Engagement Connected Globe_1366x177.gif

Michigan Shared System Alliance

RFP for a Shared Library Management System word-icon.png

***Declaration of Intent to Bid deadline: August 19th, 2016 at 5:00pm, EST***

***RFP questions deadline: August 26th, 2016 at 5:00pm, EST***

***RFP deadline: October 7th, 2016 at 5:00pm, EST***



On behalf of the Michigan Shared System Alliance (MSSA), the Midwest Collaborative for Library Services (MCLS) encourages proposals from qualified vendors, nonprofit organizations, and others offering to provide a library management system (LMS) in a consortial environment to a group of public and private institutions in Michigan. MSSA/MCLS seeks a long-term partner that will deliver a strong system with equally strong services, training, and support. 

The successful bidder(s) will provide a unified system that will streamline operations, eliminate redundancies, and build on existing consortial successes in Michigan, including MeLCat, the statewide unmediated borrowing service, and the Michigan Shared Print Initiative (MI-SPI). The selected system will improve information discovery through a clean and intuitive user interface, provide an efficient access and delivery experience, facilitate shared collection management among administratively separate institutions, and increase operational efficiencies by lowering total operating costs. Because the consortium expects to consider new systems and approaches, this RFP is intentionally broad in scope and focused on outcomes rather than detailed functional requirements.

Participating academic libraries

Response deadline

Responses to the RFP are due by October 7th, 2016 at 5:00pm, EST. Written RFP responses must be received as email attachments sent to rfp@mcls.org. Late responses may not be considered. Respondents are strongly urged to follow the prescribed order and numbering provided in section C.1.2 of the RFP.

Contact for inquiries

Questions to this RFP may be directed in writing by August 26th, 2016 at 5:00pm, EST (email preferred) to:

Randy Dykhuis
Executive Director
Midwest Collaborative for Library Services (MCLS)
1407 Rensen Street
Lansing, MI 48910

RFP clarification questions

Vendor 1

  1. For each institution listed in Appendix 4, what is the number of service outlets? This is defined as library locations where staff are serving the public. A central cataloging or administrative location would not count. For example, if one college has a main campus library and a music library that serve students, this would be 2 service outlets. Please send a count and list outlets (if there is more than one).
    • Albion College - 1 service outlet
    • Ferris State University - 2 service outlets; Main campus in Big Rapids & second campus in Grand Rapids at Kendall College of Art and Design (KCAD)
    • Grand Valley State University - 4 service outlets
    • Hope College - 2 service outlets; Main & Media Desk
    • Kalamazoo College - 1 service outlet
    • Lake Superior State University - 1 service outlet
    • Michigan Technology University - 1 service outlet
    • Oakland University - 2 service outlets; Education Library and Kresge Library
    • University of Michigan - Dearborn - 3 service outlets
    • Western Theological Seminary - 1 service outlet
  2. For each institution listed in Appendix 4, what is the number of annual circulations - an estimate would be fine.
    • Albion College - about 15,000
    • Ferris State University - 76,620
    • Grand Valley State University - about 95,700
    • Hope College - about 43,000
    • Kalamazoo College - about 24,000
    • Lake Superior State University - about 3,500
    • Michigan Technology University - about 27,000
    • Oakland University - 58,809
    • University of Michigan - Dearborn - about 27,149
    • Western Theological Seminary - about 6,900
  3. For each institution listed in Appendix 4, what is the number of authority records, if they plan to migrate them.
    • Albion College - 62,000 records
    • Ferris State University - 316,568 records
    • Grand Valley State University - about 5,000 records
    • Hope College - 550,000 records
    • Kalamazoo College - 71,000 records
    • Lake Superior State University - 65,000
    • Michigan Technology University - about 1,000 local authority records and about 5,000 authority records of all type. MTU is fairly sure they will not migrate the record and will instead, re-do them within the new system.
    • Oakland University - 1,916,111
    • University of Michigan - Dearborn - 424,561records
    • Western Theological Seminary - N/A - shared with Hope College
  4. For each institution listed in Appendix 4, are they using acquisitions and/or serials and plan to migrate this data.
    • Each institution uses acquisitions and serials and plan to migrate that data
  5. For each institution listed in Appendix 4, would we would have access to extract their data or if they will coordinate this with their IT department or current vendor. Note, if the current vendor hosts the server, we generally will not be granted access to perform the extraction.
    • Albion College - Has their own server and are currently investigating using their IT department as a host for that information
    • Ferris State University - Coordinate with current vendor
    • Grand Valley State University - Not sure at this time
    • Hope College - Coordinate with current vendor
    • Kalamazoo College - Has their own access to extract data
    • Lake Superior State University - Coordinate with staff at Northern Michigan University (who currently hosts their system)
    • Michigan Technology University - Data is locally maintained, can extract data either way dependent on cost
    • Oakland University - Would have access or coordinate with IT/current vendor
    • University of Michigan - Dearborn - Would extract their own data/coordinate with vendor
    • Western Theological Seminary - Coordinate with current vendor
  6. Are any of the libraries sharing a Sierra or Voyager database? If so, please list the organizations and let us know if you have an overall count of bibs, authorities, patrons and annual circulations for the shared system. For example, it looks like Hope College and Western Theological Seminary are searchable from the same catalog but it's unclear if all of their data is shared or if anything, such as patrons, are stored separately.
    • Albion College - Currently shares a system with the local district library, however, will only be migrating the College’s data to a new system
    • Hope College and Western Theological Seminary currently share a Sierra database. 10,800 total patron records. Other requested data in located in Appendix 4 of the RFP and in the above responses
    • Lake Superior State University is part of a shared Voyager instance, those other institutions are not part of this RFP
  7. Are e-books and/or e-journals being included in the current Sierra or Voyager database?
    • Yes

Vendor 2

  1. On page 17 of the RFP, question D.9.1, you ask us to describe the requirements for central consortium staff to manage the solution. Do you have a central office in place now? If not, what are your plans to establish a central office?
    • Currently no central office is in place for this group. If needed, a central office/governing group/etc. will be created.
  2. On page 19 of the RFP, question E.1.4, you ask us to describe shared collection development capabilities of our solution. Do your members participate in shared collection development today? If so, how this is achieved? If not, what are your plans to begin doing so?
    • Currently the group does not participate in shared collection development, they will do so if/when necessary.
  3. On page 20 of the RFP, question E.1.8, you ask us to describe how our solution supports a shared bibliographic record catalog. It appears as though your members do not share a catalog today. Again, a shared catalog usually requires the establishment of a strong central office to perform cataloging for shared records across the consortium. Will your group be able to support a shared catalog and the roles and responsibilities associated with it?
    • Yes.
  4. On page 23 of the RFP, section E.5, you mention that MSSA has a robust consortial purchasing process in place for e-resources. Can you describe how this is done today?
    • MSSA institutions purchase both individual electronic resources, negotiated by the consortium (e.g., MCLS) and electronic resources as a group. Individual MSSA institutions also negotiate and purchase products on their own.
  5. Please estimate the number of local authorities that you would need to load into the system. Please note that the vendor provides a set of authority records that are updated and maintained regularly. We maintain the following authority files:
    • LC Subject (LCSH) – Library of Congress Subject Headings (updated weekly)
    • LC Name (LCNAF) – Library of Congress Name Authority File (updated weekly)
    • NLM MeSH – United States National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (updated annually)
    • GND – German National Library - Subjects and Names Authorities (updated daily)
    • BARE (Norwegian Authority System) – BIBSYS Authority Registry - Subjects and Names Authorities (updated daily).
    • Library of Congress (LoC) – Medium of Performance Thesaurus for Music (updated when available)
    • RVK Classification(updated twice a year).
    • Library and Archives Canada (LAC) – Canadian Subject Headings (updated when available)
    • Library and Archives Canada (LAC) – Canadian Name/Title Authorities (updated when available)
    • National Library of Israel – Multilingual Thesaurus (updated daily)
    • LCGFT - Genre/Form Headings at the Library of Congress (updated weekly)
    • Rameau - UNIMARC version (updated when available)
    • OCLC - FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) (updated when available)
    • Any institution may use these records to authorize headings in their local bibliographic records. Institutions that use unaltered authority files will be able to use this and no longer manage local authorities. More information available here new-window-icon.png. In order to correctly size the hosted environment for your institutions, the vendor needs to know if the institutions are using authorities in addition to the global files listed above, and if so, how many local authority files you wish to load.
      • Authority record totals are listed above.
      • Albion College - Has no local authority records
      • Ferris State University - Currently has 316,568 authority records, but would probably choose not to migrate them in favor of letting the vendor do the work automatically
      • Grand Valley State University - Uses LC and MeSH
      • Lake Superior State University - Does not use other sources for authority records
      • Michigan Technology University - Would most likely not wish to load records, but would use Community Zone and have approximately 1,000 local authority records
      • Oakland University - Would use the vendor authority records and are unable to quantify locally created authority records, but they would number in the thousands
      • University of Michigan - Dearborn - 424,561 authority records, 191 of them are locally produced records
  6. In order for us to gain a better understanding of your current environment, and therefore respond with the most accurate and comprehensive proposal possible, would you be able to complete and return the attached Prospect Questionnaire as part of this RFP process?
  7. How many distinct institutions will be migrating and who will be in each institution?
    • There are 10 distinct institutions. Hope College and Western Theological Seminary current share a catalog. Ferris University has another location (Kendall College of Art and Design) that will most likely be treated as a branch location in the new system.
  8. If you are planning on moving to shared catalog of bibliographic records when you move to a new system, do you have a source that you are planning on using to populate this shared catalog? We mean sources for bibliographic and item data.
    • The bibliographic and item data will be exported from the participating libraries' current local systems.

Vendor 3

  1. D.7.1 – Which current MSSA members have an ASRS system?
    • Grand Valley State University
  2. D.8.11 - Is this for informational purposes only or should we assume that MSSA would like Digital Asset Management tools and functionality bid as part of the cost proposal.  If a specific DAM solution is also being requested, please provide statistics on each institutions digitized collection (# of objects and # of staff users).
    • DAM is not to be included as part of the core RFP response.
    • Michigan Technology University - Currently has Preservica but would be interested in separate bid. (12,000 objects; 270GB at present; 5 staff users)

Vendor 4

  1. On page 13, item D.7.1 lists Dematic and HK ASRSs. Can you please provide version information of these systems? Please specify the libraries, system, and version of the existing ASRSs.
    • Grand Valley State University
      • Crane in Steelcase Library is an AKL-300; Cranes in Mary Idema Pew Library are HK750. All three are mini-load ASRS systems.
      • StagingDirector client is at both locations and running version 1.1 copyright 2013. The server that StagingDirector runs on is currently Windows Server 2008. Standard StagingDirector connects to ILS via TCP/IP on two socket connections – a primary connection and a secondary connection transmitting transactions, transaction responses and, heartbeats.
      • Transactions include status checks, item requests and responses.


Vendor Demonstrations

MSSA will require finalists to provide an in-person demonstration of their solution. The purpose of the presentation is to give finalists an opportunity to demonstrate their ability to perform the scope of work defined in this RFP and clarify outstanding issues. Vendors also need to address specific scenarios pdf-icon.png.


Conflict of interest disclosures