- It is our understanding that section 1.24 is the definitive section on the scope of the system to be bid; however it does not include libraries from other funding sources listed. Is this correct?
- Is it also safe to assume that the libraries list in section 6.13 are limited to potential users in
- Is there a plan or potential that other State Libraries (listed in 1.6) may wish to participate, and if so, how does that relate to the currently indicated timelines?
- RFP Section 1.1. #4 states that the system shall also support the delivery of electronic texts. Does that mean via attachments to the request, or can the delivery be via alternative methods?
- RFP Section 1.1 #10 - Can you give examples of other applications and systems to which the system should be able to access?
- RFP Section 1.1. #16 - Please define “document delivery system” – is it the same as the delivery of electronic texts noted in #4?
- RFP Section 2.1.3 #5 - This item notes the presentations/demos are the week of February 2-6, 2009, whereas the timeline in 1.3 notes February 16-20. Are the correct dates February 16-20th?
- RFP Specification and Requirement 3.7 - Do all of the ILS systems use username and password to log in? Or, do some just use a username?
- RFP Specification and Requirement 4.48 - Please clarify the phrase “permit the user to determine.” Does “determine” mean “view,” “select,” or something else?
- RFP Specification and Requirement 5.26 - Describe how the system shall identify items checked out to the resource sharing system. Does this mean items checked out to borrowing libraries or their patrons?
- To price and begin service for the solution we are proposing in response to this RFP, we need to verify the exact contract start date and length of the agreement. The RFP references a March 9th, 2009 signing date. Is this the contract start date?
1. It is our understanding that section 1.24 is the definitive section on the scope of the system to be bid; however it does not include libraries from other funding sources listed. Is this correct?
Answer: The goal of this RFP is to develop an open source statewide resource sharing solution that will meet the needs of all potential
RFP Partner organizations who are providing funding for the development of this solution for Ohio have provided input into the RFP and expect that any solution developed for Ohio that meets the requirements of the RFP, will meet their own individual requirements as well. The partner organizations will be responsible for installing, maintaining, and supporting the software according to their own needs, once the open source statewide resource sharing application has been developed.
2. Is it also safe to assume that the libraries list in section 6.13 are limited to potential users in
Answer: Section 6.13 is a list of the integrated library systems, along with the vendor names, that are in use in
The scope of the RFP is for development and deployment of the open source statewide resource sharing solution in
3. Is there a plan or potential that other State Libraries (listed in 1.6) may wish to participate, and if so, how does that relate to the currently indicated timelines?
Answer: There is always a possibility that as other groups (e.g., State Libraries, regional library networks, public libraries, etc.) become aware of our activities, they will be interested in participating. However, this should have no impact on the current RFP or the timelines defined in the RFP. OHIONET and the multistate collaborative have funds to cover the expected development costs of the requirements of the RFP, as issued. As mentioned specifically in section 1.3 of the RFP, RFP Timeline, the Collaborative does recognize the timeline may need adjustment, but we do not see any adjustments as the result of other groups participating in the Collaborative.
4. RFP Section 1.1. #4 states that the system shall also support the delivery of electronic texts. Does that mean via attachments to the request, or can the delivery be via alternative methods?
Answer: The delivery can be via any method that the vendor’s proposed solution recommends. The RFP does not require a specific method that must be used to accomplish this feature. It is up to the vendor and their proposed statewide resource sharing application to recommend and deploy a viable solution to deliver the electronic text to the end user.
5. RFP Section 1.1 #10 - Can you give examples of other applications and systems to which the system should be able to access?
Answer: The Collaborative is interested in the capabilities of the vendor’s proposed system to search or be made capable of searching a variety of data repositories. In addition to searching vendor ILS catalogs as specified in the RFP, the list of other collections to be searched could include statewide accessible databases such as offered by EBSCO or PubMed. Other examples might also be the WorldCat database, library websites, search engines, or custom built data repositories. The search of these additional repositories can be accomplished via an established standard, such as Z39.50, through vendor defined APIs, or any other appropriate and supportable mechanism.
6. RFP Section 1.1. #16 - Please define “document delivery system” – is it the same as the delivery of electronic texts noted in #4?
Answer: The “document delivery system” referenced in RFP Section 1.1, item 16, is referring to the existing statewide delivery system used to move materials between libraries in
7. RFP Section 2.1.3 #5 - This item notes the presentations/demos are the week of February 2-6, 2009, whereas the timeline in 1.3 notes February 16-20. Are the correct dates February 16-20th?
Answer: This is an error within the RFP. RFP Section 2.1.3, item 5, has an incorrect date. As noted in the question and as described in section 1.3 RFP Timetable, the vendor presentations/demonstrations are tentatively scheduled for the week of February 16-20, 2009.
8. RFP Specification and Requirement 3.7 - Do all of the ILS systems use username and password to log in? Or, do some just use a username?
Answer: There are no statistics available that provide a count of how many Ohio ILSs use username/password combinations or username only. As described in RFP Section 3.0 Functional Specifications: Authentication, the proposed open source resource sharing solution must support authentication. The proposed solution should be capable of providing an authentication method for all users.
9. RFP Specification and Requirement 4.48 - Please clarify the phrase “permit the user to determine.” Does “determine” mean “view,” “select,” or something else?
Answer: RFP Specification and Requirement 4.48 “permit the user to determine” can be read as “permit the user to view”. RFP Specification and Requirement 4.48 is a list of items that it is expected the user will be able to view at any time for each active request, once they are logged into the system.
10. RFP Specification and Requirement 5.26 - Describe how the system shall identify items checked out to the resource sharing system. Does this mean items checked out to borrowing libraries or their patrons?
11. To price and begin service for the solution we are proposing in response to this RFP, we need to verify the exact contract start date and length of the agreement. The RFP references a March 9th, 2009 signing date. Is this the contract start date?
Answer: Yes, the tentative contract start date as listed in RFP Section 1.3 - RFP Timetable is March 9, 2009. It is also understood that, as stated in Section 1.3, the timetable may require modification. The contract may not be signed exactly on March 9, 2009 and it is dependent upon the successful and timely completion of all milestones within the RFP process. The RFP makes no statement as to length of agreement. It is expected that vendors will be prepared to outline how the length of an agreement will affect total cost, both in the proposal being submitted and during the Contract Negotiations phase of the RFP process, should the Collaborative reach this phase of the process with a vendor.