SWAN Board,
I worked with RAILS today to see what the costs would be for all of the SWAN libraries to join the eRead Illinois project with Baker & Taylor Axis 360. The fee formula for eRead is somewhat complex as it involves a base fee + population served fee + library collection budget fee to arrive at the total. Luckily RAILS has most of this data from IPLAR so I have compiled a beginning estimate for all 77 SWAN libraries to join. Some library data is missing, so it's not 100% complete but I wanted to show you how this was shaping up. For some reason RAILS left out Prairie Trails PLD altogether which I am in the process of correcting. Right now the total is $87,500 for eRead for SWAN. This number will go up as I complete the data gaps.
For eRead formula information, look here: http://www.railslibraries.info/sites/default/files/membership_fee_structure…
Rather than add each library's individual eRead fee to the SWAN membership fee, I treated eRead like our OCLC invoice: it is a combined cost for all of the libraries and simply goes into the operating budget for SWAN. Our fee formula dices up all of the combined expenses (OCLC, staff, Innovative maintenance, and now eRead) and arrives at a new total. The biggest advantage of doing it this way is if RAILS come forward with some incentive to the Illinois consortia that go 100% into the eRead subscription, we could apply the discount on the total base price. Dee has no idea about what that might look like, or if it's even possible, and she made sure that we all understood that idea might not work out depending (we swore secrecy).
Pages 1 -2 compare the SWAN fees: last year's FY14, this year FY15, but includes an FY15 with eRead costs integrated. It also shows for you the eRead individual library price. This are the pages I would like some feedback from you on.
Pages 12 - 13 shows the eRead formula breakdown.
Pages 14 -15 sort the SWAN Fees with eRead included sorted low to high.
Does moving forward with eRead seem worth doing? Would it be worth presenting to the COW meeting? Should I present this in a different format? I would include an narrative explanation with the budget.
Please email me individually or give me a phone call. Per OMA, we should not reply-all as a group.
Aaron Skog
SWAN Executive Director
125 Tower Drive
Burr Ridge, IL 60527
Phone: 630.734.5122
Fax: 630.734.5056
aaron.skog(a)railslibraries.info<mailto:aaron.skog@railslibraries.info>
http://support.swanlibraries.net
SWAN Board,
Let me bring Jim Deiters up to date on the Friday meeting. Rodger needed to leave around 11:30am so allow me to cover some of the meeting.
As you can all see by now, the announcement of Tony Siciliano retiring has been made. Tony is avoiding the word "retirement" so that he can escape without a large hoopla party. He really, really does not like a big celebration so it has made it a little awkward in avoiding that word. I hope people don't think he is being forced out or has suddenly quit. He and I began discussing this months ago. He is being extremely helpful offering to work with his replacement for a period of cross training.
My review will take place next month at the November SWAN Board meeting. Melissa and Rich will compile all of your ratings and comments into a single document after the SWAN Committee of the Whole meeting.
We reviewed the FY15 budget and there was not a lot of changes suggested other than catching a couple errors in my narrative portion of the budget. What was suggested after Dee Brennan visited was to have SWAN consider getting into the RAILS eRead Illinois grant project. The SWAN Board really liked the idea of getting all 77 SWAN libraries in the program as it fit within our strategic goal for e-resources. I have compiled some costs for the eRead group purchase and will send those in a separate email.
Agenda items for the COW meeting include:
1. FY15 Budget & Fees
2. RAILS Update (eBook grant and group purchase, delivery outsourcing)
3. ILS Search update
4. RAILS Consortia Committee update
That covers the SWAN Board meeting. Look for my eRead email next.
Aaron Skog
SWAN Executive Director
125 Tower Drive
Burr Ridge, IL 60527
Phone: 630.734.5122
Fax: 630.734.5056
aaron.skog(a)railslibraries.info<mailto:aaron.skog@railslibraries.info>
http://support.swanlibraries.net
SWAN Board Members:
The Friday 10/18 meeting packet is now available for you - http://support.swanlibraries.net/sites/default/files/meeting/2013-10-18/pac…
The packet is 61 pages long. We anticipate that the meeting will end before noon; therefore, no lunch will be provided.
We look forward to seeing you on Friday!
Brande Redfield
SWAN Office Manager
125 Tower Drive
Burr Ridge, IL 60527
Phone: 630.734.5164
Fax: 630.734.5056
brande.redfield(a)railslibraries.info<mailto:brande.redfield@railslibraries.info>
http://support.swanlibraries.net
SWAN Board Members,
Attached you will find Aaron's self-evaluation and a blank Evaluation Form for you to fill out. We were originally going to do Aaron's evaluation at the October meeting on Friday but have moved it to November's meeting. I felt that with the ILS demos and ILA being this month that it was too difficult for the board to spend the time that Aaron deserves on completing the evaluation. Please fill out the evaluation form and have it back to me or Rich by the 11th of November. I am hoping that he and I can meet after our committee of the whole meeting on November 12th to compile the responses for the meeting on November 15th. Thank you all for your time and if you have any questions or concerns we can discuss Friday at our meeting.
-Melissa
Melissa Gardner
Executive Director
Broadview Public Library District
2226 S. 16th Ave. * Broadview, IL 60155
(708)345-1325 x20 * Fax: (708) 345-0302
Cell: (773) 807-0619
www.broadviewlibrary.org<http://www.broadviewlibrary.org/>
SWAN Board Members:
I have some checks to sign today or Thursday/Friday if you are visiting. Jim has signed them, so I only need one more of you. Please look for Brande or I if you are visiting the Burr Ridge office.
Thanks,
Aaron
Aaron Skog
SWAN Executive Director
125 Tower Drive
Burr Ridge, IL 60527
Phone: 630.734.5122
Fax: 630.734.5056
aaron.skog(a)railslibraries.info<mailto:aaron.skog@railslibraries.info>
http://support.swanlibraries.net
SWAN Board:
This morning I had a conversation with the SWAN attorney Kathie Henn. She has followed up in writing but I wanted to summarize for you all what we discussed.
1. Disclosing the scores to the vendors Polaris and Innovative should not be done until the RFP process has been completed, which Kathie stated was a signed contract with the new vendor.
2. She has revised a written statement I created for the purposes of sharing it with a vendor requesting this scoring information or other decision making documents. That statement is below in her email response.
3. She answered some questions about live-streaming our Main Meeting room demos for the three vendors or recording these sessions:
a. If we live-stream, it should be shared on our public agenda for the meeting.
b. There should be some statement at the start of the meeting by one of the SWAN ILS co-chairs (suggestion provided in her email)
We are setting up the demo events online in L2, registering the task force members. They are not final yet, which I know for some of you on the director's task force will require some adjusting once I have completed the work. So if you are getting questions, tell everyone that there will be a membership wide announcement, we are incorporating repeat sessions when we can, and that some recording/streaming will be done.
Kathie's email with embedded responses in my original email below.
Aaron Skog
SWAN Executive Director
125 Tower Drive
Burr Ridge, IL 60527
Phone: 630.734.5122
Fax: 630.734.5056
aaron.skog(a)railslibraries.info<mailto:aaron.skog@railslibraries.info>
http://support.swanlibraries.net
From: Kathie T. Henn [mailto:KTHenn@KTJLAW.com]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 1:06 PM
To: Aaron Skog
Cc: Jeannie Dilger; Brande Redfield
Subject: RE: SWAN Process for Proposal Evaluations
Aaron:
My responses are listed below in RED.
In addition, if you decide to either stream or videotape the meeting and post it on your website, I would include the following on the meeting agenda as the first item after roll call:
Chair's Report
This meeting is available via (streaming (state where or how to access) or on the SWAN website at _______ and will be posted on or about DATE).
Please contact me if you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this further.
Kathie Henn
Klein, Thorpe and Jenkins, Ltd.
20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1660
Chicago, Illinois 60606
312.984.6424
fax: 312.984.6444
email: kthenn(a)ktjlaw.com<mailto:kthenn@ktjlaw.com>
From: Aaron Skog [mailto:aaron.skog@railslibraries.info]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 5:33 PM
To: Kathie T. Henn
Cc: Jeannie Dilger; Brande Redfield
Subject: SWAN Process for Proposal Evaluations
Hi Kathie,
The SWAN consortia as you know is working through its procurement of its next ILS software. The process to date included an RFP to which we received 5 proposals from vendors. As outlined in the RFP document on page 24 & 25 (section 1.3.29) criteria and scoring were used. The section 1.3.31 on page 25 includes this statement:
"The SWAN ILS Committee will compile the scores, which during the first phase of the evaluation process, as described by ¶1.3.23, will be used to select two or more proposals for further evaluation during the second phase; and which during the second phase will be the basis for selecting the successful proposal."
Link to RFP document online:
http://support.swanlibraries.net/system/files/Public/SWAN%20ILS%20Committee…
So on Thursday 9/19 and 9/20 the SWAN ILS Committee met and reviewed the five proposals. After scoring them, we narrowed our vendors to the second phase, moving ahead with 3 vendors.
Once the two day meeting adjourned, I notified the five vendors if they were moving forward within the second phase or if they were eliminated. I have received inquiries from one of the vendors about the scoring and why they were eliminated.
Here are recommendations I received from our ILS search consultant Rob McGee about how to proceed with inquiries from library directors/staff or from the five vendors.
1. To directors: describe the evaluation process and unanimous outcome and unanimity of decisions.
Aaron: this has not been done specifically, other than sharing the names of the 3 vendors that will be in our second phase software demonstrations.
KTJ: Would this statement be sufficient?
Our ILS search consulting Rob McGee (of RMG Consulting) has stated that the procurement process has not been completed so that we should not release the scores at this point in time. The ILS Committee also agreed with that recommendation to not share the scoring at this stage as it could imply a front runner status. Obviously there was a lot of discussion over the two days last week that the Committee had with Rob McGee present. The scoring process was completed by the Committee with a unanimous decision for each criteria. The second phase does not represent an accumulation of scores on the ones awarded, rather revising the scores based on updated information from the demos, calling references, and reviewing recommendations from task force groups. For this reason, the Committee cannot make the scoring available until the process has been completed.
Kathie Henn: This looks fine. I would revise the last two sentences to read, "The second phase, as stated more fully in the RFP, involves revising the scores based on updated information from the demos, reference checks and reviewing recommendations from task force groups. The Committee cannot make the scoring available until a contract has been awarded."
2. With vendors: maintain confidentiality of details of deliberations & use language approved by attorney. Check with attorney on this and let her know about the details you recorded in the scoring instrument & get clear understanding on your requirement to disclose & not to disclose & if disclosure to members is required then determine when, e.g., at end of procurement process.
Aaron: our scoring eliminated two vendors, Polaris and our current vendor Innovative Interfaces. Polaris would like to discuss why they were eliminated, which I indicated I would do after sending them some dates to schedule a meeting. That is where it stands at this point.
Kathie Henn: I would not schedule a meeting until after a contract is awarded.
3.
KTJ: Would the notes made during the scoring process during that two day meeting be available to FOIA? No. FOIA contains an exception for such information. It provides an exemption for:
Proposals and bids for any contract, grant, or agreement, including information which if it were disclosed would frustrate procurement or give an advantage to any person proposing to enter into a contractor agreement with the body, until an award or final selection is made. Information prepared by or for the body in preparation of a bid solicitation shall be exempt until an award or final selection is made.
4. Get her advice on how best to handle members & whether & how anything should be said to them at this stage that is different from what is said to vendors.
Aaron: The selection process has been completed with OMA guidelines to date, and we will continue to do so. However, I don't want to risk the appearance of hiding anything from our libraries or the vendors involved, particularly the eliminated ones.
KTJ: What is your advice knowing that our RFP outlines the process and all vendors involved would have reviewed it within the RFP document section that I noted above? What about making things available in the SWAN website that allows access only to member library staff, e.g. our Member's Only login?
Kathie Henn: As we discussed, all vendors are aware of the process. I don't see a reason to limit information to members only if it is discussed at an open meeting.
I also have two questions for you regarding the second phase software demonstrations made by the three vendors.
5. Web-streaming the software demonstrations: if these are streamed, can I provide the link to the meeting behind the Member's Only login or will it have to be publicly posted?
Kathie Henn: I think it would be better to publicly post it.
6. Video recording the software demos: can a recording be made available only to the Member's Only login? I am anticipating that some vendors will want some assurance that competitors could not see the recordings.
Kathie Henn: Same answer as #5. Vendors may want that assurance, but I'm not sure that we can provide it. If they are providing presentations at open meetings, then the presentation is public.
Our software demonstrations will involve having online registration to attend in person and sharing the streaming and recording website URLs. The first two dates are next week, Thursday October 3 and Friday October 4th. So your opinion on this would be valuable as SWAN intends to post the agenda as soon as it becomes finalized.
Kind regards,
Aaron Skog
Aaron Skog
SWAN Executive Director
125 Tower Drive
Burr Ridge, IL 60527
Phone: 630.734.5122
Fax: 630.734.5056
aaron.skog(a)railslibraries.info<mailto:aaron.skog@railslibraries.info>
http://support.swanlibraries.net
Hello all,
As promised in today's meeting, here are a few links and info that might be helpful to you in regards to beginning a wellness plan at your libraries (and convincing your board that it is a good idea)!
>From SHRM.org (Society for Human Resource Mgmt., the ALA of the HR world):
"A review of 72 studies<http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/Articles/Pages/10StepsforWellnes…> published in the American Journal of Health Promotion showed an average corporate wellness return on investment (ROI) of $3.48 per $1 when considering health care costs alone, $5.82 when examining absenteeism and $4.30 when both outcomes are considered."
"A study<http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/Articles/Pages/ProductivityLoss.…> published in the March 2009 issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine has shown a strong association between the number of employee health risks and productivity loss, ranging from a 3.4 percent productivity loss for those with none of the eight assessed health risks to a 24 percent productivity loss for people with all eight health risks. This means that employees with the most health risks had seven times more lost productivity at work than those with no health risks. Wellness programs can be designed to reduce or eliminate such health risks of employees."
http://www.shrm.org/templatestools/hrqa/pages/wellnessprogramscontributingt…
A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report in 2002 revealed that at worksites with physical activity programs, employers have:
* Reduced healthcare costs by 20 to 55 percent
* Reduced short-term sick leave by six to 32 percent
* Increased productivity by two to 52 percent
Another good article: http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=69
Have a great evening,
Brande Redfield
SWAN Office Manager
125 Tower Drive
Burr Ridge, IL 60527
Phone: 630.734.5164
Fax: 630.734.5056
brande.redfield(a)railslibraries.info<mailto:brande.redfield@railslibraries.info>
http://support.swanlibraries.net
SWAN Board:
My email sent to Kathie Henn, Klein Thorpe Jenkins. Kathie's office voicemail indicated she would be out of the office all day today.
Aaron Skog
SWAN Executive Director
125 Tower Drive
Burr Ridge, IL 60527
Phone: 630.734.5122
Fax: 630.734.5056
aaron.skog(a)railslibraries.info<mailto:aaron.skog@railslibraries.info>
http://support.swanlibraries.net
From: Aaron Skog
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 5:33 PM
To: 'Kathie T. Henn'
Cc: 'Jeannie Dilger'; Brande Redfield
Subject: SWAN Process for Proposal Evaluations
Hi Kathie,
The SWAN consortia as you know is working through its procurement of its next ILS software. The process to date included an RFP to which we received 5 proposals from vendors. As outlined in the RFP document on page 24 & 25 (section 1.3.29) criteria and scoring were used. The section 1.3.31 on page 25 includes this statement:
"The SWAN ILS Committee will compile the scores, which during the first phase of the evaluation process, as described by ¶1.3.23, will be used to select two or more proposals for further evaluation during the second phase; and which during the second phase will be the basis for selecting the successful proposal."
Link to RFP document online:
http://support.swanlibraries.net/system/files/Public/SWAN%20ILS%20Committee…
So on Thursday 9/19 and 9/20 the SWAN ILS Committee met and reviewed the five proposals. After scoring them, we narrowed our vendors to the second phase, moving ahead with 3 vendors.
Once the two day meeting adjourned, I notified the five vendors if they were moving forward within the second phase or if they were eliminated. I have received inquiries from one of the vendors about the scoring and why they were eliminated.
Here are recommendations I received from our ILS search consultant Rob McGee about how to proceed with inquiries from library directors/staff or from the five vendors.
1. To directors: describe the evaluation process and unanimous outcome and unanimity of decisions.
Aaron: this has not been done specifically, other than sharing the names of the 3 vendors that will be in our second phase software demonstrations.
KTJ: Would this statement be sufficient?
Our ILS search consulting Rob McGee (of RMG Consulting) has stated that the procurement process has not been completed so that we should not release the scores at this point in time. The ILS Committee also agreed with that recommendation to not share the scoring at this stage as it could imply a front runner status. Obviously there was a lot of discussion over the two days last week that the Committee had with Rob McGee present. The scoring process was completed by the Committee with a unanimous decision for each criteria. The second phase does not represent an accumulation of scores on the ones awarded, rather revising the scores based on updated information from the demos, calling references, and reviewing recommendations from task force groups. For this reason, the Committee cannot make the scoring available until the process has been completed.
2. With vendors: maintain confidentiality of details of deliberations & use language approved by attorney. Check with attorney on this and let her know about the details you recorded in the scoring instrument & get clear understanding on your requirement to disclose & not to disclose & if disclosure to members is required then determine when, e.g., at end of procurement process.
Aaron: our scoring eliminated two vendors, Polaris and our current vendor Innovative Interfaces. Polaris would like to discuss why they were eliminated, which I indicated I would do after sending them some dates to schedule a meeting. That is where it stands at this point.
KTJ: Would the notes made during the scoring process during that two day meeting be available to FOIA?
3. Get her advice on how best to handle members & whether & how anything should be said to them at this stage that is different from what is said to vendors.
Aaron: The selection process has been completed with OMA guidelines to date, and we will continue to do so. However, I don't want to risk the appearance of hiding anything from our libraries or the vendors involved, particularly the eliminated ones.
KTJ: What is your advice knowing that our RFP outlines the process and all vendors involved would have reviewed it within the RFP document section that I noted above? What about making things available in the SWAN website that allows access only to member library staff, e.g. our Member's Only login?
I also have two questions for you regarding the second phase software demonstrations made by the three vendors.
4. Web-streaming the software demonstrations: if these are streamed, can I provide the link to the meeting behind the Member's Only login or will it have to be publicly posted?
5. Video recording the software demos: can a recording be made available only to the Member's Only login? I am anticipating that some vendors will want some assurance that competitors could not see the recordings.
Our software demonstrations will involve having online registration to attend in person and sharing the streaming and recording website URLs. The first two dates are next week, Thursday October 3 and Friday October 4th. So your opinion on this would be valuable as SWAN intends to post the agenda as soon as it becomes finalized.
Kind regards,
Aaron Skog
Aaron Skog
SWAN Executive Director
125 Tower Drive
Burr Ridge, IL 60527
Phone: 630.734.5122
Fax: 630.734.5056
aaron.skog(a)railslibraries.info<mailto:aaron.skog@railslibraries.info>
http://support.swanlibraries.net
SWAN Board:
I received an email from Jamie Bukovac late yesterday to which I responded with the following reply this morning. I am providing you with my response to Jamie who was satisfied (at least in her reply) with my answer.
I have contacted Kathie Henn, our attorney with Klein Thorpe Jenkins, for her opinion on how to handle scoring inquiries from SWAN libraries and, more importantly, the vendors involved.
Aaron Skog
SWAN Executive Director
125 Tower Drive
Burr Ridge, IL 60527
Phone: 630.734.5122
Fax: 630.734.5056
aaron.skog(a)railslibraries.info<mailto:aaron.skog@railslibraries.info>
http://support.swanlibraries.net
Hi Jamie,
Thanks for checking in . There are several things within this procurement that I have to balance, which I think you will understand after I go over them.
Rob McGee has stated that the procurement process has not been completed so that we should not release the scores at this point in time. The ILS Committee also agreed with that recommendation to not share the scoring at this stage as it would imply a front runner status. Obviously there was a lot of discussion over the two days last week that the Committee had with Rob McGee present. The scoring process was completed by the Committee with a unanimous decision for each criteria. The second phase does not represent an accumulation of scores on the ones awarded, rather revising the scores based on updated information from the demos, calling references, and reviewing recommendations from task force groups.
Our consultant Rob McGee has also recommended I check in with our attorney Kathie Henn about the scoring at this stage just to make sure again that we are not obligated to share the scores with vendors requesting it.
I have attached the scoring criteria that was included in the RFP. If you would like to talk about this a bit more over the phone I would value that conversation.
Best,
Aaron
SWAN Board:
Yesterday you saw an email from Rich Wolff wanting to know a bit more about the ILS Committee work last week. I will go over that some more with you all in another email but I think Melissa Gardner has reached all of you by this point or at least has attempted to reach you. Jeannie Dilger has been communicating with Melissa since last Friday, which as co-chair we thought was the best way to divide up the tasks at hand. Jeannie spoke with Melissa about our selection and the upcoming steps leading to a final vendor, which will require Melissa's involvement with the "negotiation team." My task right now (aside from the SWAN FY15 budget and fee schedule for our Finance/Personnel Committee meeting this Thursday) is to arrange the software demos with vendor, prepare for the "Request for Best and Final Offers" (RBFOs), coordinate the Task Forces with Brande, and manage phone conference calls with customers of the three vendors. I view these reference checks as a vital step in the process, as it will establish the track record for a vendor for software development and support.
Recap: The timeline at this stage in our process was always going to be a tight window to complete the tasks needed after the Committee completed its first round of evaluations.This is what drove my push to notify all vendors immediately. Our first software demos start next week.
Here is an update on how the vendor software demos are being arranged. I am waiting on confirmation from SirsiDynix about the dates today, but this is just for you all to consider.
October 3 & 4: SirsiDynix (tentative)
October 7 & 8: Equinox (preferred)
October 10 & 11: VTLS (preferred)
Each vendor is going to construct the 2 day demos based on the questions our 7 task force groups have provided. However, we are accommodating each vendor to arrange the timeslots to cover the information based on the questions I have sent to them in advance.
Jeff Myers from SirsiDynix called me a late yesterday afternoon and he is assembling a team of about 6 staff to come out for the 2 days. Equinox will provide me a draft 2 day agenda today. VTLS will provide one later this afternoon. I do not believe VTLS and Equinox will be bringing 6 people!
As I noted, the timeline the ILS Committee constructed with our consultant Rob McGee (RMG Consulting) is a bit tight considering we are telling the finalists that they are moving to round 2 and they only have a few days to prepare their agendas based on the information they need to convey during the demos.
So I am anxious as you are and our member library staff to have the L2 meetings set and open up registration. Brande is working with me to make sure the meetings are put in L2 and that we cap the registration based on room capacity. We will set aside seats for our task force people and SWAN staff. Our goal is to have an overview demo on the first day for library directors and staff. After that overview, directors can sit through the sessions they would like. Keep in mind each vendor demo schedule might be different.
I have asked Kate Boyle, Tony Siciliano, and Mary Lou Coffman to begin work on follow-up questions for the RBFOs. Within each vendor proposal are areas which require clarification and should be explored during the software demos and meetings with vendors.
I intend to update you all regularly between now and demos next week.
Regards,
Aaron
