Q&A's relating to ITSFB
Item
| Item | Description | Question | Response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Please describe what steps have been taken or plans | What is NORDUnets expectations that we provide? E.g. company environmental strategy, actions etc. | We expect to see your company environmental strategy and actions, but also those relating to specifically your IaaS or equipment hosting provider. |
| Q7 | Please describe in detail how the system supports open courses, with and/or without registration. Is it possible to have part of a course as open and other parts of the course as closed? | Please define your expectations for registration and open/closed. | We expect that a participant can self-register for a course, creating an account in the system without needing help from an administrator. A student may browse open courses to select a course to participate in. Open courses should have the same functionality as a closed course, assignments, discussion, quizzes, etc. Successful course completion results in automatic acknowledgment (badges, points or certificates). In a closed course students are added via a system like LADOK or manually by an administrator. |
| Q11 | Can you please confirm that you will be using the Gartner Inc. definitions of Predictive and Diagnostic Analytics when evaluating the response? | Gartner Inc. defines Predictive Analytics as a form of advanced analytics which examines data or content to answer the question “What is going to happen?” or more precisely, “What is likely to happen?”, and is characterized by techniques such as regression analysis, forecasting, multivariate statistics, pattern matching, predictive modeling, and forecasting.
Gartner Inc. defines diagnostic analytics as a form of advance analytics which examines data or content to answer the question “Why did it happen?”, and is characterized by techniques such as drill-down, data discovery, data mining and correlations. | We are fine with using the Gardner definition as a baseline. In addition we would like to ensure that the solution fulfils the specifics i.e.. mentioned in ITSFB Vol 2, Q11. |
| Q12 | Please describe the workflow and teacher overview during an examination using a group discussion/forum. | Please elaborate and be more specific | A teacher creates a discussion forum which will be available during a certain period of time. The discussion forum can be opened and closed automatically. Students may be connected to the forum. If the teacher wants to use groups, either several discussion forums are created or one discussion forum may contain several (project) groups. Students are supposed to upload an assignment which others students have to comment. This can be dealt with by two students (one student uploads an assignment and one other student comments it) or by a larger group of students. A teacher may change the groups during the examination so that other students may comment the assignments, as well. Another scenario is the following: a group of students are assigned to work on one group assignment in a discussion forum before uploading it in a final version. This version may be corrected by a teacher or another group. From a discussion forum it should be possible to upload the same assignment for correction by a teacher only. |
| TCO | In the NORDUnet LMS TCO reply form we've noticed that in the Scenarios differ between each other on FTE size as well as included Mandatory Additional Services. | Can you share/clarify the logic of the choices of Mandatory Additional Services. Why would a 5,000 FTE and a 20,000 FTE institution need Diagnostic Learning analytics but not a 10,000 FTE institution? | There is no logic other than to secure a costing of all mandatory additional features as part of the TCO. In addition, If a third party solution is used to supply a mandatory feature, it typically comes with additional cost, which is also what we are trying to get covered by this approach. |
| TCO | In regards NORDUnet LMS TCO reply form and Scenario 4: | We do not fully understand what pricing you are looking for on the rows with numbers (1 to 10). Please provide guidance on what you want to compare? | Scenario 4 is the bulk purchase of licences for 100.000 FTE’s split over 10 institutions. (no additional features) The organisation numbers 1-10 is simply to allow for adding a support overhead per organisation, as supporting 10 institutions is more expensive than supporting 1. If you choose to include the support cost for 10 organisations in to the bulk FTE number, this is also perfectly fine, only the total cost for the scenarios will be evaluated. |
| Service Catalogue | In regards to the evaluation structure of the service catalogue ("NORDUnet LMS Service Catalogue reply form") you have two sections with the same name ("LMS Mandatory Additional Services, Features and Functions") - is that intentionally or is the second one ment to state something else like "Optional" rather than "Mandatory". If intentional, please explain why. | It is correct that the second paragraph should read Optional rather than Mandatory, as below "LMS Optional Additional Services, Features and Functions" A new version of the template has been uploaded to the box folder. | |
| Service Catalogue | In regards to the evaluation structure of the service catalogue ("NORDUnet LMS Service Catalogue reply form") there are 6 items under the first "LMS Mandatory Additional Services, Features and Functions" section. | Does the term "Mandatory" hear mean that suppliers that can not supply ANY of these Mandatory services are disqualified?" | Mandatory implies that if a bidder can not supply a requested mandatory feature, the bidder could potentially be disqualified.
|
| The wording "could potentially be disqualified" suggests that the "Additional Mandatory Services" are not binary ("comply/not comply") but evaluative. | This is specifically referring to components provided by third parties i.e. lock-down browser, where there are multiple options and a contract will have to be agreed between a supplier and a third party and were this contract has not been signed, pending the outcome this procurement. The supplier must however list a price that they are willing to commit to in the service catalogue. | ||
| Service Catalogue | The TCO form asks for lock down browser pricing. We appreciate your inclusion of this item as it is an important feature to your members. | As such, we do not act as a reseller of such software or feel we are in a position to choose or cost one specific solution for your members. We can indicate any costs associated with an integration, but not the licensing of such a solution. Is this sufficient? | You will need to provide the cost for a lock down browser solution (including any licenses), and provide it as part of the service. You are free to use any or more third party provider(s) to achieve this. |
| Service Catalogue - SLA | We are not totally clear on the intent of the logic in the Service Credit table – could you please provide a brief commentary for what you want to achieve with Service Credits for each level of availability? | For example, we are not certain what ‘99% ≤ x < 99.5% 2.5%’ means. | That is an error, thank you for bringing it to our attention. An updated version of the document has been uploaded to the final bid documents folder.
|
| Service Catalogue - SLA | In regards to NORDUnet LMS Service Catalogue reply form regarding "Service Level Agreement (SLA) Support" it says: "It must be possible to report Incidents and issues 24/7 using email, web-forms, chat or by telephone." | Please confirm that you would accept web-forms and telephone as primary chat or email as secondary (non mandatory) methods. | confirmed, the sentence should have been phrased a little different to point out more clearly that either method is acceptable. |
Delivery | Our system evolves with several new releases and updates on a frequently basis. | How does NORDUnet define the readymade solution? | The readymade solution is as defined through the requirements and questions in the ITSOP and ITSFB. We are aware that as all cloud services this is an iterative process. For the functionality that are included in the proposed solution, it must be available according to R2 in the ITSOP “The proposed services and features shall be ready for service by end Q1 2017” |
Delivery | Our system evolves with several new releases and updates on a frequently basis. | What date is the solution delivery deadline? | As above
|
Dialogue | In stage 1 all suppliers had one day dialogue. | Will there be a dialogue session between the ITSFB response deadline and the Contract Award? | There might be a web conference session to clear up any unclear points in the ITSFB response. |
Commercial | In the dialogue session, we discussed the potential number of users and universities. You mentioned that NORDUnet would define a minimum number in order to proceed with the framework. | What number of schools and users do you expect will sign up for the framework agreement? | NORDUnet will award the framework contracts regardless. It is SUNET representative that has mentioned that they would want a minimum commitment from their community to do a call off. The whole setup is based on opt-in and therefore it is impossible to make any expected or guaranteed assumptions on the uptake. |
| Commercial | You mention that the NREN is the client, we however don't usually work with resellers and fail to see the value the NREN would provide in this case as we still have to sell to the institutions. Also we would want to have a contractual relationship directly with the end client for services and account management as well as billing. Plus, there has been no involvement of anyone but SUNET. Can you explain how this would work in practice and also which other solutions are offered this way? | t is the NREN that would do the call-off from the frame work. If the NREN then decide to just refer the provider directly to the institutions or want to take a role and do i.e.. bulk purchases, this is up to the NREN. Example solutions were the NREN has done a bulk purchase and commitment towards a provider are Box and Kaltura, where the provider invoices the NREN for the bulk purchase and were the NREN then distribute the cost to the individual institutions according to a model that the NREN has agreed with the institutions. | |
Generic | Our assumption is that all suppliers has sent questions during the process. | Are all questions and answers available for us? | Q&A’a from the ITSOP stage is available in an anonymized format here… http://tender.nordu.net/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58954465 Questions relating to the ITSFB stage will be added on an ongoing basis. |
| Generic | Will the award be one preferred and an additional 3 on the framework so 4, or max 3, so a preferred and 2 on the framework. Different numbers are listed in different places. | It will be one preferred +2 a total of 3. | |
| Generic | Why only 10% on usability, this is an increasingly important element and we don't see It below 30% in other situations. Please explain | The evaluation methodology will give the usability a higher weight than 10%. The relative weight is a choice by the procurement team, and having more weight on features, functionality and price compared to giving it directly to the usability was preferred. | |
| Generic | Are the institutions that are mentioned in an earlier phase and who participated obliged to use the framework when they buy their LMS. | This is all opt in with no obligation for anyone to buy. | |
| Generic | All of the NRENs of Nordunet can mean all of Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden etc.. What institutions in those Countries? Just Higher Ed or also vocational training, upper level high-school, research institutions, academic hospitals | It is the connected / eligible institutions in each country/NREN. SUNET and DeIC can do their own call-offs, for UNINETT and CSC/FUNET it is NORDUnet that would have to do the call-off, that is however not expected, as UNINETT has just done their own procurement and in Finland they have a strong collaboration around Moodle. For DeIC the current list can be found here.. https://www.deic.dk/tilsluttedeInstitutioner (a number of additional University Colleges are in the process of being connected). For SUNET the list can be found here https://www.sunet.se/sunets-nat/anslutna/ | |
| Generic | Annex A, EU Procurement directive. | Which version? | 2014/24/EU
|
| Generic | Given the corrections on various documents in the tender set, as well as the past vacation period, can we ask for an extension of the deadline for providing you with the final bid until Friday February 10? | There will be no extension of the deadline. Changes in documents since they were released have been nominal and has not in anyway affected the amount of work needed to reply to the ITSFB. Reusing the ITSOP Vol. 2 replies has further reduced the amount of work. |
Q&A's relating to ITSOP
| Item | Description | Question | Response |
|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | The proposed LMS services shall be delivered on on-premises equipment as a cloud services hosted within the EU region, or alternatively as a multi-tenant managed on-premises solution, hosted by NORDUnet or by any of the listed NREN´s. | Could you define “on premises equipment”? | Please note that R1 reads: The proposed LMS services shall be delivered either without dependencies on on-premises equipment as a cloud service hosted within the EU region, or alternativelyas a multi-tenant managed on-premises solution, hosted by NORDUnet or any of the listed NREN’s. On-premises equipment can be any equipment i.e. servers or storage. |
| R4 | The service shall not impose any internal restrictions that unduly limit the access to data in the service. | Can you please explain what you mean and want to achieve with this? Are there any specific things you want to avoid putting this requirement in the reply form? | This is aimed at any design, architecture or implementation choices relating to i.e. entitlement that will limit the access to the data. Or it could be i.e. capacity between front and backend servers or storage IO etc. |
| R5 | The data associated with the services shall be encrypted in transit and at rest. | Elaborate what data should be encrypted (e.g. grades, assignments, passwords?). Define also “transit and at rest”. | The requirement calls for all data in the system to be protected by some form of encryption when stored on media (at rest) or when transported between different parts of the system or between the system and the client browser. Specifically it calls for https to be used for all web traffic and for encrypted channels to be used between (eg) a frontend system (eg a webserver) and backend services (eg a database) |
| R10 | The service support must be available during European business hours (07-19 GMT ). | What is the difference between Service Support and Bidder Helpdesk availability? | A helpdesk in this context is considered a function where faults can be reported to and known problems handled. Whereas support is considered to be above this, typically a level 2 function. |
| R15 | The service shall support automated archiving of data | Can you please specify what you mean by automated archiving? Do you have any specific requirements related to the functionality? | Specific requirements could mean the ability to archive users and courses by a simple point and click interface. It could also mean an API function to support the same type functionality. The archive storage itself would typically be a lower cost storage external to the LMS itself. |
| R24 | The Bidder shall monitor and report on the availability of the services on a monthly basis, per Customer, and report in a format agreed with the Contracting party | Elaborate what data and format. | This can be pure availability (uptime), but will typically also involve other elements relating to the provided SLA. There are no fixed format prescribed. |
| R28 | Planned work request shall be communicated no less than 5 business days before planned work starts | Is planned work referring to activates related to risk of downtime? | It is referring to all planed work that will, or potentially will affect the service. |
| Q11 | Please describe your access control mechanism and any supported integration | could you please further specify what you mean with this? | We want you to describe how access control and access policy is represented in your service. We expect a description on how roles, groups and users are combined (as applicable) with permissions to form an access control framework and how this applies to the objects and resources in the system. |
| Q32 | Please describe your incident management process | could you give us more information what you mean by this? What constitutes and “incident”? Do you need profiles of the respective team? | An incident is an unplanned interruption to, or a reduction in the quality of the Service. We want you to describe the processes that are in place to secure restoration of normal service operation. We are not interested in employee profiles or capabilities in this case. |
| Q43 | Please describe in detail the professional support services | What kind of support do you mean? End-user support or technical support? | Both, this could be relating to ie. implementation, integration, training etc. |
| Q42 | Please describe how customers access documentation and your process for keeping documentation up to date. | Could you define what documents (i.e. user documentation) ? | It relates to both user, admin and in the case of on-premise ie. system requirements etc.. The how relates to, will it be available directly from a web site, must it downloaded, or is it distributed in an other way? Depending on the answer to the above, describe how you will ensure that the documentation available is up to date. |
| Q48 | Please propose your approach to benchmarking during the life of the Framework Agreement | What type of benchmarking is meant? | What is meant is benchmarking against comparable products in the market. |
| Other | Does NORDUnet prefer demo in local language i.e. Swedish and Danish or in English? | English is the preferred language. | |
| Can NORDUnet please provide a list of all the participating NREN member institutions who may be subject to this agreement and a projection of expected take up of the agreement by country (e.g. number and size of institutions expected to contract using the framework during 2017, 2018, 2019)? | The tender is run on behalf of NORDUnet and the NRENs in Denmark (DeIC) and Sweden (SUNET), with the intention to provide the service as an opt in service to their respective constituencies of connected institutions. There are no guarantees on the actual uptake of the service. A list of eligible institutions can be found at the respective NREN’s web sites. https://www.deic.dk/tilsluttedeInstitutioner https://www.sunet.se/anslutna/ | ||
| What is the expected size of the user base and concurrency ? | The tender is run on behalf of NORDUnet and the NRENs in Denmark (DeIC) and Sweden (SUNET), with the intention to provide the service as an opt in service to their respective constituencies of connected institutions. There are no guarantees on the actual uptake of the service. With the above reservations the maximum potential userbase of university students and employees exceed 360.000. | ||
| Can NORDUnet please confirm if participating NREN’s member organisations will be exclusively bound by the framework agreement agreed as part of this process or will individual institutions still be free to contract for LMS software and services with suppliers directly outside of the framework should they wish? | There is no exclusivity. The benefit for the NREN’s and their connected institutions are that they can buy from the framework without having to go through their our tender process. | ||
| Can a consortium of partners participate in the tender. If yes, is there a specific form that needs to be submitted ? | Yes, the information will need to be provided as part of the ESPD form. | ||
| Can we expect any hardware support from the NORDUnet team; If a vendor chooses to go with on premise installation ? | At cost, both NORDUnet and the respective NREN’s are capable of providing equipment hosting and if so desired an IaaS and storage platform that the service can run on.
| ||
We are struggling with this ESPD form. Can we write our comments and answers on the PDF version, scan the document and place it in Box ? | The approach described with a scanned copy is acceptable. | ||
We are about finalize our response in ITSOP Volume 2 reply form and have a challenge when it comes to the limitation of 100 pages in total. We have used pictures, tables, graphs etc. that illustrates the system to make our response more tangible but with result that we used 134 pages plus one appendix of 10 pages describing our complete process adding new customers to the service. All answers are under the limit of 1500 words except the appendix that has 2724 words. | The aktual response must be limited to 100 pages. You can provide additional information in type of appendixes, that supports the responses. | ||
| Could you please confirm that we don’t enter any risk to be rejected from the tender as we have gaps in the ESPD form. | As explained during the information call, no vendor will be directly disqualified on the basis of the submitted ESPD without additional dialogue. But, the information requested must be supplied, so if not submitted with the ESPD submission, it will be requested. | ||