eBook and eAudiobook Platform - Q&A - State of Vermont eBook and eAudiobook Platform
| Bidders ID: | NBD14408166132361882 |
|---|---|
| Due Date: | Aug 3, 2026 |
| Posted Date: | Jul 28, 2026 |
| Level of Government: | State & Local |
| State: | Vermont |
| Agency: | State of Vermont |
| Category: |
|
| Source: | Members Only |
| TITLE | QUESTIONS DUE | ANSWERS POSTED | DUE DATE | NO POSTING AFTER |
|
eBook and eAudiobook Platform
Addendum 1 Q&A - State of Vermont eBook and eAudiobook Platform |
07/27/2026 04:30PM |
|
08/03/2026 04:30PM |
|
Attachment Preview
RFP - State of Vermont eBook and eAudiobook Platform
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
July 27, 2026
1. What is your budget for content purchases?
Answer: $30,000 as a base with yearly variations.
2. What is your current platform fee?
Answer: We would like to see the lowest price for the best platform available.
3. Page 3: 2.1.4.2. Are you asking for the ability of one patron to be able to login with two different
authentication methods or one of two authentication methods per patron?
Answer: We are not wed to an SSO option. That said, a patron should log on in a consistent manner – we
want one of two authentication methods per patron.
4. Page 3: 2.1.4.2.2. Does your current platform offer myVermont login as an authentication option?
What is your current authentication method?
Answer: No, our current platform does not offer myVermont login as an authentication option. We
currently authenticate through SIP2 using their library barcode number. We have an option for patrons
to use the service through “Book Vermont,” which is a virtual library card.
5. Addendum #1 notes that the Addendum needs to be acknowledged on the Proposal Form. This form
does not appear to be part of the original RFP document. Can you please provide it?
Answer: Addendum 1 is linked from the bid page. Its sole purpose is to update state contact.
6. Addendum #1 notes that it is correcting the State Contact on page 1. On page 10 of the original RFP,
section 5.2.1., it notes submissions can be sent to Thomas.McMurdo@vermont.gov. Has this contact
also changed?
Answer: Yes, please send to Kevin Cooke at kevin.cooke@vermont.gov
7. Pages 3-5: Scope of Work, 2.1.4. – 2.2.2.12.2. Should we include our responses to these items in the
Technical Response section, under item 4.7.2.?
Answer: Yes, please include those responses in the Technical Response section.
8. Page 10: 4.9. Reporting Requirements. Can you please clarify what is being requested here?
Answer: A summary of available reports is acceptable here.
9. Page 17: Subcontractor Reporting Form. I just wanted to confirm that this form is not needed with
our submission response.
Page 1 of 11
Answer: That is correct. This is for contracting.
10. For the State’s RFP regarding an eBook and eAudiobook Platform, I wanted to ask about the SSO
requirements under 2.1.4. We are looking to implement SSO for our clients in the next month or so.
Would we still be able to bid if at the time of submission the implementation is not fully completed?
Or am I allowed to submit a proposal that includes our SSO roadmap?
Answer: Yes, you can submit your roadmap for SSO. SSO is not required.
11. Related to this RFP, can you please confirm that for a bid to qualify, a vendor must bid on both eBook
and eAudiobook? Or can a vendor bid on eAudiobooks only?
Answer: Our existing collections are in both eBook and eAudiobook form. We would need a platform
that can host those.
12. Can we attach our digital service agreement as an exhibit along with our proposal?
Answer: Yes, you can attach it. Any service agreement or other signed document will be part of the
state’s contract with the vendor, in order of precedence.
13. What are the reporting requirements that you are looking for with this solicitation?
Answer: Please provide a list of available reports. We are seeking typical reports for a platform of this
sort – circulation—including total, by type, and by collection. Inventory, expiry, etc.
14. For the prompt “Prefer ability to hide items depending on target populations”, could you clarify what
you mean by “target populations”?
Answer: Schools, incarcerated people.
15. I am reviewing the RFP document. There is a reference to an AI Usage Disclosure form Located at
https://bgs.vermont.gov/purchasing-contracting/forms.
I see on that same procurement page website section another form - Bidder Response
Form.
I don't see any reference in this RFP to the Bidder Response Form and whether or not it too is
required under the section - other required forms listed in Section 3.
Are we to use that form to respond to this RFP or can we simply follow the RFP instructions in
sections 4,5,6 in terms of response contents?
Answer: The bidder response form is no longer needed. Its inclusion is an artefact of an earlier version of
the RFP form.
16. Page 5. 2.2.2.11.3. “If the state can access information of Patrons not originating with the State
library, appropriate consent systems with logging must be in place.” Can you please provide an
example of what you are referring to?
Page 2 of 11
Answer: If the platform is pulling in content from local libraries, the state should not be able to access
individual patron data. If we have non-anonymized patron data, the patrons need to have agreed to
allowing the State to see their history, checkouts, etc.
17. Ref. 2.1.4.4 (ii): Logout scope
Please clarify the expected scope of simultaneous application and SSO logout. Does the State require
(A) user-initiated logout within the application to also terminate the myVermont session, (B) logout
initiated at myVermont to terminate active application sessions, including sessions in native mobile
applications, or (C) both? If (B) or (C), does myVermont support OIDC Back-Channel Logout or SAML
2.0 Single Logout to relying parties?
Answer: SSO is not required, and the State does not have a definite approach in mind for SSO usage.
18. Ref. 2.1.5 and 2.2.2.9.1: Member library affiliation
The RFP contemplates both statewide content purchased by the State and items purchased by
individual member libraries for their own patrons. For a patron who authenticates via myVermont,
how should the platform determine that patron’s member library affiliation? Does myVermont carry
a library affiliation or library card attribute that can be released to a service provider, or does the
State expect the platform to establish affiliation after authentication?
Answer: SSO is not required. The State does not have a definite approach in mind for SSO usage.
19. Ref. 2.1.4.2: Eligibility
Is every myVermont account holder eligible to use the service, or is eligibility limited to registered
patrons of participating libraries? If eligibility is limited, what attribute or authoritative source should
determine it?
Answer: The service is statewide and anyone in Vermont can access it. The State does not have a clear
approach in mind for MyVermont access. SSO is not required.
20. Ref. 2.1.4.1 and 2.1.4.3: Staff authentication scope
Please confirm which system or systems library staff and State employees would authenticate into: a
staff or administrative reporting interface, the patron-facing platform, or both. Please also indicate
the role types the State anticipates for each group.
Answer: State employees would be treated as patrons, State Library staff and participating public library
staff would have admin access.
21. Ref. 2.1.4.4 (iii): Least privilege and administrator approval
Does the least-privilege provisioning and administrator-approval requirement apply to patron
accounts, to staff and administrative accounts, or to both? Where the only available role is that of a
patron, would automatic provisioning on first successful authentication satisfy this requirement?
Page 3 of 11
Answer: Staff and admin accounts.
22. Ref. 2.1.4.2.1: Non-email authentication option
Is the non-email library card option a mandatory requirement, or a preference that may be satisfied
in a later phase of the contract? Where a patron authenticates by library card, does the State expect
validation against the card number alone, or against a card number combined with a PIN or other
patron-held secret? Additionally, for libraries without access to SIP2, what alternative non-email
approach does the State envision, and what authoritative patron data source would be available to
support it?
Answer: A non-email library card option is not mandatory. For patrons accessing via a library card, a
password or pin should be required for basic security. We are open to creative solutions for non-email
access.
23. Ref. 2.1.3 and 2.1.4.2.1: Statewide patron registry
Does the Vermont Department of Libraries maintain, or intend to maintain, a statewide or union
patron registry covering member libraries; whether as a shared integrated library system, a consortia
patron database, or a periodic aggregated patron file? If such a registry exists, is it available to a
platform vendor as an authoritative source for validating patron library card numbers and
determining member library affiliation? If not, would the State expect a vendor to integrate with
each participating library individually?
Answer: Patron data should be private and there is no statewide registry. Vendor will integrate with
individual libraries.
24. Ref. 2.1.4.4: Authentication entry point
Will patrons be expected to initiate login from a State-hosted portal, directly from the vendor’s
application and website, or both? If both, does the State have a preference as to which is presented
as the primary path?
Answer: SSO is not required. The State does not have a definite approach in mind for SSO usage.
25. Ref. 2.1.4.4 (iv): Test environment
Does the State maintain a non-production myVermont environment available to vendors for
integration testing? What is the typical process and lead time to obtain access, and would the State
commit to a defined integration window prior to the start of UAT?
Answer: We could discuss this with State IT (AKA ADS – Vermont Agency of Digital Services). SSO is not
required. The State does not have a definite approach in mind for SSO usage.
26. Ref. 2.2.2.11.2: Consent and logging
Please clarify what constitutes “appropriate consent systems with logging” for patron identity
attributes exchanged during authentication. Does the State have an existing standard, template, or
prior implementation that bidders should align to?
Page 4 of 11
Answer: We do not have an existing standard and we do not have a required approach in mind.
27. Section 2.1.1 Infrastructure must scale reliably across web browsers and mobile devices statewide.
What is the estimated total active patron count across participating libraries, and what is the
anticipated Peak Concurrent User (PCU) volume across web and mobile interfaces to assist vendors
in sizing cloud hosting infrastructure?
Answer: Monthly active users are around 500, with 17,655 registered users.
28. Section 2.2.2.9 The platform supports both statewide shared content and individual local library
purchases.
Does the State require a uniform First-In, First-Out (FIFO) hold queue across all shared titles, or will
the platform need to execute multi-tiered priority logic (e.g., "Local Advantage" queuing that
prioritizes local library patrons for copies purchased by their home library before fulfilling general
statewide requests)?
Answer: We are open to different approaches, but, typically, locally purchased materials are available
locally and are not part of the shared statewide collection.
29. Section 2.1.3 references an existing eBook/eAudiobook program serving 135 current member
libraries.
Could you please identify the current incumbent vendor/platform, and confirm whether this
procurement is intended to replace the incumbent platform entirely or to operate alongside it?
Answer: We expect to have a single platform.
30. Section 2.2.2.10.4 requires "easy content migration from other platforms."
Could you please provide the approximate volume, format, and metadata standard of the existing
collection(s) to be migrated, and confirm which party (State, incumbent vendor, or new Contractor)
is responsible for data extraction from the current platform?
Answer: Approximately 10,000 items. The new contractor will be responsible for migration.
31. Section 2.2.2.10.4 requires administrative tools to migrate and ingest existing digital title records.
Will existing statewide and local library digital license entitlements (including copy counts, metered-
access terms, and license expiration dates) be provided in a single, consolidated export file for initial
migration, or will the contractor be required to extract, normalize, and deduplicate disparate catalog
feeds from individual local libraries?
Answer: The State would provide a single consolidated export file.
32. Section 2.1.2 expresses a preference for a platform that can aggregate content "purchased by the
State, consortia, or by participant libraries."
Could you please clarify which vendors/formats participating libraries currently hold content licenses
with, so that bidders can address aggregation compatibility?
Page 5 of 11
You are viewing the opportunity summary page, which includes a brief overview and a preview of the attached documents.
Disclaimer: The details regarding bids, requests for proposals (RFPs), and requests for qualifications (RFQs) on this site are provided for convenience and do not represent official public notice. To respond to or inquire about bids, RFPs, or RFQs, please contact the appropriate government department.
TRY FOR FREE
Not a GovernmentBidders Member Yet?
Get unlimited access to thousands of active local, state and federal government bids and awards in All 50 States.