Addendum 1 SUNY Oswego Branding Initiative Phase 2.pdf

State University of New York at Oswego SUNY Oswego Project:

C000735 SUNY Oswego Branding Initiative Phase 2

Addendum No.1 Page - 1

Addendum No. 1 Date of Addendum: September 15, 2025 Original Date of Contract Documents: August 29, 2025

Owner State University of New York at Oswego Purchasing Department 402 Culkin Hall Oswego, NY 13126

This Addendum amends Specifications and/or Addenda for the above titled project, as indicated below, and is hereby incorporated into the Contract Documents as part thereof.

ATTACHED: RFI Response

Bidders should include the Acknowledgement noted with addendum number and dated with their submitted bid

RFP Clarification Questions for SUNY Oswego-Strategic Branding-Streamlined C000735

Strategic Objectives & Success Measures

● What are the primary strategic goals of Phase 2 — consistency, differentiation, recruitment, alumni engagement, or all of the above?

○ Primary Goals: Phase 2 is intended to achieve all of the above — consistency, differentiation, recruitment, alumni engagement, and external visibility.

Recruitment remains the most immediate driver, but differentiation within SUNY and nationally is equally important.

● How will SUNY Oswego define success for this phase? Are there specific KPIs or metrics tied to enrollment, reputation, or digital engagement?

○ Success Definition: Success will be measured through both quantitative and qualitative KPIs, such as: improved enrollment conversion, strengthened perception in reputation surveys, measurable digital engagement (click-through, portal conversion), and stakeholder satisfaction.

● How do you envision the Phase 2 deliverables connecting to and enabling Phase 3 (brand launch/advertising)?

○ Connection to Phase 3: Deliverables from Phase 2 (identity system, guidelines, collateral) are the foundation for Phase 3 campaigns and brand launch. Without Phase 2, a launch cannot be cohesive.

● What is currently missing from SUNY Oswego’s brand system that Phase 2 must address?

○ What’s Missing Today: Visual consistency, scalable templates, alignment between academic/athletic brands, and a clear system for digital, print and environmental use. Phase 1 produced messaging; Phase 2 is where that becomes actionable visually and structurally.

● What internal or external factors prompted the launch of Phase 2 at this time?

○ Why Now: Phase 2 is time-sensitive to ensure Oswego is visually aligned before the launch phase.

Brand Positioning & Audiences

● Which audiences are most critical for this phase — prospective students, parents, alumni, faculty/staff, donors, or external partners?

○ Priority Audiences: Prospective students (first-year, transfer, graduate), parents, and alumni are top priority; faculty/staff and donors are secondary but important for buy-in.

● Are there any priority academic programs or schools you want highlighted in the brand system (e.g., Business, STEM, Media)?

○ Priority Programs: Business, STEM, Media/Communication, and new applied technology programs are priorities; however, the system must scale across all 70+ majors.

● How do you want SUNY Oswego to differentiate itself vs. peer SUNYs like Cortland, Brockport, and Plattsburgh?

○ Differentiation vs. Peers: Oswego should emphasize its lakeside campus, affordability, applied learning, and Central NY positioning. This contrasts with Cortland (teacher ed/athletics), Brockport (proximity to Rochester), and Plattsburgh (North Country).

● Which peer institutions do you most admire from a branding standpoint, and which do you want to clearly differentiate from?

○ Peer Inspiration: Admiration exists for universities with strong, simple systems (e.g., Binghamton, Syracuse, Northeastern). Differentiation is desired from SUNY peers with similar color palettes or generic visuals.

● Is the firm who developed the Phase 1 positioning and messaging being considered for Phase 2?

○ Phase 1 Agency: The Phase 1 firm is not automatically considered for Phase 2.

This is an open procurement; any vendor may propose.

● Is the incumbent agency from Phase 1 invited to participate in this next phase of the work?

○ This is an open procurement; any vendor may propose.

● If not, why not?

○ This is an open procurement; any vendor may propose.

● How would you describe the current culture of brand alignment at SUNY Oswego?

○ Culture of Alignment: The culture is improving but uneven. Some units embrace brand standards; others operate independently.

● Are there any anticipated challenges in securing buy-in from key stakeholders regarding this refresh and campaign?

○ Challenges: Anticipated challenges include aligning athletics with academics, balancing legacy pride with modernization, and ensuring adoption across decentralized departments.

● Are there internal pain points with Phase 1 outputs (messaging, positioning) that we should be aware of before extending into Phase 2?

○ Phase 1 Pain Points: Messaging outputs were strong but may not yet differentiate Oswego enough; Phase 2 must refine and visualize the positioning more distinctly.

Scope of Services & Deliverables

● For Project 1 (Brand Identity System): Do you expect an evolution of the current logo system or are you open to a more fundamental redesign?

○ Logo Evolution vs. Redesign: Both options are open. SUNY Oswego seeks guidance on whether an evolution suffices or if a larger redesign is necessary.

● Have the total number of different lockups needed for departments, academic schools and administrative units been determined?

○ Lockups: The exact number has not been finalized. Expect multiple academic schools, departments, and administrative units.

● For the Brand Identity System, are there specific applications or use cases SUNY Oswego considers most critical (e.g., signage, merchandise, digital)?

○ Critical Applications: Admissions collateral, website/digital, signage and merchandise are the highest priority.

● For Project 2 (Digital Brand Implementation): Will Oswego’s internal web/IT team handle CMS development, or do you expect the selected vendor to build and implement new templates?

○ Digital Implementation: Internal IT/web team manages CMS (Drupal). Vendor will provide designs/templates; deep CMS development is not expected unless otherwise proposed.

● For Project 3 (Marketing Collateral): Do you envision more emphasis on print collateral, or on digital-first templates that admissions and departments can self-update?

○ Collateral Emphasis: Digital-first, scalable templates are more important than large print runs, though flagship print (e.g., admissions packet) remains essential.

● Can you clarify whether the Athletics/mascot package is optional or a high-likelihood add-on?

○ Athletics/Mascot Package: This is a Desirable service, not an optional service;

vendors should provide separate pricing. Interest will depend on stakeholder response to Phase 1 outputs. Desirable services are services the campus prefers, but a bidder is not required to propose. If included in the proposal, the bidder must be able to meet all of these specifications throughout the Contract term.

● Will the same scope of services as outlined in the RFP apply to the athletics/mascot package?

○ Yes, the same scope of services should be provided for the athletics/mascot.

● Has the research or stakeholder input indicated a need for an updated athletics identity or mascot development, or do you envision that this will be determined as Phase 2 progresses?

○ Research Input: If Phase 1 or stakeholder engagement signals are needed, vendors should be ready to support athletics work. Pricing should be included.

● If Phase 1 research or stakeholder input indicates a need for updated athletics identity or mascot development, vendors may propose a separately priced package. When will this research be complete?

○ Phase 1: May inform this decision, but it is not guaranteed to determine the need for an updated athletics identity or mascot. During Phase 2, SUNY Oswego will work with the selected partner to assess whether this scope should be pursued. If identified as a priority, vendors may propose a separately priced package for this work when providing a response to the RFP.

● Should proposals include this pricing, assuming it will be required?

○ Cost proposals must be submitted in separate, sealed envelopes. No mention of cost should appear in the technical proposal. Failure to adhere to this requirement may result in disqualification. Desirable services are services the campus prefers, but a bidder is not required to propose. If included in the proposal, the bidder must be able to meet all of these specifications throughout the Contract term.

● What are your current challenges and assumptions about the athletic logo marks?

○ Athletics Logo Challenges: Current helm mark is dated and lacks energy for digital/merchandise.

● How many logo marks would be included in the redesign/refresh process?

○ Redsign/refresh: The redesign/refresh is expected to include primary and secondary institutional marks (approximately 2–3). Athletics/mascot identities are separate

● To clarify scope, will SUNY Oswego be keeping the name “The Lakers”?

○ Lakers Name: “The Lakers” name will be retained. The question is whether to evolve helm or create a new companion symbol/character.

● If so, are you envisioning a new mascot or symbol to represent the Lakers (for example, a character or object), or a refreshed version of the current ship helm concept?

○ Lakers Name: “The Lakers” name will be retained. The question is whether to evolve helm or create a new companion symbol/character.

● Regarding the redesign of acceptance packet components (print and digital), could you provide a list of the specific components you’d like included?

○ Acceptance Packet Components: Should include, but not limited to admit letter, folder, inserts, digital admit portal design, and social/digital share assets.

● Can you clarify what the flagship admissions piece means? Is this a viewbook or does

SUNY Oswego have something else in mind?

○ Flagship Admissions Piece: Refers to the main “viewbook-style” and

“travel-piecce publication, though Oswego is open to innovative formats.

● Is SUNY Oswego open to recommendations for additional collateral types or channels not listed in the RFP?

○ Additional Collateral: Vendors may provide additional collaterals as part of their response to the RFP but are not required to provide more than outlined in the scope of work.

● Will the selected partner have the opportunity to conduct discovery activities?

○ Discovery: Yes, discovery activities are expected.

● Is it the intent to incorporate SUNY Oswego’s existing brand platform into the new visual identity guidelines, rather than developing an entirely new brand platform?

○ Brand Platform: Vendors should extend existing platform from Phase 1, not start over.

● Regarding the optional onboarding or handoff session, would you prefer a recorded walkthrough, a live session, or for us to provide both as options?

○ Onboarding/Handoff: Handoff session is required. Both a live session and a recorded walkthrough are preferred.

● Based on our reading, it does not appear that a new overarching campaign concept is required for this section. Can you confirm our understanding?

○ Campaign Concept: No new overarching campaign is required in Phase 2.

● For the Digital Brand Implementation, is the focus primarily on visual design, or does

SUNY Oswego anticipate strategic UX recommendations as well?

○ Digital Focus: Primarily visual design; UX recommendations are welcome but not the core scope.

Internal Capabilities & Collaboration

● What internal creative/communications capacity exists today (e.g., design team, web team)? How do you see them collaborating with the selected partner?

○ Internal Capacity: SUNY Oswego has a small but capable marketing/communications team with designers, writers, web staff, and project managers. The partner will provide specialized expertise, toolkits, and scalable systems.

● Will SUNY provide existing assets (photography, templates, prior guidelines) to build upon, or is net-new development expected?

○ Existing Assets: Photography, templates, and guidelines will be provided. Some net-new assets may be required.

● What role will faculty, students, and alumni play in providing input or validating deliverables?

○ Stakeholder Input: Faculty, students, alumni, and administration will provide feedback, but the partner leads the process.

● What is the anticipated division of labor between SUNY Oswego and the selected agency partner?

○ Division of Labor: Vendor leads system development; SUNY Oswego supports with assets where we can, reviews, and implementation.

● What challenges do you anticipate for this engagement?

○ Challenges: Alignment across a decentralized campus and balancing internal capacity with external vendor support.

Governance & Decision-Making

● Will there be a brand steering committee for Phase 2 deliverables? If so, who will serve on it?

○ Steering Committee: Yes, consisting of leaders from enrollment, advancement, athletics, and faculty representatives.

● How will SUNY evaluate creative fit — through presentations, workshops, or sample deliverables?

○ Evaluation of Creative Fit: Through presentations and proposal review;

workshops may be part of the process.

● How will SUNY handle feedback rounds — structured checkpoints or open revisions?

○ Feedback Rounds: Structured checkpoints are preferred.

● Who are the key decision-makers for this RFP process?

○ RFP Decision-Makers: Procurement, MarCom leadership, and university executives.

Technical & Implementation Considerations

● Which CMS platforms power SUNY Oswego’s main site and microsites?

○ CMS Platform: SUNY Oswego’s primary website runs on Drupal; the admissions portal is powered by Slate CRM.

● Do you expect deep technical development or primarily design/template handoff?

○ Scope of Technical Work: The expectation is primarily design and template handoff, with limited development.

● Which version of Drupal powers the current site, and are there existing component libraries, Paragraphs, or Layout Builder elements we should update versus creating new?

○ Drupal Environment: Current Drupal environment is up-to-date and utilizes standard content-building tools. The intent is to build on the existing system rather than replacing it.

● Will SUNY Oswego provide access to GA4 and heat mapping tools (e.g., CrazyEgg), or should we configure these as part of the audit?

○ Analytics: SUNY Oswego uses Google Analytics 4. Access will be provided.

Additional tools (such as heat-mapping) may be added as needed.

● Should the News/Stories hub leverage Drupal’s existing taxonomy and content types, or would you like us to propose a new content model and media workflow?

○ News/Stories Hub: Should continue to leverage the existing content model and taxonomy unless vendors recommend a compelling alternative.

● Are there specific Core Web Vitals or performance benchmarks (e.g., page speed, caching, image optimization) we should prioritize within Drupal?

○ Performance Benchmarks: Deliverables should support industry-standard web performance and accessibility guidelines, including Core Web Vitals and New York State requirements.

● Does SUNY Oswego already maintain a digital design system (Figma libraries, component guidelines), and in what format would you prefer the updated style guide delivered (PDF, Figma, or Drupal-based pattern library)?

○ Design System: The institution maintains existing design resources.

Deliverables should be provided in a flexible, widely usable format such as Figma and PDF.

● Would you prefer a staged review process (wireframes in Figma → mockups in HTML/CSS → Drupal CMS templates), or a more compressed approval cycle?

○ Review Process: A staged review process (e.g., wireframes → mockups → templates) is preferred, but alternate approaches may be proposed.

● For Slate CRM integration (optional), what is the desired scope — visual branding only, or UX review + technical implementation?

○ Slate Integration: Branding/visual alignment for Slate is expected, not optional.

Technical integration will be handled internally, though vendor recommendations are welcome.

● Will SUNY Oswego's internal team be responsible for implementing the updates in Slate, or will the chosen partner be responsible for this?

○ SUNY Oswego’s internal team will manage Slate updates. The chosen partner may provide design assets and guidance.

● Should the content and flow strategy guide be limited to the updated pages in this project, or provide a broader framework for future Slate portal content?

○ Portal Content Strategy: Vendors may propose content frameworks, but focus should be on a small set of high-impact student touchpoints.

● What level of direct implementation access will we have in Slate (admin rights, test environment, ability to publish updates)?

○ Access to Systems: Appropriate access (including test environments) will be provided as needed to support implementation.

● Will SUNY Oswego identify the 3–5 high-impact touchpoints in advance, or would you like us to recommend them following the audit?

○ High-Impact Touchpoints: SUNY Oswego will work with the selected partner to identify 3–5 high-impact touchpoints following the audit, rather than pre-defining them.

● Are there existing analytics or usability insights (e.g., heatmaps, conversion metrics, student feedback) available to inform the audit of friction points?

○ Existing Analytics or Usability Insights: Basic web analytics are available (Google Analytics, etc.), but no existing heatmaps or conversion testing data are in place. Vendors may recommend additional tools.

● Which student journeys are considered most critical (e.g., inquiry, event registration, application, admitted student), and should we prioritize these in the audit?

○ Student Journeys: Key digital pathways include inquiry, event registration, application, and admitted student experiences.

● Are there specific accessibility and compliance standards beyond WCAG 2.1 AA (e.g., NYS accessibility guidelines, Section 508)?

○ Accessibility Standards: Vendors must adhere to WCAG 2.1 AA, Section 508, and New York State digital accessibility requirements.

Budget & Value Expectations

● While the RFP weights technical (75%) vs. cost (25%), can you share an approximate budget range for Phase 2?

○ Budget Range: Budget has not been finalized. Vendors should provide itemized pricing by project and Desirable add-on. SUNY Oswego will evaluate value, scalability, and alignment with scope in determining the award. Cost proposals must be submitted in separate, sealed envelopes. No mention of cost should appear in the technical proposal. Failure to adhere to this requirement may result in disqualification.

● How should vendors separate pricing if bidding on multiple projects (1, 2, 3)?

○ Pricing Separation: Vendors should break out pricing by Project (1, 2, 3) and optionally bundle.Cost proposals must be submitted in separate, sealed envelopes. No mention of cost should appear in the technical proposal. Failure to adhere to this requirement may result in disqualification.

● Do you encourage bundled pricing for value or itemized pricing?

○ Value Preference: Scalability and reusable systems are a priority; however, strong design excellence is expected.

● Will budget decisions prioritize design excellence or efficiency and scalability (e.g., reusable templates for in-house use)?

○ Vendor selection will be based on RFP technical (75%) and and (25%) as outlined in the RFP.

● What is the anticipated all-in budget for this scope of work as it relates to agency fees, paid media spend, production hard costs, etc.?

○ All-in Budget: Agency fees only. Media spend and production are separate.

● If a budget hasn’t been determined, can you provide a do-not exceed range or threshold to be mindful of?

○ All-in Budget: Agency fees only. Media spend and production are separate.

● Will SUNY Oswego consider proposals that include optional services or add-ons beyond the core scope?

○ Optional Add-ons: SUNY cannot accept separately priced additional Optional add-ons or optional services outside of the scope of the RFP.

MWBE/SDVOB & Partnerships

● How does SUNY Oswego plan to enforce/measure the MWBE (30%) and SDVOB (6%) participation goals?

○ Participation Goals: Vendors must meet 30% MWBE and 6% SDVOB. SUNY will monitor via reporting.

● Does SUNY have a preferred list of MWBE-certified partners or is the vendor expected to source independently?

○ Preferred Lists: New York State maintains certified MWBE lists, but vendors are responsible for sourcing. Vendors may confirm the certification status of any potential sub-contractor with designated MWBE contact.

● Will points be awarded for creative approaches to supplier diversity partnerships (e.g., mentorship, subcontracting, co-creation)?

○ MWBE/SDVOB requirements will be considered satisfactorily in compliance only by meeting the stated goals.

● Will SUNY Oswego give preference to NY-based companies?

○ No, preference is not given to NY based companies.

● Will SUNY Oswego give preference to minority-owned and woman-owned businesses?

○ Preference is not given to certified MWBE/SDVOB vendors for the purposes of scoring.

● Does SUNY Oswego have an incumbent or preferred vendor in mind for this project?

○ Incumbent Vendors: No incumbent for Phase 2. Open competition.

Timeline & Process

● The RFP suggests an award by Oct 2025 and contract starts in Dec 2025. What are the critical milestones for Phase 2 (identity, digital, collateral) between Dec 2025 and Summer 2026?

○ Award & Start: SUNY Oswego anticipates awarding the contract in Fall 2025, with an official start date no later than December 2025.

● Is there an expected pilot launch date (e.g., for admissions materials or redesigned website pages)?

○ Pilot Launch: Admissions-related materials are anticipated to be the first deliverables piloted, targeted for Summer 2026.

● What is the desired timeline for completion of the audit, mockups, and implementation phases?

Key Milestones (Subject to Adjustment):

● Brand Identity System: Initial development in Winter/Spring 2026

● Digital Mockups/Templates: Spring/Summer 2026

● Admissions Collateral: Summer 2026, in time for Fall 2026 recruitment cycle

● What is the timeline for work to be finished for the scope in Phase 2?

○ Phase 1 Dependencies: Phase 2 work will align with the completion of Phase 1.

If Phase 1 deliverables extend into early 2026 (e.g., February), Phase 2 kickoff activities may adjust accordingly.

● Are there any important milestones that we need to be aware of that would affect the timing of this scope?

○ Phase 1 completion.

● Is there an anticipated timeline for notifying vendors of presentation invitations and final selection?

○ Vendor Presentations: Vendors will be notified of presentation invitations in early October 2025, with final selection anticipated by late October 2025.

Proposal Submission & Format

● The Summary Information Form only lists an email address, but the RFP requests one

(1) hard copy of your proposal and one (1) flash drive. Can SUNY Oswego confirm whether digital submission via email or portal is acceptable, or is physical delivery with flash drive required?

○ Submission Method: Hard copy and flash drive required per procurement rules.

Digital email copies may be supplementary but not primary. Please send hard copies to SUNY Oswego, Purchasing Department, 402 Culkin Hall, Oswego, NY 13126

● Is there a page-number limit we should be aware of for this RFP, or similar restrictions on proposal?

○ Page Limits: No strict limit, but brevity and clarity are valued.

● Do we need to follow a specific flow when building the proposal or can we structure our response in the way we think makes the most sense while answering all the requirements?

○ Proposal Structure: Vendors must address all RFP requirements but may structure responses as they see fit.

● If the proposers have redlined or modified requests for the General Terms & Conditions in this RFP, should we submit those along with our proposal or is the intent to negotiate contract terms with the awarded vendor at a later date?

○ Terms & Conditions: SUNY does not negotiate; no additional terms or redlines will be accepted.