CITY OF SURREY
PURCHASING SECTION
6645 – 148 Street, Surrey, B.C. V3S 3C7
Tel: 604-590-7274 Fax: 604-599-0956
E-Mail: purchasing@surrey.ca
ADDENDUM #4
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) No.: 1220-30-05-09
TITLE: InfoShare Implementation
ADDENDUM ISSUE DATE: March 20, 2009
Revised CLOSING DATE: March 27, 2009 – 3:00 p.m.
Information for Proponents
The following information is provided in answer to questions raised by potential Proponents prior to the deadline for questions.
This addendum #4 contains 2 pages in total.
Question # 1: We commend the City's overall goal of meeting the MoReq2 specification. To meet this specification calls for a
significant degree of enterprise transformation. Would you be able to release the budget figures for the enterprise transformation
effort that would go along with this software acquisition? To what degree are you expecting the Proponent to participate in the
change management and adoption effort?
Answer: Sorry, we are not able to release the budget figures for the enterprise transformation effort that would go along
with this software acquisition. We are not expecting the Proponents to participate in the change management and
adoption effort of InfoShare. We have internal project resources that are assigned to this effort.
Question # 2: In the MoReq2 specification under section 3.1.4: File classification must: “Support for at least five levels is the
minimum requirement; more levels will be needed in many environments”. Is this classification scheme now in place at City of
Surrey? If so, can this information be made available to judge the granularity of the levels. The current City's By-laws shows up
to two levels only.
Answer: Please refer to the Schedule A.1 InfoShare Executive Summary for an example of the current classification
scheme. Also, look at Schedule A.4 InfoShare (MoReq2) Detailed Requirements page 178 item 11.2.6 which details the
anticipated levels in the hierarchy. Also, please look at Addendum #3 – Proponents Demonstration Instructions for an
additional example of the current classification scheme.
Question # 3: One of the overall goals is to provide "Automating record classification and lifecycle management". Does this
mean the solution requires an auto-classification/categorization scheme as a standard feature?
Answer: In terms of record classification, the City expects that the file plan can be applied to each document as metadata
by the users, and that the file plan hierarchy can be viewed. Automation would include features like (but not limited to)
group favourites or default settings. We are not expecting auto-classification but it is not prohibited either. In terms of
lifecycle management, the City expects that the product will enable audited record disposal and other aspects of
electronic records management (for example, expediting file validation or normalization to preservation formats, such as
[but not limited to] TIFF, PDF or PDF/A).
Question # 4: In the MoReq2 specification under section 11.5.1 a reference is made: "CSVG72.34 Electronic Records as
documentary evidence". Do you mean CAN/CGSB 72.34-2005 - Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence would not apply
as a standard?
Answer: This is a typo and should say “Reference: CAN/CGSB 72.34-2005 - Electronic Records as Documentary
Evidence.”
Page 1 of 2
Question 5: The City has expressed under question #9: Federated Search is desirable. Can you list the number of applications
where an API may be required to meet this search criteria?
Answer: Please refer to Schedule A.1 InfoShare Executive Summary page 15. “The City, ideally, is seeking a means for
‘Federated Search’ so that, for example, the contents of existing shared drives can be indexed and included in InfoShare’s
search facility.”
Question #6: Our chosen solution does not meet 100% of the mandatory MOREQ2 requirements. In doing our due diligence
around these requirements, we have found that there may be some issues with their use which has lead to problematic
implementations. These issues appear to be due to contradictory requirements within MOREQ2.
Because of these problems, our solution has not fully embraced these European requirements. Despite this, our solution provides
a robust set of features that are used by a number of cities across North America. We think that it is capable of meeting your
requirements now and into the future despite limited MOREQ2 compliance.
Unfortunately, it appears that only a small number of our solutions will meet 100% of the mandatory requirements. Is it your
intention to limit your selection to just those few vendors? Are you willing to consider a solution that meets a portion of those
mandatory requirements and has demonstrated that it can meet the needs of a growing North American city? Is the City willing
to consider our solution despite not meeting 100% of the mandatory MOREQ2 requirements?
Answer:
The City is making every effort to keep avenues open to all Proponents by providing flexible options for Proponents when
responding to requirements.
As per Schedule A.1 InfoShare Executive Summary “Proponents must meet all (100%) of the mandatory functional and
technical requirements (as detailed in Schedule A.4 InfoShare (MoReq2) Detailed Requirements) preferably as an ‘off-theshelf’ solution without significant customization. Proponents may include third party products in order to meet the
City’s mandatory requirements. Any third party add-ons included to be clearly labelled and list any additional costs
associated with the initial purchase and ongoing maintenance.”
Also, in Schedule C InfoShare Proponents Response Form (see example on page 9) we are asking Proponents to respond
about how they meet the requirements by specifying:
1) Standard feature of this software;
2) Added with a component from a third party (3 rd Party Company Name), or
3) Will require development.
Customizations are not prohibited in order to meet mandatory requirements.
All Addenda will become a part of the Contract Documents.
Page 2 of 2