The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Smithsonian Institution Solicitation
#33330225RF0010026
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE DIGITAL EXHIBITION EXPERIENCE INITIATIVE
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
AMENDMENT NO. 1
# 33330225RF0010022
Dated: April 29, 2025 Via E-Mail Delivery
A. The Request for Proposals is hereby amended as follows:
1. Any and all references to time and materials pricing is hereby deleted in its entirety. The National Museum of African American History and Culture is seeking firm fixed pricing for the Initial Term only (as defined in the RFP) for the services and deliverables as outlined in Section C of the RFP.
2. Any and all references to an Interview and Epic Session are also hereby deleted. This solicitation process will NOT include an Interview or Epic Session.
3. The scope of work for this project will NOT include any social media services. All references and attachments regarding social media services and attachment J.11 SD 814 Smithsonian Social Media Policy are hereby deleted entirely from the RFP.
B. The Request for Proposals is hereby amended to include the following questions and responses:
| 1 |
| Section A.1. This effort is described as "Phase III" for the existing online digital exhibition experience. Can the Smithsonian please elaborate the scope of work for the previous 2 phases? |
Phase 1: (MVP Build) Discovery phase, Technical Architecture of Platform, Published Slavery & Freedom and Making a Way exhibitions, Stories, Constellations, How We Know What We Know and Resources Sections of platform.
Phase 2: Everything you see on the platform
| 2 |
| Section B.2.2. states “In addition, at the end of all Option Periods, Contractor support may be optionally extended annually for up to four (4) additional years for general technical support.” Is the vendor expected to include pricing for the optional extension of up to four (4) additional years with this initial proposal pricing? |
No, we are only asking for pricing for the Initial Term of the awarded contract. Pricing for any option periods will be upon award of an option, provision of a detailed SOW outlining the additional services for the option, and based on pricing in the Initial Term Business proposal, subject to increases in line with the terms outlined in the RFP Section B.2.2.
| 3 |
| Section B.2.3.1. states that "Offerors are encouraged to suggest definitions for "Excellent" in their proposals." Can the Smithsonian provide any previous definitions used? |
Please see the Quality Assurance Plan with these details in Section C.2.6 of the RFP.
| 4 |
| Section C.1.3. An "online style guide" is referenced along with the "Museum's established brand identity." Can the Smithsonian provide a link or a copy of the online style guide? Is this separate or different than the museum's brand guide found here: https://nmaahc.si.edu/about/national-museum-african-american-history-and-culture-brand-guide? |
It is one in the same
| 5 |
| Section C.2.3. Can the Smithsonian provide details about its "established Museum digital product development lifecycle practices"? |
Agile Methodology/ 2 week sprints
| 6 |
| Section C.2.3. The solicitation lists seven staff personnel categories in A.2.1 and C.2.3. Are all of these seven staff members considered Key Personnel, as referenced in Section L.8.3.3.2? |
Yes
Question
Response
| 7 |
| Section C.2.3.ii.a. states "a. GA 4 Event tracking: Implement customized GA4 Event tracking and reporting to measure audience reach and engagement for the Museum’s key audience segments including…. " Could the Smithsonian please provide the additional text? |
Educators, students, museum members and lifelong learners
| 8 |
| Section C.2.3.vi. How is "back-end architecture" defined, and does this include deployment infrastructure and DevOps? |
Yes it includes both and the back end is defined in the RFP in the Tech Stack information.
| 9 |
| Section C.2.4. Will the Museum provide the Contractor team access to their GitHub instance for code delivery? |
Yes.
| 10 |
| Section C.2.4. What are some examples of the types of technical support and assistance that are to be expected? |
If there is a problem with the site, vendor will address it immediately.
| 11 |
| Section C.2.4. Can the Smithsonian provide details about "the Museum's agile methodologies"? |
| We work in 2-week sprints for all aspects of the product development. We do this as well for content production. |
| 12 |
| Section C.2.7. Please clarify if the Smithsonian will provide development, test, and production environments and grant the Contractor access. |
| Yes, we provide these and the selected Contractor will be provided access after the Contract is awarded. |
| 13 |
| Section C.2.7. Please confirm if the Smithsonian will provide infrastructure management and DevSecOps support for all Smithsonian Institute environments. |
| Yes, confirmed. |
| 14 |
| Section C.2.8.ii. There is a reference to "each Phase of work" in this section. Can the Smithsonian elaborate on its view of future Phases beyond Phase III? |
| The Searchable Museum is an essential part of NMAAHC’s digital portfolio. Phase IV would begin in 4 years. It is very difficult to predict the future that far in advance but what I would say is that the platform will continue to add content and evolve. |
| 15 |
| Section C.5. Does the museum have agile project management software that the Contractor must use? If not, will Smithsonian personnel need access to Contractor provided project management tools? |
| No we don’t. We currently use tools like Smart Sheets, Dropbox and Excel. Yes we would require access to the Contractor’s project management tools. |
| 16 |
| Section C.5. Can the Smithsonian provide its current roadmap or details about upcoming digital exhibitions, stories and constellations to be published on the Searchable Museum? |
| Please see the detailed Deliverables Table in Section C.5. of the RFP. The Searchable Museum publishes on a regular and ongoing basis. NMAAHC completes at least two major exhibitions each year as well as supplemental content in the form of Constellations and Stories. |
| 17 |
| Section C.8. states “Additionally, the Contractor should anticipate travel as necessary to support user research activities, in multiple geographic locations throughout the Continental United States (CONUS).” How many cities should the vendor estimate travel to during each 6-month period? |
| Currently we only anticipate a need for the selected Contractor to travel to the NMAAHC museum in Washington, DC at least once during the Initial Term of the awarded Contract. |
| 18 |
| Section L.8.2.1. states that offeror’s T&M price proposal "shall include a breakdown of each of the deliverables into not-to-exceed prices labor categories, labor rates, level of effort for each labor category, indirect rates, other direct costs, profit and other applicable pricing elements.” If this T&M price breakdown is required, is Microsoft Excel format acceptable for the Business Proposal? |
| All references to time and materials pricing is hereby deleted and was included in error. This is a firm fixed price contract. An excel spreadsheet is fine for your response. Please be sure to respond to all requested information in whichever format you choose. |
| 19 |
| Section L.8.3.2 states "(viii) how your organization formed as one team with the client to deliver the product, and". Can the Smithsonian please provide the rest of this phrase, or remove the "and"? |
| The “and” is in error and is removed. |
| 20 |
| Section L.8.3.2. states “Each Offeror should provide a minimum of three (3) examples of comparable work performed by the Offeror’s firm in the past two (2) years.” This conflicts with Section A.2.1.ii where three similar products built in the last three years in mentioned. Can the Smithsonian clarify the time frame for relevant past performance? |
| These are two separate requirements. Volume 1 of your proposal should be your response to the Minimum Qualifications requirements. Volume 2 is the Technical Proposal and you should provide the Past Performance information per the instructions contained in Section L.8.3.2. |
| 21 |
| Section L.8.3.3.2 states "At least one of the Key Personnel should be assigned to work with the Smithsonian as the primary consultant/Project Manager for this project.” Is this in addition to the seven required personnel categories, or does the Smithsonian require that one of those staff member categories also apply to the primary consultant/Project Manager role? |
| We have plenty of Project management on the Smithsonian Side. Our current contractor uses an existing team member to organize their team. |
| 22 |
| Section M.3.1. Will the Smithsonian be evaluating against its seven listed evaluation criteria equally or is there a ranking or weighting preference to any of them? |
| The Smithsonian uses a price / technical proposal trade-off and award decision to determine the best value to the Smithsonian. Please see the details of this evaluation method as outlined in Section M.4 of the RFP. |
| 23 |
| A.2.2. Submission of Minimum Qualification Requirements: Can NMAAHC please clarify if the "no more than one-page summary of past work" indicates one-page per project discussed in A.2.1 Bullet (ii) or one-page for descriptions of all three projects? |
| This means one page per project. |
| 24 |
| A.2.1. List of Minimum Qualification Requirements: Can NMAAHC please clarify if Offerors can submit more than 3 examples of similar products under Bullet (ii)? |
| No we are asking firms to only submit three examples for the Minimum Qualification Requirements. |
| 25 |
| A.2.1. List of Minimum Qualification Requirements: In reference to providing documents evidencing minimum qualifications: can NMAAHC please clarify if the resumes associated with the dedicated staff members listed under Bullet (i) can be representative resumes, or if NMAAHC expects these staff members to be a part of the Searchable Museum contract? |
| We are interested in the resumes of the individuals that will be working on this contract and project should your firm be selected for the award. |
| 26 |
| B2.3 Contractor Project Management Plan: Can NMAAHC please define the scope and content to be included within the Contractor Project Management Plan? |
| Please refer to the RFP Section L.8.3.3. for the details on the Management Plan. |
| 27 |
| C.2.6. Quality Assurance Plan: In reference to this sentence: "Offerors are encouraged to articulate in their proposals a different framework for quality control for the Smithsonian’s review and possible acceptance and articulate an appropriate definition for “Excellent”." Can NMAAHC please clarify if they prefer an overarching definition of "Excellent" for all performance objectives or definitions of "Excellent" specific to each objective? |
| Definitions for the museum are as stated. You are welcome to propose your own quality assurance metrics and framework for measuring success in your response to the RFP. |
| 28 |
| Can NMAAHC please clarify if there is a page limitation for the Minimum Qualification Requirement submission? |
| There is no page limit. If you do not see a page limit specified then there is no page limit. |
| 29 |
| Can NMAAHC please clarify if there is a page limitation for the Business Proposal submission? |
| There is no page limit. |
| 30 |
| Can NMAAHC please clarify if there is a page limitation for the Technical Proposal submission, outside of the stated 7 page limit for the narrative section of the Plan of Accomplishment? |
| There is no total page limit for the Technical Proposal. We ask that you limit your response to the Plan of Accomplishment section of your proposal to 7 pages. |
| 31 |
| Can NMAAHC please clarify if the three bullets in this section (detailed schedule, plan for managing each phase, and approaches to efficiencies and value) are intended to be responded to outside of the 7 page narrative and are thus excluded from page limitations? |
| Everything listed in the Plan of Accomplishment section of the RFP are to be included and addressed in your response to the Plan of Accomplishment criteria and are therefore subject to the 7 page limit for your response to this section. |
| 32 |
| Can NMAAHC please confirm if offerors can submit a list of labor categories that supported our past performance efforts to fulfill bullet (vi) which calls for information of our project manager and assigned staff? |
| The RFP asks for information regarding your firm and your chosen key personnel and their past performance. Offerors should put together their proposal with relevant information to best provide and present this information to allow us to evaluate the expertise and experience of your firm and your chosen key personnel. |
| 33 |
| Based on past experience, is the recommended team in C.2.3 a baseline that can handle new content and content updates or does the team need to flex up or down? If it needs to flex, what are some cases where this would happen? |
| This is our current need and it is fixed with no need for flexing up or down. |
| 34 |
| Many Offerors have experienced challenges in securing references from government clients in the past two months. Would NMAAHC consider allowing Offerors to provide alternative documents in lieu of references (e.g. PWSs from contracts, contract award notices, CPARS, FPDSs)? |
| There is no requirement that references be limited to former government clients only. Please refer to the instructions of the RFP and respond to the information requested. |
| 35 |
| If an Offeror's references are not able to respond to NMAAHC's inquiries about their contract work, will that Offeror be disqualified? |
| We will follow the evaluation criteria listed in the RFP when making the award determination for this RFP. |
| 36 |
| Can NMAAHC please confirm if Letters of Commitment are required for all individuals listed as Key Personnel or if LoCs are only needed for subcontractors? (Pg. 9 C.2.3 – ii) |
| Per the instructions of the RFP, letters of commitment are requested for subcontractors. |
| 37 |
| What types of additional analytics that go beyond the GA4 solution standard offerings for web and event traffic is the Smithsonian interested in? For example additional analytics services like Campaign Management and Campaign Design? (Pg. 9 - C.2.3) |
| Right now we use GA4. There will be no need for social media campaign management for this project. That requirement has been deleted per Section A of this Amendment No. 1 to the RFP. |
| 38 |
| Does Smithsonian adhere to a standard set of data models for collection of the data? (Pg. 9 - C.2.3) |
| We use GA 4 so yes |
| 39 |
| Does the Smithsonian have any historical engagement figures for the current site? (Pg. 9 - C.2.3) |
| Yes and those will be provided to the selected Contractor after Contract award. |
| 40 |
| Is the Smithsonian currently contracted with a vendor on the website development or maintenance? Is this a recompete of an existing contract? |
| Yes we have a contractor currently working on the Digital Museum. |
| 41 |
| Is the AWS account used for the Searchable Museum website owned by the Smithsonian or does a vendor own the AWS account? (Page 10) |
| It is owned by the Smithsonian. |
| 42 |
| Considering that the Smithsonian anticipates awarding a Firm Fixed Price contract for the Initial Term (Section B.1) and will negotiate pricing for Option Periods based on your Business Proposal (Section B.2.2), could you please provide a comprehensive overview of your proposed pricing for the Initial Term and the pricing model you would propose for any potential Option Periods? |
| The breakdown for how to structure your proposed pricing is found in Section B.2.1 and Section B.2.3. We are only requesting pricing for the Initial Term at this time. Options pricing will be subject to negotiation at the time of the award of any option period and based on the pricing in the selected business proposal and subject to the rules for inflation outlined in Section B.2.2. |
| 43 |
| Beyond developing the Initial SOW and cost proposal for Option Period 1, are there specific design or development deliverables expected during the Initial Term (e.g., homepage enhancements, search improvements, analytics upgrades)? Is the Smithsonian open to suggestions for deliverables based upon vendor/partner expertise? |
| Not at this time. We have a product roadmap and that is unlikely to change this year. |
| 44 |
| Section B.1 references “Further product development” in Option Periods 1–7. Can you share any thematic or functional focus areas for this continued work? |
| We will continue to grow and refine existing platform. We will depend on the vendor to advise on product improvements. Content Roadmap is largely dependent on overall Museum priorities. |
| 45 |
| What are the criteria for “Excellent” performance that would trigger a Renewal Term, as referenced in Section B.2.3.1? |
| Excellence in all aspects of your performance |
| 46 |
| What qualifies under the “Materials” budget line item, and what is the approval process with the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)? |
| Materials means any items that are purchased and/or used for the Contractor’s performance under the Contract that the Contractor intends to bill for. The acceptance and approval process for all matters requiring COR approval is described in the COR section of the RFP (Section G.3) and Inspection and Acceptance (Section E) of the RFP. |
| 47 |
| Under “Project Objectives” (Section C.2.1; page 8), increased “flexibility” of the Searchable Museum is cited as a goal. Could you elaborate on your vision of “flexibility”? Does that pertain to the kinds of content that can be accommodated, UX or technical design, or something else? |
| Yes to UX, Design and technical design. |
| 48 |
| Also under “Deliverables” (Section C.5; page 14), another listed expectation is “digital exhibitions, stories and constellations, based on museum priorities,” due “as needed.” Can you clarify how frequently (and at what volume) you expect to publish constellations and stories? Is it also twice annually? Would the Museum take on these updates after the work period, or would there be a need for ongoing external management? |
| The Museum will publish stories and constellations throughout the year. The museum produces the content and often builds these in the CMS, requesting technical assistance when necessary. |
| 49 |
| Page 1, Section A.1 Could you provide an overview of Phases I and II to give context for the Phase III scope in this RFP? |
| Please visit the Digital Museum website (https://www.searchablemuseum.com/) to review the work completed to date. |
| 50 |
| How will pricing for Option Periods be considered in the overall evaluation if cost is only formally evaluated for the Initial Term? |
| This is outlined in Section B.2.2. of the RFP. We are only requesting pricing for the Initial Term at this time with pricing for any awarded option period being subject to negotiation per the terms outlined in Section B.2.2. |
| 51 |
| What is the current state of the Craft CMS environment (version, configuration, custom plugins), and what level of access will we have? |
| Craft CMS 5. You will have admin level access |
| 52 |
| Can you provide more details about the AWS infrastructure—services in use, security protocols, and team access? |
| While AWS is owned by NMAAHC. The team will have full access to the environment. If awarded the contract, you will be given full access and details. |
| 53 |
| Beyond Algolia, GraphQL, and CircleCI, are there additional systems, APIs, or data sources we should anticipate integrating with? |
| Not at this time but this could change |
| 54 |
| What digital asset management systems does NMAAHC employ? How are these currently leveraged for the existing Searchable Museum experience? |
| None. |
| 55 |
| Can you provide a typical timeline or process overview for Technical Review Board (TRB) approval across security, privacy, and accessibility? |
| The Technical Review Board process varies based on the nature of the project and depends on whether the project involves PII of users, IT security issues etc. There is no standard timeframe as each project and review can vary. The selected Contractor will work with the COR to complete the TRB process. |
| 56 |
| What are the expectations for code management within Smithsonian’s GitHub repositories, including workflow, review, and documentation standards? |
| You should employ best practices of all these things. We’ll expect a high level of documentation. |
| 57 |
| Are existing performance targets (e.g., load times, user concurrency) in place for the website? |
| Yes |
| 58 |
| Can you share examples of when original digital design schemas might be needed instead of using physical exhibition design as the foundation? |
| A digital only exhibition would need an original design schema. |
| 59 |
| Is the Smithsonian currently using Figma, and if so, will we be expected to collaborate in a shared workspace? |
| yes |
| 60 |
| How does the Museum currently measure online engagement, and what are your primary KPIs or audience goals? |
| We use GA4 to track online engagement. We look closely at our Engagement Rate and Average session duration and users. |
| 61 |
| Similarly, would we have access to curators, in-house content developers and other internal subject matter experts for consultation? |
| Yes. |
| 62 |
| Can you share any protocols or processes you have in place, with regard to content review or approval, that we should bear in mind? |
| Our workflows are extensive and well documented. We have multiple levels of content review. This is all built into our schedule. |
| 63 |
| Besides the CMS, what software does the Museum currently use to develop and store content and assets for online exhibitions? Can we review Smithsonian and Museum brand guidelines in advance of submitting the proposal? |
| We use Gather Content, Drop Box and Smartsheet. You can look online for Smithsonian and NMAACH brand guidelines. |
| 64 |
| Are there existing plans to bring the Museum’s remaining permanent exhibitions online as part of this contract? |
| The long-term goal is to bring all permanent exhibitions online but we have no definitive timeline for that. |
| 65 |
| Beyond educators, students, and lifelong learners, are there other priority audiences the Museum is targeting for online engagement? |
| Beyond the previously mentioned audiences, our museum members are a key audience for our platform as well as any human that wants to learn about African American history and culture. |
| 66 |
| How does the Museum currently define and measure “impact” for its digital platforms and audience experiences? |
| Engagement type with the site, continued engagement and length of engagement per visit |
| 67 |
| The production environment considered the DMZ hosted in Herndon VA and at the Smithsonian or is it within AWS Cloud? Please define the security boundary and is it part of a FEDRAMP solution? |
| AWS and yes it is cloud hosted. The AWS cloud used is for the Museum only and is a part of a Fedramp solution. |
| 68 |
| How many pre-production environments are maintained for each application or website? Examples are Development, Testing, Integration, User Acceptance, etc ? Are these environments in the DMZ or on AWS? |
| There are two - Development and staging. AWS Cloud environment. |
| 69 |
| What database technologies are currently being used to manage the system data? |
| Please see Section C.2.7 of the RFP |
| 70 |
| Is the currently listed technology stack a comprehensive list to be considered the bill of materials (BOM) for the Smithsonian's RFP? |
| Yes. |
| 71 |
| Are we permitted to include embedded links within the proposal? |
Yes
| 72 |
| What is the anticipated award date, given the proposed launch of 'At the Vanguard' on September 2? |
We anticipate making an award late Summer 2025
| 73 |
| We noticed a discrepancy between Section L.8.3.2 and Section A.2.1 regarding the timeframe and description of required past performance. |
Section L.8.3.2 (Firm’s Experience and Past Performance) requests a minimum of three (3) examples of comparable work performed in the past two (2) years.
Section A.2.1 (Minimum Qualifications) states: “In the last three (3) years, your company has successfully built at least three (3) similar products…” Question: Could you please clarify which timeframe and requirement takes precedence—should Offerors submit examples from the past two years to meet evaluation criteria, or from the past three years to meet minimum qualifications? Or are both requirements applicable and distinct?
*OCON will answer* ANSWERED CAN DELETE
| 74 |
| Is there a target budget or budget range that the Smithsonian/NMAAHC has identified for this work? |
The Smithsonian does not provide any funding information during this stage of the solicitation process. Offerors should present their best offer in the response to the RFP.
| 75 |
| Can you share any analytics or performance data from the current version of the platform, such as user traffic, engagement metrics, or drop-off points? |
This information will be provided to the Contractor selected for the Contract award.
| 76 |
| Are there any lessons learned or key insights from past launches or iterations of the Searchable Museum that should inform our approach? |
We have continued to learn from our past experiences. We have implemented a lot of process so we can successfully keep track of all the moving parts of this project.
| 77 |
| Can the creative scope of work for the design, development and production of interactive content and videos be included in this RFP? This would be inclusive of video production services (i.e. filming, editing, motion graphics, script writing). |
| These services are not in scope for this project and will not be added to the scope. We have in house staff that provide these types of services for the Digital Museum experience. |
| 78 |
| For the Past Performance section, can examples include relevant work completed by teaming partners or subcontractors, or must all past performance come solely from the prime contractor? |
Offerors should present the requested past performance and experience information as outlined in the RFP for all key personnel, firms, and/or subcontractor that Offeror intends to use to complete the contract services should Offeror’s firm be selected for award.
| 79 |
| Regarding Key Personnel, should we designate a single individual as the named Key Personnel (e.g., Project Manager), or does the term refer to the entire proposed core team? |
Per Section L.8.3.3.2 Proposals should identify any subcontractors (individuals and company names)...Skill sets, credentials and relevant experience of the proposed team shall be compared to the task and skill requirements called for in Section C of the RFP. Provide this information about any proposed subcontractors per the terms of the above referenced section.
| 80 |
| Can you clarify the relative weighting of the evaluation factors in Section M? Specifically, how will the Smithsonian weigh technical merit, past performance, and price in making an award decision? |
The evaluation process and analysis are outlined in Section M.4 of the RFP.
| 81 |
| Are there any approaches from prior phases of the Searchable Museum (design, tech, content, or collaboration) that the Museum would like to repeat or avoid? |
The services we need are as described in Section C of the RFP. Some of these would be continuation of services and some are new to this phase of the project. Please propose your best solution to the scope of work provided.
| 82 |
| How much creative and technical autonomy does the Museum anticipate giving the selected vendor—especially in areas like interaction design, content hierarchy, or UX innovation? |
This is collaborative work. NMAAHC relies on the vendor for their expertise and ideas but also know that our team has a lot of expertise and knows its audiences. Again collaborative work.
| 83 |
| How does the Museum define success for this phase of the project—are there specific outcomes, metrics, or internal goals (even informal ones) the team is aiming to hit? |
We are aiming to publish our content in a timely manor while at the same time maintaining a robust development and design practice.
| 84 |
| In addition to Section 508 and WCAG 2.0 AA, are there any additional accessibility goals or institutional priorities related to inclusive design that the team should be aware of? |
These are our current and standard accessibility requirements. Any additional accessibility requirements that arise that may be specific to the project will be addressed during the Technical Review Board approval process.
| 85 |
| Looking beyond the scope of this RFP, how does the Museum envision the Searchable Museum evolving over the next few years? Are there aspirations around integration, personalization, or broader educational reach? |
We envision evolving the site overtime through expansion of the site by adding new exhibitions and making improvements on existing platform. These are outside the scope of the current RFP.
| 86 |
| Section C.2.3 Statement of Work / vi. Software Development, Operation, Management, and Support Pg. 9: Is the museum utilizing the AWS Sumerian tool for searchable museums? If not, would the museum be open to leveraging the tool in the future? |
| We use an inhouse solution/framework for 3-D experiences. We are hesitant to do AR or VR due to accessibility concerns. Always open to discussing new tools if they make sense for the project. |
| 87 |
| Is the museum utilizing the AWS CloudFront service for searchable museums? If not, would the museum be open to leveraging the service in the future? |
| Yes, currently in use. |
| 88 |
| What does the museum staff/team look like that will be collaborating with the Offeror's team? (Size, skills, availability) |
| The Searchable Museum Team has two full time staff members and many contributing staff members from across the museum. We expect to meet frequently with the vendor. |
| 89 |
| How are you defining impact? How are specific metrics being used to quantify impact and drive decision making? |
| Metrics Used: Measures the percentage of sessions that performed one of the following conditions: stayed on a page for 10 seconds or longer, viewed more than 1 page, triggered a conversion event. Measures the average time that your app screen was in the foreground or your web page was in focus across all sessions. |
Review page views – what people are interested in. We review user journeys. Part of the scope of this project is to look at user journeys and metrics to grow user base and understand user journeys.
| 90 |
| Can you clarify what the "Museum's audience outreach and engagement goals" are? |
| We want to retain and grow our engagement rate and improve upon user journeys. |
| 91 |
| What existing audience research is available? What are the gaps in this research / understanding of audiences? |
| We have audience research from earlier iterations. As we approach the 4th anniversary of Searchable, we would like to grow our user base and understand user journeys. |
| 92 |
| Can you walk us through the "established Museum digital product development lifecycle?" If certain stages—such as ideation—are not typically part of that lifecycle, we’d love to hear more about how you approach those early conceptual phases. |
| We work in 2-week sprints for ALL work. Tasks are not always completed in the sprint, so it carries over. Ideation is an important part of our process and generally starts with UI/UX Designer and or Content Strategist to gather requirements. |
| 93 |
| What in-house technical / developer capabilities does the Museum have? How are we expected to work with these technical teams (if at all)? |
| Limited and rarely |
| 94 |
| What additional information can you currently provide around these key audience segments (educators, students, and lifelong learners and those seeking information about the African-American experience, history, and culture)? How might engagement with digital exhibition vary by segment? |
| Different audience segments have different use cases, needs and interests and therefore engage with content accordingly. |
| 95 |
| Can you expand on how the digital exhibition connects with the in-person experience? What role(s) does the digital exhibition play within the broader audience journeys? |
| Searchable Museum was never intended to be used in conjunction with the in-person visit. It was intended for a deeper dive post visit. The digital exhibit also allows curators to enhance the physical exhibition content (especially for permanent exhibitions that are not updated as frequently.) If you’ve ever been to an exhibition, you miss things. Also we want to give the user who can never come to NMAAHC to experience the museum. |
| 96 |
| Can you share what the driver is for seeking a 3rd party partner to deliver this digital exhibition? |
| We don’t have in-house team to complete this work. |
| 97 |
| To what extent would you like the new or enhanced experience to be primarily for an online audience and/or is the NMAAHC looking for solutions that would enhance the online as well as the in-person experience? |
| This is for online audiences. |
| 98 |
| On the value of collective ownership of history: Is the NMAAHC looking to engage users in contributing to and expanding its digital collection (e.g. personal narratives, digital artifacts, etc.)? |
| That is done by other departments in NMAAHC and outside the scope of this RFP. |
| 99 |
| On the value of collective ownership of history: Is the NMAAHC open to solutions that allow users (e.g. Museum visitors, educators, historians) to download content in a usable, disseminable format? Are there any limits that should be placed on citizen-users' ability to download and "own" content locally? |
| Searchable Content is not downloadable. We have discussed it but the Institution has the Smithsonian Learning Lab which does all of that and is done and made for educators and students. There are also licensing concerns on non-Smithsonian images. |
| 100 |
| Is the NMAAHC open to solutions that allow users to build their own connections between artifacts or narratives? |
| Possibly but I would imagine this is some years off. |
| 101 |
| To what extent do you want the online experience to be duplicative of the in-person experience? Alternatively, is the digital experience meant to augment or provide additional or different content from the in-person one? |
| The digital experience closely follows the physical, but it is not duplicated. The inaugural exhibitions are now almost 10 years old, so we have updated and added new content to the digital experience. |
| 102 |
| Accessibility: Are any parts of the in-gallery experience that could be made more accessible via digital solutions? For example, do any physical spaces present accessibility challenges for people with mobility issues? Do artifacts have descriptions that are accessible to people with vision or hearing impairments? |
| Yes and the current site includes some examples of this. For instance, the Slave Cabin – visitors are not allowed inside the physical exhibit in the Museum and the Digital Museum makes full view of this more accessible; See also the Train Car – this is a 1940’s train car that is too narrow to be accessible to visitors with physical limitations. The Digital Museum makes this accessible to all. Yes artifacts have accessible descriptions as we currently use screen readers and alt text. The Museum writes alt text for every image on the site. |
| 103 |
| Accessibility: Is NMAAHC interested in solutions that facilitate ease in language translation throughout the experience? How has language translation been incorporated into the physical experience? |
| Not at this time. There is no language translation in the physical experience nor in Searchable. This is something we have talked about but have never found a use case to justify the expense. |
| 104 |
| Is the Smithsonian open to alternative Content Management Systems (CMS) or does all of the work need to be done on the Craft CMS? |
We do not anticipate changing our CMS.
| 105 |
| Can you confirm whether AWS is the hosting environment for production and/or development (or just production)? |
AWS is the hosting environment for all
| 106 |
| Are there any plans to transition the hosting environment to Azure, Google Cloud, or another provider within the next 12–18 months? |
No
| 107 |
| Will the contractor have console-level access to AWS services, or will deployments be made solely through existing pipelines (e.g., Circle CI)? |
You will have full access to AWS.
| 108 |
| Are there Smithsonian-approved AWS regions or services that must be used (GovCloud vs Commercial AWS)? |
US Based
| 109 |
| Is an updated or detailed architecture diagram available for the Searchable Museum’s existing platform? |
We provided the key elements of our tech stack as outlined in the RFP. Any detailed architecture will be provided to the selected Contractor.
| 110 |
| Beyond the specified technology stack (Craft CMS, React, Gatsby, Algolia, AWS, GraphQL, and Circle CI), are there additional Smithsonian-preferred frameworks, libraries, or restrictions to be aware of? |
We expect you to work with the existing technology stack.
| 111 |
| Is there an existing DevOps strategy or deployment pipeline the selected vendor needs to follow or integrate with? |
Yes
| 112 |
| Could the Smithsonian provide a preliminary 12–18 month product development roadmap beyond the immediate deliverables referenced in the RFP? |
Not at this time. This is beyond the scope of this RFP.
| 113 |
| How frequently are roadmap priorities reviewed and adjusted (e.g., quarterly, semi-annually)? |
Quarterly
| 114 |
| How is audience feedback currently collected beyond GA4 analytics (e.g., surveys, focus groups, interviews)? |
| In the past, we have done surveys, focus groups and interviews. |
| 115 |
| Is there an existing Voice of the Customer (VoC) program, or would the contractor be responsible for designing and implementing a new feedback process? |
| No and no |
| 116 |
| Will contractors have access to end users (educators, students, general audiences) for user research, usability testing, and interviews? |
| The contractor will be expected to seek out those user groups. We can guide you but we will not seek out participants |
| 117 |
| Will contractors be required to complete a Smithsonian Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) related to any new development work? |
| This determination is made by the Smithsonian’s Technical Review Board. The selected Contractor will need to complete the Technical Review Board approval process as stated in the RFP and that process will determine what additional assessments will be required. |
| 118 |
| Could the Smithsonian share its standard protocols for reporting and responding to any potential data breaches or incidents involving personally identifiable information (PII)? |
| Please read the RFP Attachment SI 147B regarding the Smithsonian’s protocols for responding to actual and potential data breaches. |
| 119 |
| Will all exhibition-related content be provided by Smithsonian staff, or is the contractor expected to generate or assist with content creation and/or SEO optimization beyond basic tagging? |
| All by NMAAHC staff |
| 120 |
| What is the Smithsonian’s process for review and approval of code deployments to the production environment? |
| That is on the dev team to determine. We have a set schedule to deploy to staging and dev on a bi-weekly basis for each environment. |
| 121 |
| Will the contractor be responsible for ongoing site monitoring, incident management, and/or 24/7 support during and after deliverable releases? |
Yes this is part of site maintenance.
| 122 |
| Will the contractor be responsible for developing or integrating content for Smithsonian-managed social media platforms to promote new digital exhibitions? |
| No |
| 123 |
| Does the Smithsonian expect the contractor to coordinate social media promotion efforts directly with the Office of Communications and External Affairs (OCEA) or through a designated Social Media Manager? |
| NO |
| 124 |
| Will new features or enhancements to the Searchable Museum need to be reflected through updates to Official Smithsonian Social Media Accounts, and if so, what approval process should be followed? |
| No |
| 125 |
| Are there platform-specific guidelines (e.g., image/video accessibility requirements or privacy policies) that must be incorporated into digital content intended for sharing across social media? |
| Making our content accessible to all audiences is a priority for the Searchable Museum. We already do alt text for all images and our videos are captioned. |
| 126 |
| If social media campaigns are planned, will the contractor be responsible for creating social media graphics and interactive materials (e.g., contests, calls to action) subject to review under Smithsonian policies outlined in SD814? |
| You will have no responsibilities in this area. |
| 127 |
| Will the team be required to be onsite five days per week, or can some members work in a hybrid or remote capacity? |
All work will be done off-site. All meetings and work are done remotely.
| 128 |
| A fixed price is requested, the scope appears to align with more of a fixed capacity model. Could you clarify whether the intent is to finalize a defined scope after award or if you’d prefer vendors propose a team structure, rates, and a not to exceed cost? |
| We are looking for a firm fixed price. You are free to outline / structure your firm fixed price offering to present your best offer to the Smithsonian. Details about how to structure your firm fixed price are also included in the RFP Section B. |
| 129 |
| What is the home page for the digital museum? |
| Www.searchablemuseum.com; The home page and all exhibits currently on the site are visible at this address. |
| 130 |
| We are a conglomerate of dedicated 1099 contractors and partners. This allow us to be agile across multiple areas of expertise. This may mean we subcontract some portions of the work through trusted partners. Is this acceptable? |
| The RFP allows for subcontracting. See the Key Personnel section of the RFP. |
| 131 |
| Is the selected Contractor expected to handle CMS updates or just create content and update content? |
| Yes to updates to CMS. There is no content creation or updating within the scope of this RFP. |
| 132 |
| What tools are used to monitor site security? |
| Any pertinent site security information will be provided to the selected Contractor. |
| 133 |
| Is it possible to provide documentation around the “established Museum digital product development lifecycle practices” that are mentioned in C.2.3? |
| We work in two week sprints. |
C. All other terms and conditions of the RFP remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
END OF DOCUMENT
Smithsonian Institution