This is not an order


Download 54.81 Kb.
NameThis is not an order
A typeDocumentation

University of Wisconsin - Madison


REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL


THIS IS NOT AN ORDER




OFFICIAL SEALED
PROPOSAL NUMBER: 16-5645
NO PUBLIC OPENING
ISSUE DATE: 06/25/15
DUE DATE: 07/08/15 2:00 PM CDT


AGENT: Susanne Matschull
Questions regarding this proposal see Section 2.6
For Submittal Instructions & Proposal Response Format – see Sections 2.2 and 2.3.



Proposal prices and terms shall be firm for sixty (60) days from the date of proposal opening, unless otherwise specified in this Request for Proposal by the UW-Madison Purchasing Services.
If NO BID (check here) and return.

DESCRIPTION

Amendment #1 issued to: (1) The DUE DATE has been EXTENDED to: July 8, 2015 @ 2:00 PM CDT. We have enclosed a new return label for your convenience. Please replace the following pages reflecting the new DUE DATE: Pages 4 and 5 of 54; (2) edit the requirements in Section 4.2 (Page 16 of 54); and (3) provide answers to questions received from proposers.
If this amendment is not returned, it shall be assumed your original proposal meets all conditions of the amendment.
All other terms and conditions remain the same. Please revise and submit your proposal accordingly.


In signing this proposal, we have read and fully understand and agree to all terms, conditions and specifications and acknowledge that the UW-Madison Purchasing Services proposal document on file shall be the controlling document for any resulting contract. We certify that we have not, either directly or indirectly, entered into any contract or participated in any collusion or otherwise taken any action in restraint of free competition; that no attempt has been made to induce any other person or firm to submit or not to submit a proposal; that this proposal has been independently arrived at without collusion with any other proposer, competitor or potential competitor; that this proposal has not been knowingly disclosed prior to the opening of proposals to any other proposer or competitor; that the above stated statement is accurate under penalty of perjury. I certify that the information I have provided in this proposal is true and I understand that any false, misleading or missing information may disqualify the proposal.
By submitting a proposal, the proposer certifies that no relationship exists between the proposer and the University that interferes with fair competition or is a Conflict of Interest, and no relationship exists between such proposer and another person or firm that constitutes a Conflict of Interest. Further, proposer certifies that no employee of the University whose duties relate to this request for proposal assisted the proposer in preparing the proposal in any way other than in his or her official capacity and scope of employment.
The Proposer certifies by submission of the proposal that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any federal department or agency.

COMPANY NAME:

COMPANY STREET ADDRESS:

COMPANY CITY, STATE & ZIP:

SIGNATURE: DATE :

TYPE OR PRINT NAME:

TITLE:

TELEPHONE NUMBER: ( ) FAX NUMBER: ( )

EMAIL ADDRESS:

FEIN NUMBER: DUNS #:


UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN PROPOSAL NO.: 16-5645

MADISON, WISCONSIN 53715-1218 AMENDMENT #1 PAGE 4 OF 54
Section #2: Preparing and Submitting a Proposal

2.1 Applicable Dates





Date
June 10, 2015

June 22, 2015

July 8, 2015 - 2:00 PM CDT


Event
Date of Issue of the RFP

Written questions due

RFP Due Date (Local Madison Time)


2.2 Submittal Instructions
PROPOSALS MUST BE DELIVERED TO:

Purchasing Services, 21 N. Park Street, Suite 6101, Madison, WI 53715-1218.
NUMBER OF COPIES TO BE SUBMITTED:

Eight (8) hard copies of the completed proposals, including the signed original, may be mailed, delivered by Proposer, or by a third-party/courier service in a sealed envelope or package with the RFP number on the outside.  One (1) CD/DVD/Flash Drive copy of the proposal must also be submitted.  Proposals must be received and date/time stamped prior to 2:00 p.m. CDT on the stated proposal due date. Proposals not so date/time stamped shall be considered late.  Late proposals shall be rejected. 
If you are proposing both a Cloud and an On-Premise Solution, provide two separate and complete sets of RFP responses.

RETAIN A COPY OF YOUR BID RESPONSE FOR YOUR FILES
If hand delivering to Purchasing Services, please come to the 6th Floor Reception Desk in Suite 6101 and call 608-262-1526 for assistance.
Proposals may be dropped off at Purchasing Services, 21 N. Park Street, Suite 6101, Madison, WI 53715-1218, between the hours of 7:00 AM and 4:00 PM prior to the due date and time.

FAXED OR E-MAILED RESPONSES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN PROPOSAL NO.: 16-5645

MADISON, WISCONSIN 53715-1218 AMENDMENT #1 PAGE 5 OF 54


VENDOR NOTE: FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RETURN ADDRESS LABEL, IF THE ADDRESS IS THE SAME AS YOU LISTED ON THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FORM – YOU DO NOT NEED TO FILL OUT THE RETURN ADDRESS LABEL.
RETURN ADDRESS LABEL:
Below is a label that can be taped to the outside of your sealed proposal response. If returning your proposal response by mail or in person, please fill out the information and tape to the outside of your proposal package.


PROPOSAL

NUMBER: 16-5645

DUE DATE: 07/08/15 TIME: 2:00 PM CDT
SHIP FROM:
VENDOR NAME HERE: ______________________________________

ADDRESS: ________________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________


SHIP TO:
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON

PURCHASING SERVICES

21 N PARK ST, SUITE 6101

MADISON, WI 53715-1218


2.3 Proposal Response Format

Proposals should be typed and submitted on 8.5 by 11 inch paper and bound securely. The response should be organized and presented in the following order. Each section should be separated by tabs or otherwise clearly marked. The contents within each tab should reference the section or attachment number assigned in the RFP. Failure to submit as indicated may disqualify your proposal.
Tab 1:

  • Request for Proposal form signed by an authorized representative of proposing company - Cover Page.

  • Vendor Information Form, Attachment A.

  • Client Reference List, Attachment F.


Tab 2: Responses to specifications in Section 4. – Specifications (Sections 4.1 – 4.9).
Tab 3: Cost Proposal, Attachment B.
Tab 4: Other
If you are proposing both a Cloud and On-Premise Solution, provide two separate and complete sets of RFP responses.

RETAIN A COPY OF YOUR PROPOSAL RESPONSE(S) FOR YOUR FILES

2.4 Incurring Costs


The State of Wisconsin is not liable for any cost incurred by proposers in replying to this RFP.
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN PROPOSAL NO.: 16-5645

MADISON, WISCONSIN 53715-1218 PAGE 16 OF 54
Section #4: Requirements and Specifications
Requirements that include the word "must" or "shall” describe a mandatory requirement. Failure to meet a mandatory requirement MAY disqualify your Proposal.
The Proposers response to this Section must clearly demonstrate the capacity to handle the needs stated in this RFP in addition to the Proposers current workload. The University reserves the right to request supplementary information deemed pertinent to assure Proposers competence, business organization, and financial resources are adequate to successfully perform. 
NOTE:  Failure to respond to all items in this section may be deemed as sufficient reason to reject a proposal. Format your response to correspond numerically with items on the Submittal Instruction (see Section 2.2).

4.1 Purchased Services – USA Requirement

The State of Wisconsin requires purchased contractual services to be performed in the United States.  Some exceptions apply, including procurements subject to the conditions of the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement (WTOGPA) and those listed in (Wis. Stats. 16.705 (1r). Subject to these exceptions, Contractor warrants that the services provided to the University under this contract will be performed in the United States. The inability to perform required services in the United States shall be grounds for disqualifying your proposal for this contract.
4.2 Confirm that the proposed solution shall facilitate the following requirements:


    • the ability to support and administer a campus on-line course evaluation solution including effective communication and notification processes and workflow features;

    • the ability to create or integrate templates to collect information such as learning objectives and curricular maps;

    • the use of rubrics for assessing student learning and the relation of these rubrics to standards or competencies at various levels (course, program, school, etc.);

    • the creation of surveys and ability to analyze and report findings;

    • the capability of exporting data to other analysis tool sets;

    • multi-level administrative oversight based on defined organizational structures (i.e., campus, college, program, department, courses and course section);

    • multiple super-users or subunit administrators within defined system subunits;

    • a hierarchy of question items or templates for inclusion across course evaluations (i.e., campus, college, department);

    • ability to import and map to external accrediting agencies’ requirements (HLC as well as other discipline-specific accrediting groups); and

    • flexible timing solutions that accommodate both semester-based for credit courses and variable times for non-credit courses.


4.3 Company History and Solution Roadmap (50 points)
4.3.1 Describe the current ownership of your organization including structure, high level organization chart, and total number of employees.
4.3.2 Describe the history of the solution, including use in large higher education environments. Include recent acquisition information and a listing of major releases and their features.
4.3.3 Provide a high-level roadmap briefly describing planned enhancements, new features, or changes in architecture to your solution over the next three years.
4.3.4 Describe any partnerships current or planned that could add value to the proposed solution.
4.3.5 Describe your participation in professional and standards organizations.

AMENDMENT #1

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR 16-5645

(COURSE EVALUATION SOLUTION)

Q1: Does UW-Madison have an existing curriculum management tool the evaluation system would integrate with?
A1: We currently have Oracle Campus Solutions as the definitive source of credit course offerings, and a cross-campus Oracle-based system for outreach courses. We are exploring an outboard tool that will be used for Curriculum Management but do not have one at this time. There will be required integration with our Oracle Student Information System.
Q2: Does the course evaluation system need to facilitate the creation of assessment rubrics? Or have these assessments been conducted elsewhere and would need to be imported into the course evaluation system for alignment with the course evaluations?
A2: At a minimum, we expect the solution to provide for creation of course evaluation criteria. There is an expectation that the solution will have flexibility to align and integrate with more structured rubrics at a program level at a later date.
Q3: Does UW Madison maintain separate systems for managing its organizational hierarchy? Would the evaluation system be required to integrate with these systems to maintain an up to date administrative hierarchy? Or could this information be maintained within the course evaluation system.
A3: Any roles for access will be maintained by the University. The solution will need to map its functions to the University roles. The University does not have a “roles” database at this time, so there is no requirement that the hierarchy integrate at this time.
Q4: Will the University consider a custom solution for this RFP?
A4: The University will consider any solution that meets the requirements stated in Section 4.2 (and as amended in this addendum). The solution should have proven functionality at the time the proposal is presented.
Q5: Does the University have an approved budget for this project and if so, can the team please share that with vendors?
A5: We have no proposed budget for the solution and expect we may see a wide variety of proposed solutions with varying degrees of functionality.
Q6: Will the University entertain responses to the RFP from vendors who would conduct the majority of development work remotely? We perform development work out of our Itasca, IL offices and meet with clients during key points/milestones during the project agreed upon by both parties.
A6: We will consider all proposals that meet our requirements stated in Section 4.2.
Q7: General: Once the University has implemented a new course evaluation solution, will there be a desire to continue with a paper option or will all the evaluations be online?
A7: There will likely be some paper evaluations in the foreseeable future. The institutional objectives are expected to make this a rare exception within a few years.
-2-

Q8: General: Can you provide the total number of faculty who are evaluated at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, both full time and adjunct?
A8: Each semester there are approximately 4,900 unique instructors, which include faculty, instructional academic staff, and teaching assistants. These instructors teach approximately 12,000 courses/sections. For example, one course may have multiple sections – a lecture, lab, and discussion. A different instructor may be responsible for each of those sections and evaluated separately. Additionally, each instructor may have multiple course/sections. Outreach (non-credit) courses could potentially have similar numbers of instructors, with varying timelines for when the evaluation occurs (not tied to our semester schedule).

Any stated number of potentially evaluated instructors we could provide would be speculative on our part. For example, some Divisions of the University may not use the contracted solution.
Q9: Section 4.3.5: When you say Professional and Standards organizations, can you give an example of what types of organization you mean in reference to course evaluations?
A9: We would be interested in those types of organizations that would reflect commitments to Higher Education needs. IMS Global is an organization we would consider to be a standardization organization of interest. The International Association of Accessibility Professionals is an example of an accessibility organization. ABET is an organization we would consider an accreditation body of interest. Other professional organizations you participate in that are aligned with Higher Education needs might also be mentioned.
Q10: Section 4.5.19: Can you explain in more detail what level of integration you expect from your SIS and Course management system?
A10: There is a need to integrate with our SIS for credit course information and the Oracle-based system called CSIS for non-credit courses. Our question is whether your solution will be flexible enough to access multiple sources of information. Integration to the course system would be expected to be done via authentication or IMS Global LTI.
Q11: How is Section 4.2 going to be scored?
A11: Section 4.2 is mandatory, so if your solution is not able to meet the requirements, it will be disqualified. Vendors should provide detail that confirms they can meet these requirements. Please note that this addendum contains revised mandatory requirements for section 4.2.
Q12: 4.4.11. Can your solution link evaluations for discussion/lab/recitation to a lecture section? Provide evidence. Please provide the data structure for the ways in which these section(s) are configured within PeopleSoft.
A12: Course sections are bundled into enrollment packages as follows:

    1. Every package has one or more sections.

    2. A section has one and only one package.

    3. In most cases a package has a primary section.

Q13: How many of your faculty will be using this software for the course evaluations?
A13: We don’t know with any certainty how many faculty will be using the course evaluations and would only be speculating. We defined scale in 4.5.2 as best we can.

Share in:

Related:

This is not an order iconOrder this now!!! You will need to order through the iu bloomington Book Store

This is not an order iconThis is not an order

This is not an order iconThis is not an order

This is not an order iconThis is not an order

This is not an order iconOrder Processing (OP)

This is not an order iconMemorandum and order

This is not an order iconDecision/order

This is not an order iconMemorandum and order

This is not an order iconA reading order suggestion

This is not an order iconMemorandum opinion and order




forms and shapes


When copying material provide a link © 2017
contacts
filling-form.info
search