A(1): No, it is not.  Funding is coming from the Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation (MLAC).

A(2):  Proposals in the range of $50,000 to $75,000 are preferred, although there may be some flexibility if additional funding is necessary to accomplish the project goal, objectives and deliverables.

A(3):  Yes.

A(4). The former – some kind of interactive prototype in a product like Figma or Invision which includes key pages and content types. We want users to be able to interact with these pages so that the usability testing leads to meaningful results, but we are not expecting that the prototype will be a fully programmed website.

A(5): The selected vendor should be prepared to handle all aspects of the user testing, including recruitment, incentive payments to the testers, and the testing itself.  The MLH team will share leads and contacts for potential testers, to the extent that we have these available.

A(6): At this time, we are only accepting proposals from U.S. based vendors.

A(7): Key factors that we will use in evaluating proposals include, but are not limited to, how closely the proposal aligns with the goal, objectives and deliverables set forth in the RFP. We will also consider the proposed cost, and the qualifications and past performance in similar projects of the vendor and its staff, as well as the qualifications and past performance of any subcontractors that the vendor is including in the proposal.

A(8): At this time we are seeking proposals that include the Research and Discovery, Design and User Testing components described in the RFP.  Implementation of the designs is not part of the current RFP.

A(9): We don’t have a specific preference for Massachusetts based vendors so long as the user testing that is part of the deliverables can be accomplished appropriately.

A(10): We would like the designs provided to work well for Drupal.  If you are recommending an alternative platform and are proposing to deliver designs that suit this alternative platform instead of Drupal, this should be made clear in the RFP response.

A(11): We do have a manager overseeing the website, but several other people are responsible for updating the substantive content as well.  The specific process is subject to revision, depending upon how the new site is structured.

A(12): We are anticipating that the substantive content on the site may need to be restructured /reformatted based on the proposed designs.  Implementation of this is not in the scope of the current RFP, it would happen at a later phase. 

A(13): We can share google analytics data from the current site.

A(14): We have a team of 4 who are overseeing this phase of the project for purposes of reviews and approvals.  We also plan to convene an advisory committee of additional stakeholders who will be a resource, particularly for this research and user testing phase. 

A(15): Yes, but we are also expecting that the vendor will do some user testing on these sites as well.

A(16): The website is staffed very leanly — there is a full time manager (position is currently vacant, but should be filled shortly) and a part time Director of the project as a whole.  We also have some part time editors, which is also in flux. Therefore, the stakeholders contemplated here include the external stakeholders — users, community groups, legal aid programs, funders, etc.

A(17): You can include that line-item option. It is not required so long as the website designs implement UI/UX best practices, including but not limited to use of WCAG 2.1 guidelines, ideally Level AAA (level AA as a minimum.  

A(18): We anticipated that revamping the IA would be needed as part of this project (see Core objective 1), and would look to the vendor to guide that process.  We would like user testing to inform the process as a whole, including testing the IA as needed.  We would prefer that all work be completed by March 10, but if you think that the deadline would need to be pushed out to accomplish the project objectives properly, then please provide the time frame and end date that you think is necessary.

A(19): If you have specific milestones for payment that you would like to use, you can include them in your response. 

A(20): Substantive legal information is the heart of MLH.  We are open to recommendations from the vendor as to how we should organize and present these topics.

A(21): The sites do link to each other in various ways.  A key link is an easy way for MassLegalHelp users to get to the Legal Resource Finder if they want referrals for legal representation.  

A(22): We welcome suggestions from the selected vendor as to how to structure these communications. 

A(23): We are open to recommendations, but would anticipate that it would include a mix of both qualitative and quantitative. The request for proposals also calls for user testing of comparable websites as part of the research and discovery phase and with users once the prototype is created.  See page 3.