Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Michigan Department of Lifelong Education, Advancement, and Potential office has completed the evaluation of Direct Solicitation 260000000039 MiLEAP Office of Higher Educations Fiscal Year 2027-2031 Marketing Plan and has recommended an award to GUD Marketing, pending State Administrative Board approval, if applicable. More information on the State Administrative Board can be found at: State Administrative Board.

Bidders who were not recommended for the award are encouraged to schedule a debriefing session with the Solicitation Manager. The debriefing session will provide the bidder with the State’s rationale on why the bidder was not recommended for the award. The Solicitation Manager may be contacted as follows:

Brandon Colby, Solicitation Manager.

ColbyB@Michigan.Gov 517-898-5428 Public copies of all bidder proposals can be found here: DTMB - Bid Proposals (michigan.gov) Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide MiLEAP Office of Higher Educations Marketing Plan. The term of this contract is one year, with up to 4 renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on July 21st of 2026 through August 4th of 2026. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of August 4th of 2026.

Lansing MI 48906 Yes

Grand Rapids Michigan 49503 No

Michigan Blueprint Strategies DBA Change Media Group 975 Cherry St SE, Suite 3 Grand Rapids, MI 49506

No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business **GDBE: Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

EVALUATION SYNOPSIS

I. Evaluation Process A Responsible Vendor is a vendor that demonstrates it has the ability to successfully perform the duties identified by the solicitation. A Responsive proposal is one that is submitted in accordance with the solicitation instructions and meets all mandatory requirements identified in the solicitation.

Proposal Instructions: Evaluation Process The State will evaluate each proposal based on the following factors:

The full evaluation process is stated in the RFP Proposal Instructions.

II. Evaluation Method Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by a Joint Evaluation Committee consisting of the Solicitation Manager in collaboration with multiple subject program managers, which consisted of the following individuals:

Brandon Colby, Procurement Manager MiLEAP - Operations Sarah Szurpicki, Deputy Director MiLEAP – Higher Education

Camara Lewis, Communications Director MiLEAP – Communications

Chad Somerville, Outreach Manager MiLEAP – Student Aid and Success

Michelle Cyrus, Student Success Strategy Manager MiLEAP – Student Success and Strategic Initiatives

III. Evaluation Results A. GUD Marketing The Evaluation Team determined that GUD Marketing based on a score of 97, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement A: Research, Insights and Strategy The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency were noted:

a. We were looking for more connection from Nielsen and other data collection platforms as a way to collect data and form strategy.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement B: Integrated Communications Planning (including the scenario exercise) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement C: Media Planning, Placement and Optimization The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement D: Creative and Content Development The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement E: Stakeholder Communications, Engagement and Alignment The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

6. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement F: Public Relations and External Communications The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

7. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement G: Analytics, Performance Measurement and Continuous Improvement The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency were noted:

a. The example that they provided did not provide data that explained what findings were made during the campaign that led them to make the adjustments that were made.

8. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement H: Portfolio Management and Strategic Support The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

9. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

10. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 97/100

B. Lambert Global LLC.

The Evaluation Team determined that Lambert Global LLC, based on a score of 89, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement A: Research, Insights and Strategy The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. We were unable to locate the mention of how they gather stakeholder feedback or engaged stakeholders throughout the process.

b. We were looking for more information and integration to show an understanding of the higher education audience and an understanding of stakeholder feedback and interaction.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement B: Integrated Communications Planning (including the scenario exercise) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. There was no mention of using the feedback and proven strategy of previous campaigns to build from. There was no mention of goal setting for MiLEAP’s reconnect applications.

b. The response lacked mention of Michigan Achievement Scholarship or Reconnect utilization and a key goal/KPI for the campaign.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement C: Media Planning, Placement and Optimization The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The committee felt that the integrated plan had some considerations that weren't in line with MiLEAP's processes and goals.

b. Within the Communication’s plan, there seemed like a large amount of the budget that was focused on discovery and it didn’t feel like there was consideration put into the existing awareness status of these programs.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement D: Creative and Content Development The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency were noted:

a. We were looking for more information and detail surrounding stakeholder relationships and content development.

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement E: Stakeholder Communications, Engagement and Alignment The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The evaluators were unable to locate any mention of stakeholder toolkits or resource development for stakeholders.

b. Facilitation services were mentioned but we couldn’t connect the depth of how those were included and how they would implement them.

6. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement F: Public Relations and External Communications The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Trend spotting as well as other trends but there was not reference to how they would utilize OHE as a leader in this area.

b. There wasn’t any reference to whether they understand legislative policy and the impacts of that on our programs.

7. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement G: Analytics, Performance Measurement and Continuous Improvement The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

8. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement H: Portfolio Management and Strategic Support The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

9. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

10. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 89/100

C. Michigan Blueprint Strategies DBA Change Media Group The Evaluation Team determined that Michigan Blueprint Strategies DBA Change Media Group, based on a score of 83.5, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement A: Research, Insights and Strategy The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Vendor provided an explanation that showed examples 1-5 but the example that they provided did not seem to articulate the 1-5 approach.

b. They didn’t provide clarity of the understanding of OHE. The committee felt their research insights were lacking in strategy

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement B: Integrated Communications Planning (including the scenario exercise) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The bidder did not mention using previous research and testing from previous campaigns to be efficient with their proposed budget.

b. There wasn’t any mention of the FAFSA completion benchmarks under the goal of Michigan Achievement Scholarship as a means of assessing goal success.

c. There were components of the response that the evaluation committee felt a lack of research done:

a. The response mentioned the Michigan Achievement Scholarship account creation which does not exist.

b. No mentioned of the FAFSA Achievement Benchmarks under the goal of Michigan Achievement Scholarship under a means of tracking goals.

c. The implication of a 200k income level cut-off felt as a misrepresentation of the MiLEAP Programs and how we speak to the program from an eligibility standpoint.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement C: Media Planning, Placement and Optimization The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. We were looking for more insight into how bidder sees optimization as it relates to performance outcomes.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement D: Creative and Content Development The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. We were looking for more in regards to the video spots.

b. The response read as if the media buys were subcontracted to another party prior to being purchased by the media medium.

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement E: Stakeholder Communications, Engagement and Alignment The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. We felt there was a disconnect in the understanding of the possible ways to communicate with stakeholders. It isn’t feasible to bring them all to the table due to the variety of the different types of stakeholders and their differing priorities.

6. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement F: Public Relations and External Communications The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The committee was looking for more detail and clarity on the story-telling of leadership in feature development.

7. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement G: Analytics, Performance Measurement and Continuous Improvement The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The example provided showed their process and the final numbers but the committee couldn’t locate the benchmarks that were set that would have shown positive growth after adjustment(s) to their campaign.

8. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Requirement H: Portfolio Management and Strategic Support The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The bidder referred to the use of multiple-subcontractors. While this isn’t always bad, it often causes communication to become more difficult. MiLEAP projects often need clear and concise communication.

9. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

10. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 83.5/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

DBA Change Media Group

V. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of their price proposals:

DBA Change Media Group

VI. Award Recommendation Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who offers the best value to the State of Michigan. Best value is based on the proposal meeting the minimum point threshold and offering the best combination of the factors stated in the Proposal Instructions Evaluation Process section, and price.

GUD Marketing provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include: strength of proposed strategy and approach, understanding of the current programmatic landscape, past performance, and creative capability.

As part of the best value determination, overall economic impact to the State of Michigan was considered and is not a determinative factor in making this award.

Version 2024-2 image1.png