25109 FLC StrategicCommMark Addendum 1 (1).pdf

Purchasing & Contracts 1000 Rim Drive

(970) 247-7547

Fort Lewis College

Project No. 25109 – Strategic Communications & Marketing and Communcations Organizational Review/Planning Support

ADDENDUM #1

The following shall become as fully a part of the above-named Request for Proposals as if therein included and shall take full and complete preference over anything therein contained to the contrary.

Acknowledgment: Each Bidder shall acknowledge receipt of this Addendum in their Bid package.

Each firm, contractor or subcontractor shall be responsible for reading each item in this Addendum to ascertain to what extent and in what manner it affects the work in which they are interested.

Modifications/Additions to the Contract Documents: The following information includes changes, clarification, and additions to the Invitation for Bids. This information shall supersede any information included in the original Bid Documents.

Question 1: 1)What is the contract length? 2)How will success be measured? 3)Are there specific metrics already in place? 4)What brand research already exists? 5)Is there brand recall or perception research? 6)How heavily will experience reaching diverse audiences be weighted in scoring? 7)Is it important for the agency to have established relationships with any specific community groups? 8)Will the winning agency need to demonstrate expertise in Native American media channels, interest groups, issues, or influences? 9)What stakeholders will be involved in the process?

10)How many interested parties will need a say? 11)How much has been budgeted for this phase? 12)What is the overall marketing budget for the school, inclusive of paid media? 13)Is it more or less than in the past? 14)How important is having boots on the ground locally in comparison to overall depth in higher education, nationally?

Answer:

1. Anticipate a year

2. Success will be defined by being able to meet the objectives outlined in the RFP

3. No

4. EAB surveys from 2022-2023

5. Equally with other criteria

6. No

7. No

8. President’s Office, Office of Advancement, Vice Presidents, Marketing & Communications, Academic Deans, other members of cabinet

9. President, VP of Advancement, Marketing & Communications Director

10. Funds are appropriated for the various components of the engagement

11. Funds are appropriated for this phase

12. Slight decrease since 2023

13. overall depth in higher education, nationally, is preferred

Question 2: How does Fort Lewis define success for this engagement? --Who would be the day-to-day contact? --Has Fort Lewis College worked with a public relations agency before? --Do you have a not-to-exceed budget or estimated budget range that can help us right-size our proposal? --For the organizational assessment, are there specific challenges or pain points the college has already identified that you'd like us to focus on? --What systems or tools (e.g., CRM, CMS, analytics platforms) does the Marketing and Communications team currently use? --What strategic audiences are you prioritizing for President Shotton’s thought leadership? --Are there current communication channels or platforms already in place for the President’s voice (e.g., blog, newsletter, podcast), or would we be expected to propose and help build those? --Will our team have direct access to President Shotton for interviews and content development, or will communication be facilitated by the day-to-day contact? --What is your ideal timeline for both the organizational review and the strategic communications components? What is the time frame for securing thought leadership content for President Shotton? --The RFP states that applicants should include "a methodology for assisting the Board of Trustees in the evaluation process" — by this do you mean a methodology in helping the Board select participants for the audit? --Similarly, the RFP also says "Including an explanation of what happens if the selection is unsuccessful" — again does "selection" refer to participants for the audit?

Answer:

1. Success will be defined by being able to meet the objectives outlined in the RFP

2. Dedicated points of contact will be assigned after award of the contract and may vary for the various components of the project

3. Yes

4. Funds are appropriated for the various components of the engagement

5. Scope is outlined in the RFP

6. Slate, EMMA, Omnilerts, Meltwater, Lytho (project management), Dot Net Nuke (DNN) web CMS for

7. Local, state, regional, national audiences

8. e-newsletter (The Fort Report), department newsletters (Advancement comms, Academic departments, and more), website, social media (institutional and president), internal email comms, and yes

9. Scheduling will be facilitated, mixed communication formats will be utilized to meet the objectives of the project.

10. Organizational review is a scheduled project with the goal of the audit being complete within 6 months of contract. Strategic communications will be a year engagement.

11. The engagement is estimated to last one year.

12. Strike reference to Board of Trustees reference in RFP, they will not be participating in in this engagement.

13. Strike from RFP.

Question 3: Could you please elaborate on the specific nature of the key insights you aim to gather from internal and external stakeholders? We're seeking to understand if your focus is on operational feedback, assessment of marketing materials, or public brand perception and institutional reputation. Additionally, could you identify the key stakeholder groups from whom you wish to solicit feedback (e.g., current students, faculty, staff, alumni, business leaders, community leaders)?

Answer: Operational feedback - what has been successful, where are their marketing and communication gaps, how can we improve efficiencies of the team, where should we focus investments. President’s Office, Office of Advancement, Vice Presidents, Marketing & Communications, Academic Deans, other members of cabinet

Question 4: Could you please provide more detail regarding the desired activation and implementation support you envision following the delivery of our report?

Answer: TBD based on assessment

Question 5: Could you elaborate on the scope of your content development needs for the President's office?

Specifically, will our role involve advising existing staff on content strategy, or will we be responsible for developing content from scratch? Furthermore, is this an ongoing need (e.g., a retainer agreement) or are you seeking initial content to establish a foundation? Finally, could you provide an estimate of the expected volume of content to be developed?

Answer: Sope of content TBD, Potential approach would be a hybrid of working with existing staff and possible new communication strategies and methodologies. The engagement is for one year. Volume of content TBD

Question 6: Will you be open to selecting two partners to fulfill the scope? One for the strategic communications and one for the organization support?

Answer: Yes

Question 7: Does the Marketing & Communications Department have a strategic plan and/or annual plan? If so, please provide.

Answer: Fort Lewis College just adopted a new 5 year strategic plan, it is accessible on our website, www.fortlewiscollege.edu

Question 8: What are key priorities and major initiatives of the Marketing & Communications department currently?

Answer: FLC’s strategic plan, supporting presidential communications, student recruitment and enrollment strategy, fundraising support

Question 9: What communications channels are being utilized currently by the department?

Answer: multimedia, print, earned media, paid advertising, and supporting the email

Question 10: Have any assessments or analyses been conducted on the department in the past five years? If so, please provide report or share key findings/action steps

Answer: No

Question 11: What major changes have occurred in the communication department (e.g., scope, composition, personnel, funding, etc.) in the past five years?

Answer: In two years, the department has had a new director, new PIO/media relations, new Art Director, new

Social Media coordinator, a new reporting structure, switched one FTE from a writer to a graphic designer, and ended print magazine in 2023-2024. In addition, the team transitioned out a president to interim to now a new president. It will be supporting two (out of three) interim deans, an interim VP of Diversity Affairs and Interim Dean of Students.

Question 12: What is the planned or available budget for the project?

https://www.fortlewiscollege.edu/

Answer: Funds are appropriated for the project

Question 13: Is there an incumbent communications agency, firm or contractor for the college and/or supporting this area (e.g., strategic communications for the communications department and senior leadership)?

Answer: No, this is a new engagement.

Question 14: Who at FLC will be the primary liaison with the appointed agency? And what ongoing support will be provided?

Answer: Key points of contact will be established for the various components after award.

Question 15: You mention qualitative interviews and possibly a stakeholder survey. When was the last time you did that kind of research?

Answer: more than 5 years ago

Question 16: In the intro, you position this project as having specific emphasis on setting up the president to do a good job with fundraising, how much of the project's success is based on that versus other, more general goals of establishing her on solid footing, being a brand ambassador for the college, etc.

Answer: all areas are important for this engagement

Question 17: Do you have a budget and timeline in mind?

Answer: Funds are appropriated for both projects. Timeline on Strategic Communications & Thought

Leadership Support is one year, the other components will be phased as necessary.

Question 18: Are there any key deadlines or milestones for the work that we need to be aware of?

Answer: Audit should be complete within 6 months.

Question 19: Is there an estimated or target budget range for both the department review and the presidential communications support? Should pricing be itemized separately by phase/workstream?

Answer: Funds are appropriated for both scopes of work, firms may submit pricing separately.

Question 20 Are the two scopes (dept review vs. presidential comms) intended to be contracted to a single vendor, or will they consider splitting them? Will the vendor have direct access to President Shotton for the thought leadership?

Are there existing stakeholder or donor perception studies we can review as part of the research?

Answer: Award could be to one firm or split. Selected firm will work with a team to support President Shotton and access will be determined by the team and President Shotton. No current studies.

Question 21: What is the ideal duration or deadline for the department review? Should the strategic communications support extend beyond the President’s first 90 days? Is there a desired format or template for the final report from the department review? Are there any KPIs already established for thought leadership or media outcomes?

Answer: Audit should be completed within 6 months. Engagement for President support is one year. No desired template. No established KPIs.

Question 22: Are you looking to expand their current undergrad & grad student base? Are you looking to expand Fort

Lewis College’s general awareness? Are you looking to increase donors?

Answer: Yes to all.

Question 23 If roll-out/activation support is included in the department review, should that be proposed as a separate optional fee?

Question 24: What areas or topics of thought leadership are FLC and President Dr. Heather Shotton prioritizing?

What opportunities do you currently see for Dr. Shotton to elevate her voice? How does the current higher-education political discourse impact FLC’s plans to have an active thought leadership platform? How does the current political discourse around inclusion impact FLC’s plans to have an active thought leadership platform on the topic? What has/is

FLC having success speaking about? What areas of thought leadership do you feel FLC is leading or driving the conversation forward?

Answer: 1. FLC’s strategics plan and high education advocacy 2. TBD 3. TBD 4. FLC is committed to our mission, students, and community. 5 & 6. FLC’s mission and our reconciliation framework

Question 25: We are the AOR for Elevate Quantum. Are you looking to further its POV/SOV within the quantum space to support recruitment?

Answer: TBD

Question 26: Thank you in advance for your response! Has a budget been established or allocated for this scope of work? If so, can you share the estimated budget range?

Answer: Funds for both scopes of work are appropriated.

Question 27: Is there an incumbent contractor currently supporting this requirement? If so, what is the name of the company?

Answer: No.

Question 28: Is this a new initiative for Fort Lewis College, or a continuation or expansion of an existing initiative?

Answer: New initiative.

Question 29: Why is the College issuing this RFP at this time? Are there any specific circumstances or strategic priorities prompting the RFP?

Answer: See Institutional Background section of the RFP.

Question 30: Does the physical location of the vendor factor into the evaluation of proposals? Is there a preference for working with an agency based in Durango, Colorado, or within the state of Colorado?

Question 31: Has a budget range or ceiling been established for this project? If so, could you share the anticipated investment or fiscal constraints?

Answer: Funds for the project have been appropriated.

Question 32 Should vendors propose separate teams or workstreams for the two scopes of work (departmental review and strategic communications), or is an integrated approach preferred?

Answer: Firms may propose either approach.

Question 33: Has Fort Lewis College (FLC) worked with any firm in the past 12–18 months on marketing or communications strategy or support for presidential transition?

Question 34: What is the current size and structure of the Marketing and Communications department (FTE, roles, and titles)?

Answer: https://www.fortlewis.edu/administrative-offices/marketing-communications/staff-directory - one director, three team leads, twn staff overall, student interns

Question 35: Is there a preferred framework or methodology FLC expects for the organizational review (e.g., SWOT, GAP analysis, peer benchmarking)?

Answer: No preference.

Question 36: Does FLC expect a review of internal digital tools or platforms (e.g., CMS, CRM, analytics tools) as part of the materials or operational assessment?

Answer: As needed to meet the scope of work objectives.

Question 37: What types of vendor or partner agreements should be reviewed, and how many are currently in place?

Answer: As many as needed to meet the scope of work objectives.

Question 38: For the optional roll-out support, should vendors include a separate cost estimate or treat it as an add-on contingent upon award?

Answer: Cost should be outlined in the proposal.

Question 39: Are there specific audiences (e.g., tribal leadership, national higher ed press, donor communities) that should be prioritized in the thought leadership strategy?

Answer: TBD

Question 40: Will Fort Lewis College facilitate internal stakeholder interviews, especially those involving senior leadership, faculty, or alumni?

Answer: Fort Lewis will provide assistance for stakeholder interviews.

Question 41: Has any firm conducted recent assessments or audits of the FLC Marketing & Communications department?

Question 42: Is there any preference for vendors with previous experience supporting Native American-Serving or emerging Hispanic-Serving Institutions?

Answer: Vendors will be evaluated as defined in the RFP.

Question 43: Will the selected vendor be expected to engage directly with President Shotton, or will coordination occur exclusively through the communications team?

https://www.fortlewis.edu/administrative-offices/marketing-communications/staff-directory

Answer: Approach will be what works best for the team and President Shotton and may change over time.

Question 44: Are there existing brand, messaging, or strategic communication documents that will be made available to the selected partner?

Question 45: The RFP references “experience supporting first-time presidents and institutions in leadership transition” as an evaluation criterion. Can you clarify how essential this experience is to a competitive bid versus general higher ed strategic communications experience?

Answer: Firms will be evaluated based on the criteria set forth in the RFP.

Question 46: Should vendors include travel costs, or is all work expected to be conducted remotely (especially for interviews and presentations)?

Answer: Travel costs should be included, expectation has not been set in regards to onsite vs remote.

Question 47: Does Fort Lewis College intend to use the optional “roll-out and activation support” scope? If so, should vendors budget for this within the base proposal or present it as a separate pricing option?

Answer: Separate pricing option

Question 48: Is there a specific format, page limit, or file size requirement for the final submission via BidNetDirect?

Answer: Limit proposals to 50 pages.

Question 49: The RFP mentions providing a methodology for assisting the “Board of Trustees in the evaluation process.” Can you clarify the Board’s role in this project, or is this a legacy clause from another RFP?

Answer: Strike from RFP, the Board will not be participating.

Question 50: How much weight is given to geographic proximity or existing relationships with tribal and Colorado-based community stakeholders?

Answer: Firms will be evaluated based on the criteria outlined in the RFP.

Question 51: Will in-person meetings or site visits be expected during the project, or is the work anticipated to be conducted remotely?

Answer: Expectation has not been set in regards to onsite vs remote.

Question 52: Was an outside consultant involved in drafting or advising on the content of this RFP?

Question 53: How will proposals be scored or evaluated—can you share any weighting or priority criteria for qualifications, pricing, or technical approach?

Answer: Per the RFP, evaluation be scored based on the following criteria:

• Conformance to RFP format and process

• Demonstrated experience with strategic communications and marketing review and strategy support

• Experience supporting first-time presidents and institutions in leadership transition

• Proposed approach, methodology, and timeline

• Qualifications of assigned team members.

• Cost and overall value

• Client references and reputation

Question 54: Is experience working with Indigenous-led institutions or leaders a requirement?

Answer: Firm requirements are outlined in the RFP.

Question 55: Are references from non-higher-education clients acceptable if the work is highly aligned in scope (e.g., public sector organizational reviews or executive communications)?

Answer: Firms may provide additional references in addition to those required in the RFP.

Question 56: Should NAICS codes be included in place of SIC codes if those are more applicable?

Question 57: Does Fort Lewis College have a preferred format for resumes or bios of proposed team members?

End of Addendum 1