Active SLED Opportunity · COLORADO · DOUGLAS COUNTY LIBRARIES
AI Summary
Douglas County Libraries seeks proposals for an Integrated Library System (ILS) via a formal RFP. Proposals are due by July 30, 2026, with questions accepted until July 14, 2026. Submission is electronic and requires specific attachments.
Douglas County Libraries (DCL) is soliciting proposals from qualified firms or individuals for an Integrated Library System (ILS). **Solicitation Type**: RFP - Request for Proposal (Formal) **Source ID**: PU.AG.USA.1334.C19970176 **Piggyback Contract**: No **Question Acceptance Deadline**: 07/14/2026 04:00 PM EDT **Questions are submitted online**: Yes **Bid Submission Type**: Electronic Bid Submission **Additional Bidding Instructions**: Please use Attachments A and B in your proposal. **Owner Organization**: Infrastructure Services **Solicitation Number**: RFP 26-002 **Reference Number**: 0000428611 **Pricing**: Lump sum **Bid Documents List**: | Item Name | Description | Mandatory | Limited to 1 file | |---|---|---|---| | Bid Documents | Documents defining the proposal | No | No | **Questions and Answers**: | Question | Answer | |---|---| | Hello, Please confirm the number of concurrent Staff users(the maximum number expected to be logged into the system, at the one time). Thank you. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | What date do you anticipate signing a contract? What is the desired project start date? What is the desired project go-live date? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 13 of the Discovery tab says “System allows library to configure the default amount of hold expiraton date when a hold is placed, as well as customizing the freeze/unfreeze default hold timing.” Please clarify the desired function of the hold expiration date. Please also describe the desired role of the discovery layer software in setting the freeze/unfreeze status of holds in the ILS; is it the desire for the discovery layer to manipulate the hold record in the ILS, or for the ILS itself to freeze and unfreeze the hold. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 21 of the Discovery tab says “The discovery layer has access to availability status for all materials, including electronic resources.” Please enumerate or describe the statuses applied to electronic resources. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | The RFP text says “PLEASE PROVIDE PRICING FOR BOTH VENDOR-HOSTED AND LOCALLY-HOSTED OPTIONS.” To adequately answer this question, we need to know whether DCL can host an environment with Docker/Open Container Initiative (OCI) containers, Kubernetes, Kafka, PostgreSQL database administration, ElasticSearch (or OpenSearch, if in AWS). To the extent that these skills are not yet resident in the DCL staff, to what extent would DCL rely on the vendor for this knowledge transfer? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | The RFP text says “PLEASE PROVIDE PRICING FOR BOTH VENDOR-HOSTED AND LOCALLY-HOSTED OPTIONS.” To adequately answer this question, does DCL have existing centralized logging and monitoring tools (e.g., Prometheus, Grafana, or ELK stack) that the implementation must integrate with, or should the vendor propose a standalone monitoring solution? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | The RFP text says “PLEASE PROVIDE PRICING FOR BOTH VENDOR-HOSTED AND LOCALLY-HOSTED OPTIONS.” To adequately answer this question, does DCL have an existing disaster recovery plan and have implemented solutions to support it? (e.g., Backups/rollback capabilities, tested recovery methods, redundant hardware) If this is not yet resident in the DCL infrastructure, to what extent would DCL rely on the vendor to propose and implement this capability? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Please provide a confirmation of the number of concurrent licenses (the total number of staff users that are logged in at any one time). Thank you for your prompt response. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 14 of the Acquisitions tab says “System provides validations rules for each field in order records.” Please clarify whether validation needs to be MARC/bibliographic data and non-MARC acquisitions data. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 20 of the Acquisitions tab says “The system shall provide a dedicated workslip note capability to convey processing instructions during receiving, with at least the following characteristics: *Workslip notes can be attached to order/PO lines and/or individual item records and maintained by authorized staff.; *When items with workslip notes are received, the system shall automatically display the relevant workslip note(s) as part of the receiving workflow before the transaction is finalized, without requiring staff to search for them.; *Workslip notes shall support sufficient text length to describe typical processing instructions (e.g., label/sticker instructions, special routing), without arbitrary legacy‑style field‑length constraints.” Does this workslip note need to be printed, or should it only be accessible in the system (such as a pop up when the user is receiving the item)? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 21 of the Acquisitions tab says “The system shall provide one or more internal note fields on order and item records that: *Are not visible to the public.; *Can be used by staff to record internal comments or instructions.; *Support sufficient length to capture typical operational notes (e.g., new‑material month, local processing comments).” Are these notes expected to be the same/linked or should they be independent of each other to allow for different content? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 2 of the Integrations tab says “System allows authentication via EZProxy HAProxy and API. Please list other supported authentication pathways.” Could the issuer please clarify the reference to HAProxy? HAProxy is typically utilized as a load balancer rather than an authentication protocol. Are you asking if our system supports traffic routed through an HAProxy load balancer, or was this intended to refer to a specific authentication standard (such as SAML, LDAP, or OpenAthens)? Additionally, could you specify the preferred protocol for the API authentication (e.g., OAuth 2.0, REST, OIDC)? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 2 of the Integrations tab says “System allows authentication via EZProxy HAProxy and API. Please list other supported authentication pathways.” Could the library please clarify the expected directionality of the authentication? Specifically, are you looking for the proposed system to act as the Identity Provider (e.g., external systems like EZProxy query our system's API/SIP2 to verify patron credentials), or are you expecting our system to act as a Service Provider (e.g., users log into our system using external identity providers like a campus SSO or Active Directory)? Detailing both your staff and patron authentication workflows would be highly appreciated. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Regarding the requirement for self-service library card creation with address verification (requirement 3 on the Integrations tab): Could the library please clarify the required scope of the 'address verification'? Specifically, are you looking for basic postal address standardization, geographic/tax district verification, or full identity verification (e.g., KYC/credit bureau checks to prove residency)? Additionally, is the library currently utilizing a specific third-party vendor for this service that we need to integrate with, or are you requesting a list of all vendors our system currently supports (such as Springshare, Unique Management, Quipu, or Patron Point)? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Regarding the requirement for integration with the Library’s current website platform and customer app (BiblioWeb) (requirement 16 on the Integrations tab): We understand that there are no universal industry standards (such as SIP2) specifically for exporting 'What's New' carousels or Staff Recommendations to third-party discovery layers. Could the library please clarify if they are simply requiring the proposed ILS to have open, robust APIs (e.g., REST/GraphQL) that the website vendor can consume to harvest catalog data and availability? Or, is the library asking if we have a pre-existing, off-the-shelf connector built specifically for BiblioCommons? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 9 of the Circulation tab refers to a collection code. What is this collection code? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 13 of the Circulation tab states that the system must be able to “define constraints on claimed returns”. Could you please provide additional details about the constraints required? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 14 of the Circulation tab refers to a “customer registration form”. Could you please provide additional details about the customer registration form? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Could you please provide additional details about item status requirements? What specific statuses and functionality are required? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 23 of the Circulation Tab states “The library currently uses ShoutBomb for SMS.”. How is ShoutBomb integrated into the current library system? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 31 of the Circulation tab refers to “public blocks, notes, and messages in the customer record.” Where are public blocks, notes, and messages expected to display? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 40 of the circulation tab states “System provides a method for collecting, maintaining and reporting on monies collected as donations to the library.” How is this currently managed? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 48 of the circulation tab states “System provides a mechanism for creating and managing book club kits.” What functionality is available in the current system for managing book club kits? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 53 of the Circulation Tab states “System provides a configurable automated method for the cancellation of frozen holds.” Could the library please provide additional information about the needed process here? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 54 of the Circulation tab states “"System provides a method for library staff to use a mobile device to scan barcodes to create a record set in the ILS.” What type of record set is referred to here? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Could the library please describe the current integration with Prospector and Worldshare ILL? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | In the RFP, does the term “ILL” refer to only OCLC Worldshare ILL loans, or does it additionally include all Prospector loans as well? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 4 on the Integration tab states “System integrates with Unique Management services for collection agency services.” Please describe the desired integration. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 6 on the Integration tab states “Systems integrates with customer Point services for email marketing.” Please describe the desired integration. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 8 on the Integration tab states “The system integrates seamlessly with Bibliotecha RFID and RFIDLS systems and software.” Please describe what seamless integration means for the library. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 10 on the Integration tab states “The system integrates with cataloging tools (e.g. MarcEdit).” Terry Reese’s MarcEdit is listed as an example. Are there other cataloging tools that require integration? Describe the desired level of integration for each tool. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 13 on the Integration tab states “The system supports a wide range of connections to external systems, including, but not limited to…” Could the library please clarify the expected workflow for PayPal integrations? Specifically, is the expectation that the proposed ILS will natively host a PCI-compliant PayPal payment gateway for staff and/or patron use? Or is the library simply requiring that the ILS accept standard SIP2 'Fee Paid' messages from third-party payment portals (such as Bibliofines) that handle the PayPal transaction externally? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 13 on the Integration tab states “The system supports a wide range of connections to external systems, including, but not limited to…” Bibliofines, PayPal' and several digital content platforms (Overdrive, Hoopla, Kanopy) are grouped under SIP2. While we fully support standard SIP2 integrations, payment gateways and digital resource platforms increasingly utilize REST APIs rather than SIP2 for authentication and account updates. Could the library confirm if standard API integrations are acceptable for these specific platforms, or if SIP2 is strictly mandated for all listed vendors? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 13 on the Integration tab states “The system supports a wide range of connections to external systems, including, but not limited to…” To ensure full compatibility with your Acquisitions workflows, could the library please list the primary material vendors (e.g., Ingram, Baker & Taylor, Midwest Tape) with whom you currently exchange EDIFACT orders and invoices? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 18 on the Integration tab states “System has the ability to check in or check out a full cart of physical items in one click.” Could the library please clarify if this refers to an integration with specific RFID hardware (e.g., an RFID smart cart or scanning tunnel that reads multiple tags simultaneously)? Alternatively, does this refer to an Acquisitions/EDI integration for bulk-receiving newly purchased items from a vendor? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Could the library please clarify the reference to 'ReShare' in the Resource Sharing requirement? Given that Prospector is migrating specifically to OpenRS (which is now a separate software platform from Project ReShare), are we expected to detail our integration experience with both systems, or just OpenRS? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Regarding the requirement for integration with third-party content aggregation providers (Overdrive, Hoopla, Kanopy, etc.): Could the library please clarify the expected depth of this integration within the core ILS? Specifically, is the expectation that the ILS natively supports automated, API-driven syncing of bibliographic records and real-time availability? Or, does the library simply require the ILS to support standard MARC record batch imports for these vendors, with the understanding that real-time availability and e-content checkouts will be handled by the Discovery Layer (e.g., BiblioWeb) via API? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 4 of the System tab states “Describe the database architecture in use.” In modern, cloud-hosted SaaS platforms, direct backend access to the live production database is typically restricted to maintain strict data security and transactional stability. Could the library please clarify if this requirement is intended for IT compliance evaluation (e.g., assessing data encryption, tenant isolation, and hosting infrastructure), or if the library is evaluating data accessibility for custom reporting and third-party BI tools? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 10 of the System tab states “System provides a data scheme.” Could the library please clarify what is meant by 'data scheme'? Are you requesting documentation for the system's database schema / data dictionary, or are you asking about the bibliographic metadata standards supported by the system? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 14 on the System tab states “System supports both database read and write capabilities through SQL or API. Describe the methods available to read and write to the underlying tables within your system." To ensure data integrity and enforce business logic, modern cloud platforms strictly handle all database write operations through the API layer rather than direct SQL injection. Could the library please confirm that utilizing open REST APIs for all write operations, and utilizing a read-only database replica for SQL read operations, is the preferred and acceptable architecture for this requirement? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 18 on the System tab states “The system provides fine control of customer privacy, to support changing legislative, professional, and organizational mandates.” Could the library please define what constitutes 'fine control' of privacy in this context? Specifically, are you looking for system-wide data minimization and anonymization features, or granular, patron-level privacy settings that allow users to manage their own opt-in/opt-out preferences for data collection? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 19 on the System tab states “The vendor is able to provide or support hosting in a Tier 3 data center.” Could the library please clarify if enterprise cloud hosting environments (such as AWS or Azure) that offer geographic redundancy and high availability—but may not hold a specific commercial Uptime Institute facility certification—are considered compliant with this requirement? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 27 on the System tab states “The system includes a test/recovery server with daily record synchronization and immediate failover capability.” To ensure we provide the correct technical specifications, could the library please clarify if you are requiring two separate environments: (1) a dedicated non-production 'sandbox' environment for staff training and testing, and (2) a high-availability disaster recovery framework for the production environment? Additionally, could you confirm if continuous/real-time database replication is preferred over daily record synchronization to prevent data loss during a failover? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 29 on the System tab states “Please describe any global settings that apply at a system wide level. E.g., allowing multiple items to be checked out on a bibliographic record.” Because a modern ILS contains hundreds of system-wide configurations across all modules (e.g., security policies, default currencies, patron privacy retention, and circulation rule hierarchies), a comprehensive list would be overly extensive. Could the library please clarify if you are specifically interested in global circulation constraints (such as your example of title-level checkout limits), or are you looking for a broader overview of how the system handles multi-branch governance and which settings can be controlled locally versus globally? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Requirement 34 on the System tab states “FAQ: HB21-1110 Colorado Laws For Persons With Disabilities | Office of Information Technology” Could the library please clarify what information or documentation vendors should submit to satisfy this requirement? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | To ensure we provide the Library with the most comprehensive and accurately scoped proposal, we respectfully request a two-week extension to the final submission deadline, moving it from July 30 to August 13. Given the volume of technical clarifications required during this Q&A phase, this extension will allow our engineering and solutions teams sufficient time to thoroughly incorporate the Library’s forthcoming answers and deliver a high-quality response that truly aligns with your goals. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Several requirements within the RFP outline highly specific legacy architectural models (e.g., direct SQL writes and singular physical recovery servers). Will the evaluation committee assign equal scoring weight to proposals that utilize modern, cloud-native architectures (e.g., API-driven microservices and continuous multi-zone cloud replication) provided they meet or exceed the operational, security, and performance intent of the stated requirements? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Certain integration and workflow requirements appear tailored to specific proprietary third-party platforms. Will the Library accept and equally evaluate alternative functional workflows that achieve the same end-user outcomes and administrative efficiencies, even if the underlying software mechanics differ from the examples provided? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Will Douglas County Library extend the deadline for proposal submissions by 2 weeks, allowing for proposers to more completely address RFP requests? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Would Douglas County Libraries consider providing a 1 week extension on the bid due date? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | In the RFP on page 6 under Scope of Work, A. Functional Requirements, it notes that there is a section about Digital Asset Management for information gathering purposes, however we do not see any questions on this topic in Attachment A. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Acquisitions 14 - describe the kind of validation rules anticipated by this question | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Integration 6 - please describe how customer Point currently connects to your ILS. | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Integration 17 - Which automated materials handling system is current used by the Library? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Reports 9 - What historic data does the Library want to migrate to the new ILS? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | Do these questions relate to holds between branches as well as ILLs with outside libraries? Some mix? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | These questions are similar. How are the records set used in each of these questions? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | How should we respond to this requirement? Is it a reference for Requirement 35? | Answered in Addendum 2 | | This question refers to technical standards, including W3C WCAG 2.1 conformance levels A and AA for digital content and ICT with closed functionality, and Chapter 4 of the ICT Standards and Guidelines under Section 508 for hardware. Does the Library have any specific requirements or expectations of vendors in addition to those described in 8 CCR 1501-11 (Technology Accessibility Rules)? | Answered in Addendum 2 | **Addendums**: | Addendum | Date | Note | |---|---|---| | Addendum No. 1 | 07/06/2026 11:19 AM EDT | | | Addendum No. 2 | 07/17/2026 03:59 PM EDT | | | Addendum No. 3 | 07/17/2026 04:00 PM EDT | |
SLED stands for State, Local, and Education. These are solicitations issued by state governments, counties, cities, school districts, utilities, and higher education institutions — as opposed to federal agencies.
SamSearch Platform
AI-powered intelligence for the right opportunities, the right leads, and the right time.