Purchasing

Due Date:  August 26th 2025

August 13^th

In Section C, the row beneath question A53 is blank and the next row is A55. Should there be a question A54?

Reviewing our previous drafts, it looks like we removed the requirement that was for A54 but neglected to remove the row and renumber the requirements.  No action needs to be taken for that line.

How many total library outlets are in the consortium, including bookmobiles, hold lockers, etc. Can you please supply a breakdown by outlet type? Branch? Bookmobiles, hold lockers, etc.?

There are a total of 40 active locations in our current system.  Here is the breakdown.

• Library/Branches: 21
• Lockers: 8
• Bookmobiles: 5
• Outreach: 4
• Special Collections/Administration: 2

Circ70 – The system provides history for all patrons for an agency-specified period of time.
Can you provide additional information regarding the type of history referred to in this question? Is it for reading history, financial transaction history, etc.? Is this for reporting purposes, or should staff be able to access details regarding reading history?

This is meant to refer to patron account history that is accessible from within the ILS.  Examples would be blocks, notices, and financial transactions.

Circ98 – The system allows an authorized staff user to reset holds list.
Can you provide an example of a typical reason that staff would reset the holds list?

A more accurate word than we used would be to reorder the holds list.  This would allow staff to move a patron higher up in the list.  Use cases usually involve an issue where the hold was inadvertently cancelled or not filled in another way and the staff member is trying to correct the situation.

Circ120 – The system provides coded fields to expedite the entry of patron information. Codes entered are verified against a list of existing codes to ensure database integrity.
Can you provide examples of the type of information in the coded fields referred to in this question?

Staff are looking for ways to more efficiently enter codes, such as Patron type or Stat class, when creating a patron record. For instance, they can type “res” to add resident.  This is a low priority requirement.

Cat27 – The system creates an easily accessible review file when duplicate records are entered.
What kind of information do you expect to see in the review file when duplicate records are entered?

Staff are looking for a list of possible duplicated records that have not been saved as published in the system for review.  The list should include basic information about the record such as control number, title, author, ISBN/UPC etc.  Ideally action could be taken from the review file to resolve the duplicate record issue.

Cat54 – Each library can define which bibliographic records to suppress from public display and are only accessible to library staff.
Please describe a use case for this requirement.

The most common use case would be where a record is for internal use.  For instance, staff-only materials may be cataloged so items can be checked out to staff but are not available to the general public.  Another use case would be items for in-library use only, such as laptop, where the item is checked out to patrons but should not be searchable in the catalog.

Cat76 – The system enables global edits to be performed in a “draft only” mode for review purposes before the changes actually occur in the bibliographic record.
Please describe the review process referred to in this question.

The desire is to have an interim state where a record can be changed (usually through batch changes) but available for review by that staff member or another staff member before the record is published/finalized.

A30 – The system allows for a variety of order templates.
Please describe the kind of information you would expect to see in various order templates? How would one differ from another?

We use grids on the vendor side to send detailed information using various tags that includes collection code, fund information location and often specific item template information.  The ILS needs item templates to match up with the specific information we are sending from the vendor order to create item records. 

ANSWER TO BE ADDED

On page16, Financial Statements – Can you provide an example of what you would expect to receive for “Evidence of Respondent’s ability to obtain a payment and a performance bond for the project”?

Following a review, the Lynx Library Consortium has decided to remove the requirement for a Payment and Performance bond from this RFP. An official addendum will be issued in the next 7 days to reflect this change. We hope this adjustment will encourage more vendors to submit proposals.

Tech Logic: Used for one sorter and RFID wands

Bibliotheca: RFID Pads and Self checkouts

Envisionware:  RFID Pads, Self checkouts, PC Management, and Online Payment

 I’m just wondering if you could elaborate on the functionality you were looking for when mailing overdue notices. This is item circ 83 in the RFP.

The system allows the agency to select the default overdue notification method, with the option to change for individual patrons:

1. a) mail
2. b) email
3. c) SMS

The primary goal is that these options are available for selection for patron registration.  Additionally, it would be good to have the option to select one of these as the default when new registration is created.  Lynx will be dropping phone notification in the near future and mail is our final fallback method.

 Please list your subscription databases and/or e-resource vendors and how you would like to seem them integrated in the discovery layer.

• Overdrive.  Currently used by all libraries and we currently have it fully integrated (search results/patron accounts) in our discovery layer.
• Hoopla:  Used by some libraries.  Would like to see that integrated in search results/patron accounts as well.
• Kanopy
• O’Reilly Records: Not currently integrated, but we are able to hide records to these resources for libraries that don’t use them.  Access uses a proxy server.
• Novelist Resources: Integrated per title for recommendations.

 Elaborate on item D80 which says item and patron information is obtained from the ILS via an API. Just curious if you had any sense of what that API might be used for.

The goal of this requirement is that the Discovery Layer uses some sort of direct connection to the ILS to retrieve its live information.  If there was an equivalent method to using the API from the ILS that might be acceptable.  We want to avoid anything like screen-scraping.

If you don’t select a Discovery Layer as part of this process, what would be your strategy going forward with regard to Discovery? Can you give you give us a sense of kind of what criteria you would use to evaluate whether or not a discovery service would be selected as part of this process?

The ILS will be selected on its own without consideration of the Discovery Layer.  Once an ILS is selected, we will evaluate if a Discovery layer quoted meets our requirements and is economical.  There are some advantages for the project in having the ILS and Discovery layer from the same vendor.

 If the Discovery layer is not selected or available from the same vendor as the ILS, we plan to perform an informal RFP purchasing process in accordance with State of Idaho Purchasing laws.  This Discovery Layer would, of course, need to be compatible with the selected ILS.

July 28th, 2025:
In regards to Insurance coverages, what specific coverages will the bid require and include coverage amounts?

Below is the minimum level expected for Cyber Liability Insurance.

$1,000,000 per occurrence

Sublimits:

• Privacy Regulatory Claims: $500,000
• Security Breach Response: $500,000
• Business Income & Digital Asset Restoration : $500,000
• PCI DSS Assessment: $500,000
• Cyber Extortion: $50,000
• Social Engineering Financial Fraud: $100,000