THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED. THIS ADDENDUM SHALL BECOME A PART OF THIS SOLICITATION.

Download (0)

Full text

(1)

THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED.

THIS ADDENDUM SHALL BECOME A PART OF THIS SOLICITATION.

Amend Request for Proposal BD1354, Sharepoint Tools, dated May 27, 2009, as follows:

Questions submitted and corresponding answers.

1. Page 17, item 1.7 states that content must be synchronized between MOSS 2003 and 2007. Is this a one-time synchronization, done at time of migration to 2007, or will synchronization be expected to occur for a duration of time (days)

Synchronization is expected to occur for a duration of time. Duration could be pre-set or could be an off/on. 2. Page 17, items 1.6 and 1.5 are worded such that they lead me to believe that site  migrations will be done in an automated fashion.  Is this true?  Is this a requirement?   Sites are migrated, generally with user intervention, rather than setting a batch to run at  some point in time.    We expect to be able to use a tool to schedule a migration that contains 1 or more sites.  Example:  scheduling migrations during non‐business hours. User Acceptance Testing  would be conducted upon completion of the migration.     3. Exhibit A states the Maintenance and Support services agreement.  Since the entire  focus of this RFP surrounds third party software, do all of the terms in this exhibit apply?    Some terms may not apply given a solution. Please address terms not applicable in  proposal.    4. Page 23, section E, item 1 states that the vendor must be onsite for the duration of the  technical implementation.  This is worded to mean the vendor of the solution (Sogeti),  NOT the vendor of the 3rd party software(s), correct?    We expect to work with a single source who should expect to provide the management  software and a Subject Matter Expert.  5. Sogeti will recommend and implement the software, but the Colorado Dept. of  Education is responsible for acquiring the software, is this correct?   

We, Denver Public Schools, expect to work with a single, responsible party. Denver Public Schools Purchasing Department 900 Grant Street, Room 301

Denver, Colorado 80203

Request for Proposal BD1354

(2)

6. Page 22, section 9.3(inclusive) states that Sogeti will provide at least 1 migration from  2003 to 2007 and 1 content move within 2007.  What is the complexity and size of the  site for each of the tasks?  The time to complete this may vary greatly depending on this  data. 

Expectation is to:

a. Map tools to our SharePoint environment.

b. Move at least one (1) 2003 SharePoint site that contains no customized content to the existing 2007 SharePoint architecture.

c. Move at least one (1) 2007 SharePoint site within the existing 2007 SharePoint architecture.

d. Move at least one (1) 2007 SharePoint list or item within the existing 2007 SharePoint architecture.

e. Move at least one item from one 2007 SharePoint farm to another.

This is to ensure the software is connected and operating properly. DPS reserves right to determine if the migration was a success or not.

7. What is the scale of your Sharepoint environment that you would like the capability to  migrate?  Number of servers?  Number of sites?  Collections?  Recursive sites?  Even an  approximation would be helpful.  Size of the 2003 environment is 13GB with 3 front‐end Servers and about 20 top‐level  sites. This is a correction: The RFP stated there were 2 front‐end servers in the 2003  environment. Additionally, the SharePoint 2007 Environment has 3 front‐ends in  production, 1 front‐end in QA, and 1 front‐end in Dev.  8. Are the current installations MOSS or WSS?  A combination of both? 

The 2003 SharePoint environment is a combination of stand-alone WSS sites and enterprise SharePoint Portal Server. The 2007 SharePoint environment is an enterprise MOSS installation. 9. Will migrations from 2003 to 2007 be done on the same server or to new servers?  New Servers. 10. We are unclear as to what the expectations of Sogeti are and what the expectations of  the 3rd party toolset are.  Should the 3rd party toolset be able to provide all of the  functionality of Requirements (inclusive) 1‐8?  If not, what sections apply to consulting  services and what sections apply to the 3rd party tools.   

We expect to work through a single responsible source for purchase, installation, test migration, validation, and knowledge transfer.

11. Are the MOSS/WSS 2007 environments already in place or will be responsible for setting  them up?  How many environments need to be setup? 

The 2007 environment and top site collections are already in place. 12. Is the June 26 due date firm? 

(3)

This date is somewhat flexible to +‐1 week of that date.  13. 1.1.6  The functionality “Content Types” is new to SharePoint 2007. In this section, are  you referring to a document template for the library? If not could you clarify what you  are referring to?    This requirement contains a typographical error. It should refer to the 2007 environment  only: Must be able to move content types between the SharePoint 2007 farms.    14. 1.7 The term synchronize leads us to believe you are going to attempt to run both a  2003 environment and a 2007 environment at the same time. Is this the case? If not,  could you clarify what functionality you are hoping for?     We expect to have the option, yes.    15. 2.2 Workflow did not exist in 2003 without a 3rd party tool. Have you installed a 3rd  party tool or possibly written some custom code to reach this functionality? Could you  provide additional details about the workflow tool or custom functionality?     No, we only used the canned review/approve functionality in 2003.    16. 2.5 Is this referring to Outlook Public Folders? Are you wishing to migrate them into  your SharePoint environment?     This item does refer to migrating Outlook Public Folders to the 2007 SharePoint  Environment, however, this is a future request/effort.    17. 3.1.1‐3.1.11 In each of these sections you refer to the ability to move different  functionality. Can you clarify what you are meaning by move? Is this something you  would like to happen within a site, between sites, between site collections, etc. Is a  manual process ok for the move or are you looking for something automatic?     We generally relate to “migrate” as migrating between farms. We generally relate to  “moving” as re‐organizing content within a farm. We expect a tool to meet each of the  conditions listed. Our idea is that a tool will automate and simplify the process.    18. 3.5 Within SharePoint site collections are not nested, they have the appearance of being  nested through the URL. In this section is the desire to be able to move the site  collection to a different URL, for instance: http://intranet/sites/sitecollectionX moves to  http://extranet/sites/sitecollectionX ?     Correct, site collections are separate. We would like the flexibility of provisioning site  collections and content databases within and between 2007 farms.    19. 4.1 Could you describe the functionality you are looking for?     Must be able to delegate rights to different support levels and technical personnel.  Would be nice to have an easy to use, visual interface for supporting users on the fly.     

(4)

20. 4.2 Could you describe the functionality you are looking for?     Must be able to delegate rights to different support levels and technical personnel.  Would be nice to have an easy to use, visual interface for supporting users on the fly.    21.  Will DPS accept NASPO|WSCA terms and conditions in lieu of the terms of the         RFP?          The Terms and Conditions that are set forth in this bid will be what Governs this        agreement.  The NASPO/WSCA terms would not be accepted.    22. Exhibit A states the Maintenance and Support services agreement.  Since the entire         focus of this RFP surrounds third party software, do all of the terms in this exhibit         apply?           The terms outlined in Exhibit A do indeed generally apply to this RFP.  Any specific         issues with these terms can be handled in any post award negotiations.    23. Will Denver PS accept NASPO|WSCA terms and conditions in lieu of the terms of the  RFP?   Denver Public Schools will NOT accept NASPO/WSCA terms in lieu of those in the RFP 

Due date and time Remains: June 10, 2009

3:00 p.m. local standard time at 900 Grant St, Room 301

If your proposal has been submitted and you wish to amend it, please modify your proposal on company letterhead. The amended proposal must be received prior to the time and date set for the proposal opening. Each modification submitted to the District's Purchasing Office located at 900 Grant Street, Room 301, must have Vendor’s name and return address and the applicable RFP number and title of the RFP clearly marked on the face of the envelope.

If more than one modification is submitted, the modification bearing the latest date of receipt by the District's Purchasing Office will be considered the valid modification.

This addendum must be acknowledged, whether or not you amend your proposal.

This Addendum may be faxed to Brian Swift at 720-423-3348, providing you do not need to amend your proposal.

PRINT OR TYPE YOUR INFORMATION

Name of Company: ____________________________________________ Fax: _____________ Address: ________________________ City/State: ________________ Zip: ______________ Contact Person: ___________________ Title: _____________________ Phone: ___________ Authorized Representative’s Signature: ____________________________ Phone: ___________ Printed Name: ____________________ Title: _____________________ Date: _____________

(5)

Figure

Updating...

References

Related subjects :