Bid process:
In past, some bids were rejected before the committee saw them because they didn't meet the RFP before it was sent to committee. Some could be disqualified this time, as well. Some may be disqualified for not meeting the specifications. Our committee will be the bid evaluation committee - not someone at CPE. Lanter, INCOLSA, MOBIUS (Michigan and Missouri). OhioLink awarded to US Cargo (?ground for Air Bourne).Owensboro firm does IRIS for $80.00 per day. US Cargo does OhioLink for $8.00 per day. Not every day in every library. Lanter subcontracts to smaller courier courier services like Zip Express. Courier Express (Owensboro) has had some problem with zipper bags. Pony Express subcontracted with Greyhound. Committee will look at whether zipper bags are included in the contract - and the number (approx. 10,000) included? We'll need closeable totes as well as the nylon zippered bags. The system used for tracking the bags will need to be evaluated carefully. Lanter appears to have worked with libraries. RPS - ground courier for Federal Express. RPS doesn't use bags. Vendors who did not attend the meeting can still
Catch - they seemed unable to provide a flat per day rate per library; some sent a per package price which did not meet the bid requirements. Another vendor missed the deadline for asking questions.
Time Line? - on pg. 3 or Invitation to Bid.
Dec. 22 - Advertisement of invitation to bid released
Jan. 18 - responses due
Feb. 15 - complete evaluation of bid
March 1 - award contract
May 1 - final contract - performance begins
The Document Delivery Committee scheduled itself to meet on three successive Thursdays (Jan. 27, Feb. 3, & Feb. 10th ) from 10:30 to 4:00 with plans to work over lunch. State bid personnel will evaluate them before the Committee looks at it. We see only those that meet the technical requirements of the state. This is a "best value" process; the contract doesn't have to go to the lowest bid. Shall we plan on the whole committee participating in the evaluation process? Discussion of whether all need to present for all meetings ensued. We need to know the guidelines. It was suggested that all need to be present for the Jan. 27th meeting. Criteria for evaluating the bids are on p. 9 and 10 of the bid. The suggestion of looking at web sites prior to the bid evaluation process was suggested. Method delivery - how important is it to use bags versus boxes?
Cost of Bags:
Demco:
The Committee's preference is for a company that uses bags.
Only a once daily trip to libraries (at which both pickup and delivery will occur) is envisioned.
Amount originally allocated for ground courier service - $200,000. (This amount needs to be verified.)
Georgia seeded theirs with $150,000 and didn't come close to using it - but they didn't push ILL in Georgia. Other people in the libraries participating in KCVL can use it for other purposes.
Best value process is described on page 10. Paragraph above B. Contract negotiations, suggests that this committee will receive and evaluate all bids. This committee makes recommendations to CPE. CPE sends info to Purchasing. It was agreed and understood that the State can eliminate bids before they are sent to this committee.
This committee can award higher points to vendors who have a previous track record working with libraries. (See page 9). Vendors have to provide references; the committee can check references. Electronic tracking does not show up as a separate evaluation point. Electronic tracking could be considered under problem response and resolution. The point system came from CPE (Dennie Taulbee?) rather than from the Committee. Responsiveness has a large number of points (45); what constitutes "responsiveness"? All members of the Committee need to study the bid and look at relevant web sites.
We need to know the guidelines for evaluation of bids. Do committee members need to have a pre-evaluation bid instructional meeting with Purchasing before the evaluation process begins? Jackie will check on this and distribute info via email, if possible.
Assignments for review of available web sites of possible vendors:
Committee members will forward information about the above relevant web sites to Susan for positing on the KCVL web site.
Buying into the courier service as independent libraries:
Frequency of stops:
Has a KCVL decision been made to go with SiteSearch? Discussion ensued about the current availability of the functions discussion. Patron-initiated interlibrary loan is operational in the SiteSearch application for IRIS. In the distributed model still under development by OCLC, if you don't do patron authentication, you could do it minimally by asking the patron to supply the information which would have to be verified. Does KCVL have the money to pay for the work that OCLC would have to do? Would institutions have to pay a portion of the cost? If we encourage patrons to use the KCVL WebZ interface, they should not have to loose functionality (e.g. the interlibary loan link). The Endeavor link, in testing, would be available only to Endeavor libraries. It would could not be uses by other in-state or out-of-state. General feeling seems to be that Kentucky is not ready as a state to do what OCLC is proposing. It's a possibility, but the U.K. folks would need to do a lot of additional work and somebody would need to pay for it. Take it back to the tech level to determine what needs to be done and how much it would cost? The tech group and interlibrary loan groups may need to collaborate on the functionality desired. We first need to know if Miko has follow-up with last week's meeting and whether we are committed (probably?) to OCLC SiteSearch. OCLC has a lot of options, but it seems that we (KCVL) needs to make the decisions. Will OCLC (Ron Gardner) see that we get estimates? If we're going to be pursuing SiteSearch, some training issues will be involved. There will need to determine where libraries are and what verification fields may be added to the form and whether all are willing to use it. How do you explain that only a portion of the libraries may be participating in the project while the users may be expecting the service from all. Libraries have different policies (e.g. no ILL for undergraduates, $1.00 per transactiion, etc.). How can these differences from the user perspective be accommodated?
Training:
KDLA traditionally, annually, offered a couple of basic sessions in interlibrary loan. Because of KCVL activity, this has not be done in the last year or so. Also, people have already been trained to the utmost during 1999 on other non-ILL issues via Gates, etc... KDLA would like some input into what should be included during 2000. There are basics of interlibrary loan that will not change with ground courier. The foundation should be provided before the courier service comes alone. Some people may want to go to ILL direct, but they'll need the firm foundation first. The KCTCS people, for example, need the basic training. The FirstSearch ILL link - the last thing in the basic training. The basic training needs to focus on basic principles with a preview of things to come. The more advances features could be presented in an informational session rather than a training session. There is a need to place the basic interlibrary loan training within the context of KCVL. Linda would like a subgroup to assist with these training issues. Barb, Ruth and Jackie agreed to work with Linda on this issue in preparation for a training session in February and March 2000. Are KCTCS close to a commitment with SOLINET for use of interlibrary loan as a GAC? Will the technical college personnel (most of whom are not library personnel) need to be trained separately? This the KCVL Document Delivery needs to look at the training progression - who needs what when? The first step will be for the three people who have agreed to work on the project to review a previous training agenda that will be supplied by Linda. We need to be providing the same message to folks about the functionality that is currently possible versus what is desirable. Carolyn offered her services for training in basic ILL at the appropriate point as a supplement to that provided by Janet Chisman (UK KLIC from KDLA). Follow-up visits to the libraries are desirable. Members of any KLN member have been eligible for the training offered at no change to the participant. The vo-techs are the only ones who are not KLN members, but via the proposed SOLINET GAC, they will the same capability (e.g. be profiled) as KLN members.
The scope of KCVL is extensive (digitizing, databases, government documents, information literacy, interlibrary loan, etc.). We take some things for granted (e.g. union database, Kentucky Union List of Serials, etc.). KULS pointed out in this year's annual report that serials holdings need to be accurate in order to support an increased volume of interlibrary loan resulting from the expanded access to databases via KCVL.
Susan will report back to the Document Delivery on committee meetings with U.K. personnel on the SiteSearch project.
Ariel issue:
Madisonville Community College got a scanner with USB rather than SCSI. Ariel doesn't support USB. Other community colleges are using it. Maybe others not yet using Ariel yet might have a similar problem. Ariel version 2.2 is not compatible with version 2.1. Ariel version 1.1, a DOS version, is also not compatible with version 2.2. The equipment out in the field is not what is in the KCVL office. KCVL ordered what the Document Delivery Committee recommended (including the Fijitsu); however, Hewlett Packards were delivered to the field. Different scanners were ordered. Some may be either not yet using the equipment (or not having problems). Concern about testing while still under warranty was expressed.
(Notes submitted by Sharon Edge - U o L - 12/15/99)
I Need Help |
Toll free help: 1-877-740-4357 |
Search the KYVL Website |
Information Skills Tutorial |
Comments/Suggestions
© Kentucky Virtual Library, 1024 Capital
Center Dr. Suite 210, Frankfort, KY 40601
Phone: 502-573-1555, Fax: 502-573-1031