Attachment J4 - Library Q and A 030ADV25R0026.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 103 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Services for Co-creation with Public Libraries
- Solicitation number
- 030ADV25R0026
- Issued by
-
Library of Congress
About this file
This file is a Library of Congress Q&A document (Attachment J4) for Solicitation 030ADV25R0026, providing detailed responses to contractor questions about a co-creation services procurement. The Library of Congress seeks a contractor to facilitate digital experience development with two public library systems - one in northeastern Oklahoma and another in Cleveland, Ohio - using emerging technologies and Library of Congress digital collections. The project is a two-year initiative funded by a private foundation, with a firm-fixed price of $340,000 covering both base and option years.
Key requirements include conducting virtual and in-person co-creation sessions, identifying community needs, facilitating stakeholder engagement, and supporting on-site library activities. The project will develop two distinct digital experiences: a lightweight digital experience for the Oklahoma site by February 2026 and a more technically ambitious experience with custom fabrication for the Cleveland site by December 2026. The procurement will occur in two phases, with contractors first submitting corporate experience volumes, and those most highly rated being invited to submit detailed technical approaches. Emerging technologies like immersive technology, spatial computing, and machine learning may be explored to enhance digital collection impact on local communities.
View the file
Other files
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
Questions
| J4 - Library Q&A for Solicitation 030ADV25R0026 | ||||
| Solicitation Q&A | ||||
| Page # | Section Number | Reference Text | Questions or Other Observations | Library of Congress Response |
| 9 | Task 6 | On-site Personnel Support for Site One | Can the contractor conduct administrative and logitistical tasks virtually prior to an event and in-person (or onsite) the day-of an in-person event? If not, what is the expectation of on-site duties and their duration? | Task 6 activities can include any on-site activities needed by the local public library branch related to the work of this contract. The duration should extend after the digital experience has been launched to include onsite support for engagement with the experience. |
| 8 | Task 3 | "a series of virtual and in-person co-creation sessions" | Can the government provide the desired number of virtual co-creation sessions that are expected with Site One and Site Two? | We require the contractor to conduct 1 virtual co-creation session for site one and 1 virtual co-creation session for site two. We may execute options for an additional virtual session for site one, and up to two additonal virtual sessions for site two. |
| 8 | Task 3 | "In-person sessions will be held at a branch library of the site one library partner system." | Can the government confirm there is only one in-person co-creation session expected for Site One (Feburary 2026) and Site Two (December 2026)? If the government desires more in-person co-creation sessions, can you specify the quantity? | We require the contractor to conduct 2 in-person co-creation sessions for site one, and 2 in-person co-creation sessions for site two. We may execute 1 additional in-person sessions for site two. Based on cost and needs, the contractor may conduct multiple in-person sessions during one visit to the site. |
| 10 and 11 | Task 8B, 8C, 8D, 10, 11 | Optional Tasks | What are the deciding factors of excercising these optional tasks? | The COR will decide to execute optional tasks in year one of the period of performance if more stakeholder feedback is needed to refine experience development. The COR will decide to execute the option year based on the contractor performance in year one. |
| 6 | C.1 | "Through a cooperative agreement with two public library systems, LC staff will co-create a customized and transformative digital experience with each library partner, combining emerging technologies, digital library materials, and themes relevant to local communities." |
"Evaluate technologies that enhance the impact of LC digital collections on local communities" Can you elaborate a bit on the role of "emerging technologies" in the digital experiences that LOC will build with/for Public Library partners? Do you have specific goals around educating people about emerging tech or interpreting such technologies? Noting the goal cited to the left, below, is, of course, related.
| I ask to understand what role educating community members about emerging tech might/will play as part of the co-design process, given than awareness and hype can easily outstrip real understanding. | We may use emerging technologies such as immersive technology, spatial computing, machine learning and human-machine interfaces. Educating communities about these technologies is in scope if it is expressed as a need in the co-creation process. LOC intends to evaluate these technologies as a means of enhancing the impact of LC digital collections on local communities. | ||||
| 6 | C.1 | You mentioned a goal to "test approaches for localized product development." | Does LOC already have a standardized product development process that would like to adapt (to whatever extent possible) within a co-creative framework or are you looking to introduce an entirely new process? | The LOC does have a standard development process for enterprise activities, which has informed but doesn't define our development process. The project team has outlined a product development process that includes iterative design, prototyping, testing, and implementation. We are open to co-creation methods that alter this internal process if a justification can be made that better serves LOC and partner library goals. | |
| 7 and 8 | C.3.2 | "Contractor will conduct a series of discovery activities to include reviewing the agreement with the site one public library partner, interviewing partner staff and community stakeholders, research on potential community stakeholder businesses and groups and facilitating a planning session between the public library and Library of Congress staff." | The SOW lays out six weeks (42 calendar days) from initial Contract Kick-off to delivery of the Needs and Opportunities report. As I understand it, during that time the contractor is meant to conduct interviews, facilitate a planning/cooperation session between the Site 1 and LOC staff and potentially a second session including stakeholders (awaiting clarification on that in line 7 question). How many stakeholder interviews does LOC hope for the contractor to complete during that time period? Even an estimated number would be helpful. |
| I ask because it is my practice to conduct a series of stakeholder interviews that consider the breadth the population of the focus community. I want to understand how much time we would really have to make that happen. | See highlighted changes to section C. | ||
| 8 | C.3.2 | Description text: "Contractor will conduct a series of discovery activities to include reviewing the agreement with the site one public library partner, interviewing partner staff and community stakeholders, research on potential community stakeholder businesses and groups and facilitating a planning session between the public library and Library of Congress staff." |
| Deliverable text: "Agenda, recording and transcript of facilitated cooperation session between LC staff and community stakeholders including library system staff (maximum duration 90 minutes)" | Is the "cooperation session" described in the deliverables different from the "planning meeting" between LOC staff and Site 1 staff described in the task description? | No. They are the same activity. See highlighted changes in section C. | ||
| 8 | C.3.2 | "Opportunity recommendations will include identifying local services, community subject matter experts, and other resources to support the partner in fulfilling program goals." | I’m wondering if you could elaborate a bit more on what kinds of support you might imagine the partner would need to fulfill program goals. Does "program goals" refer to the co-design aspect of the project and/or the creation/presentation of the resulting digital experience, or something else? |
| If this solicitation is part of a larger program, might there be there additional goals or objectives to consider beyond what's in the RFP? | "Program goals" refers to the goals of the program outlined in the background section of the RFP. Examples of the kinds of support partners might need is described in task 6. The background section of the RFP describes the goals of the project holistically, of which this solicitation is a part. | ||||
| 8 | C.3.3 | "The Contractor will coordinate and consult with LC program staff to design and facilitate a series of virtual and in-person co-creation sessions with the site one library partner and community members to develop digital experience goals and design." | I understand this series to include 2 in person sessions, and 1 virtual session. Do you have a size objective for in-person or virtual sessions, or a total across all three? | No. We are interested in the Contractor advising on size for these sessions based on their co-creation and facilitation expertise. | |
| 9 | C.3.6 | For task 6, the RFP articulates that on-site support is requested for the following activities: “logistical and administrative support for coordinating events and engagement sessions (e.g. space preparation, materials preparation), community outreach, and digital experience support and administration.” | As I understand it, this includes any on-site prep for or activities specified in Tasks 2, 3, and 5. What does “digital experience support and administration” refer to? This seems like it could contradict the following statement in Section C.2 on p.7, but perhaps I'm not understanding correctly: “All other activities related to this initiative, including program management, design, development and fabrication of the digital experiences, and strategic integration and evaluation, will be managed by the LC program team or procured through future solicitations.” | Yes, that understanding is correct. Digital experience support and administration refers to activities needed on-site leading up to and just after experience launch. The contractor's role is to help the LOC identify some of these needs, which could include assisting patrons using the experience, staff training, some maintenance activities, calendar management, usage data collection, and/or preparing support guides for staff. | |
| 9 and 12 | C.3/C.4 | Task 4 title: Consult on Pilot Program Co-Creation Strategies |
Task 4 description: "The Contractor will review the program’s public library/community engagement strategies and recommend improvements to the project plan that realize a co-creation approach."
Schedule of deliverables table for task 4: "Co-creation strategies recommendations report for site 2" Based on how I read the task 4 title and description, it seems to ask the contractor to recommend improvements to LOC's overall program plan to align it with a co-creative approach. Because of the timing, this would certainly include recent findings from Site 1 discovery/co-design. The title of task 4 refers to the Pilot Program, the description text doesn't mention either site, but in the schedule of deliverables on p.12, this deliverable references Site 2. My question is how much are task 4 recommendations meant to include specifics about Site 2?
| If it were up to me, for task 4, my team would provide general feedback on the Library's co-design approach in the project plan and recommend tentative revisions to the project plan, pending findings from Site 2 discovery. Then we would include specifics about Site 2 community's co-design needs in their Needs and Opportunities Report, delivered related to task 7, at which point, we would finalize recommendation revisions and execute. | The overall project plan includes site two, so task 4 recommendations should also include site two. We encourage offerors to propose their specific approach in their technical approach volume in phase 2. | ||||
| NA | NA | How would you describe the kind of relationship that LOC would like to cultivate with the Public Library partners? For example, would you say it's more enabler, facilitator, educator? Something else entirely? | Partner. The details of that relationship will be outlined in a cooperative agreement that will be signed before the period of performance for this contract begins. | ||
| NA | NA | What prior experience does LOC/LOC Labs have with co-design/co-creation? | LOC Labs and individual staff members have experience facilitating projects with communities and co-designing with individuals. This will be the first formal co-creation project the LOC has undertaken. | ||
| NA | NA | Are there any [external] advisors/approvers involved in this project in addition to LOC staff and Public Library partners? | No. | ||
| 6 | C.1 Background | Evaluate technologies that enhance the impact of LC digital collections on local communities |
| "In the first public library agreement with a library system in northeastern Oklahoma (site one, site one library partner, site one library system), LC will build an engaging, light-weight digital experience to be made available at a partner branch site by February 2026. In the second agreement with a library system in Cleveland, OH (site two, site two library partner, site two library system), the Library will develop a more technically ambitious digital experience, to include custom fabrication, to be made available at a branch site by December 2026." | Can the Government please provide more detailed examples of the types of technologies that may be evaluated as part of this pilot? | We do not require the contractor to evaluate the technologies themselves, but the impact of these technologies on the experiences on parter libraries and community members. We may use emerging technologies such as immersive technology, spatial computing, machine learning and human-machine interfaces. | |||
| 6 | C.1 Background | received grant funding for 2 year initiative to pilot a program that uses emerging technologies, Library collections, and a co-creation approach to re-imagine public engagement with local communities and historic materials. | Are the collections to be engaged or utilized primarily from the LOC's own repositories of digital collections? | We are required to use some LOC digital collections for each experience, but may also use collections from partner libraries and/or community stakeholders. | |
| 6 | C.1 Background | received grant funding for 2 year initiative to pilot a program that uses emerging technologies, Library collections, and a co-creation approach to re-imagine public engagement with local communities and historic materials. | Does the LOC intend to digitize and acquire collections from local communities and partners into its respositories? | No. | |
| 6 | C.1 Background | received grant funding for 2 year initiative to pilot a program that uses emerging technologies, Library collections, and a co-creation approach to re-imagine public engagement with local communities and historic materials. | Does the LOC intend data and digital assets used in the production of co-created products to utilize the LOC's Rights Advisory of, "No known restrictions on images made by the U.S. Government." Or does it seek all rights reserved, copyrighted, or more affirmatively openly licensed data and digital assets, such as Creative Commons licenses? | We intend to use assets in the production of co-created products that are free to use, i.e. The Library believes that this content is either in the public domain, has no known copyright, or has been cleared by the copyright owner for public use. | |
| 6 | C.1 Background | Through a cooperative agreement with two public library systems, LC staff will co-create a customized and transformative digital experience with each library partner, combining emerging technologies, digital library materials, and themes relevant to local communities. In the first a public library in northeastern Oklahoma...Cleveland, OH. | Two assist in developing an accourate, relevant, and informed SOW can the LOC confirm the partner library systems as being the Eastern Oklahoma and Cleveland Public Library system? | No. | |
| 6 | C.1 Background | Through a cooperative agreement with two public library systems, LC staff will co-create a customized and transformative digital experience with each library partner, combining emerging technologies, digital library materials, and themes relevant to local communities. In the first a public library in northeastern Oklahoma...Cleveland, OH. | Can the LOC provide a list of LC staff and units participating the project to help better align the SOW? For example, valauble LOC partner to include would include the Library of Congress Labs. Will they be key stakeholders and long-term owners of the process and work? | LC Labs will be key stakeholders in this project. There will also be project staff working in curatorial and digital collections areas of the LOC. | |
| 6 | C.1 Background | Through a cooperative agreement with two public library systems, LC staff will co-create a customized and transformative digital experience with each library partner, combining emerging technologies, digital library materials, and themes relevant to local communities. In the first a public library in northeastern Oklahoma...Cleveland, OH. | With respect to both community partners and this grant funded project, does the LOC expect and desire to work with Indigenous communities and require submitters to offer a technical approach that adheres to and incorporates the LOC's collections policies for collecting indigenous and culturalty sensitive materials? | The LOC may work with indigenous communities as part of this project. We do not require submitters to offer a technical approach that adheres to and incorporates the LOC's collection policies for collecting indigenous and culturalty sensitive materials because he LOC does not plan to add materials to LOC collections as part of this project. | |
| 6 | C.1 Background | Through a cooperative agreement with two public library systems, LC staff will co-create a customized and transformative digital experience with each library partner, combining emerging technologies, digital library materials, and themes relevant to local communities. In the first a public library in northeastern Oklahoma...Cleveland, OH. | Does the LOC work with the Department of the Interior, Indian Affairs, Tribal Liaison Officers, or other designated staff as part of its work with Indigenous communities? | None of the entities listed will be involved with the requirement described in this solicitation. | |
| 6 | C.1 Background | Assess the impacts of these cooperative agreements and experiences for community members, public library staff, and the LOC. | Does the LOC have an existing co-creation legal agreement template? | Yes. | |
| 6 | C.1 Background | Assess the impacts of these cooperative agreements and experiences for community members, public library staff, and the LOC. | Will the LOC make available its legal counsel or provide legal counsel needed at no additional cost to author, draft, and complete co-creation legal agreements with digital signature and processing? | No. We expect the contractor to assess the impacts of the cooperative agreements and experiences for community members, public library staff, and the LOC. We expect the cooperative agreements with both public library system partners to be signed before the beginning of the period of performance. | |
| 6 | C.1 Background | ..engaging, light-weight digital experience be made available at a partner branch site by February 2026. | |||
| ...more technically ambitious digital experience, to include custom fabrication, to be available in the branch site by December 2026 | Are there particular platforms and technologies that the LOC prefers or prohibits? | Library staff will select technologies and platforms in keeping with security, accessibility and usability practices in place at LC, and in consultation with the needs of the partners. | |||
| 6 | C.1 Background | ..engaging, light-weight digital experience be made available at a partner branch site by February 2026. | |||
| ...more technically ambitious digital experience, to include custom fabrication, to be available in the branch site by December 2026 | May third party technology providers, such as Google, Snap, or others be approached about partnership to provide the necessary hardware and software to build co-created experiences? | Procuring hardware and software are not dictated by the solicitation. Offerors who wish to propose solutions which include the usage of hardware or software may propose that approach in their technical appoach volume in phase 2 and must include any associated costs as part of their price proposal to substantiate their firm-fixed price. | |||
| 6 | C.1 Background | ..engaging, light-weight digital experience be made available at a partner branch site by February 2026. | |||
| ...more technically ambitious digital experience, to include custom fabrication, to be available in the branch site by December 2026 | Can the LOC provide information about what technology resources already exist at partner libraries and that will continue to be available to build co-created experiences? For example maker spaces, labs, computers, scanners, cameras, digital conference facilities, 3d printers, creative software, productivity software. What staffing resources already exist within these partner libraries regarding technology administration and support? | We can provide this information after the solicitation is awarded. | |||
| 7 | C.1 Background | into existing LC digital presentations, processes, software and services. | Can the LOC provide list of the into existing LC digital presentations, processes, software and services that it wishes the projects to be incorporated into for ease of engagement and sustainabilty? For example does the LOC work with cloud-based digital workplace tools like Microsoft Teams? Does the LOC have existing digital task management and reporting tools like Microsoft Planner task and project management tools where project tasks and status can be tracked for reporting purposes? | Library staff will select technologies and platforms in keeping with security, accessibility and usability practices in place at LC, and in consultation with the needs of the partners. | |
| 7 | C.3 Performance Requirements | "Local services" refers to business, not-for profits, and other organizational entities located within the same service area as the designated public library system. | Does the LOC have established partnership protocals or agreements for working with local services that could be shared to better inform responses? | No. | |
| 8 | C.2 Scope |
Task 3: Facilitate Site One Public Library and Community Engagement Sessions
| These sessions will follow co-creation methods and best practices... | Does the LOC have definitions or specific examples as it what it constitutes "best practice" that should be considered when making submissions? | As the co-creation expert, we look to the contractor to provide best practices. | |||
| 9 | C.3 Performance Requirements | ||||
| Task 7: Identify Site Two Public Library Partner Needs and Recommend Resourcing Approaches | Additionally, the Contractor will recommend strategies to attract a wide range of S1P1 patron and local community participation and feedback regarding program subject matter and design (e.g. representing a mix of local interests, backgrounds, geography, and socioeconomic status). | Can the LOC confirm that the inclusive participants of community engagement are legal and consenting adults, not children, to be clear of any potential liabilty when working with minors or that the LOC is prepared to assist with legal support and conditions if minors and their guardians are a desired constituency? | Yes, we can confirm this. | ||
| 9 | C.3 Performance Requirements | ||||
| Task 7: Identify Site Two Public Library Partner Needs and Recommend Resourcing Approaches | Additionally, the Contractor will recommend strategies to attract a wide range of S1P1 patron and local community participation and feedback regarding program subject matter and design (e.g. representing a mix of local interests, backgrounds, geography, and socioeconomic status). | Does the LOC have requirements for the proccess and products of these experiences with respect to accessbility and its accessibility policies https://www.loc.gov/accessibility/? | Yes. See addition of clause LC52.239-7 in section H | ||
| p. 6 | C1. Background | In 2024, LC received grant funding for a 2-year initiative to pilot a program that uses emerging technologies, Library collections, and a co-creation approach to re-imagine public engagement with local communities and | |||
| historic materials. | Please clarify the definition of the term "pilot" versus the word "program" in the context of this SOW. Are these terms synonymous in the context of this SOW? | The activities described in this SOW are designed to help the Library learn in a new area. In that sense, the Library will be "piloting" this activity. This initiative is not a formal "pilot" or "program" as defined by official Library policy. | |||
| p. 6 | C1. Background | In 2024, LC received grant funding for a 2-year initiative to pilot a program that uses emerging technologies, | What is the source of the grant funding for this 2-year project? Is there any risk that the funder could rescind the grant or that Congressional managers could eliminate this project after the contract is awarded? | The grant was awarded to the LOC by a private foundation. OGC? | |
| p. 6 | C1. Background | In the first public library agreement with a library system in northeastern Oklahoma (site one, site one library partner, site one library system), LC will build an engaging, light-weight digital experience to be made available at a partner branch site by February 2026. In the second agreement with a library system in Cleveland, OH (site two, site two library partner, site two library system), the Library will develop a more technically ambitious digital experience, to include custom fabrication, to be made available at a branch site by December 2026. | Can you please provide additional detail on what is meant by "light-weight digital experience" versus "ambitious digital experience, to include fabrication?" | Yes. Due to the short timeline for site one launch, we will be using off the shelf hardware solutions and no custom fabrication work. We imagine the code and scope of the experience itself will be lighter/less complex to accommodate the short development timeline. The second site will include custom fabrication components, and the technical and experiential scope will be more ambitious. | |
| p. 6 | C1. Background | Through a cooperative agreement with two public library systems, LC staff will co-create a customized and transformative digital experience with each library partner, combining emerging technologies, digital library materials, and themes relevant to local communities. In the first public library agreement with a library system in northeastern Oklahoma (site one, site one library partner, site one library system), LC will build an engaging, light-weight digital experience to be made available at a partner branch site by February 2026. In the second agreement with a library system in Cleveland, OH (site two, site two library partner, site two library system), the Library will develop a more technically ambitious digital experience, to include custom fabrication, to be made available at a branch site by December 2026. | Can you provide any background information regarding the choice of the two chosen library systems for these co-creation sessions? Why did the LC select NE Oklohoma and Cleveland, OH? |
Have Library of Congress program staff already been discussing co-creation planning with these two library systems?
Can the LoC provide the cooperative agreement language with Offerors so Offeros have a deeper understanding of the expectations and needs of these two partner library systems?
| Prior to the issuance of this RFP, have any Library of Congress program staff or staff at the NE Oklahoma and Cleveland library systems consulted with any internal or outside co-creation facilitators to scope co-creation needs and requirements for this project? | We can provide this information after the solicitation is awarded. Yes, we have begun discussing co-creation planning with the two partner systems. We cannot provide the partner agreement but can after the solicitation is awarded. Yes, we did consult with outside co-creation facilitators during the market research phase of this solicitation. | ||||
| p. 6 | C1. Background | In 2024, LC received grant funding for a 2-year initiative to pilot a program that uses emerging technologies, Library collections, and a co-creation approach to re-imagine public engagement with local communities and | |||
| historic materials. | When engaging with and co-creating with the public, will there be specific guidance provided by LC on how to select community participants? Will there be guidance for determining levels of representation of different community member types such as minority, gender, socioeconomic status, etc. | There will not be specific guidance for determining number of community members based on any of those characteristics. Contractor should use their co-creation expertise and consultation with LC and partner libraries to invite community participation. | |||
| p. 6 | C1. Background | By creating unique, relevant experiences in a cooperation with 2 public library systems and their community members, LC will connect local interests and stories with the Library’s dynamic and trusted digital resources and staff, for collaborative civic engagement and positive change. | There is no mention of funding or grants to the library partners. Is there funding being provided outside of the grant funding for this solicitation to cover the library partner's leve of effort and expenses? What is their motivation to participate? This is an important question because it ties directly into the offeror's ability to gain timely access to the people, resources and information that reside in these critical library partners. | While the LOC is not providing funding directly to library partners, it is providing labor, equipment, and other in-kind services. Partner libraries will have signed an unfunded cooperative agreement before the period of performance of this contract which will include cooperating with contract staff and describe their motiviations for participating. | |
| p. 8 and p. 9 | Task 2 and Task 7 | The COR will schedule the report presentation. | Is there a preference for these presentations to be in-person or virtual? | Virtual presentations are preferred. | |
| pp. 8 and 10 | Tasks 3, 3B and 8a | The Contractor will coordinate and consult with LC program staff to design and facilitate a series of virtual and in-person co-creation sessions with the site one library partner and community members to develop digital experience goals and design. | Can you please provide the anticipated number of co-creation sessions and expected number of participants in each co-creation session at each site? Is the fact that there are two identical deliverables listed, one within 103 days and the other within 134 days of contract kick-off, an indicator that only TWO co-creation sessions will be held? |
Can you please indicate what the LC has in mind for the duration of each of the co-creation sessions (number of hours or days) for both in-person and virtual session types?
| The number of sessions, duration and number of participants are all critical cost factors for each co-creation session, so providing additional guidance for our pricing will be essential. | In total we require 4 in-person co-creation events and 2 virtual co-creation events over the period of performance. We reserve the option of exersising an additional three virtual events and 1 in-person event. With regards to expected participations in each session and duration, we would like the contractor to submit a proposal that includes these details as part of their technical approach, given the firm-fixed price and the goals of the project as described. | ||
| p. 8 | Task 3 and 3B | Task 3: Facilitate Site One Public Library and Community Engagement Sessions |
| Task 3B (Optional): Additional Site One Virtual Co-creation Session | Task 3 refers to "community engagement sessions" and "co-creation session" and Task 3B refers to "co-creation session." Are these two things - "community engagement sessions" and "co-creation sessions" - the same? If not, please provide clarity on the differences between the two. | Yes they are the same. | ||
| p. 9 | Task 5 | The COR will schedule the feedback synthesis presentation. | Is there a preference for this presentation to be in-person or virtual? |
| Is there any requirement to limit the surveys to people who were involved in the co-creation process? | Virtual presentations are preferred. | ||||
| p. 9 and p. 11 | Task 6 and Task 9 | The Contractor will provide personnel to support on-site needs at the public library system related to the work of this contract, such as logistical and administrative support for coordinating events and engagement sessions (e.g. space preparation, materials preparation), community outreach, and digital experience support and administration. | Please clarify the need for "on-site" support. Does the support need to be provided by personnel that is physically located at the partner library system, or does "on-site" refer to providing the support services indicated to library personnel who are on-site? Is there a requirement for the services we provide to be done in-person, or can those services be provided remotely? | Most of the tasks outlined in the SOW can be performed by contractors off-site. However, through sub-contracting or other means, the contractor should also ensure that the project has on-site supporrt locally as described in Task 6. | |
| p. 10 | Task 8A | The Contractor will coordinate and consult LC program staff to design and facilitate a series of virtual and in-person co-creation sessions with the site two library partner and community members to develop digital experience goals and design. | Can you please provide the anticipated number of co-creation events and expected number of participants in each co-creation event at each site? Is the fact that there is only one deliverable listed, within 360 days of contract kick-off, an indicator that only ONE engagement sessions will be held? |
| Will there be at least one in-person co-creation session, or might that session be virtual? | In total we require 4 in-person co-creation events and 2 virtual co-creation events over the period of performance. We also require virtual facilitated sessions with each public library partner. We reserve the option of exersizing an additional three virtual events and 1 in-person event. | ||||
| p. 10 | Task 8C | The session will follow co-creation methods and best practices to foster a trusting relationship between the Library of Congress, site one public library partner and community stakeholders and seek actionable input from stakeholders, with the goal of ensuring partner and community values, needs and interests are reflected in the final launched product. | This refers to site one. Should this be site two instead? | Correct. This should say "site two" instead. See highlighted change in section C. | |
| p. 11 | Task 10 | Task 10 (Optional): Collect and Synthesize Feedback from Site Two Public Library Partner Stakeholders |
The COR will schedule the feedback synthesis presentation. Please confirm that this feedback (survey) will be optional for site two. Please explain the rationale for not doing such a survey.
| Is there a preference for these presentations to be in-person or virtual? | If the option year is exercised, then the feedback survey must be done to satisfy this deliverable requirement. Virtual presentations are preferred. | ||||
| p. 11 | Task 11 | Task 11 (Optional): On-site Personnel Support for Site Two | Please explain the purpose of having additonal on-site support for site two. Is this to cover additional (optional) co-creation sessions in Tasks 8B, 8C and 8D, or is there another reason/purpose of this additional support? | Task 11 is a continuation of the site support described in Task 9 into the option year, if it is executed by the COR. | |
| p. 51 | M.2.1 | - Facilitating in-person ideation sessions. |
- Identifying stakeholder needs and providing resources to support those needs, either directly or through sub-contracting with local businesses and/or individuals.
| - Measuring impact of the project or program on community organizations and/or individual community members. | These key evaluation criteria for the Corporate Experience volume indicate "providing resources to support those needs" as well as "measuring impact." The former implies providing services to stakeholders and the latter implies monitoring and evaluation of the intervention. These are very different than acting as a partner for LC that has expertise in co-creation. To what degree is LC looking for a partner that has experience in providing services directly to stakeholders as well as monitoring and evaluation? | We seek both. The monitoring and evaluation the contractor will be doing is not of their own interventions, but of the project plan created before the period of perfromance, partner sentiment regarding the LOC, and reactions to the digital experience after launch. | |||
| 49 | L.4.1 | Must the text in the Corporate Experience volume be limited exclusively to case studies or is it possible/desirable to include some general context about the offeror's experience? | The Library will only consider the two corporate experience examples requested in section L. | ||
| 11 | C.4 Schedule of Deliverables | "Agenda and meeting notes from contract kick-off"/ "Within 7 calendar days of contract start" | As contract kick-offs are not always able to happen within 7 calendar days of award due to schedules, would the Government consider the due date being within 7 calendar days of kick-off meeting? | Yes. See highlighted changes to C.4 | |
| p. 7 and p. 9 | Task 1 | The kick-off meeting must include the Library of Congress project team members, Contracting Office Representative and key Contractor personnel, excluding the on-site personnel support person referred to in | |||
| sections 3.5 and 3.9 of this statement of work. | there are no sections 3.5 and 3.9 in the SOW. Instead, the SOW uses a “C.x” numbering scheme, and the tasks themselves are not labeled as “3.x” in the body of the SOW. The only place where “3.5” and “3.9” appear is in the deliverables schedule table, where they correspond to Task 5 (feedback synthesis for site one) and Task 9 (on-site support for site two), but Task 6 (on-site support for site one) is actually section C.6 in the SOW. | ||||
| Please clarify the references in this section so that we are able to respond appropriately to the SOW. | See highlighted changes to Task 1 in section C. | ||||
| p. 7 and 9 | Section C.2 and Task 4 | The contractor will provide equitable compensation between contributors performing similar activities. |
This includes identifying key performance indicators for stakeholder equity, key opportunities and methods for public library/community intervention and feedback on experience design and development and suggesting strategies for facilitating participatory stakeholder listening and design sessions, managing complex and sometimes differing stakeholder needs, and creatively leveraging program and Library resources in response to public library/ community needs. Does the Library define 'equity' in a way that aligns with specific federal statutes, executive orders, or internal policies? If so, please provide documentation.
Are there restrictions on how demographic data (e.g., race, gender) can be used to ensure equitable participation in co-creation activities?
Are there federal or Library-specific guidelines prohibiting the use of DEI-focused methodologies (e.g., targeted outreach to underrepresented groups) in fulfilling equity requirements?
How should the contractor document equity-related decisions (e.g., participant selection, compensation) to align with federal reporting standards?
Does the Library anticipate requiring revisions to equity-related deliverables if new executive orders or policies conflict with current RFP language?
| Could LC provide examples of acceptable methodologies for measuring 'stakeholder equity' KPIs (Task 4) that align with current Executive Order compliance requirements? | See highlighted changes in task 4 in section C. | ||||
| P. 49 | L5 | Offerors’ proposals must assume a $340,000 fully-loaded, Firm-Fixed Price, including all travel. | Of the 15 deliverables described in the SOW, over half (six) are listed as optional. This will require offerors to maximize the firm-fixed-price buddget in case all options are exercised. Would LC consider requesting separate pricing for the optional items, or clarifying that the intention is to price those optional items separately and exercise those options on a case-by-case basis? | Offerors must, in their payment plans, separately price all tasks described in section C. All tasks must be included in the firm-fixed price described in section L. | |
| 49 | L.4.1 | Offerors shall submit descriptions of 2 completed and/or ongoing projects performed for commercial and/or federal clients in the past five (5) years. | Will the government accept corporate experience from an offeror's parent company if the offeror can demonstrate the resources of the parent company will be available to support the project? | Corporate experience examples provided must be meaningfully performed by the offeror and demonstate the offeror's ability to successfully provide the servies described in the solicitation. | |
| 11 | C.4 Schedule of Deliverables | Tasks 3, 8A, 8D | For pricing purposes, can the Government please confirm that offerors are to include provide an estimate that travel costs for attending and facilitating 5 in-person sessions, as detailed in the schedule of deliverables? (2 sessions in Task 3, 2 sessions in Task 8A, and 1 session in Task 8D) | Offerors' price proposal should include any costs associated with the performance of the requirements described in the solicitation, including travel. Offerors' travel costs must be included in their firm-fixed price. | |
| 52 | Section M Evaluation of Factors | ||||
| M.2.1 Factor-Price | This is a grant-funded requirement. The Library's available funding, and pricing for this Firm-Fixed Price contract is $340,000.00. | Will the LOC or partner libraries be providing or paying for any required equipment (e.g., hardware and software) needed to build the co-created experiences or are equipment purchases to withdrawn from the fixed-term fees? | The implementation of the co-created experience will be separately funded by the Library. This solicitation is for support services separate from the implementation of those experiences. | ||
| 49 | L.5 Pricing | "Offerors’ proposals must assume a $340,000 fully-loaded, Firm-Fixed Price, including all travel." | Does this amount include just the base contract or both the base and option 1? | The $340,000.00 fully-loaded, Firm-Fixed Price must cover all tasks described in section C. This includes the base year and the option year. | |
| 49 | L.5 Pricing | "The Library of Congress is not authorized to make progress payments. No payment may be tied to the passage of time or a particular date. Each payment must be related to the delivery and acceptance of a particular numbered task listed in section C." | Are we able to request advance payments for tasks, or is this on a reimbursement basis only? What happens in the event that funding for this project is cancelled or withdrawn in some way while in progress? | The Library is only permitted to provide payments on a reimbursement basis. This requirement is funded through a non-governmental grant and the funds for this requirement will be obligated at time of award, awaiting disbursement as tasks are completed. |
In the extremely unlikely event that the grant was cancelled, the Library would follow the normal procedures for a termination for convenience which includes the reimbursement of the contractor for completed deliverables and their other incurred costs.
| 49 | L.4.1 | The offeror shall provide an overview of the technical requirements worked, date(s) of performance, the total dollar amount of the contract, and the results achieved. | Is there a preferred format for the Corporate Experience Volume submission, other than addressing 'technical requirements worked, date(s) of performance, the total dollar amount of the contract, and the results achieved' of 2 projects, with cover letter? | The requirements in sections L.3 and L.4.1 of the solicitation are the only firm requirements for the corporate experience volume. Offerors should format their volume and provide details in whatever way is necessary to demonstrate to the Library that the offeror has the expertise and proven ability to provide the services required in the solicitation. See section M.2.1 for information on how the Library will evaluate offerors' corporate experience volumes. | |
| 49 | L.4.1 | The offeror shall provide an overview of the technical requirements worked, date(s) of performance, the total dollar amount of the contract, and the results achieved. | Is there a preferred format or specific details needed for 'technical requirements worked' in the Corporate Experience Volume, other than self-defined project descriptions, parameters, key activities, and milestones? | See previous question. | |
| NA | NA | General | Is there an incumbent performing co-creation services for this grant? | There is no incumbent as the Library has not previously contracted for these services. | |
| 49 | L.4. | Proposal Phases | Can the government specificy the due date for L.4.2 Phase 2: Technical Approach Volume? | The due date is not yet known and will depend on how long evaluations of phase 1 proposals take. Offerors will be provided with the due date for phase 2 in their advisory letters following phase 1. | |
| 49 | L.5 | Pricing | Does the government have a pricing Excel format they wish for contractors to use in the submission? | No particular format is required. Any format which makes clear the offeror's notional labor mix and other costs which justify the firm-fixed price is acceptable. | |
| NA | NA | Noting that the period of performance is slated to begin fairly soon, can you provide any insight as to the timing of advice to proceed and/or phase 2? | The timeline for the issuance of advisory letters is not yet known and will depend on how long evaluations of phase 1 proposals take, which primarily depends on how many phase 1 submissions the Library receives. | ||
| NA | NA | I am in the process of standing up a new business entity. Would it be possible to respond to the solicitation under my current entity but contract under another if registered in SAM in time? | Only entities which respond to the solicitation are eligible for award. If an entity is successful in obtaining an award, they may not pass that award to another entity. | ||
| 48 | L.3 Proposal Format | Separate electronic files shall be provided for each proposal volume as | |||
| follows | Can the Government confirm that the price volume is also included in Phase 2? | The payment plan and price proposal will be submitted as part of Offerors’ Phase 2 submissions. | |||
| 49 | L.5 Pricing | payment must be related to the delivery and acceptance of a particular numbered task listed in section C. | Can the Government confirm if deliverables in Section C can be made into sub-deliverables for the purposes of milestone payments? | Tasks may be divided on offerors' proposed payment plan to the extent they are divided in section C of the solicitation. For example, task 8A and 8D should be priced separately. Further division is not permissible (e.g. it would not be acceptable to proposed multipla payments for task 7 as each of the deliverables for that task are completed. | |
| 4 | B.2 PRICE/COST SCHEDULE | ||||
| ITEM INFORMATION | B.2 PRICE/COST SCHEDULE ITEM INFORMATION | Can the Government confirm whether the unit price table from page 4 should be filled out and included in as an exhibit in price proposals? | There is no need to specifically fill out the table in section B.2. The pricing for each task, provided in each offeror's payment plan in phase 2, will be used by the government to fill out B.2 when generating an award document. | ||
| 50 | M.2 Evaluation Factors | Offers must only provide their Corporate Experience Volume by the solicitation deadline (phase 1) and should not submit a Technical Approach / Staffing Volume as part of their initial submission. | |||
| After the Government completes evaluation of the Phase 1 Corporate Experience Volumes, offerors will receive an advisory notification via email from the Library. This notification will advise the offeror of the Government’s advisory recommendation to proceed or not to proceed with Phase 2 submission of the Technical Approach / Staffing Volume. | If invited to proceed to phase 2, may offerors submit additional information about corporate experience — to allow us to show the breadth of our capabilities beyond the 2 project examples summarized in phase 1? | No. Only the information in the corporate experience volume submitted in phase 1, consistent with the requirements in sections L.3 and L.4.1, will be considered for the corporate experience evaluation factor. | |||
| 51 | M.2.2 Factor 2 – Technical Approach / Staffing | ||||
| Personnel will be deemed to be “local” to a designated local library system if they are located with 50 miles of any branch in that system. | Since both library locations have states which border them within a 50 mile radius, would our wage location be determined by the location of the library, or the location of the staff, should the reside out of state but within the 50 mile radius? | For the purposes of determining if personnel are "local" with regard to the Library's evaluation of proposals, that is determined by the 50 mile rule described in M.2.2 without regard to state boundaries. |
The Library assumes that the wage locations referred to in this question are regarding the registers of wage determination attached as J2 and J3 and the requirements of FAR 52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards. It is the obligation solely of the contractor to determine the applicability of FAR 52.222-41 and the Library is unable to provide legal advice about the implementation of the legal requirements of that clause if it applies to a contractor.
| 51 | M.2.1 Factor 1 – Corporate Experience | ||||
| The Library will evaluate the offeror’s Corporate Experience volume to assess the extent to which it demonstrates the offeror has the expertise and proven ability required to provide the services required in this solicitation. | If the Prime is bidding on this project with a Subcontractor that has direct/relevant corporate experience relative to this project, would the Subcontractors experience satisfy the Corporate Experience criteria for the team bidding on the proposal? | The offeror's corporate experience examples must have been performed by the offeror itself. | |||
| P. 49 | L5 | Offerors’ proposals must assume a $340,000 fully-loaded, Firm-Fixed Price, including all travel. | Is the $340,000 total available funding noted under "L.5 Pricing" inclusive of the optional Tasks and items noted in the SOW? (Can you please list the specific tasks that the $340,000 is intended to cover under the firm-fixed price offer?) | The $340,000.00 fully-loaded, Firm-Fixed Price must cover all tasks described in section C. This includes all tasks in the base year and the option year. |
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 .