Memorial University of Newfoundland
Close Time: 1500
MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
ARCHIVAL SERVICES PLATFORM
Addendum # 1
January 12, 2018
Q: In section 4.1 of the Functional Requirements the MUN states it is looking for a
web-based archival services platform (ASP).
Could MUN state that includes “hosted desktop solutions” as well as, complete “SaaS solutions”?
A: We are looking for a system that is either SaaS or Cloud-based and complies with
the required technical and security requirements. We look forward to considering all submitted proposals to our RFP.
Q: In section 4.1 of the Functional Requirements, the MUN states, “The library intends to employ Ex-Libris
Question: We have no control over Exlibris and what it intends or does not intend to do with its software. Does MUN accept that a vendor would TRY to integrate and DO ITS BEST to provide data to be shared or
exported with Primo in any major standard? Understanding that there may be charges later on depending on the level of integration? Also would you want to consider your own (less expensive) TDR as part of the solution?
Memorial Libraries currently uses several of Ex-Libris’s products and we have placed the interoperability with Ex-Libris’ products as an important (but not required function) we are seeking information on proponent’s
possible solutions: “Information on interoperability with digital preservation management systems should be supplied by the Proponent.”
Q: In section 18.104.22.168, “SaaS” the software will be hosted and maintained by the vendor.
Does that mean the MUN will accept any hosted solution in the cloud so long as it is hosted and accessible?
A: We are looking for a system that is either SaaS or Cloud-based and complies with the required technical and
Q: There are no servers by our cloud partners in Newfoundland and Labrador. Will MUN
accept a solution hosted in another jurisdiction/province in Canada? Will MUN accept a
solution hosted in the USA?
As long as the cloud complies with the required technical and security requirements, we
have not specified a specific geographic location
Q: In section 22.214.171.124, web based: all public and staff functions of the ASP,
administrator configuration are accessible via the web. Again (related to question1 and
question3) does MUN accept a hosted desktop solution in the cloud? Or only a
completely web based application presentation
layer for the day to day entry by Staff?
A: We are looking for a system that is either SaaS or Cloud-based and complies with the
required technical and security requirements. We look forward to considering all
proposals to our RFP.
Q: In section 126.96.36.199, Standards compliance, does MUN expect to store and key its data in
Marc 21? Not sure how we can create a full MARC record (indicators and delimiters) or
even some of the other
formats without some intervention or prepping of data. Also
should we note each standard separately or en masse?
A: It would be ideal if each standard is noted separately.
Q: In section 188.8.131.52, Multilingual Support, Does
MUN expect the OPAC interface to be
available in all languages? The ISO table has hundreds of languages. Could MUN
specifically list the languages expected/needed?
A: We specified English, French, and German. Can you list
the languages you do support in
Q: In Section 184.108.40.206 and section 220.127.116.11, both requirements state “unlimited”. Does MUN
for see no limit? Or can it accept a limit like 1,000,000 characters or 1 GIG of text
least some sort of limit?
A: We are interested in what your limit may be.
Q: In Section 4.3.6.x, the MUN discusses patron management. Does MUN want a solution
that is online, 24/7 and allows requesting of materials in
a managed way or does it just
want a solution that allows a patron to request materials without any time criteria (eg; a
record is requested from box “x”, is there any requirement to provide Box “x” or the
record located in
it within 24hours or some specified time range? We are trying to
determine how sophisticated the request components of the system need to be. We
have clients that have hundreds of thousands of requests to clients that have
one a day or less even. So we are trying to access the degree of patron requesting
needed or envisioned by MUN. Could MUN provide an idea what its goal is? (eg: 2 hour
response time, 1 hour circulation or some basic
criteria). We have different solutions
based on budget and criteria. The more sophisticated OPAC and real-time 24/7online
requesting modules are much more expensive than the standard bookmarking and basic
we are trying to determine what level of solution to propose. To
explain all options would generate a lot of extra paper.
A: Currently all Memorial Archives users are registered by the archives’ staff, and we
envisioning a patron management system that would be managed internally. We do not
have the desire at this moment for users to self-register and I would not characterize
our needs as sophisticated as neither archives is
responding to hundreds/thousands of
requests per day, more like dozens of requests on a busy day.
Q: We notice that some of the requirements are may be incongruent with one another.
For instance 18.104.22.168.... In a hosted
environment, one cannot lock workstations when
some program, DNS or user is trying to be problematic to the application. Simply how
could one lock a workstation from a different DNS/Domain? Also if you are using a full
based application, again, there is no way shut down or block people trying to get
access that have a valid user/password – unless the server is taken off line. Could MUN
clarify that 22.214.171.124 is not relevant to a hosted
A: 126.96.36.199 is not listed as a required feature and we will consider your concerns about the
technical issues you have outlined. Please include this feedback with your response as it
will be noted.
Are all points considered to be equally scored? That is, will MUN score each point
equally (eg: all points are worth ‘X’ where ‘X’ is universally worth the same)? We are
trying to determine how much to write for
A: Our overarching scoring system is:
60% Functional Requirements
25% Financial Requirements
10% Company Information and References
We have weighted elements with only a few areas weighted lower
Workflow, Printed/Published Material, Conservation, and Deaccession & Disposal)
however each area/process are weighted equally. We are scoring by area.
Does MUN want/expect training on site?
Should we identify any travel costs upfront or
embed the travel costs in the training overall costs?
A: Please include all costs, including training and travel, with your overall costs. Please note
that: “-costs incurred by
the proponent with respect to their RFP response, participation
in evaluation and testing and any other costs incurred prior to signing of a contract are
the responsibility of the proponent. The Library assumes no liability
for such costs.”