RFI Attachment 8 - RFI Questions and Answers.pdf

RFI # 47QFPA20N0002 (USCO ECS) – Questions and Answers

RFI

Reference Question RFI Response

1 Can a company based in Europe be considered to build the technology?

We are currently doing market research and the acquisition strategy for this project has not yet been determined. We welcome information from all vendors. If we were to issue a full and open solicitation on the SAM opportunities page, it is likely that the Government would not prevent any firm from competing based on its location or the nationality of its owners. However, we will follow FAR 25.702 regulation on prohibited sources and reserve the right to add restrictions, if a solicitation is issued. The Government may decide to solicit an order on an existing indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract (such as GSA Alliant).

2 Is this project a total buy out or will the company who builds the software also be the service company to maintain the platform afterwards?

As this is an RFI, the Library of Congress (later referred to as Library) is open to different approaches. We welcome responses that includes both or either.

3 Is it possible to build a monetization model into the system for e.g. more advance features which have to be paid by the users?

All U.S. Copyright Office (USCO or “the Office”) fees must be consistent with section 708 of the Copyright Act, and fee changes are subject to the Administrative Procedures Act. The Office itself can differentially price its services through the system, including premium pricing for premium services if consistent with section 708. At this time, the Office cannot proceed with a model to allow a private company to monetize advanced features. For the purpose of this RFI, the Office may consider proposals for how the Office could differentially price its services through the system, including premium pricing for premium services.

4 Will the contractor be required to take over the "old“ systems/software or is it possible to develop something completely new?

Library is assuming "old" is in reference to the current ECS software. It has not yet been decided. Vendors should document their assumption and respond accordingly.

5 Why is the government interested in pursuing alternative contract funding models? What motivations or constraints are preventing the government from pursuing traditional funding approaches?

Traditional appropriated funds are limited. The Library is researching additional funding options that may replace or augment its appropriated funding.

6 2.2 Additional capabilities, office functions, or datasets will also need to be connected directly or be integrated with ECS. Please provide additional information on the required integrations.

In general, the enterprise copyright system will need to have the ability to reference related records (even if in different repositories) to facilitate general searching and browsing, and provide the ability to determine chain of title and ownership.

For purposes of the RFI, either path (integration with public record system, or a modern public record system/interface) are acceptable. If a modern system/interface is proposed, a general integration/migration/search capability for the existing public record information must be included.

A general data integration or migration capability/strategy for the existing information must be included in the RFI.

If an RFP is released, it may include establishing a link, integrating the data, enabling an API to access the data, or some other way of ensuring that historical record data can be searched alongside current record data

The ECS is intended to be integrated with the Library's financial system of record (Momentum).

Items like active directory can be mirrored (one-way) from within a could-based instance, yet still managed by LOC within their fire-wall. Similar structures could work with Email systems.

7 2.4 What level of FedRamp authorization is required for the ECS?

Moderate: https://www.fedramp.gov/understanding-baselines-and-impact-levels/

8 Can you please extend the deadline for the RFI submission by at least 2 weeks to allow for most complete and meaningful responses?

Yes, the deadline is extended to 11:00 AM Pacific (2:00 Eastern) on 13 July 2020.

9 3.2 In order to provide the most accurate estimates of the remaining work and development timelines, please provide Requirement Traceability Matrix (RTMs) that list out which requirements have already been completed for each of the components.

We have a number of projects that are at different stages of the lifecycle. We follow an agile process in which case requirements are developed incrementally by sprint as the project progresses. Depending on the project, there will be some with more completed requirements than others.

Registration Workflow The Registration Development Project kicked off just last month (May 2020) and the team is still in the beginning stages of writing and grooming user stories for an Internal Registration User. No coding or testing has begun on this project yet, and there is no RTM at this time.

Recordation Workflow We don’t have an RTM associated with this project. What we have a list of features that we have released as part of the Pilot, which is only a subset of the features that we want for the full release.

Features that were included in the MVP, at a high level, are listed below. Keep in mind that these are MVP versions which means that features are fairly basic in nature. In addition, many features are minimal features and will require additional work once other modernization systems come online.

• Account Management (Self Service)

• Online submission for complete Basic/205 English documents

• Online payment collection(i.e. pilot deposit account system and integration with Pay.Gov) and accounting support (minimum stop gap features for refunds, adjustments, and reconciliation)

• Examination and QA workflows for complete Basic/205 English Documents (approve and rejection workflow)

• Add and edit internal notes

• Generate digital certificate, numbered documents, and public record files

• Push indexing information to existing public record systems (i.e. Voyager and CIS)

• Basic online application status tracking

• Corrections (pre-examination, during examination, and post examination)

• Withdraw and Duplicate SR workflow for the remitter

• Basic centralized messaging center for correspondences (phone, electronic, and physical letters)

• Notification and alerts for a minimum set of key events

• Search and filter capabilities

• On-screen instruction and help

• Basic administration capabilities (e.g., create and manage user roles and permissions, examination skill sets, auto assignment configurations, special handling calendar, expunge and restore, and template management)

Licensing Workflow The Licensing Division are in the initial stages of requirement elicitation. Therefore, an RTM has not been completed.

Public Record System Workflow The Copyright Public Record System project is using an Agile methodology that does not incorporate a conventional Requirement Traceability Matrix.

Requirements, user stories and issues/tasks are organized and tracked in Jira, so traceability is being managed through the project’s Jira site. Additional project-related documentation (including PMLC and SDLC documents) is maintained on a Confluence site closely linked to the Jira site, along with research, analysis, and other resources needed for project work. Individual user stories and issues in Jira can be linked directly to the contents on Confluence as needed.

While we don’t have an RTM, we can address two groups of items called out in the Charter:

Expected Outcomes

• Search capabilities

• Implemented

• A system that demonstrates relationships between copyright records, such as registration & recordation records

• Out Year

• A system with interoperability A backlog of project requirements/user stories

• Ongoing in JIRA

• PMLC & SDLC documentation and design artifacts

• Stored in Confluence

• Structured data mapping of fields in the new Copyright Public Record System, as well as space for new data fields to be added to the system

• In progress: the development team is the best judge

• A scalable web application with a look and feel that is consistent with other ECS portals

• Up to date with Design System 2.0

• User interface elements for searching, browsing, and displaying information in the Copyright Public Record System

• Search and Display are incorporated

• User interface elements to allow updates and edits to records based on role (e.g. internal users with elevated permissions)

• Out Year

• Change logs, audit trails, and version histories for records

• Out Year

• User interface elements to view relationships between records and easily navigate between them

• Out Year

• Backend application of database and supporting management components

• Out Year

• Data repository and API services for storing and managing legacy, current, and to-be copyright data

• Out Year

• API services for data interoperability with systems both internal and external to USCO

• Out Year

• ETL services for ingesting, processing and managing data from multiple systems on an ongoing basis

• Out Year

• Simple and advanced search functions for internal and external users, including faceting for narrowing search results

• Complete

• System capabilities for performing actions on searches, including but not limited to saved searches and email alerts

• Should be completed in Year One

• System capabilities for performing actions on individual records or groups of records, including but not limited to printing, sharing, exporting, and saving

• Should be completed in Year One

Tangible User Value

• A searchable, web-based system of copyright records

• Implemented

• A system with both simple & complex that can interface with other internal and external applications to either pull in data from external databases or share information with systems outside of the Copyright Office and which supports bulk download

• Out Year

• A system with a modern user interface, designed in coordination with the overall Copyright Modernization user experience design

• Implemented

10 The Government is evaluating two recent solicitations (030ADV20R0145, 030ADV20Q0134) for ECS software development. Should the scope of work within these solicitations (030ADV20R0145, 030ADV20Q0134) be included in the total estimate of work remaining?

The scope of work for this RFI should include the entire

ECS.

11 3.2 In order to realize potential costs savings, please confirm onshore remote development outside of the D.C.

metropolitan region will be allowed.

There are no restrictions regarding remote development.

12 3.2 Please provide current and anticipated data storage requirements.

Data storage requirements are 200 +TB and growing by almost 3TB/month on average.

13 Please specify at a high level what types of epics you have, or your perspective on how much work remains for ECS development.

Registration Workflow The Registration Development Project is working on year 1 of 5 years of development. The team has thus far identified epics based upon the tasks involved with the daily examination process for an internal examination user (staff) and a general external (public) submitter of an application. At a high level, we identified the following epics for the external public submission site:

1) Home Page for a logged in user;

2) Legal Data submitted for an application;

3) Corrections to a claim;

4) Preview of a Certificate;

5) Certification of facts contained in an application;

6) Submitting a physical and digital deposit attached to an application;

7) Make a payment for an application;

8) Receive alerts and notifications regarding system and application changes;

9) Manage the user's account (log in/authenticate, assign permissions)

10) Correspond with the Copyright Office through a message center;

11) Save and edit addresses for a specific user;

12) Manage templates;

13) Save preferences for a user based on their profile;

14) Search existing applications and claims;

15) Compile reports on data submitted by a user;

16) Receive customer support and technical help;

17) API submissions;

And the following epics are identified for the internal examination site:

1) Home page for a logged in user;

2) Manage the user's account (log in/authenticate, assign permissions)

3) Correspond with the submitter through a message center;

4) Send alerts and notifications regarding system and application changes;

5) Manage reminders for personal and system use;

6) View list of claims assigned to an examiner;

7) Manage templates;

8) Review the legal data entered by an applicant on a claim;

9) Request consultation on a claim / consult on a claim;

10) Apply and manage tags for a claim;

11) Redirect a claim;

12) Assign a claim;

13) Update claim details;

14) Provide comments on a claim;

15) Annotate a claim;

16) Make changes to multiple claims (bulk actions);

17) Claim approval/rejection;

18) Validate the deposits associated with a claim;

19) Publish information to the system of Public Record;

20) Track the assets and/or deposits associated with a claim;

21) Provide reports on the data/applications submitted;

22) Provide customer support and technical help;

There has been no software development yet.

Recordation Workflow We still have many new features to build, along with enhancements / feedback, and defects to address that come out of the pilot.

Licensing Workflow The Licensing Division are in the initial stages of requirement elicitation. Therefore, there are no epics.

Public Record System Workflow Approximately 2/3rds of the epics were first established during the initial requirements phases, where requirements were gathered from Copyright Office business units and then reviewed, discussed and verified (on a high level) by a Requirements Analysis working group composed of representatives from across the Office.

Additional epics were created to organize user stories for technical work on the system, as well as for major project components such as testing and security. As this is an Agile project, the epics are crucial for planning work on features across sprints.

• Year One includes eight epics:

o Import Records from Legacy Systems (Phase 1: Voyager, the current online public record system) o Simple Search o Display Search Results o Detail View (of records) o Advanced Search Interface o Internal User Application o Screen Text o User Features

• Planning for Year Two is in its early stages; it is likely that work on currently active epics such as importing records from legacy systems, keyword search and advanced search will continue, and additional epics (such as user profiles, creating relationships between records and importing records from other ECS systems) will be added. However, this is under discussion.

• As the project is still in its first year, with over four years remaining, it is difficult to give an accurate estimate of how much work remains.

14 What assumptions should vendors make regarding the government’s overall plan for continued ECS modernization development?

When should we assume this contract begins?

Please reference https://www.copyright.gov/copyright-modernization/ for the overall approach and plans for Copyright Modernization. If the Government releases a solicitation, it is assumed that an award would be made no earlier than September 2021, and possibly beyond that.

For price estimation purposes, please use 28 September 2021 for a start date.

15 Please provide a listing of incumbents or current contractors supporting ECS development / modernization efforts. Please share the contract details of the incumbent managing the Enterprise Copyright System (ECS) active design and development for over the last 2 years?

ECS has been managed, designed and developed by a mix of federal staff and vendors. Those vendors include Accenture Federal Services, Artemis Consulting, Deliotte Digital, Grant Thornton, and the MIL Corporation.

16 What investments has the government made to date for ECS modernization efforts, and what outcomes have been realized?

In fiscal 2019 Congress provided appropriated authority for Copyright modernization in the amount of $12.1 million annually for five years. That amount does not include development of a licensing module or digitization of historical records. In fiscal 2019 the Copyright Office had contractual obligations of approximately $7.6 million for technical IT activities. That amount does not include any internal agency costs. For fiscal 2020 the Office is estimating contractual obligations for technical IT activities will total approximately $15.5 million.

The Library has been directed by Congress to evaluate alternatives that might provide opportunities for reduced risk and greater efficiency in delivery of modernized systems.

17 Can we assume the resulting award of the contemplated ECS contract will be single award?

This RFI is being conducted for market research purposes.

An acquisition strategy and contract type has not yet been determined.

18 Please grant a due diligence session for vendors who respond to this RFI so that interested parties can have additional dialogue around ECS modernization.

We do not intend to hold individual meetings with vendors for this RFI and future meetings with industry are to be determined in the future once a decision to move forward with an RFP has been made by the Library.

19 Can you provide any architectural diagrams of the five ECS systems under development (Recordation web-based system, Registration web based system, Public Record web based system, ECS Licensing Services, ECS Platform Services)?

We are able to provide two architecture diagrams. Please see attached ECS Reference Architecture and Recordation Application Architecture diagrams.

20 Are there any particular concerns that the Library is seeking to address, based on the initial limited pilot of the Recordation system?

No. This RFI reflects the USCO's interest in investigating multiple procurement/funding strategies to reduce the risk of unsuccessful completion.

21 How much of the desired ECS modernization functionality is expected to be completed in time for this procurement?

As Copyright Modernization is using agile methods with continuous development, there have been multiple releases for Recordation and Public Records, with a public release of Recordation. Additional releases are planned for those two services through 2020.

22 Should a solicitation be released, will the Library/USCO allow vendors to submit under a Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA) as is standard practice on many GSA bids?

An acquisition strategy has not yet been determined.

23 If this eventually becomes an RFP, will GSA run the acquisition or the Library of Congress Contracts office?

This has not yet been determined.

24 Is USCO looking to enhance the current ECS development that has been completed/in-work (Recordation Pilot, Public Records Pilot and Platform Services), or discard these altogether for the new ECS platform that is developed externally by a new vendor on its own proprietary platform in an effort to reduce vendor (and Library) costs?

Refer to response to question #4.

25 When assessing how to modernize a copyright processing platform that can ingest, process, and track copyright licenses and recordation certificates at a more efficient pace, it’s important to understand the current volume of such activities that are both submitted directly to the USCO as well as ingested, processed, and categorized from third-party systems. Please provide the total annual volume and size of financial, customer and system data points (meaning all electronic interactions that are processed through the platform) used to approve copyright licenses and recordation certificates that are processed by the current copyright processing platform.

Please see attached "Fee Receipts and Interest, Fiscal 2019

- unaudited" PDF.

26 2.0 Development of a "mobile accessible solution for submissions" is mentioned.

What other mobile features and services are desired by USCO?

Customers should be able to register songs, photos, and other works through mobile devices, as well as search for copyright ownership information; USCO is planning for mobile-enabled payments for most or all services

We are open to all formats, and expect that a solution would run on both iOS and Android.

27 2.0 What is meant by the term "deposits" where it is stated that the system should provide a "secure mechanism for deposits to be transferred…" Does the term deposits refer to electronic files, financial, or something else?

The term "deposit" refers to the copy or copies of a work that are submitted to the U.S. Copyright Office. It does not refer to the filing fee that must be paid in order to register a work with the Office. Deposits may be submitted in a physical format, such as a compact disc or a hardback book. Or they may be uploaded to the ECS in a digital file.

The list of file formats that the Office current accepts is posted here: https://www.copyright.gov/eco/help-file-types.html.

28 2.0 Are the reporting requirements outside the scope of this RFI since it is stated that reporting functionality will be primarily implemented outside of ECS in a business intelligence tool?

There will be canned reports and built-in advanced query capability to visualize the existing data in the ECS.

However, ECS will also integrate with a third-party business intelligence tool to perform advanced business analytics and ad-hoc reporting.

29 2.1.1 Have any of the dynamic rules based flow been developed for users with little experience?

Dynamic rules based flows should be developed assuming users have little experience.

30 2.1.1 It is stated that the business should have the ability to make routine changes rapidly without the need for heavy IT support. How has the development efforts (currently underway) addressed this need from a solution stack and architecture perspective?

Please consider how as the vendor, you would address this need in your RFI response. The current approach does not have to be maintained but the business will have the need to make regular changes to the online services.

31 2.1.1 Follow up to the question above: what would be some examples of "routine" changes vs. changes that would not be "routine"?

Examples of routine changes include: labels or instructional text, changes in input type, position or location, addition of value in a selection/sort/filter, changes in search facets.

32 2.1.1 What operations and maintenance requirements are expected in terms of support levels, SLAs, etc.?

Specific support levels, SLA, etc., have not yet been determined. However, it is expected that an application Help Desk would need to be provided and that a long term sustainment effort will be needed to continue to maintain and enhance the ECS solution.

33 2.1.2 What percentage of the Recordation Workflow features listed have stories, are partially implemented?

We are in continuous development. We still have many new features to build, along with enhancements / feedback, and defects to address that come out of the pilot.

34 2.1.3 What percentage of the Licensing Workflow features listed have stories, are partially implemented?

The Licensing Division is in the initial stages of requirement elicitation. Therefore, user stories are not written yet.

35 2.1.4 What percentage of the Public Records Workflow features listed have stories, are partially implemented?

The project team is in the last sprint of Release 3 (of four releases). All of the features listed below for Year One of the project have user stories, although the some stories for Release 4 are still being reviewed and groomed.

Implementation of the user stories for the first two releases met the product owners’ expectations and Release 3 is on track, so we anticipate that all of these features will be at least partially implemented in Year One:

• Import Records from Voyager (the current Copyright Office online public record system

• Basic Keyword Search

• Diacritics, Case Sensitive, etc.

• Boolean Operators

• Sort Search Results

• Facet Search Results

• Pagination

• Scale to Mobile

• Responsive Design

• Recordation Records

• Acquisitions Records

• Registration Records

• User-Guided Advanced Search (Query Builder)

• Set Search Parameters

• Left Anchored Search

• Command Keyword Search

• Search with Special Operators

• Internal Search Results

• Internal Record Detail View

• Screen Tips

• Help Pages

• Search History

• Search History

• Select Records to Print

• Select Records to Email

• Select Records to Download

• Share Search Results

36 2.2 It is stated that the registration components are the largest, most complex portion of the system. What additional details can be provided as to what makes this so and what are the particularly complex parts of the registration components?

Current system is unintuitive and the legal complexities of registration pose challenges.

There are several different types of application, all available at copyright.gov. Most of them share fields, but each application has its own nuances and requirements.

Teleworkers require software capable of opening all accepted file types. The list of file types can be found at copyright.gov. They also require remote access to all LOC and Copyright Office resources, and ability to work in a secure manner.

37 2.1.5 Are there any other COTS, external systems or components other than (pay.gov, LBFMS- Momentum) that must be integrated into the final solution that are outside of the control of the primary vendor for this effort?

Does pay.gov, LBFMS-Momentum have the necessary APIs or services to meet the integration requirements?

Login.gov is another external component that must be integrated into the final solution. Pay.gov and LBFMS- Momentum have APIs needed to meet the integration requirements.

38 2.2 For each of the 5 workstreams, has a complete story backlog or set of requirements been created beyond the high level requirements provided in this document? If so, what specifics can be given as to how much of this backlog has been completed and what are the estimated story points still to be completed for each work stream?

Registration Workstream The story backlog for the Registration Development Project is not complete. The team is currently working towards approving user stories and populating the story backlog with approved user stories for 3 of the 22 epics (internal examination) identified for the first year of development.

Recordation Workstream All of the features in Recordation Sustainment and Continuous Development phase have yet to be built out.

Grooming and estimation only occurs on stories in the short term. We do not have story points and specific details (e.g., comps, wireframes, etc.) for our stories in the long term.

Licensing Workstream A story backlog has not been created. The Licensing Division is in the initial stages of requirements elicitation.

Public Record System Workstream Initial user stories were drafted for the business requirements that emerged from the Copyright Office Requirements Analysis Group, and placed into a backlog in the project’s Jira site. Additional user stories have been added as the first group of stories have been discussed, broken down, and refined. Grooming and estimation is done in the short term, so no long-term estimate is available. However, 890 stories have been written so far in Year One.

39 2.2 What is Vue being used for specifically in the application/UX tier?

Vue is being used for UI for some of the external facing web applications.

40 2.2 Is this program classified as agile, hybrid, or waterfall as per the lifecycle processes at the Library? Is this true for all workstreams or are some classified differently than others?

This program uses Agile methods although some smaller projects fall into the Hybrid category when there is an assessment or up-front design.

41 2.2 For the components that have been developed and/or are actively being developed, are there any major areas of expected rework, or architecture, or can it be assumed that all completed development can be used and leveraged in the solution?

As we cannot predict the recommended approaches, the vendor will have to evaluate what can be leveraged.

42 2.2 For the components that have been developed and/or are actively being developed, what is the level of automated test coverage that is currently functional?

Design and development underway uses automated testing for functional testing and the Library has expected standards for our vendors.

43 2.2 What is the size and make-up of the various teams working on each workstream and what has been the associated velocity in terms of story points or other velocity measures?

Please consider how as the vendor, you would compose your teams and define velocity of performance. The current approach does not have to be maintained.

44 What was the size of the team that has worked on this project during the past 2 years?

There have been multiple activates on ECS, working on different parts of ECS. There has not been a single team.

45 2.4 Will the Library have resources to guide, monitor and oversee the application of FedRamp security controls or would the potential vendor be responsible for performing this function?

Addressing security controls is a shared responsibility of the Contractor + Federal team. A federal ISSO will be assigned to the project team to work through all findings.

46 2.2 It appears development is underway and planned for many of the major ECS application components/modules based on the matrix on page 8 of the RFI. Can you identify what vendors are currently performing that work? Which components/modules has LOC not selected a vendor for yet?

Please see the response to #15.

47 What have been the primary pain points, obstacles or issues that have been experienced in this program to date? What are the top 3 challenges encountered during the past 2 years on this project?

Please consider how as the vendor you would approach the solution to minimize obstacles and risks. The current approach does not have to be maintained.

48 If any, what type and how much legacy data is estimated to be migrated from legacy data stores to the new solutions?

The type and amount of data to migrate is unknown at this time; however, the Library will need to migrate legacy data of some sort.

49 Has a common workflow architecture been designed and/or implemented? Does the current implementation rely on any rules or workflow engines, code libraries (e.g., JBPM) or commercial cloud-computing services (e.g., step functions)?

Please consider how as the vendor, you would approach workflow. The current approach does not have to be maintained.

50 Will the awarded vendor be responsible for support and development of all ECS workstreams/ application components? It is envisioned that this work be executed under one contract or broken out into multiple awards?

As this is an RFI, the Library is open to different approaches.

51 It seems as if this acquisition will seek to change approach/vendor part-way through the modernization. Why is the government seeking that change of approach/vendor?

The Library has been directed by Congress to evaluate alternatives that might provide opportunities for reduced risk and greater efficiency in delivery of modernized systems.

52 Will a small business subcontracting plan and/or SB participation goals be required for this solicitation?

An acquisition strategy has not been determined. It is possible that small business plans and goals will be required.

53 Will there be a required place of performance for any aspect of the work?

As the Library is currently closed to non-essential staff, there is currently no required place of performance but the vendor is expected to be available during Library operating hours.

54 What is the estimated budget for this contract?

This is market research, not a contract. Market research is being done help inform the Government on budget requirements.

55 The RFI mentions: “A limited, public pilot of recordation functionality was released in April 2020.” Is this recordation missing functionality that needs further development or is the functionality complete? Please elaborate on if any additional functionality is needed.

We are in continuous development. We still have many new features to build, along with enhancements / feedback, and defects to address that come out of the pilot.

56 Please provide details on all the functionality that has been developed during the past 2 years.

Developed functionality includes electronic processing of ownership and other recordation documents relating to copyright that fall under section 205 of title 17.

57 For each of the major system application components in active development listed in the table starting on page 8, can the Library please provide additional information on who is currently doing the development and the size of the team(s) currently working on that component of ECS?

Please see response #15.

58 For components of ECS already in active development, will the Agile teams currently working on the system continue working on the system but be augmented by awarded vendor teams or personnel, or will these teams be completely replaced by vendor teams from the awarded contractor?

This RFI is for the entire ECS and is not intended to supplement on-going work, as that would be addressed through individual solicitations.

59 If possible, can the Library please provide diagrams and/or other documentation showing the current and/or planned ECS architecture and the microservices contained in this architecture?

Architecture diagrams are attached.

60 The technology stack listed in the RFI does not include any products for rapid development of forms. Is the current plan to build each form through custom development or does the Library intend to use an open source or commercial form development framework or tool to expedite development of forms?

The Library is open to approaches for form development, as long as the approach can accommodate routine changes requested by the business and/or in response to user feedback.

61 Has the Library considered options for business process management (BPM) frameworks and tools? If so, what BPM products are being considered or used?

We are open to discussion options if the vendor feels they will be a value add and can be integrated into the ECS solution.

62 2.3 On page 9 of the RFI document, the Library provides information on the current fees and the total receipts for recent calendar years.

If available, can the Library also provide details on transaction volumes for each transaction type to assist vendors in developing alternative funding strategies?

See response to question #25.