Purchasing Bids & Contracts Request for Proposal For University Relations Website Redesign RFP NO.2016P105

Transcription

1 Purchasing Bids & Contracts Request for Proposal For University Relations Website Redesign RFP NO.2016P105 ADDENDUM 02: November 9, 2015 FULL REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) ADDENDUM 02 LOCATED AT: Please note the additions, deletions, and/or clarifications to the above referenced RFP No. 2016P105 below. This addendum and any previous addendums form a part of the Contract documents and modify the original RFP documents, dated October 20, ONE SIGNED COPY OF THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE INCLUDED WITH YOUR PROPOSAL AND RECEIVED ON OR BEFORE THE RFP DUE DATE/TIME. CHANGES: In order to allow for the review of responses and a more comprehensive proposal, the close date has been extended to Monday, November 16, Proposals must be received by 3:00PM, CST. CLARIFICATIONS: Q1: Section 5.1 states: "We do not expect the chosen vendor to create, rewrite or host any site content." and "The site shall include a solution that works with the current web content management system" but some of the technical specifications in 5.6 mention HTML, style sheets, PHP, ASP etc. So we would like clarification on if UCO is looking only for discovery and design with a deliverable of only the PSD files or if you would like the full HTML templates created as the deliverable and by content in 5.1 you only mean text, pdf's, docs, etc. A1: All information and documentation developed as part of this project should be delivered to UCO. Text, pdf, doc, etc. may be delivered as outcomes of the discovery process. PSD files would be delivered as part of the design and coding would be considered the final deliverable or markup and related assets. We will use the html markup along with CSS to create the templates in our web content management system (WCMS). PHP and ASP are delivery output options for our WCMS and we would like the vendors expertise in determining the best outcome for our project. This work would be in direct contact with our Web Applications Administrator responsible for the public website and the WCMS. UCO promotes sustainability. Be GREEN change your margins to save paper!

2 Q2: Since both PHP and ASP are mentioned, which of the 2 are being used for the current content management system? A2: Both are currently in use. Q3: We want to confirm that you are staying with Cascade Server. Is that correct? Do you wish to start with a clean install or are there elements of your current implementation that you would like to retain? A3: We will continue to use Cascade Server for our web content management system. The application will not be reinstalled, our current version supports our ability to produce the new design as needed. Q4: What is your current solution for online forms, payments, pledges? Do you wish to retain it or move to something new? A4: We have several solutions in place and we are not looking to replace. We use Cascade Server and Qualtrics for many of our online web forms, Touchnet for payments, and our ellucian s Banner as our ERP for additional forms related to student enrollment, registration, admissions, etc. Q5: In Section 5.5, Phase 2 is not 100% clear. Are you looking to go live with a top level site after Phase 2? Or is this meant to be just the design and IA? via publication is what is confusing. A5: Phase 2 would be the go live for the home page and what we determine to be the toplevel pages. Q6: Roughly how many pages or sections are in each of Phases 3, 4, and 5? Is it correct that the University intends to migrate pages to the new site? If yes, what role does the University envision for the vendor partner in Phases 3, 4, and 5? A6: Phase 2 includes roughly 20 pages. Phases 3, 4, and 5 will follow but have not been scoped to determine page numbers. There are roughly 8,000 pages to divide among the three remaining phases. These pages may require content-oriented templates that can be cultivated throughout the nearly 200 websites. These sites still require a marketing aspect, but overall are more informationally-driven compared that of our top-level pages which are more marketing-oriented. Q7: Why is Internet Explorer 8 compatibility important? Market share for IE8 is really low. If the design gracefully degrades at IE8, is that acceptable? Designing for full compatibility with IE8 is not recommended and will significantly limit our design choices and add complexity to the build. A7: IE 8 compatibility is preferred. We have some applications for University business that currently only work on IE8, however our standard is IE11 or later. Graceful degradation is acceptable. Current applications that only work in IE 8 should not be affected as this effort is for our public web design. Q8: Within Section 5.7, item b, what is meant by each project s scope? A8: Additional template designs may be needed for different departments (the continued phases), this may result in unique project scopes to be developed. Q9: Within Section 5.7, item c, please provide more information about what type of authentication is envisioned? Is this something you are looking for the vendor partner to setup? Or is the technology already in place or is this something new? A9: The technology is already in place and should not require the vendor partner assistance. 11/9/2015 2

3 Q10: Whether companies from Outside USA can apply for this? (From India or Canada) A10: Yes, technically they can apply. However, some on-site visits shall be required during discovery portion of the project and as well as initial concept delivery/review. Q11: Whether we need to come over there for meetings? A11: Technically this is fine; we would certainly prefer onsite visits for the discovery portion of the project as well as initial concept delivery/review. Some on-site visits shall be required. Q12: Can we perform the tasks (related to RFP) outside USA? (From India or CANADA) A12: Technically this is fine; however we would certainly prefer onsite visits for the discovery portion of the project as well as initial concept delivery/review. Some on-site visits shall be required. Q13: Can we submit our proposals via ? A13: No, RFP Section 2.8 states that Facsimile and/or Proposals shall NOT be accepted. Q14: Are we expected to use or create a new CMS, or to use the current CMS (Hannon Hill Cascade Server CMS)? A14: No, do not create a new CMS, we will continue to use our licensed version of Hannon Hill Cascade Server. Q15: Who will be responsible for content migration? A15: University staff will be responsible for content migration. Q16: Will all content be moved or only some? A16: It has not been determined yet if any content will be retired or if all will be transitioned Q17: Will identical URL structures be used or will these need to be updated? A17: This is still to be determined by the content owners. Q18: What version of Cascade Server will the redesign be running? A18: , as future updates are released we will evaluate the impact to this project and our clients/users. Q19: Will the vendor be responsible for the new information architecture and content strategy for the redesign with the final approval coming from UCO? A19: Yes, the vendor is expected to facilitate and consult to make a recommendation on the architecture and strategy. UCO will make final approval. Q20: What role will the vendor play in regards to the online forms, online payments, pledge forms, etc.? Will these forms need custom developed? If so, what happens when the information is collected? A20: Theme or design would be applied to these by University technical staff. Q21: In regards to the online forms, online payments, pledge forms, etc. how are these forms handled currently? Will these forms just need re-skinned for this project? A21: These forms are delivered by multiple solutions. Theme or design would be applied to these by University technical staff. 11/9/2015 3

4 Q22: What exactly does UCO mean by convert substantial amounts of existing content to the new website? Does this refer to migrating content to the new site? If so, will the vendor be solely responsible for migrating all content to the new site? A22: Substantial amounts of content refers to the nearly 300 websites (10,000+ pages). The University will migrate content unless contracted to a vendor/consultant/temp agent independently. Q23: How is student enrollment and registering online currently handled? Would UCO best satisfied if this were handled through a 3 rd party system? A23: This will not change from the current solutions. Q24: What is UCO anticipating for the social media integration? Can you provide examples? A24: We intend to be able to publish to social media as well as embed. We are looking for additional recommendations from the selected vendor. Q25: Just to clarify, UCO is expecting the vendor to provide the strategy, information architecture, wireframes, design, migration, development and integration of the redesign? (UCO will provide the content and approve all other deliverables.) A25: Correct. The only element of this incorrectly stated is the migration of content. The University will migrate web content (see A5). Q26: Please list any subsites or portals that the vendor should be aware of, or that are part of this scope of work for the redesign. A26: Anything that the vendor can publically access without requiring authentication is considered in scope, however the vendor is not expected to apply the transition of content. The design will be modified to apply to applications that are behind credentialed authentication. Q27: In section 5.5 Phase 4 it mentions conversion of all alternate-design school sites, departmental pages, etc. Please further elaborate on this phase or list these sites. (For instance the School of Business currently has an RFP for a redesign also, we assume this will not be part of the scope of this RFP) A27: The alternate-design school sites include colleges such as College of Fine Arts and Design or Education and Professional Studies, etc. This may also apply to ACM@UCO or the Jazz Lab. Q28: What role will the vendor have in the back end database connections for this project? A28: As part of the initial scope of this project the vendor will not be responsible for back end database connections. However, the vendor is expected to have these skillsets in the event that the project continues to applications that have database connections. It is not my expectation that the vendor will *rewrite* our applications developed by the Software Development Group or have access to code or customize Banner applications. My expectation is that the SDG will take the design elements and apply them to the best of their ability based on their application limitations. I don t know what to expect for existing Banner applications but I understand the Banner XE project is kicking off so there may be new opportunities for branding in those applications following that upgrade. Please confirm this is consistent with your expectations. Q29: Are we able to view the current analytics reports? A29: Following vendor selection, a report with requested data can be made available. 11/9/2015 4

5 Q30: Can UCO state the internal staff that is responsible for the site and their roles? A30: We have a single Web Applications Administrator responsible for managing the web presences. However we have a distributed model that allows the different divisions/departments to manage their websites. We also have a Web Content Manager that supports training and content support issues. Q31: Approximately how many staff will need trained? A31: 5-10, plus train the trainer. Q32: Is UCO expecting 3-5 creative options and primary and content page layouts for each option? A32: Yes. Q33: How exactly would UCO like the vendor to showcase portfolio demonstration of accessibility compliance per section 5.6.d? All of the websites that we design are ADA accessible. Are we able to show case studies to meet this requirement? A33: Case studies are acceptable, in addition, we would also like for you to provide evidence of evaluation/reporting using Accessibility Reporting tools. There are free tools on the internet. We will follow up on your site evaluations/reports using our internal tools. Q34: Is there an approved budget for this project? If so, what is the budget? If UCO cannot provide a budget for the project, can UCO provide a range for what they think the services listed in the RFP should cost? A34: Not at this time. Q35: Please elaborate on what UCO means in section 5.11, Tab 2: Fully executed UCO RFP, Addenda, and applicable attachments. For the fully executed UCO RFP, would the vendor s approach to the project meet this requirement as long as we customize it to the five phases listed in the RFP on page 8? A35: Yes, we are looking for the strategic approach to the project as a whole. However, additional phases do not have a fully developed scope of work. Our objective is to contract with the vendor for phases 1 and 2, but have the option to continue the other phases based on the success of the first and second phase. Our expectation is the selected vendor will be established as a partner and can commit to a long term (multi-year) project to complete work for additional phases. The vendor is expected to provide a high level strategic approach and initial estimate of work and/or cost for the continued phases. ALL OTHER ITEMS REMAIN UNCHANGED. Name of Firm: Name of Authorized Person: (Print or Type) Signature: Date: 11/9/2015 5