RCUH RFP No. CS2024-1, Response to Offeror Questions Received October 7-15, 2024

RCUH received multiple questions about RCUH RFP No. CS2024-1, “Design and Development of RCUH Website.” Below are RCUH’s responses.

Q: In Section 2.5-1, is RCUH referring to a commercial CMS product, a custom CMS, or an open-source CMS? Should we include a scope for CMS training in this proposal?

A: In terms of a CMS, RCUH is not restricting it to a certain type of CMS, however it should be user-friendly for staff to update and maintain. In terms of CMS training, a scope would be helpful, but not mandatory for the proposal. Pricing for CMS training should be included in the base proposal, per 3.1.5 (pg. 11 – see second bullet under Base Proposal).

Q: What specific SEO goals does RCUH want to achieve? For instance, improved rankings, increased traffic, higher conversion rates, etc.

A: In terms of SEO goals mentioned in Section 2.6, RCUH would like to:

  • Improve page loading speed
  • Increase organic traffic, engagement
  • Lower bounce rate

Q: Could the choice of CMS be a factor in reducing administrative overhead during the modernization process?

A: Yes, that could be a factor in your proposal.

Q: What specific requirements or guidelines does RCUH have in mind for ensuring that all images on the new site have appropriate alternative text to meet WCAG compliance?

A: Per Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, websites should provide text alternatives for any non-text content, such as images, and if non-text content is pure decoration, is used only for visual formatting, or is not presented to users, then it is implemented in a way that it can be ignored by assistive technology. RCUH would like to ensure all images have alternative text to be compliant with these guidelines and will discuss this process with the selected Offerer. RCUH will provide a collection of images with descriptions that the selected Offeror may choose from for the updated webpage.

Q: In the Document Library, permalinks should remain the same even when documents are updated or replaced. If we move forward with modernization, we should structure slugs and breadcrumbs on the page for improved navigation. Will these changes be acceptable for modification?

A: Yes.  We encourage other suggestions Offerers may have to improve navigation on the RCUH website.

Q: RCUH having defined routes at https://www.rcuh.com/news/ does not effectively represent information to the end user compared to https://www.rcuh.com/about. Should we address this issue?

Yes.