NGLS-_RFP_Questions_and_Responses-Final.docx

DOCX document 28 KB Posted Oct 11, 2016

Attached to: Next Generation Library System Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: SAQMMA16R0409
Issued by: Department of State Office of Acquisition Management

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Next Generation Library System, newest first.
File	Type	Posted
SAQMMA16R0409-Amendment-002.pdf	PDF	Oct 17, 2016
2016-09-21_SAQMMA16R0409.pdf	PDF	Sep 21, 2016
2016-09-21_SAQMMA16R0409.pdf	PDF	Sep 20, 2016
ATTACHMENT_B_PAST_PERFORMANCE_QUESTIONNAIRE.docx	DOCX document	Sep 20, 2016
Attachment_A-2016-09-2_NGLS_Statement_of_Work.docx	DOCX document	Sep 20, 2016

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Department of State- Next Generation Library System- RFP - Questions and Responses

Question

Response

p. 28, L.7.2 Proposal Volumes and Organization, Table L.1 notes that we should use Attachment E for our Cost/Pricing Proposal (Volume IV). No attachment was included. Should we merely create our own spreadsheet for this?

The Government will accept a spreadsheet attachment in the Offeror’s format for the cost proposal

p. 29, L.7.5 Proposal Submission Instructions instructs us to email our final proposal to olsonbr@state.gov. But the posting on FedBizOpps listed you as the main contact. Can you please confirm the correct email address?

Send all submissions to RothsteinAT@state.gov

On page 32 of the RFP document, section L.7.6.2.2, your instructions are for the Offeror to “provide the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) contained in Attachment B to its references for them to complete and submit directly from the reference to the DOS Contracting Officer. It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to transmit the PPQ to its references, have the references complete the PPQ, and submit the completed PPQ to the Government.” Would it also be acceptable for us to have our references complete the PPQ, return it to the offeror, and the offeror to submit with the bid response? We feel this will better ensure that the PPQ is turned in on or before the due date of the bid.

No – please follow the instructions in L.7.6.2.2

On page 28 of the RFP document, table L.1, you provide us with a page limitation of 40 pages for our technical proposal. On page 30 of the RFP document, L.7.6.2.1, we are instructed for Subfactor 1 to respond to all of the items provided in Attachment A, including a response to Appendix 1 in attachment A. Can the Department of State provide us with their expectations on the best way to respond to these requirements, as a more detailed response addressing each requirement individually will surpass the 40 page limit by a large number of pages? Should we simply reply with “complies” as appropriate to the requirements listed in Appendix 1?

Stating “complies” is not an acceptable response. You should be able to condense your response to meet the 40 page limit.

Page 29, L.7.6.1 states that the offeror should complete “Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors”. However, page 15, at “52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certifications--Commercial Items (Oct 2015)” states that “The Offeror shall complete only paragraph (b) of this provision if the Offeror has completed the annual representations and certification electronically via the System for Award Management (SAM) website…” If the offeror has in fact completed the representations and certification via the SAM website, and has no changes to make with regards to paragraph (b), should the offeror make a statement to that effect? Or should the offeror include a completed Representations and Certification?

Please provide the complete version of your Representations and Certifications

Page 31, L.6.2.2, provides specific instructions on what to submit for “Key Personnel” as part of the RFP submission process. However, page 8, item H-016, provides different instructions on what to provide for “Key Personnel”. Can you clarify what needs to be included in the RFP response?

Please comply with the instructions on page 31, section L.7.6.2.2

Can you provide the following metrics for the Ralph J. Bunche Library?

a. Total number of bibliographic titles (including e-books )

b. Total number of unique e-journal titles

c. Total number of staff who will require login to the system (this includes part-time users)

a. Total number of bibliographic records in current ILS database: circa 310,0000 + 135,000 e-books records for ebrary Academic Complete (managed via current discovery tool, not the ILS)

b. Circa 50,000 unique e-journal titles (not in ILS)

c. We would need access for 30 staff users.

Are you using any digital asset management (DAM) systems? If so, indicate what product or products you are currently using.

We do not currently use a Digital Asset management system.

Would you be interested in managing your digital resources? If so, and if applicable, please provide:

a. Total number of digital objects

b. Size of your digital collection? (in MBs) We do not currently need a Digital Asset management system, but may consider it in the future.

In Attachment A, page 26, question 25, you list the requirement to create and load local authorities. Please estimate the number of local authorities that you would need to load into the system. Please note that we provide a set of authority records that are updated and maintained regularly. We maintain the following authority files:

· LC Subject (LCSH) – Library of Congress Subject Headings (updated weekly)

· LC Name (LCNAF) – Library of Congress Name Authority File (updated weekly)

· NLM MeSH – United States National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (updated annually)

· GND – German National Library - Subjects and Names Authorities (updated daily)

· BARE (Norwegian Authority System) – BIBSYS Authority Registry - Subjects and Names Authorities (updated daily).

· Library of Congress (LoC) – Medium of Performance Thesaurus for Music (updated when available)

· RVK Classification(updated twice a year).

· Library and Archives Canada (LAC) – Canadian Subject Headings (updated when available)

· Library and Archives Canada (LAC) – Canadian Name/Title Authorities (updated when available)

· National Library of Israel – Multilingual Thesaurus (updated daily)

· LCGFT - Genre/Form Headings at the Library of Congress (updated weekly)

· Rameau - UNIMARC version (updated when available)

· OCLC - FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) (updated when available) Any institution may use these records to authorize headings in their local bibliographic records. Institutions that use unaltered authority files will be able to use this and no longer manage local authorities. In order to correctly size the hosted environment for your institutions, we need to know if the institutions are using authorities in addition to the global files listed above, and if so, how many local authority files you wish to load.

We would like to load one (1) file of local authority records (subject headings, titles, and names) that currently reside in our Voyager database. There are approximately 10,000 local authority records. We would also want to be able to add to these local authority records to the new ILS database on an ongoing basis.

We would want to use the authority records in any available community of shared records and local authority records for authority control (with local authority records checked first in validation followed by global authority records).

Attachment A, requirement H.9, mentions “The Contractor shall sign one copy of the attached Non-disclosure Statement on behalf of the company, only if applicable”. I did not see this attachment in the RFP documents—do you require this to be included with the RFP response, or only if we are awarded the contract? If it does need to be included with the RFP response, where can we access a copy?

We will amend the RFP to state that the contractor will sign the Non-Disclosure upon contract award during the week of October 17.

Attachment A, requirement A.6, states that “the system shall accommodate multi-site institutions with two or more libraries (two libraries initially with the potential to add additional libraries at a future date)”. Can you provide some more context to this question? The RFP only mentions that Ralph J. Bunche Library. Is there another entity other than the Ralph J. Bunche library participating in this procurement process?

a. If there is another entity participating in this process, are you currently loading patron databases separately from one another? In the new proposed environment, patrons would reside in a single, secure user environment. Is this something you are okay with?

b. If there is another entity participating in this process, are you using separate link resolver instances? If so, the move to the new system will unite your e-resources, but those e-resources will be scoped to only be accessible for each library/entity. Is this something you are okay with?

Currently, we need only a single database. We were anticipating that another library would be participating in this procurement process, but only Ralph J. Bunche Library is migrating to a next generation system at this time.

Authentication: As part of the move to the new system, you will not be able to manage user names and passwords in the system (due to cloud security best practices). You must use external authentication such as LDAP. Voyager cannot be the system of record for user names and passwords moving forward, however social authentication may also be used for community users. Is this something you are okay with?

Our patrons will be internal users, staff of the Department of State. We would prefer patrons be initially authenticated by virtue of their IP address. Patrons should then be free to create patron accounts themselves, or with the assistance of Library staff. We believe we would be compatible with the use of LDAP, should that be required. We are not able to load patron data from an external system.

For staff access to back-end library functions, we would prefer that a locally designated “administrator” have the ability to add, delete, or modify library staff access profiles.

10/11/2016

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Nov 14, 2017.