Website Template Review

Document Sample
Website Template Review Powered By Docstoc
					                                Request for Information (RFI)

                                                    For

         Review of States Unemployment Insurance Websites and
              Recommendations for Improvement Including
        Development of a Standardized Portable Website Template

   National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA)
Center for Employment Security Education and Research (CESER)
          Information Technology Support Center (ITSC)

                                              Circulation Date:
                                               June 10, 2010

                                       Proposal Submission Date:
                                             July 16, 2010

Project Description

NASWA and CESER’s ITSC is seeking to procure contract services of an experienced website
design firm to conduct a comprehensive review of all of the states, Unemployment Insurance
(UI) Claimant and Employer Tax websites. This review should include an analysis of the states
re-employment services and linkages to UI claimant information. After a review and analysis of
state websites, the contractor will design and develop standards for web presentation [style], end-
user usage, and web page navigation. In addition to making these recommendations for
improvements, the contractor will develop prototype software for distribution and integration
into the state workforce agencies web presence. The prototype software will include suggested
and agreed to standard UI Benefits and Employer Tax website content.

Project Background

The United States Department of Labor (USDOL), Office of Unemployment Insurance (OUI)
staff recently reviewed several state websites supporting the UI program and has concluded that
many of these websites have not been designed to meet customer (claimants and employers)
expectations for increasingly automated functions and access to online self-services. Some state
websites are difficult to navigate, have a poor presentation of information, and instructions
provided to claimants and employers are hard to understand. Furthermore, information is
presented differently in each state even though many UI processes and methodologies are the
same.

Organization Background
CESER/Information Technology Support Center          P a g e |1                          July 2, 2010
UI Website Review RFI Version 1.1
                    RFI - Review of States Unemployment Insurance Websites



NASWA is an organization of state administrators of unemployment insurance laws,
employment services, training programs, employment statistics, labor market information and
other programs and services provided through the publicly funded state workforce system. The
mission of NASWA is to serve as an advocate for state workforce agencies as a liaison to
workforce system partners, and a forum for the exchange of information. NASWA was founded
in 1937. Since 1973, it has been a private, non-profit corporation, financed by annual dues from
our member agencies and other revenue.

CESER is an education and research center focused on workforce development and
unemployment insurance issues, http://naswa.org/. ITSC is an organization within CESER
established in 1994 as a national resource by the USDOL to assist all state UI agencies in the
area of UI Information Technology (IT), http://itsc.org/.

Overview – Unemployment Insurance

The Office of Unemployment Insurance (OUI), Employment and Training Administration
(ETA), U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) is responsible for:

       Providing leadership, direction and assistance to state workforce agencies in the
        implementation and administration of state unemployment insurance (UI) programs.
       Providing oversight, guidance, and technical assistance for the federal-state
        unemployment compensation system.
       Providing budget and legislative support to state workforce agencies to administer their
        UI programs and assist individuals to return quickly to suitable work.

Federal-State Unemployment Insurance Program

In general, the Federal-State UI Program provides unemployment benefits to eligible workers
who are unemployed through no fault of their own (as determined under State law), and meet
other eligibility requirements of State law. UI is jointly financed through federal and state
employer payroll taxes (federal/state UI tax). Usually employers must pay both state and federal
unemployment taxes if (1) they pay wages to employees totaling $1,500, or more, in any quarter
of a calendar year; or, (2) they had at least one employee during any day of a week during 20
weeks in a calendar year, regardless of whether or not the weeks were consecutive. The state
unemployment tax, paid to state workforce agencies by employers, is used solely for the payment
of benefits to eligible unemployed workers. It should be noted that some state laws do differ
from the federal law.

       UI payments (benefits) are intended to provide temporary and partial wage replacement
        to unemployed workers who meet the requirements of State law.
       Each State administers a separate UI program within guidelines established by Federal
        law.
       Eligibility for UI, benefit amounts and the length of time benefits are available are
        determined by the State law under which unemployment insurance claims are established.
CESER/Information Technology Support Center     P a g e |2                               July 2, 2010
UI Website Review RFI Version 1.2
                    RFI - Review of States Unemployment Insurance Websites


       In the majority of States, benefit funding is based solely on a tax imposed on employers.
        (Three (3) States require minimal employee contributions.)

Eligibility

Individuals must meet the State requirements for wages earned or time worked during an
established period of time referred to as a "base period". (In most States, this is usually the first
four out of the last five completed calendar quarters prior to the time that the claim is filed.)

Individuals must be determined to be unemployed through no fault of their own (determined
under State law), and meet other eligibility requirements of State law.

Filing a Claim

Individuals can contact their respective State UI Agency as soon as possible after becoming
unemployed to begin the claim filing process. Generally, a claim may be filed by telephone or
over the Internet. Individuals can obtain assistance filing claims in local career one-stop centers.

Benefits

In general, benefits are based on a percentage of an individual's earnings over a recent 52-week
period up to a State maximum amount.

       Benefits can be paid for a maximum of 26 weeks in most States.
       Additional weeks of benefits may be available during times of high unemployment.
       Some States provide additional benefits for specific purposes.

General and Desired Project Goals

The goal of this UI website review, analysis and design project is to provide simple clear
consistent access of online services to UI Claimants and Employers.

The website prototype should provide easy access to services, be adaptable to changing
technologies, and be able to integrate into each states unique overall website design and
structure. The website prototype should meet the following criteria:

       Visually appealing with an adequate balance of text and graphics where appropriate.
       Enhance the delivery and awareness of online services.
       Present a common theme and consistent design.
       Provide an easy to use interface to information for UI claimants and employers.
       Provide a single point of access that presents UI program information and web
        applications such as Internet initial and continued claims.
       Provide links to other related applications and topic areas such as re-employment
        information and opportunities and Labor Market Information.

CESER/Information Technology Support Center       P a g e |3                                 July 2, 2010
UI Website Review RFI Version 1.2
                    RFI - Review of States Unemployment Insurance Websites


       Meet ADA Accessibility of State and Local Government Websites to People with
        Disabilities http://www.ada.gov/websites2_prnt.pdf

Note: We are interested in your ideas and specifically your approach to achieving the desired
project goals and objectives outlined in this proposal. We encourage respondents to consider
and propose alternative solutions and recommendations.

Website Project Deliverables

The following is a list of expected contractor deliverables for the project:

       Project Plan and appropriate timeline
       Written report and analysis of individual state UI websites. Report will include:

             -   Summary analysis of all 53 State Workforce agency UI Benefits and Employer
                 Tax websites including re-employment hooks to UI claimant information with a
                 detailed analysis of 20 selected state UI websites.
             -   Highlight features which other states would benefit in replicating and also list
                 specific deficiencies and problems with current websites.
             -   Deficiencies will be categorized

       The Design and Development of Standard Criteria for usability including, at a minimum:

             -   Accessibility
             -   Homepage layout
             -   Sub pages layout
             -   Navigation
             -   Scrolling and paging
             -   Headings, titles, and labels
             -   Links
             -   Text appearance
             -   Lists
             -   Screen-based controls (buttons, etc)
             -   Graphics, images, and multimedia
             -   Content organization, such as maximum number of three ‘clicks’ to access all
                 information from UI main page.
             -   Search

       Development single point of entry prototype for distribution to state workforce agencies

             -   Prototype should be platform independent to the extent possible and use open
                 source software and components, and not be tied to any specific technology
                 implementation.


CESER/Information Technology Support Center      P a g e |4                                 July 2, 2010
UI Website Review RFI Version 1.2
                    RFI - Review of States Unemployment Insurance Websites


             -   Prototype should have the potential to integrate into current state overall website
                 architecture with minimal changes, regardless of the technology in use in that
                 state
             -    HTML/Cascading Stylesheets/JavaScript are suggested as the generic
                 technologies for implementing the prototype, but the contractor is invited to
                 suggest other alternatives

       Development of Implementation Plan for the state(s)

             -   Plan will be in the form of a ‘how to’ guide for states, including describing the
                 skills required to implement the prototype in their environment, including a point
                 by point checklist of items that must be addressed and tested.

       Implementation of prototype with two volunteer states in their TEST environment

             -   Each prototype screen developed shall contain text provided by state, ITSC or
                 USDOL.

Estimated Project Duration

The target date for completion of this project is December 31, 2010

Project Cost

Project is a fixed price deliverables based contract. The price quoted shall be all-inclusive. Final
Project deliverables, deliverables acceptance criteria and payment schedule to be negotiated with
the selected contractor upon project start.

Assumptions and Agreements

The selected contractor is not expected to be an expert in Unemployment Insurance. The states,
ITSC and USDOL staff shall provide the subject matter expertise for this project.

It is assumed that the contractor will be an expert in website design and development, including
usability.

The ITSC will provide overall project management coordination between the contractor, states
and USDOL.

It is the contractor’s responsibility to:
       Provide schedule and progress updates to the ITSC for inclusion in the overall project
          plan
       Meet all of the deliverables and dates per the agreed to plan and schedule.

Submission Information
CESER/Information Technology Support Center       P a g e |5                                July 2, 2010
UI Website Review RFI Version 1.2
                    RFI - Review of States Unemployment Insurance Websites



Proposals must be submitted to:
Joseph Vitale, Director ITSC
Information Technology Support Center/CESER
50 F Street NW Suite 5200
Washington, DC 20001

For Additional Information or Clarification

Questions and clarification on the Project Proposal should be addressed to:

        Joseph Vitale, Director ITSC
        Information Technology Support Center/CESER
        50 F Street NW Suite 5200
        Washington, DC 20001
        (202) 347-9150
        Joe.Vitale@itsc.org

Questions and clarifications on the General Contract Provisions should be addressed to:

        James Black, CFO
        NASWA/CESER
        444 N. Capitol, Suite 142
        Washington, DC 20001
        (202) 434-8028
        jblack@nswa.org

Basis for Award of Contract

The following criteria will be used to evaluate vendor proposals in the awarding of this contract:

            Overall quality of proposal including:
             - Project plan
             - Project schedule
             - Project status reports that will be provided to the ITSC PM.
             - Process for prompt notification of all rising issues and risks
            Adherence to RFI Instructions
            Company Information, including (but not limited to);
             - Size of company
             - Length of time in business
             - Experience with similar website design or evaluation projects
             - Team skill-sets
             - Resumes of project leads
             - Whether sub-contractors are proposed for use on this project
            Project Understanding and Solution, Vision
CESER/Information Technology Support Center     P a g e |6                                July 2, 2010
UI Website Review RFI Version 1.2
                    RFI - Review of States Unemployment Insurance Websites


            Functional and non-functional Deliverables
            Vendor demonstrations of past projects
            Cost Summary
             - Itemized breakdown of all direct and non indirect costs
                     FTE’s by skill set needed for the project
                     Hourly rate and the total hours by skill set

Anticipated Selection Schedule

Proposal review and evaluation July 19 through July 30, 2010

Contract award August 6, 2010

Anticipated contractor start date August 23, 2010




CESER/Information Technology Support Center     P a g e |7                   July 2, 2010
UI Website Review RFI Version 1.2
                                            RFI Review of State UI Websites Questions and Answers
#                                          Questions                                                                                Answers
      General Questions
    1 Do you require the vendor to be on any of the Federal Government's approved            No you do not have to be on the Federal Government approved contractor list. We
      contractor list.                                                                       are not a Federal agency.
    2 Are there common system that states can integrate, or are they all home-grown?         There aren't any common systems for registration on the UI Benefits and Tax
                                                                                             side, States have built their own. So there is no integration between states on this.

    3 The RFI evaluation criteria includes these items:                                      As you indicate the items will be created as a part of the project. So to evaluate
         - Quality of project status reports that will be provided to the ITSC PM            the vendor's proposal we would be looking for samples, templates, and vendor
         - Quality of process for prompt notification of all rising issues and risks         processes as outlined and included in their proposal.
         - Functional and non-functional Deliverables
      How will NASWA evaluate these items, given that they would be created as part of       The quality of the project status reports will be evaluated by examples or samples
      the project implementation (after award)?                                              of project status reports the vendor includes in the proposal that they will use if
                                                                                             awarded the project.

                                                                                             The quality of process for prompt notification of all rising issues and risks will be
                                                                                             evaluated based upon the vendors process as described in the RFP and detailed in
                                                                                             the proposal. Which they will use if awarded the project.

                                                                                             The functional and non functional deliverables will be evaluated based on the
                                                                                             vendors proposal and grasp of the tasks to be undertaken. This should be
                                                                                             evidenced in the narrative explanation by the vendor of what they envision the
                                                                                             project deliverables to be and how best they will address them.
    4 For the Project status report as a criteria for basis of award are you looking for a   Sample project status reports.
      template or example of a status report that will be included.
    5 May we submit the proposal to you electronically as an attachment, or would you        Yes you can submit it electronically. Make sure you submit it in PDF format. We will
      prefer that we send a paper copy? If so, is one copy sufficient, or would you like     acknowledge all submittals with an email that we received it
      more?
    6 Do you have a standard length of time you expect for reviews (for example of           We are not a government organization we are a not for profit. As a result we can
      mockup options and of the prototype)? In working with government agencies on           act quicker and more streamlined. We will most likely have less than 12 people
      other projects, we have found that review periods typically take a bit longer          reviewing the proposals. This is labeled an RFI also to suggest it is a less structured
      because more people are involved. Approximately how many people would be               process than a formal RFP. In addition you will note we are asking interested
      involved in reviewing the design options?                                              vendors to propose alternative ideas which may require further clarification with
                                                                                             them on our end.
                                              RFI Review of State UI Websites Questions and Answers
#                                            Questions                                                                                Answers
       Scope of Project
     7 Are the online application/registrations themselves to be included in review, or just I think it has to stop at the workflow/links leading to the applications. Going any
       the workflow/links leading to them?                                                      further other than maybe suggested best practices from a website design and ease
                                                                                                of use perspective would probably be tough to do. Unless you as a potential
                                                                                                vendor have some ideas. But admittedly it would be difficult because of the
                                                                                                application development process that went into the original development of the
                                                                                                state application or registration system. Maybe that can be included as an extra if it
                                                                                                will significantly drive up the cost.
     8 Would the web applications different states provide to file a UI benefits claim and I believe the scope has to stop at the workflow/links leading to these applications.
       request benefits payment be in scope? I would assume not, given the difficulty of Going any further other than maybe suggested best practices from a website
       running through the complete workflow for all of these applications without              design and ease of use perspective would be tough to do. Unless you as a potential
       actually filing a claim.                                                                 vendor have some creative ideas. But admittedly it would be difficult because of
                                                                                                the application development process that went into the original development of
                                                                                                the state application or registration system.
     9 Is an online application/registration system to be included in the proposed design This is beyond scope of the project unless potential contractor has a innovative
       and/or the prototype system?                                                             solution or wants to include it as an option.
    10 In conducting an evaluation of the 53 UI claimant and employer tax websites, I'd         The scope is the state's UI agency web site and related re- employment
       like to make sure I understand precisely what would be in scope. Would ITSC be           services that connect unemployed individuals to jobs. We do not have the exact
       willing to provide a list of the URLs for the specific state sites to be included in the URLs. Of course on our website http://itsc.org you can quickly link to each state's
       evaluation, to ensure there were no inadvertent misunderstandings about what             unemployment insurance website. Some of those sites may link to broader areas
       was in scope and not in scope? To take Minnesota as an example, Mn DEED has a such as LMI etc. these areas are beyond the scope of the project .The primary
       very large website that covers a lot of different topics related to employment and target is the states' UI websites. So to use your example of MN the main link we
       economic development. I would assume that this whole site would "not" be in              are focusing on for MN is http://www.uimn.org/ , not the Positively MN DEED site.
       scope. Instead, what "would" be in scope is the Minnesota Unemployment site,             Using our map on our website should help with this. Same with MI using our map
       which is related to but separate from the larger DEED site. DEED site:                   on our website you are linked directly to the UI agency at
       http://www.positivelyminnesota.com/JobSeekers/Recently_Unemployed/Apply_fo http://www.michigan.gov/uia
       r_Unemployment_Insurance_Benefits/index.aspx MN UI site:
       http://www.uimn.org/
       To take another example, the State of Michigan government portal has a Business
       and Economic Growth section and Workforce section, as well as a Jobs and Careers
       Portal. So here, I would assume that the Jobs and Career portal "would" be in
       scope, but "not" the whole Business and Economic Growth Section or Workforce
       section. http://www.michigan.gov/careers.
    11 Please clarify the scope of the RFI in relation to the overall goal to "provide simple   That is correct we cannot hold the contractor responsible for implementing the
       clear consistent access of online services to UI Claimants and Employers." It seems      design in all the states. There are many factors which may preclude one or more
       that the Contractor's portion would be to create the "means" for States to meet          states from implementing the design. The two pilot states are the exception. The
       this goal, and in two cases, assist with implementing the prototype in a test            contractor will work with the two pilot states to implement the prototype in a test
       environment. In this way, the Contractor is not accountable for successfully             environment.
       meeting the goal across all states. Is this correct?

    12 Has there been consideration of multilingual content? Should/can vendors address Multilingual was not requested nor required but we would definitely be interested
       that in the proposed solution?                                                   in a way to deal with it.
                                             RFI Review of State UI Websites Questions and Answers
#                                           Questions                                                                              Answers
       Deliverable Questions
    13 Are the 20 states for detailed analysis selected by NASWA/ITSC, or by the             We would select the states in consultation with the successful vendor and possibly
       contractor, to highlight desired features/failures?                                   USDOL. We would also ensure that the states are ok being used.
    14 Should vendors highlight features/deficiencies from all 53 states, or just the        It would be good to highlight items good or bad from all states even those not
       selected 20?                                                                          getting a thorough review.
    15 Can you provide me with a sense of how much detail you are looking for in the         It is difficult to say how much summary and detail we are looking for from the
       summary and detailed evaluations (i.e., 53 summary evaluations and 20 detailed        vendor on the summary and detail evaluation. We are looking for creative ideas
       evaluations)? One of the services we provide to our clients is called a "heuristic    from vendors and there is nothing stopping a vendor from submitting a sample of
       evaluation" - and this is essentially what you are looking for. However, our full     each to help us evaluate what we would receive from the particular vendor. Let
       evaluations can be quite detailed, and I would want to make sure we give you the      me say volume and quantity is not the key here. Analysis, quality of the analysis
       level of detail you are looking for - not more or less.                               and suggestions for improvement is the key focus.

    16 Would you consider a proposal for the evaluation piece only? This would mean that Yes we would consider splitting this up if one vendor presented an excellent
       another vendor would develop the prototype piece based on the evaluation,            evaluation piece and we can find another vendor who is better at the prototype
       recommendations, and possibly wireframes we would provide.                           and they both are willing to only do one aspect of the project. It is quite possible a
                                                                                            vendor is expert in designing websites but does not have the resources nor want to
                                                                                            get involved in the evaluations.
    17 It sounds like what you are looking for is a standard set of pages/topics with a     That's probably an accurate summary. There is key information about the UI
       similar set of navigation options that would serve as the primary source of          program that states should supply in an easy to understand format. A model if you
       information about a state's UI program and as the gateway to that state's online UI will, it should be clean, easy to navigate, answer key concerns, be consistent, etc
       application to file a claim, request benefit payment, maintain an account, etc. Is   and presented in a structure that as you indicate is easy to navigate. I would
       this correct?                                                                        suggest it comes down to understanding web design from a usability perspective
                                                                                            having experience designing web sites and being able to take a complex
                                                                                            government program grasp what is important determine how to order it and
                                                                                            present it
    18 I understand the ITSC is leading an effort to modernize the UI systems across the    The states are autonomous. The ITSC has no authority over the states. USDOL
       states. Please clarify the relationship between the various federal agencies and     cannot make the states comply with this effort. Many states will voluntarily
       offices involved in this RFI and the state UI programs in terms of authority. Do the implement it for various reasons. One reason a state would implement the
       teams responsible for each state UI website already know that they will be           suggestion is possibly a supplemental grant or budget resources from USDOL for
       evaluated? For example, once this prototype is available, are states required to     this project. Other states I know of are looking for guidance to give their web
       adopt it? To what extent would each state have a say in the final outcome of this    designers for help. The states want to provide consistent easily understood
       project? Would they simply accept whatever the NASWA and CESER provide? At           information to their customers. Some states know its coming it has not been
       any point in this project, do you envision the Contractor being responsible for      announced to the states formerly by USDOL yet. It will be once we have a vendor
       facilitating agreement among organizations in any manner? Short of being             and are ready to proceed. Facilitating the states to accept this model by the
       responsible for facilitating agreement, what mandatory reviews periods and           contractor is not in scope for this project. The contractor will only provide
       approval processes should we build into our project plan?                            guidance and support to the states and not be expected to evaluate how good the
                                                                                            implementation went etc. We don't want the contractor to review the states
                                                                                            afterwards that is out of scope.
                                             RFI Review of State UI Websites Questions and Answers
#                                           Questions                                                                               Answers
       Deliverable Questions (Cont.)
    19 Please expand on your expectations of the contractor in fulfilling the deliverable     We do not expect the contractor to actually build the state's website or integrate
       referred to as "Implementation of prototype with two volunteer states in their         this model into their website. They should provide guidance and how to assistance
       TEST environment." For example, is the Contractor simply to be available to answer     to the state's team. We are looking for creative ideas from the vendors submitting
       questions as the volunteer states work through the implementation "how-to"             proposals on how best to facilitate this effort.
       guide? Or do you envision the Contractor conducting more extensive development
       work in integrating the prototype with the State's test environment?

    20 On pages 4 and 5 of the RFI, you advise that the prototype should be platform          Having the vendor gather technical requirements from each state is beyond the
       independent, use open source software and components, and not be tied to any           scope of this RFI. As indicated with the exception of the two pilot states the
       specific tech implementation, etc. To what extent do you envision the Contractor       individual states are responsible for integrating the prototype into their existing
       gathering technical requirements from each State's website to ensure that the          environment.
       prototype meets the requirement of being be able to integrate into each state's
       unique overall website design and structure? With the exception of the two
       volunteer test cases, it appears that individual states would be responsible for
       integrating the prototype with their existing websites and applications - correct?

    21 You mention on page 5 that "each prototype screen shall contain text provided by       Some content exists in the states. The contractor with the assistance of the ITSC
       the state, ITSC, or USDOL." Does the content already exist? Or do you envision the     will identify examples of transferable content. Developing the content for the
       Contractor identifying "best examples" as part of the website evaluations and          prototype is within the scope of this RFI with the assistance of ITSC and USDOL
       recommending those?                                                                    staff.
    22 As an alternative to a functional prototype, would you consider a set of static page   The implementation of the prototype in the states is not within the scope of this
       mockups, accompanied by a style and implementation guide? This would mean              RFI. The prototype can be static pages but it must flow logically and all components
       that either another vendor, or the states themselves, would be responsible for         that need to connect must be well documented and connect. It must be built as
       implementing the design presented in the mockups.                                      part of testing of the prototype with two volunteer states.
    23 Do any of the state UI websites currently use non-open source (proprietary)            No that is inconsistent with Page 4. The prototype for distribution must be
       software and components? If so, would NASWA/CESER ITSC entertain a                     platform independent and be able to be implemented by all states. We would not
       recommendation to propagate the software to other states if it provided an             want to push out a design, prototype etc. that forces states to buy proprietary
       advantage for a particular state under analysis?                                       software licenses. If something like this is found by the vendor we would be
                                                                                              looking to the vendor to put it into a prototype that is both non-proprietary and
                                                                                              platform independent. The objective here is to develop something all states can
                                                                                              leverage even states with proprietary tools.
                                              RFI Review of State UI Websites Questions and Answers
#                                            Questions                                                                       Answers
       General Terms and Conditions Questions
    24 Page 10, Attachment A, Section 6, Audit Report: “The Contractor must submit a      Yes we will accept DCAA Review by an accounting firm
       copy of its A-133 audit report, prepared by an independent certified public
       accounting firm…” If an offeror has not had an A-133 audit, will CESER/ITSC accept
       the findings of a DCAA review, or a financial audit by an accounting firm?

    25 Is a Concerned Funding Agency involved with this solicitation? If so, will CESER/ITSC The concerned agency is USDOL which is mentioned throughout the proposal.
       identify the Agency and its policies and guidelines on allowable costs?               USDOL follows OMB guidelines with some exceptions.

    26 Since NASWA is a private organization, may offerors assume that this solicitation is We are not a government organization we are a not for profit. As a result we can
       subject to common commercial practices, and not subject to the Federal               act quicker and more streamlined. We will most likely have less than 12 people
       Acquisition Regulations?                                                             reviewing the proposals. This is labeled an RFI also to suggest it is a less structured
                                                                                            process than a formal RFP. In addition you will note we are asking interested
                                                                                            vendors to propose alternative ideas which may require further clarification with
                                                                                            them on our end

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:17
posted:11/14/2010
language:English
pages:12
Description: Website Template Review document sample