(Unlimited Access statewide by end users)
Q: Can HSLC define any metrics to daily, weekly, monthly or yearly usage of visit per unique user or other measurements to define web site usage?
A: Please see the APPENDIX C: SYSTEM SUMMARY AND STATISTICS section of the RFP on p. 26 for the yearly usage statistics.
(Direct and indirect cost associated with the proposal including any related to scalability)
Q: Could HSLC provide some “expectations” to bid on. IF we could get: a) idea of total storage for one year b) idea of the volume of online usage from the public and c) idea of the number of active users entering/updating software, that would enable us to then provide “steps” or costs for scaling as needed. For instance you could go live tomorrow but you might have no content there for nothing to search. Or you could have a small set of records that are searched repeatedly and multiple times. Or you could have a lot of users inside and outside that could require more servers and system resources and that could affect costs. We are wondering how HSLC plans to evaluate or “compare” the responses without some of these core statistics or ‘expectations’.
A: For question a and b see the APPENDIX C: SYSTEM SUMMARY AND STATISTICS section of the RFP on p. 26 for the yearly usage statistics. If those are not the storage and usage statistics needed clarification on what those are missing would be helpful. In the last month we have had 33 accounts engaged in some level of editing activity in the system, we have roughly 300 total accounts between internal staff and external contributors. Roughly 200 have done something, the other 100 have not interacted with the site.”
(Locally hosted based (on premise))
Q: Does HSLC wish to have a true on premise perpetual license or would they be open to a form of subcription that is run locally?
A: Both are valid options.
(Indicated the cost per terabyte)
Q: Is this cost outside of the annual base system cost and entirely a request for pure TB annual cost?
A: We want the annual base system cost and then the cost of any per storage additions on top of that. If the annual base system includes some level of storage that should be specified.
(Software licensing)
Q: Can HSLC define cost in terms of the intial number of active particpants (creating content) and a number per year or any other growth pattern for pricing?
A: Please see b. c. answer for number of active participants. Growth averages approximately 20 new participants a year.
(Software maintenance and upgrades)
Q: Again, if total read only (searching) along wilth active cataloging could be surfaced that would help with this question.
A: In 2024, we had 213,000 searches. We do not track detailed cataloging statistics of our contributors.
(Limit of price increases)
Q: We are assuming this is only CPI type increases and not growth based on number of active contributors.
A: You are free to break out CPI type increases versus number of active contributor increases.
(Custom Development costs)
Q: We can provide an hourly rate, but not specific pricing scenarios without a particular project.
A: That works for us.
(Add on costs)
Q: We propose an all inclusive system and related, cost, but we can itemize addition related services that are not requested.
It is fine to include additional services and related costs as long as they are clearly noted as such.
(Training (1 rep to supply training to all))
Q: Can you provide an logistics in terms of locations central with virtual) and how many users will be trained.
A: We would want to train all users, being roughly 200 active users and staff as of 5/19/25
(Maintenance costs for year 1-5)
Q: For this to be accurate we would need to know the base number of active users then the growth year by year – estimation.
Roughly 200 active users and staff as of 5/19/25. Growth averages approximately 20 new participants a year.
Q: System Requirements says to mark Sections A, “User Front End/Presentation & B, “Staff Interface/Data Management, with the compliance answers of: In general release, In test, In development, In planning, OR Custom development necessary. There is no mention of how to address Section C, Infrastructure. How would you like us to address this section?
A: A yes or no may be used as appropriate, or In general release, In test, In development, In planning, OR Custom development necessary.
(Previous system)
Q: Were you always on Islandora or did you use another system previously?
A: We were using CONTENTdm before migrating to Islandora. Some of the data in our current system is data that was migrated from CONTENTdm, some is native Islandora data.
(Data types)
Q: Is this operational data or is it end of life and no longer being changed?
A: Collection managers may edit records and/or files as needed.
(Data types)
Q: So an example is a PowerPoint or Word document that’s being consistently updated?
A: No, that doesn’t fit the kind of content that we steward.
(Cloud storage)
Q: Is a standard AWS S3 deployment okay for this bid?
A: There is nothing about the intrinsic nature of AWS S3 storage that would pose a problem.
(Cloud storage)
Q: Do you need it to be in Gov Cloud
A: We don’t require Gov Cloud; these are publicly accessible records.
(Budget)
Q: Do you have a budget for a proprietary system?
A: Our administrators handle the budget.
(Proprietary vs. Open Source system infrastructure)
Q: Do you use other proprietary systems?
A: We are actively using proprietary systems at this moment.
Q: Page 4 states three originals of our proposal must be submitted. Is an electronic signature acceptable on those hardcopies?
A: Electronic signature is acceptable.
Q: On p. 10, Section II-4 states we’re to provide reference information regarding at least 2 systems similar to HSLC. But on p. 14, SectionIV-1. #3 requires at least 3 references. Please confirm the number of required references and if the information provided for these items can be for the same customers.
A: We would like 3 references, two of which should be from systems of a similar size.
Q: Page 26 states HSLC has 25-32 Terabytes of data. We would like to know if that data is or includes the high-resolution/high-fidelity archival content. Or is that a tally of the actual end-user accessible content which ultimately will be used in the system?
A: We estimate our collection’s master copy records at somewhere between 50-80% of the size of the collection. Some of them are already “access copy” level scans, and some are preservation quality but it depends on the collection. We do generally ask people to upload the access copies.
(Accessibility)
Q: Is an extension to meet the ADA requirement an option?
A: We will answer this question after we have evaluated the proposals. If your proposal rises to the top, we will consider an extension on this compliance. However, it would not be our preference to extend development until April 2026.
(Data storage)
Q: Does the 32TB comprise master file formats as well as digital access files?
A: Yes
Q: If so, what is the likely footprint of access files alone?
A: We estimate our collection’s master copy records at somewhere between 50-80% of the size of the collection. Some of them are already “access copy” level scans, and some are preservation quality but it depends on the collection. We do generally ask people to upload the access copies.
Q: If only access files were uploaded, would you seek secure, cost-efficient storage for master files? Or do participating institutions already have independent provision for storage of master files?
A: Participating institutions are responsible for storing master files.
(Authorised User access to the administrative interface)
Q: We cannot ringfence the collections on which collection managers can work. Is this level of granularity acceptable to you or would you require the ability to limit back-end access to certain collections?
A: If it cannot be ringfenced by collection, is there a way we can easily define what records a given user’s permissions apply to? We do have a hard requirement that we be able to restrict users to the records that belong to them and not other contributors. If a model allows that which is not specifically collection based but can be easily managed that would be acceptable.
(Proposal Deadline)
Q: Is an extension of the RFP response deadline possible?
A: We cannot extend the due date for the RFP. We are on a tight timeline for this procurement, due to our fiscal year closing on June 30.
(End User Experience) Ability to customize the web presence for the front page of the repository, collection landing pages, or add other custom webpages either natively or by linking to a separate website.
Q: Could you please provide further requirements/goals?
A: Regarding the front page of the repository, we currently have two landing pages, one that we created and currently manage and the other that is via Islandora. We’re hoping for similar flexibility in the new system. The collection landing pages is answered in your next bullet point. An example custom webpage is our current About | papd page.
(Design) Offers a customizable front‐end interface. HSLC desires the ability to customize the interface to be similar in appearance to the powerlibrary.org portal.
Q: Ditto. And do you want this capability as developers, or just via the admin/GUI interface? Or do you mean you want the project to be able to include a custom theming/branding component to accomplish this?
A: We would like both developer options and admin/GUI options. We are also interested in custom theming and branding for our site.
(Design) Local distributed branding. Offers the ability to uniquely brand each collection.
Q: Could you please provide further requirements/goals? As an example, we allow the ability to upload a banner image on any object (including collections) – e.g. [vendor identifying link removed]. Is this sufficient? Or maybe more like what we did for [client name removed] where collections can be tagged to an Institution? [vendor identifying link removed]
A: We like these examples and think this is what we’re going for!
Security profiles (fine‐grained access). Offers the ability to assign granular authorization/authentication by collection or collection group.
Q: Could you please provide further requirements/goals? Do you mean end-users or administrators or both?
A:We currently do not allow for authorization/authentication by end-users, rather administrators. See next bullet point for more information.
Distributed security. Allow the assignment of privileges by a group manager to collection managers within that group.
Q: Could you please provide further requirements/goals? Again, do you mean end-users or administrators or both?
A: As a managed service we have to possess multiple levels of permissions. We require the ability to assign some staff full administrative permissions and to delegate other accounts with limited permissions that can include some (or all of) item creation, editing, deleting, or moving items between collections. Accounts should be able to have varying levels of these permissions and their permissions should be able to be either global or restricted to specific collections or subsections of items.