Attendance: over 50 people, representing about 25 university and college libraries, 4 community colleges, 6 individual public libraries, several consortia of public and community college libraries, and the Washington and Oregon State libraries. List of attendees

For more complete description of Helmer's discussion and Orbis' preliminary proposal,
links are provided to the handout distributed at the April 21 meeting.

Chmelir explained that Orbis is a consortium of 14 academic libraries with a union catalog and patron-initiated borrowing service; materials are delivered by courier service, and so Orbis has a vested interest in the courier service in Oregon and Washington. Chmelir observed that due to what seemed like some instability in the present service, Orbis realized the need to take some interest in the process. Orbis member libraries also rely on the courier service for InterLibrary Loan with many other libraries. Orbis decided, therefore, to try to develop a proposal serving all the libraries that are participants in regional resource sharing. Chmelir indicated that Orbis is here to share ideas and hear from the other libraries.

Helmer provided an overview of how we reached this point, the motivation for reviewing the existing courier service.

Nancy Nathanson reviewed results of the Courier service questionnaire distributed to drop-sites in April 1998. (Due to the sensitivity of preparing and issuing a Request for Proposal, and legal and administrative issues of fairness to potential bidders, results are not being published.)

Helmer described the aims of a courier service and suggested an approach for determining how a service would be administered: Contract administration and fiscal agent duties and Oversight.

• Did we note patterns of responses, based on different types of libraries? A: probably, may be related not only to type, but whether the drop-site provides service for their own library only, or other libraries as well - and the types of libraries in the group
.
• Have we compared Pony Express [Crose] costs to USPS or other providers? A: described recent Crose comparison, Orbis has not had time for more detailed comparison or a more formal methodology
• Price formula? Washington: All pay the same amount (flat fee), depending on the number of delivery days. Each site negotiates with Crose? One library that joined the program later in the year pays a different rate from other libraries. Oregon: flat fee.
• What are the options other than PE? A: RPS, Fed EX, UPS; there may be others out there, such as TriCor in California.
• Are huge price increases a result of Orbis Borrowing? A: yes, partially; also packaging problems, management changes in Oregon
• Did Crose say why he hadn’t negotiated this with PE prior to last contract period? A: No, we don't know details.

Helmer posed the question: Looking at all the information, and thinking about what the goals and approaches might be: How might we manage this in the future? Explaining that the proposal described was Orbis' thinking at this time, he invited the group to discuss the ideas presented today.

Helmer discussed ideas about contract management, and monitoring service with user oversight.

Comments and questions

• Possible to develop an RFP process and have a new contractor by beginning of fiscal year? A: yes, time is tight but we believe we can do it.
• We really need to be together on this; we build expectations in the communities that our libraries serve … vendors will pull this if they are dealing with us individually; seems a reasonable way to proceed
• Would Orbis build in an overhead fee to do role as contract administrator? A: yes, admin. fee, perhaps materials as well – there is now presumably a built-in administrative fee that we don't know the amount, but with this proposal it would be fully disclosed. Observed that Washington has a master contract for shipping services, perhaps for individual parcels point-to-point.
• Orbis, given that you have an developed idea described in this document: What do you want, and from whom? e.g. Endorsement? OLA Resource Sharing committee comment? A: We need to have a sense of whether the library community wants Orbis to proceed.
• What’s the date when would you be asking for a buy-in ? A: Sometime in June. We will need to present to vendor a general scope (# of participating libraries)
• OSU is open with its lending, lots of volume. Lincoln County: small volume, subsidizing service. We are already paying for two couriers. Separate issues: how courier measures volume, how we would like costs to be apportioned. A: perhaps like electronic resources: vendor states the price, but then the group applies its own cost sharing formula.
• Small libraries - might not be financially feasible to continue, might choose USPS, if delivery time doesn’t matter. Doesn’t mean they won’t share resources, they’ll just do it differently.
• Cost estimations, examine how pricing will affect different libraries; look at incoming instead of outgoing. Willing to look at formula, base fee + incoming volume.
• Let’s express to Orbis that we’re interested in their doing this; they have a "realistic, thoughtful assessment of the situation and outline of what they want to accomplish."
• Difficult to have a short time line to reinvent this whole thing.

Contract administration

Helmer reviewed ideas concerning the role(s) that Orbis could serve as a contract administrator and fiscal agent, through setting up a group as a type of membership organization. Drop-sites would have a membership agreement with the contract administrator (Orbis). Individual drop-sites would continue to have independent relationships with forwarding locations. A significant difference is the proposed single contract with a vendor, instead of present model: individual contracts between contractor and each individual library. Orbis would issue an RFP, negotiate a contract, and continue to oversee service and collect information. Drop-sites would deal directly with vendor on service issues. No need for Orbis to play intermediary role. With regard to price and billing, or redistributing costs as necessary: we don’t know the answer to those questions yet .There would likely be an annual membership fee to defray administrative costs. Provide clarity and annual budget report: what the courier costs, what the administration costs. Oversight group would need some support; Orbis is willing to extend that as well, convening meetings as necessary. It seems that libraries don't want to have an additional burdensome responsibility, but do want to maintain ability to influence the contract when needed. Orbis would distribute news and summary information periodically, host an email listserv, maintain web site with standard information, etc., report data on service concerns, and monitor the service.

Helmer discussed the proposed Oversight Group.

Comments and questions

• For developing the RFP and contract: Would it be one vote per drop-site, or simply advising Orbis? A: Not enough time for a full process; for this year, will take into account all the comments received and proceed.
• Orbis asks that libraries trust us to do the best we can given the timeline.
• Task force to develop RFP? A: Not this time, given short timeline, but we’ll certainly put out information on email and encourage continued discussion.
• If we indeed terminate the Crose contract, libraries need clarity about how and when that happens. A: There may still be some Crose involvement, or perhaps not; please don’t sign any long-term agreements.
• Will Orbis bill forwarding sites? A: No, drop-sites only
• Turnaround time is critical for us (OHSU). Tiered service delivery? A: RFP will have options, ask bidders to address turnaround time and costs.
• We may hear some skepticism about Orbis as contract administrator. Part of the crisis is Orbis volume. That said, it appears that no one has a better idea. Concerned to discover how current service has been working. Orbis needs to be pretty forthcoming with the data (Orbis volume, etc.); we don’t want to subsidize an Orbis volume problem. A: Absolutely. The point is not to subsidize Orbis but to preserve and improve courier service; Orbis is committed to an open process.
• Bid from Crose and PE only? A: no, we are seeking information about potential vendors as well as RFP's and oversight groups. Will you get a bid from RMX? A: Remember, fairness – process can be called into question if you discuss the issues with potential vendors.
• A number of Washington libraries have dropped out over time; if you announce this, some libraries may join in again and group might grow. Do you want us to drum up additional business right now? A: we don’t necessarily need more business! Nevertheless, feel free to share the information. We should try to get more participants but, for now, the emphasis is on continued service to present participants.
• What suggestions do you want? A: comments on pricing structure would be the most useful.
• Volume based on outgoing vs. incoming is the same. Totally by volume seems wrong. If we penalize a larger library for sending us a lot of stuff, there’s no incentive for them to be generous. We should expect smaller libraries to bear some of that cost.
• Oversight group: pull it together immediately to help with RFP? A: because of timeline, we have to get your input over the next few days then take our best shot at it.
• Redistributing costs does not depend on the RFP. Net cost doesn’t need to be resolved before vendor is selected to move materials around.
• Are you looking for formal authorization to begin this process, or assuming you have it when you leave the room? A: Unless you tell us otherwise, we will assume we are authorized and then ask whether you are buying in later.

Helmer: Thank you. Please share this information with your institutions and forwarding locations. Stay in touch and be sure to tell us what you think.