ACQNET v2n094 (October 5, 1992) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v2n094 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 94, October 5, 1992 ======================================= (1) FROM: Christian Boissonnas SUBJECT: Who's new on ACQNET today (8 lines) (2) FROM: Barbara Winters SUBJECT: Bidding (80 lines) (3) FROM: Stephen Clark SUBJECT: Bidding (33 lines) (4) FROM: Richard Jasper SUBJECT: Faxon's serials control system (13 lines) (5) FROM: Richard Jasper SUBJECT: Automated systems migrations (24 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: October 5, 1992 From: Christian Subject: Who's new on ACQNET today Lane Kanost Monographs Acquisitions Librarian University of North Texas Library E-mail: LANE@UNTVAX.BITNET (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 02 Oct 1992 09:36:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Barbara Winters (Wright State University) Subject: Bidding I have heard my name mentioned on ACQNET a couple of times in regard to "bidding" and decided it might be time for me to jump into this discussion. I have made a couple of presentations -- one co-presented with Stephen Clark of William and Mary -- on this topic. Both presentations were published in _LIBRARY ACQUISITIONS: PRACTICE & THEORY_. (One of the two contains a decent survey of the literature; Heather Miller has already listed the seminal articles. My survey mentions some others. I usually recommend the practice of reviewing the literature to anyone who is presented with a new project or challenge -- I recommend it highly in this case.) I have come out in favor of competitive procurement -- NOT to be confused with "bidding." Bidding usually implies an abdication of delegated purchasing authority. Competitive procurement does not. (More about this in the book that Arnold Hirshon and I REALLY ARE writing on the topic.) In my June 1990 presentation to the ALCTS Acquisitions Librarians/Vendor of Library Materials Discussion Group I pointed out that, whereas the process of competitive procurement has historically been a source of frustration for acquisitions librarians, the process CAN be desirable. My caveat is that you must PLAN for the process, and take control of it. Part of the discussion below is taken from my _LAPT_ article (v.15, 1991, pp. 231-235), with permission. No longer are purchasing agents willing to look at the sizable library budgets spent for materials without requiring that purchases from these budgets be made according to the rules and regulations of competitive procurement. Nor should they be. Acquisitions librarians can procure materials competitively without any loss of "professionalism." In fact, they can perform the process in such a way that it enhances professionalism. Joe Barker and I are fond are saying that acquisitions is emerging as a subprofession (I think he said it first; he thinks I said it first) and that the acquisitions librarian can and should manage by policy. Responsible competitive procurement SHOULD be part of the policy that acquisitions librarians set within their libraries -- whether internal or external constraints are in place to enforce this or not. The two most significant advantages to competitive procurement are an ability to demonstrate to outside auditors that there is no favoritism in the process and the chance to negotiate a better discount than you might otherwise get. Christian discussed the latter in detail in an article he wrote for _AGAINST THE GRAIN_ (2:4, September 1990): In discussing the quotes presented by the winning vendors in the Cornell bid process, he points out that "had we had these quotes in 1988/89, when we spent $410,000 for about 11,700 U.S. firm-ordered monographs, we would have been able to purchase an additional 700 titles, or 6% more, on the same money." Suzanne Freeman mentioned that past vendor performance can count during the ranking of vendors. She's right; it can. But, I have to ask if that is not as it should be. If I have had trouble with adequate vendor performance over time, why should I want to enter a more-rigid contractual relationship with the same vendor who could not perform in a less-rigid (non-contractual) relationship? For that matter, I have to wonder why it was the competitive procurement process that caused me to take action against that vendor. There CAN be problems with implementation and monitoring. To borrow a concept from one of my favorite movies of the summer (_A League of their Own_), we're not acquisitions librarians because it's easy; if it were easy, ANYBODY could do it. We're acquisitions professionals because we can take challenges and turn them into opportunities to make us better. When confronted with something new, we librarians often react with what I have come to recognize as caution. (An outsider might think that we were reacting out of fear or defensiveness.) I think we need to balance caution with a sense of adventure. (This, by the way, can apply to the ALCTS reorganization discussion as well as the bidding discussion, or any of the other new challenges we might face.) If bidding presents itself, don't react; take charge of the process! (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 10:54:35 EDT From: Stephen D. Clark (William and Mary) Subject: Bidding As a response and supplement to Steve Murden's comment on bidding in Virginia, one of the most difficult things about this process is that there is a tremendous amount of variance within this state as to how this madness is performed and followed through. There are guidelines by which each purchasing officer at each institution can, and does, interpret however he/she desires (this is where the madness comes in). It is very difficult to establish a good support group of acquisitions librarians throughout the state to deal with the procurement process since there are different and often infuriating ways that the process of sending out the requests for proposal, negotiating with a vendor, and carrying out the elements of each contract are handled. Several of us have called each other to see how some aspect of the process is being dealt with at our respective institutions. We can share experiences, but cannot say how something *should* be done since it is all up to the local purchasing agent to decide that. An example of this is that length of contracts is not decided by the state, as Steve alluded to -- our contracts are for 3 yrs., with 2 renewable one year periods. We, at the College of William and Mary, are beginning our request-for-proposal process all over again this year. Rather than send out all four (domestic in-print monographs, approvals, continuations, and periodicals) next year, we have decided to stagger them with one (plus binding) this year, and three the next. The process has its pluses and minuses, like everything else in this world, but the worst of it is the time-consuming nature of sending out the RFPs and settling the contracts. All you vendors, get ready. For the next couple of years, the Commonwealth of Virginia will, again, be demanding a great deal of time and effort from you as we go through another round of this. (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 17:53:43 EDT From: Richard Jasper (Emory University) LIBRPJ@EMUVM1.BITNET Subject: Faxon systems This question might be more appropriately addressed to SERIALST, but I don't read that publication: I'd be interested in hearing from users of Faxon's SC-10 serials control system regarding whether they are planning to make the transition to Faxon Manager, SC-10's successor, or whether they are planning to go with something else. Please reply to me at LIBRPJ@EMUVM1 or by phone at (404) 727-0122; I'm on Eastern time. (5) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 17:59:43 EDT From: Richard Jasper (Emory University) Subject: Systems Migrations I would be very interested in hearing from libraries who are planning or contemplating in the next 1-2 years moving from one integrated library system to a new ILS. At Emory, we have been using the DOBIS/LIBIS integrated library system, originally marketed in North America by IBM, since 1987. A library systems review task force has been at work for a while now trying to identify a successor to DOBIS. We've narrowed the field considerably and I'm hoping we'll have made a decision (it's not mine to make) within a few weeks. I've heard of people moving from a variety of stand-alone components to a new integrated library system, but I'm not sure I know of anyone like us, i.e., moving from a DOBIS (or a NOTIS, Innopac, VTLS, Dynix etc.) to something new. If you ARE in a similar position, I'd love to hear from. I can be reached at (404) 727-0122 (phone/Eastern time) or at LIBRPJ@EMUVM1. For that matter, if you are NOT in a similar position, but you're undergoing a major change in automation (or you've decided to forego something like I've described above), I'd still love to hear from you. ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 94 ****** END OF FILE *******