RFI questions.pdf
PDF 62 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Assistance in Reimagining the Smithsonian Learning Lab Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 033
- Issued by
- Smithsonian Institution
About this file
This Request for Information (RFI) from the Smithsonian Institution seeks input on modernizing the Learning Lab platform, which currently contains over 6 million objects. The Smithsonian is exploring potential enhancements or a complete replacement of the existing platform, with key uncertainties around budget, timeline, technology infrastructure, and implementation approach. They are currently collecting feedback from educators, including a recent project with 38 teachers, to help develop criteria for content migration and platform development.
Key details include the Smithsonian's interest in measuring user metrics like unique and returning users, engagement duration, and popular collections. The organization is open to potential AI-enabled features but has established privacy review processes. They anticipate a phased rollout approach, potentially involving pilot cohorts, and are willing to leverage existing teacher networks for user research and testing. However, many specifics about the platform's technical architecture, migration strategy, and exact launch timeline remain undetermined and would be clarified in a future Request for Proposal (RFP).
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFI questions 3.pdf | ||
| RFI questions 2.pdf | ||
| RFI_Learning Lab.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Request for Information (RFI)
816229241
Smithsonian Learning Lab
Answers to Questions
1. Is there an estimated budget range or funding profile currently anticipated for this effort, including whether funding is expected to be phased across multiple fiscal years?
ANSWER: There is currently no estimated budget nor firm plans on funding across multiple years.
2. Is the Smithsonian considering a small business set-aside, socio-economic designation, or small business participation goals for a potential future solicitation related to this RFI?
ANSWER: This decision has not been made.
3. What is the anticipated timeline for a potential RFP release, evaluation period, and award, should the Smithsonian decide to move forward with a formal solicitation?
ANSWER: There currently is no timeline for an RFP.
4. Can the Smithsonian provide high-level information on the current Learning Lab technical architecture, including: - ANSWER: This information is not yet available.
o The primary platform or CMS in use o Whether the solution is cloud-based and, if so, in which environment o Key integrations supporting search, content management, and user accounts
5. Which components of the current Learning Lab are creating the most significant challenges today (e.g., search and discoverability, UX/UI, content governance, scalability, performance, or integration limitations)?
ANSWER: This information may be presented in an RFP if one issues.
6. Are there opportunities for respondents to engage directly with the program office or the Office of Educational Technology to better understand priorities, success criteria, and tradeoffs being considered for this initiative?
ANSWER: Not at this time.
7. Are there incumbent vendors or existing technology providers supporting Learning Lab today that respondents should be aware of as part of the modernization effort?
ANSWER: This information would be provided in an RFP if one should issue.
8. How well documented is the current Learning Lab infrastructure, including architecture diagrams, data models, and integration points, and would this documentation be made available during a future solicitation to support informed solution design?
9. Are there specific accessibility, privacy, or security compliance requirements beyond standard Smithsonian policies that will be critical for Learning Lab 2.0?
10. Does the Smithsonian anticipate a phased rollout approach (e.g., an initial MVP followed by iterative enhancements), and how would success be measured at each phase?
11. What technology is the existing platform built on and is there a requirement to keep that platform?
o Section II, Project Scope (Page 3): Does the Smithsonian envision Learning Lab 2.0 as an evolution of the existing platform or a replacement? Should vendors assume responsibility for migrating existing user accounts, collections, and data, and are there expectations for continuity of access during the transition?
ANSWER: This is a question we are still exploring. The Office of Educational Technology would be working closely with ODI and OCIO on a migration of data. Ideally the existing site would have limited interruptions to access during this process.
12. Section II, Project Scope (Page 3): The RFI notes that the current Learning Lab includes over 6 million objects and that this volume creates barriers to discovery.
For Learning Lab 2.0, has the Smithsonian identified any criteria or framework for prioritizing content for initial curation? Are there specific museums, collections, or content types that must be represented at launch?
ANSWER: We are developing this now. We are wrapping up a project with 38 teachers from across the country, where we are collecting their feedback on existing Learning Lab Collections. From that we will develop our criteria/framework for what we would keep and what would not migrate to the new site.
13. Section III.A.6, Measuring Success (Pages 5–6): What specific user adoption, engagement, or satisfaction metrics does the Smithsonian anticipate using to evaluate success during and after implementation? Are baseline metrics from the current Learning Lab available to inform initial performance targets?
ANSWER: On the new site, we will want to measure unique and returning users, where they go, how long they engage with the site, most popular collections, etc.
We have some baseline metrics from the current site, but we are starting fresh in thinking about the new site and what we want to accomplish there.
14. Section III.B and Section IV, Question 5 (Pages 5–6): If AI-enabled features are proposed, what governance, privacy, and review requirements must be satisfied prior to deployment?
o Has the Smithsonian established an approval process or typical review timeline with the Privacy Office for AI-related functionality? ANSWER: Yes o Can you share governance rules around AI policy and how they want to use it? ANSWER: This cannot be shared this at this time.
15. Target Audience and Personas, Appendix 1 (Pages 4 and Appendix): The RFI references testing Learning Lab 2.0 with teachers. Will the selected vendor have access to existing Smithsonian educator networks, professional development programs, or teacher partnerships to support user research and usability testing?
Are there privacy or institutional constraints vendors should plan for?
ANSWER: Teachers who just completed the teacher workgroup have expressed a willingness to continue to be involved and are willing to give feedback as we develop the new site.
16. Section II and Target Audience (Pages 3–4): Does the Smithsonian anticipate a phased rollout for Learning Lab 2.0, such as pilot cohorts or priority grade bands, or a full launch to all intended educator audiences simultaneously?
ANSWER: Yes.
17. What are the milestones for this project? What is the estimated timeline for when you want to launch this product?
ANSWER: This will be dictated by whether we are evolving the existing platform or creating a new site.
18. Can you please share the Smithsonian design and security review and approval processes?
ANSWER: There is a process for review of both design and security/privacy, but we don’t have specific details about those processes to share at this time. But they will need to be built into the timeline for the project.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .