to be able to create a stub item record on the fly in order to charge materials that do not have an item record in the system. | Is the requirement for stub records: the ability to create item records on existing titles during the check out transaction? | Yes. |
| J3 - "9.0 Public Discovery - Delivery" | J3 – 9.1.6 | Ability to support the Library's branded URLs, including LCCN Permalinks and persistent identifiers for records lacking LCCNs | Are the BIBFRAME, MARCXML, MODS, and Dublin Core transformations (https://lccn.loc.gov/#6) required functions? | As stated in the requirement, The Library requires maintenance of branded URLs in the system to ensure the stability of persistent linking to full record displays of its internationally distributed bibliographic and authority metadata and services. |
Currently transforms of Library bibliographic and authority metadata are handled by a third party application maintained outside the system. At a minimum, the system must be able to pass appropriate records to this third party application using Z39.50/SRU queries (see mandatory requirement 9.13.1). The Library welcomes innovative solutions to address this functionality.
J3 - "9.0 Public Discovery - Delivery" J3 – 9.7.1 Support for returning a finite number of entries in "heading keyword" results Please demonstrate (via narrative or screenshots) the "heading keyword" functionality on catalog.loc.gov. Why is there a finite number restriction on this search? In this case, "finite" refers to the finite set of records in the results set after running a heading keyword search.
1. User performs a "contains"-type search for bibliographic or authority/thesauri headings and cross-references
2. System returns matched results containing all associated records; there will be a finite number of headings that match the query
3. System displays matching results in a browse display format that supports forward and backward navigation through matched headings; the browse display format facilitates aggregation of headings in large search results
4. User selects desired heading and navigates either to a title list of associated full records or directly to a full records
This functionality is critical for identifying headings and cross-references in authority and bibliographic records using a "contains" rather than a "starts with" query. For example:
search: 1861 regimental returns: browse display containing "United States -- History -- Civil War, 1861-1865 -- Regimental histories" search: beethoven sonata returns: browse display containing "Beethoven, Ludwig van, 1770-1827. Sonata, piano, no. 21, op. 53, C major"
For more information and examples, please see "Browse Results" under https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/ui/en_US/htdocs/help/searchBrowse.html and https://authorities.loc.gov/help/keyword-auth.htm
J3 - "9.0 Public Discovery - Delivery" J3 – 9.8.9 Ability to facet/filter searches to items with full or partial linked digital content, cognizant that access to some content requires authentication Where is the notation of full or partial digital content availability recorded in the record? Where is the notation of open access versus authenticated access recorded in the record? Where is the notation of locked-down-access-only recorded in the record? What are the rules for distinguishing between valid and invalid URLs in bibliographic and holdings records for metadata loaded from external sources? The notation of full or partial digital content typically comes from 856$3 (e.g., with notations such as "Table of contents only" or "Publisher description" found for partial content); $3 is also used to indicate when only certain volumes or copies of a resource are available as digital content. Absence of these partial notations generally means that a full resource is available.
For Library subscription resources, access and licensing information currently in maintained in 3rd party eresource knowledgebases; the majority of this content is accessible only to onsite users.
For LC-generated and LC-owned eresource content, links are maintained either in the 856 field of bibliographic records (if content is openly accessible) or in the 856 field of holdings records (if access to content is restricted) using an LC handle-based URL. We have slowly begun to add MARC 540 fields for 'open access' content as well. In some cases, the LC-assigned handle may identify those requiring authenticated access as part of the handle string (those requiring authentication are typically only found in holdings record 856 fields); we can work with the vendor to identify those strings.
As indicated in the requirement, links in externally loaded CONSER records are migrated to bibliographic 859 fields that do not resolve as clickable links in the OPAC, as a high percentage would not be accessible to LC. In cases where LC does provide digital content for CONSER records, an LC-resolvable 856 link (usually a handle) will also be in the bibliographic or holdings record. Holdings records may also have 856 links to Hathi Trust (non-handle URL, but easily identified as Hathi links).
J3 - "9.0 Public Discovery - Delivery" J3 – 9.8.22 Ability to balance search enhancement with performance Please clarify the requirement. In particular, does "performance" mean speed of the search or precision/recall of the search? What is the nature of "search enhancement"? Performance in this requirement refers to the response times of the various OPAC behaviors (generation of search initial search results, navigation to full records, generation of secondary searches, etc.);
Search enhancement refers to the user's ability to expand or refine their search through mechanisms such as:
- term expansion using synonyms, word stemming, authority references
- integration of search terms from associated content such as tables of contents, publisher descriptions, full-text search, search of associated EADs, etc.
- search suggestions – via “did you mean”/spellcheck, related LibGuides
- enriching displays with linked data – ex: infocards
| J3 - "9.0 Public Discovery - Delivery" | J3 – 9.8.23 | Ability for webscale discovery content to be faceted/filtered by scholarly and/or peer-reviewed qualifiers | Where is the notation of scholarly and/or peer reviewed recorded in the record? | This metadata is derived from 3rd party e-resource knowledge base metadata and is not included in the Library's bibliographic records. |
| J3 - "10.0 Application Administration" | J3 – 10.1.1 | To allow ready access to defined administrator functions such as user management, role assignment, etc. | Please clarify what is desired for this function. Is a web-based interface for user management and role assignment sufficient to satisfy this requirement? | A web-based interface for user management and role assignment is sufficient to satisfy this requirement. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .