RFP-NGA-1295_Responses_to_Vendor_Questions.pdf

Responses to Vendor Questions on the ConservationSpace RFP

5 November 2012

1. Could you clarify the page limits and expected contents for Section 4. Work

Experience and Past Performance (p8 of 12)?

The term ‘write-up’ was intended to refer to a Project Example case study, limited to 3 pages. The reference to ‘samples’ is an error and should be ignored. No specific page limit was intended for References, because they are intended to include only the listed information; a half-page each, or so, should be more than enough. The same client may be used as both a Project Example and a reference.

(The response above is intended to address the following specific questions submitted by vendors:

Could you clarify "3-page limit per write-up, not including samples requested below" (p8 of 12)? By "write-up" do you mean an opening part of Section 4, before the two specific sub-sections? For sub-section "Project Examples", is 3 pages per case study an acceptable limit? For sub-section "References", is one page per reference an acceptable limit? The wording used in RFP Section 4.E, Work Experience and Past Performance, is not clear. The parenthetical comment following the title of the section references “samples”, but the word is absent from the rest of the section. We assume the word “samples” refers to the “Project Examples” requested, and that these examples are not page limited. Is that correct? The wording used in RFP Section 4.E, Work Experience and Past Performance, is not clear. Also, it is not clear whether the examples and references can overlap. May a project that is used as an example also be used as a reference? Part 4, Technical Proposal, E., Section 4:

Work Experience and Past Performance says there is a three-page limit per write-up, not including samples requested below. By “samples requested below,” do you mean “Project Examples”? Does that mean there is no page limit for our project examples? Does the “three-page limit per write-up” mean we can have three pages for each of our six references, in other words, up to 18 pages?)

2. "Estimate for Release 1.0 (Phases 2a and 2b)" (p9 of 12) Please confirm that the Phase 2a estimate requested in "Section 2. Release 1.0 Estimate" is the same fix-price offer requested in "Section 1. Discovery Phase"

Yes, Phase 2a and the Discovery Phase are the same.

3. Is the scope of Release 1.0 fixed in the RFP, in terms of use cases, document types, UI capabilities, etc? Could you point us to a detailed list of the in-scope elements? Or, do you expect our offer to propose the Release 1.0 scope?

The attachments describe the intended scope of Release 1.0.

4. Can we assume that a change in the functional scope of Release 1.0 (within the given boundaries of budget and time) could be agreed and finalized after the detailed analysis during the Discovery Phase?

During the development of the Conceptual High-Level Design, the Contractor will identify any functional requirements or elements of the technical guidance that would not be met by their proposed design strategies. The purpose of the Discovery Phase is to finalize the scope for Release 1.0.

5. RFP Attachment 2.5 shows a list of systems that CS potentially has to integrate with.

RFP Attachment 3 marks required vs optional integrations. Which of the integrations will be required in the scope of Release 1.0?

The purpose of Release 1.0 is to put a working version of the system, sufficient for pilot use, in front of the users. This initial release is intended to be a shared installation, hosted “in the cloud,” with minimal integration to other systems. However, we believe that integration with a digital asset management system and a collection catalog is essential to the functioning of ConservationSpace. A core objective of Release 1.5 is the full integration of ConservationSpace with enterprise systems at each of the partners.

6. Can we assume that the integrations required for Release 1.0 will be elaborated and finalized during the Discovery Phase?

Yes, integrations, like other functionality, will be finalized in the Discovery Phase.

7. The schedule for the project is tight, particularly if foreign travel or visas are required. What accommodations can be made to allow time for such arrangements?

First, we do not expect vendors to attend Orals in person. We expect most of these to be conducted via WebEx, or a similar method. Second, the Contract Start as stated in the RFP is a target; the actual start will be set in contract discussions with the selected vendor. As necessary, we will assist vendors and approved subcontractors in obtaining necessary approvals for work and travel, and make adjustments to the schedule as required. We do expect a lot of the required work can be done remotely.

(The response above is intended to address the following specific questions submitted by vendors:

We would require visas for US travel, and obtaining them is not always a speedy process. How much notice can you provide between Proposal Receipt (13 Nov) and Oral Presentations (4 Dec), i.e. when do you expect to select the vendors to invite for Oral Presentations? We would require visas for US travel, and obtaining them is not always a speedy process. Could you increase the notice time from Contract Signing (9 Jan) and Contract Start (14 Jan)? We would require visas for US travel, and obtaining them is not always a speedy process. Will you be able to issue in a speedy fashion a Letter of Invitation to be presented to US visa authorities?)

8. Cost Proposal (p9): should it include applicable taxes?

Yes. Please include your estimate of any taxes that would be due.

9. Can you confirm whether the User Experience Manager and Design Manager should participate in the Discovery Phase?

This is a determination to be made by bidders during the preparation of their proposals.

10. What is the status of the Visual Wireframes in Attachment 2.9? Are they elaborated, stable and approved; or do you expect they'll need a lot of changes? This question pertains more to the "feel" (UI interaction/flow) and less to the "look" (visual design/fidelity)

The partners have put a lot of work into the functional understanding of the UI, and some effort into its feel and appearance. However, we expect the choice of platform and the insights of the developer will have influence on the final design.

11. Do you have a preliminary schedule for onsite meetings/workshops during the

Discovery Phase, or will that be determined in the vendor's proposal?

The Management Approach section of the proposal, with its Project Schedule, would be an appropriate place to identify the meetings and workshops that would be needed during the Discovery Phase, and whether these would be onsite, online, or by conference call.

12. What client-side technical restrictions are acceptable? The implementation of rich/flexible UIs is likely to require web browsers with high-performance JavaScript, and supporting well the latest Web technologies (like HTML5). Internet Explorer doesn't have good support for the latest standards and loses market share compared to Firefox and Chrome. Would it be acceptable for CS to support only recent versions of modern browsers, and exclude Internet Explorer?

We understand that some limitations are inevitable. We would like to maximize the usability of the system by the community, so technical restrictions should be carefully considered in that context.

ConservationSpace should be compatible with recent versions of popular browsers. The particular extent of browser compatibility could be addressed in the Technical Approach section and should be decided during Discovery.

13. What client-side technical restrictions are acceptable? Implementation of semi-structured documents may require use of specific formats, e.g., MS Word 2007 (.docx).

ConservationSpace is envisioned to avoid dependencies on commercial products. The details of such issues would be appropriate for discussion during Discovery and development of the design strategy leading to the Conceptual High-Level Design.

14. The RFP does not specify a time for receipt of proposals on 13 November 2013. Since submissions must be electronic, that would imply that proposals may be submitted any time up to 11:59:59 PM EST on the 13th. Is that correct? If not, until what time on that date will you accept proposals?

That is correct. Submissions are due before midnight.

15. The Evaluation Process section of the RFP does not identify any relative importance associated with the technical evaluation criteria. Understanding the relative importance of the criteria helps us to design a page-limited proposal around what you think is paramount. Are some factors more important than others or are we to consider them all of equal importance? What is the relative importance of cost, as compared to the other factors?

Our approach will be a “best value” approach. We will have flexibility in selection through tradeoffs between the cost and technical aspects of your proposals. We may award for technical superiority even if it means paying a premium price, provided that that price is within our budget. Our intention is to award the contractor that will give the greatest or best value for the funding available to us.

16. In Article 3 of the pro forma contract, the Gallery proposes a lump sum payment at the end of the Discovery Phase. Will the Gallery consider an alternative, phased payment plan for the Implementation Phase?

Yes. We will use milestone payments tied to successful accomplishment of critical milestones. We will also hold back a 10% Retainage that we will remit 90 days after the work under the implementation work is completed.

17. The As-Is workflow descriptions reference user story numbers in their title. For example, the Workflow W1(EXO) title states that this workflow covers user stories EXO-US1-2-18-21. Should we assume that the User Story stated in the W1(EXO) workflow is an aggregation of user stories EXO-US1-2-18-21 and therefore covers the information contained in the 4 stated user stories, or do we need to specifically examine all 4 user stories EXO-US1-2-18-21? If it is the latter, there is insufficient information provided within the Enterprise Blueprint Document (RFP Attachment

2) to determine what information the 4 referenced user stories contain. For the latter case, can you provide the specific user story information, based on the user story numbers (e.g., EXO-US1-2-18-21), for the As-Is workflows?

You are correct that each workflow is the aggregate. For purposes of this RFP, please use only the workflows (1-27). The user stories were raw material for the workflows, which supersede them.

18. The RFP does not state any formatting requirements for the proposal other than electronic formats and page size (8.5” x 11.0”). Do you intend to provide additional guidance later, or should we make reasonable assumptions? As an example, reasonable assumptions would dictate, 1 inch margins, 11 point font for text, no smaller than 9pt font for tables, etc.

Please make reasonable assumptions.

19. Amendment 2 extended the date for submission of questions on the RFP to 29 October. May we assume that the Gallery still intends to publish responses on 1 November, or is there a corresponding shift to that, or any other, Gallery milestones?

We will publish responses on November 2.

20. We saw a preference for Nuxeo- and Alfresco-based solutions. Is the consortium still considering the use of a custom solution?

We would consider a custom solution that meets the open-source requirement, if it satisfies our “best value” evaluation.

21. Was CollectionSpace evaluated as a possible document management system along with Nuxeo and Alfresco?

CollectionSpace has not been eliminated as a basis for ConservationSpace.

22. The technical guidance document has a section on legacy systems. Could you more specifically state which versions of which legacy software systems should be supported in the initial version of ConservationSpace?

Release 1.0 is intended to be a shared installation, hosted “in the cloud,” with minimal integration to other systems. However, we believe that integration with a digital asset management system and a collection catalog is essential to the functioning of ConservationSpace. A core objective of Release 1.5 is the full integration of ConservationSpace with enterprise systems at each of the partners. We will identify specific systems and versions to be supported in the requirements for that release.

23. Will any of the features currently supported by legacy systems be implemented in

ConservationSpace, and is it expected that the legacy systems be phased out over time?

Most of the ‘legacy’ systems referred to perform functions not intended for ConservationSpace and will not be eliminated as a result of its adoption. In that sense, it would be more correct to refer to them as part of the enterprise environments of our target user base, than as strictly legacy capabilities.

24. A number of activities note "These fields must be configurable to conform to each institution's business rules." Would the expectation be that each institution is hosting their own instance of the system or that a single deployment / installation might cover multiple institutions with different business rules?

Starting in Release 1.5, larger institutions of the partners will likely wish to host their own instances of the system. Smaller institutions might wish to reduce operating costs by sharing a ConservationSpace offering hosted by a third party. How this would be accomplished will be addressed in Release 2.0.

25. During the system testing phase of the project, will the contractor be expected to conduct formal in-personal usability tests (video-recorded, conducted in a research facility, scripted, etc), or will an informal process be acceptable?

The bidder’s proposed approach to testing should be addressed in the proposal.

26. The RFP states that the system tests will be witnessed by the Gallery, does that mean that the tests must be conducted on-site in Washington DC, or can they be conducted during online meetings like described in the “Application Development and Design Phase” on pg 6 of the Statement of Work?

This ‘witnessing’ of the tests could include online meetings, as suggested here, or other mechanisms to economize in achieving a good result.

27. Are audited financial statements needed prior to submission or prior to contract start?

Yes. If an audited financial statement is not available, the matter should be discussed with the Contracting Officer to determine an acceptable substitute.

28. Will NGA release research already conducted on pros and cons of open-source platforms as related to ConservationSpace?

No.

29. Has NGA ever worked with another firm/s to develop ConservationSpace? If so, who and when?

NGA, and the Partners, worked with Noblis to develop the Enterprise Blueprint for the system and with DesignforContext to develop the UI concepts presented in the attachments to the RFP.

30. Please clarify the relationship between all the partners involved in the project and describe exactly how the roll-out timeline will be affected.

On behalf of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the Partner institutions, the National Gallery of Art has accepted responsibility for management of the development effort. Release 1.0 is intended to be a hosted release, accessible to all partners at the same time.

31. Do you have an expected ratio of effort to be spent on UI (rich and flexible UI features) vs. business functionality (use cases, handling documents, workflows)?

Bidders should propose what they believe would be the best allocation.

32. Would you be willing to go with a simpler UI if the studies during Discovery confirm this is necessary for an appropriate allocation of budget between UI and business functionality?

The budget and specific allocation of the budget to UI and development of business functionality is up to the developer to determine, and we are willing to consider any proposal which would maximize the overall utility of the system, including alternatives with simpler UI.

33. Please expand more on “two owner” aspect of case management. We understand this use case since projects are commonly used in our world. What is it that is complex to implement? Use cases would help.

We intended to clarify that each art object might need to be managed as a ‘case’ throughout its lifetime, as well as being examined in any number of projects over time.

34. Is the limit of $400,000 for discovery phase and Release 1.0 to pertain to only the implementation costs incurred by the contractor? The hosted solution will have a recurring cost for life of the application.

Yes, the 400,000 limit applies to the Discovery and Implementation Phases. Hosting the solution is covered under Section 2.4 of the statement of work, which is optional tasking.

35. Is there a requirement to edit video and audio files?

36. We see Nuxeo already being used for digital asset management and document management. Is there a plan to consolidate all the listed solutions being used in Attachment 2.5?

Attachment 2.5 lists tools and technology in use at the various partners. Each partner operates independently and there is no intent to consolidate toolsets. We believe the range of tools in use by the partners is representative of the tools in use by the broader conservation community.

37. Are you open to a COTS solution as compared to open source if comparable in price?

38. What were the contributing factors in deciding to have multiple contracts and contractors for the different phases?

During Phase 1, we used the services of a Systems Engineering contractor to assist in documenting the requirements. We intend to hire a Development contractor for Phase 2, and expect that they will continue to work with us in later phases, depending upon funding and initial results.

39. Did you use a contractor for Phase 1, Planning, and Requirements Identification? If so, where you happy with that contractor’s performance? Will that contractor bid on this RFP?

We used two contractors in the development of the requirements, one to assist with Systems Engineering and one to assist, specifically, in understanding the user interface requirements. Neither will be submitting a proposal on this RFP.

40. Did you consider Drupal along with its enterprise grade modules for document and media management, internationalization, case management, etc., as a potential solution? If yes, why was it excluded from consideration?

We did not research Drupal in detail and we have not excluded it. We are open to any acceptable open-source solution.

41. The RFP states that “ConservationSpace should make substantial use of existing technology in order to deliver maximum functionality at minimal cost.” Please clarify what the existing pieces of technology are that are candidates for reuse and integration.

This statement relates to our desire to base ConservationSpace on preexisting technology, such as an open source document management system, open source libraries and frameworks, and open source text or image editors, where possible.

42. Part 4, Technical Proposal, B., Section 1: Technical Understanding and Approach says “Address how you would assure that design choices made for Release 1.0, would lay a proper foundation for the optional work to build Releases 1.5 and 2.0.”

Can you provide the parameters/requirements of releases 1.5 and 2.0? It would be helpful to have more information than is provided in the SOW (2.5 and 2.6).

Attachment 3, the Technical Guidance, provides some insights into issues to be addressed in the development of the system that may not be fully accommodated in Release 1.0. For example, integration with systems in the partners’ enterprise environments and configurability are expected to be of significant importance in Release 1.5. Hosting and multi-tenancy are expected to be an important focus in Release 2.0, which focuses on release to the larger community. We intend to develop detailed requirements for these Releases as we approach them.

43. Do you have a pre-bid conference meeting date. I did not find that date on the fbo.gov web site.

There was no pre-bid conference. We published a Call for Qualifications on Fedbizopps.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=be6cccbe46f0fa369c4432a05 5f8054d&tab=core&_cview=0

44. I want to know whether our company needs to have vehicle insurance even the company does not have any car.

If your company will not use a car as part of the engagement, we can waive the this insurance requirement.

45. Offline mobile activity is stated as a regular occurrence for activities around an artifact. However, no specific information is mentioned regarding mobile device application development. Is it safe to assume that mobile device applications will be developed separately? In addition, is there a reason that mobile activities are assumed to be unable to access the CS network installation remotely?

The ability for conservators to collect structured data and information on conservation activity taking place in locations where computer terminals and/or network connectivity are unavailable (e.g., remote outdoor sites, storage vaults) is assumed to be in scope for the Phase 2b/Release 1.0 effort. There is no presumption made as to the format/structure of the offline data gathering tool(s) or the devices that might host them.

46. Could the Government please reconcile the Intellectual Property Terms identified in Part 5 of the Pro Forma Services Agreement (Contract) with the RFP requirement to build an open-source application for the Conservation Space?

Reconciliation, if any, would take place after the Discovery Phase is completed, once we see terms for open-source software that will be included in product.

47. Can the Government identify which user stories and wireframes represented in the Enterprise Blueprint (Attachment 2) are expected for delivery in Phase 2b/Release 1.0?

All wireframes are expected to be considered for delivery as part of Phase2b / Release1.0