Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis - MET-MiABLE Advertising - Final.pdf

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Version 2024-2 Page 1 of 25

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 260000000665

Notice of Intent to Award Date: July 22, 2026

The Department of Treasury’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of Request for Proposal (RFP) 260000001532 for Michigan Education Trust (MET) and Michigan Achieving a Better Life Experience (MiABLE) Marketing and Advertising Services and has recommended an award to Brogan & Partners Advertising Consultancy, Inc. in the amount of $10,800,000.00, 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:

William Burns, Solicitation Manager.

Burnsw4@michigan.gov 517.614.0956

Cc:

Lance Kingsbury, Assistant Solicitation Manager.

KingsburyL@michigan.gov 517.614.6458

Background Information:

This RFP was to solicit responses for selection of a contractor for Marketing and Advertising Services for the Michigan Department of Treasury (Treasury), Michigan Education Trust (MET), Section 529 prepaid tuition program and Michigan Achieving a Better Life Experience (MiABLE). When developing creative deliverables for MET, the Contractor must assure all deliverables follow Section 508, when appropriate. The term of this contract is three years, with up to two, one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on April 10, 2026, for 32 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of May 12, 2026.

Bidder Address, City, State, Zip Code SDVOB* GDBE** Brogan & Partners Advertising Consultancy, Inc. 535 Woodward Heights, Ferndale, MI 488220 No No

Daniel Brian & Associates, Inc. 222 S. Main St., Rochester, MI 48307 No No Davison Dietsch & McCarthy, Inc. (dba: dda marketing + communications)

100 Cesar E. Chavez Ave. SW, Suite 600, Grand Rapids, MI 49503 No No https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/state-ad-board https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/state-ad-board

Version 2024-2 Page 2 of 25

GUD Marketing, Inc. 1223 Turner St., Suite 101, Lansing, MI 48906 No Yes Hawke Media, LLC 2415 Michigan Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 90404 No No King Media, Inc. 1555 Watertower Place, East Lansing, MI 48823 No No Lambert Global LLC 47 Commerce St., SW, Grand Rapids, MI No No M3 Group, LLC 221 W. Saginaw St., Lansing, MI 48933 No No Orlattle, LLC 80 M. St. SE, Washington, DC, 20003 No No Parich + Partners Ltd. 218 N. 4th Ave., #204, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 No No Virtual Marketing, LLC (dba:

Fusion92)

222 Merchandise Mart Plaza, Suite 2200, Chicago, IL 60654 No No

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

Version 2024-2 Page 3 of 25

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 evaluated each proposal based on the following factors:

Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

1. Product Quality – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 30

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 25

3. Delivery Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2, 4-8 30

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 15

Total 100

Proposals receiving a score of 80 or more technical evaluation points had their pricing evaluated and considered for award.

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 (JEC), which consisted of the following individuals:

Voting Advisory R Scott de Varona MBA, Executive Director Savings Access & Financial Empowerment (SAFE) Bureau Department of Treasury

Lance Kingsbury, Departmental Manager Department of Treasury, Purchasing

Danelle Gittus, Communications Director Office of Communications, Executive Operations Department of Treasury

William Burns, Buyer Department of Treasury, Purchasing

Heather Barthelmes, Deputy Director

MET

Department of Treasury

III. Evaluation Results

A. Brogan & Partners Advertising Consultancy, Inc

The Evaluation Team determined that Brogan & Partners Advertising Consultancy, Inc (Brogan), based on a score of 99, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical

Version 2024-2 Page 4 of 25

Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2, 4-8 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 5. Brogan did not provide a dollar value for experience number two.

Total Score: 99/100

B. Daniel Brian & Associates, Inc

The Evaluation Team determined that Daniel Brian & Associates, Inc (DBA), based on a score of 95, 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, Section 1 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.5. Artificial Intelligence (AI). Enrolled account holder data cannot be used in any AI systems.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2, 4-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 4.3.C. The sample weekly report provided could not be opened for review.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 5. Two State of Michigan Experiences were over 10 years old.

Total Score: 95/100

Version 2024-2 Page 5 of 25

C. Davison Dietsch & McCarthy, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Davison Dietsch & McCarthy, Inc. (DDM), 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, Section 1 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1.A. DDM’s attachment names were not accurate with the stated program they were representing.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2, 4-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 4.1.B. DDM did not provide their ScheduleA.4.1.B MET or MiABLE plans.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 5. The experiences do not demonstrate that they have served as an agency of record for a project comparable in size and scope to this RFP.

Total Score: 89/100

D. GUD Marketing, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that GUD Marketing, Inc. (GUD), based on a score of 99, 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, Section 1 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1.B. GUD’s Market Research Plan states 15 years’ experience with MET, but it has only been 10 years.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2, 4-8

Version 2024-2 Page 6 of 25

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

Total Score: 99/100

E. Hawke Media, LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that Hawke Media, LLC (Hawke), based on a score of 63, did not 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, Section 1 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1.A. Hawk’s Communication Plan for both MET and MiABLE lacked detail.

b. Section 1.1.D. Although Hawke provided a concept, they did not provide the level of detail or the creative and visual examples required to assess their capabilities.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 3.3. Hawke did not provide detailed, chronological resumes of all Key Personnel as requested.

b. Section 3.4. Hawke’s Organizational Chart was difficult to follow/understand.

c. Section 3.5. Hawke is planning to use subcontractors; however, they are still in the final review process. They stated “…will be confirmed and disclosed to the State Contact Administrator within 10 calendar days of contact award per Section 3.5 disclosure requirements, in advance of the kickoff meeting.”

There are no such 3.5 disclosure requirements.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2, 4-8 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 4.1.B. Hawke’s project plan lacked detail.

b. Section 4.3. Hawke’s sample reports lacked content and details.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet

Version 2024-2 Page 7 of 25

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2. Hawke only provided three years of gross annual sales instead of the five that were requested.

b. Section 5. The three experiences provided are not similar to the size and scope of this RFP.

c. Section 8. Hawke did not provide number of employees currently employed at locations within the State of Michigan.

d. Section 8. Hawke did not provide the minimum wage paid to employees at locations within the State of Michigan

e. Section 8. Hawke did not provide the average wage paid to employees at locations within the State of Michigan.

Total Score: 63/100

F. King Media, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that King Media, Inc. (King), based on a score of 95, 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, Section 1 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2, 4-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1. King did not provide email addresses or their SIGMA vendor code.

b. Section 2. King did not provide their number of employees.

c. Section 5. The three prior experiences provided do not showcase the marketing and adverting needs for the MET program.

Total Score: 95/100

G. Lambert Global Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Lambert Global Inc. (Lambert), based on a score

Version 2024-2 Page 8 of 25 of 100, 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, Section 1 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2, 4-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

Total Score: 100/100

H. M3 Group, LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that M3 Group, LLC (M3), based on a score of 96, 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, Section 1 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1.A. M3 did not provide their 1.1A_26-PRO-0066_MET attachment as noted in their response.

b. Section 1.3.A. M3 stated in their response “the primary audience for MET was household incomes of $50,000.00 to $150,000.00” and the RFP stated the primary audience is household incomes of $75,000.00 and up.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2, 4-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 4.3.B. M3 provided a Board Report Example; however, this report does not align with the requirement.

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

Version 2024-2 Page 9 of 25

Total Score: 96/100

I. Orlattle LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that Orlattle LLC (Orlattle), based on a score of 72, did not 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, Section 1 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1.A. The MET and MiABLE communication plans lack specifics.

b. Section 1.1.D. Although Orlattle provided a concept, they did not provide the level of detail or the creative and visual examples required to assess their capabilities.

c. Section 1.2.D. Orlattle did not include any previous experience related to production of internet supplemental projects as requested.

d. Section 1.4.D. The example provided did not illustrate Orlattle’s ability to provide accessible deliverables.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 3.3. All of the Key Personnel resumes have Adwell listed as the firm they are working for (except Megan Nashban Kenney who has both Adwell/Orlattle listed). Adwell is not listed anywhere in their proposal either as a subcontractor, doing business as (dba) or a parent company.

b. Section 3.3. Almost all of the resumes had a majority of their experiences in the political candidate, elected official, and political campaigning arena.

c. Section 3.3. The requirement states: The Contractor must appoint at least 12 individuals, per program (12 for MET and 12 for MiABLE). Orlattle only provided 10 key individuals per program (two are to be hired).

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2, 4-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 4.1.B. Orlattle’s project plan lacked detail.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 5. All the relevant experiences Orlattle provided are not similar to the size and scope of this RFP.

Version 2024-2 Page 10 of 25

b. Section 5. The third experience only has a year instead of start and end dates.

Total Score: 72/100

J. Perich + Partners Ltd.

The Evaluation Team determined that Perich + Partners Ltd. (PPL), based on a score of 90, 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, Section 1 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1.A. PPL’s communication plans lack depth and specifics.

b. Section 1.1.B. PPL’s response lacked details on how they will accomplish conducting market research.

c. PPL did not showcase their creative or visual examples to fully assess their marketing and advertising capabilities.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2, 4-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

Total Score: 90/100

K. Virtual Marketing, LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that Virtual Marketing, LLC (Virtual), based on a score of 100, 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, Section 1 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2, 4-8

Version 2024-2 Page 11 of 25

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

Total Score: 100/100

Scoring Summary Selection Criteria Brogan DBA DDM GUD Hawke King

1.

Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1

30 28 29 29 20 30

2.

Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3

25 25 25 25 18 25

3.

Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2, 4-8

30 29 26 30 15 30

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet

14 13 9 15 5 10

Total 99 95 89 99 63 95

Selection Criteria Lambert M3 Orlattle PPL Virtual

1.

Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1

30 28 20 20 30

2.

Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3

25 25 18 25 25

3.

Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2, 4-8

30 28 28 30 30

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 15 15 6 15 15

Total 100 96 72 90 100

IV. Oral Presentations/Demonstrations

N/A

V. Pricing Summary

Version 2024-2 Page 12 of 25

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

See attached Price Summary for details.

VI. Negotiations

See attached Price Summary for details.

VII. 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.

Brogan & Partners Advertising Consultancy, Inc. provides the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include: their proposal offers the best combination of pricing and ability to meet technical requirements.

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 Page 13 of 25

RFP 260000001532 – MET/MiABLE Advertising Price Summary

Original Pricing

Brogan Account Management Fee – Fixed Annual Price

MET: $29,500.00; MiABLE: $29,500.00

Submit a detailed breakdown of all the factors that go into the Account Management Fee – Fixed Annual Price, indicating the following: Prices per hour for employees (as listed in the Contracted Positions table) and items identified in Section A.1-4 above.

Media Placement Agency Fee

6.5%

Position Hourly Rate

Contractor Representative $118.00 Senior Level Strategic Counsel / Firm Principal $118.00 Account Manager $118.00 Creative / Art Director $118.00 Media Coordinator $118.00 Social Media Coordinator $118.00 Public Relations Coordinator $118.00 Billing Coordinator $118.00 Clerical $118.00 Production Coordinator $118.00 Coder $118.00

The Contractor is encouraged to offer quick payment terms. The number of days must not include processing time for payment to be received by the Contractor's financial institution.

Quick payment terms: 2.0% discount off invoice if paid within 15 days after receipt of invoice.

Daniel Brian & Associates

MET: $163,250.00; MiABLE: $137,050.00

Submit a detailed breakdown of all the factors that go into the Account Management Fee –

Contractor Representative $185.00 Senior Level Strategic Counsel / Firm Principal $210.00 Account Manager $165.00

Version 2024-2 Page 14 of 25

Creative / Art Director $210.00 Media Coordinator $185.00 Social Media Coordinator $150.00 Public Relations Coordinator $175.00 Billing Coordinator $135.00 Clerical $115.00 Production Coordinator $165.00 Coder $165.00

The Contractor is encouraged to offer quick payment terms. The number of days must not

Quick payment terms: 0.0% discount off invoice if paid within 0 days after receipt of invoice.

Davison Dietsh McCarthy (dba: dda marketing + communications)

MET: $159,000.00; MiABLE: $159,000.00

Submit a detailed breakdown of all the factors that go into the Account Management Fee –

10.0%

Contractor Representative $225.00 Senior Level Strategic Counsel / Firm Principal $225.00 Account Manager $200.00 Creative / Art Director $200.00 Media Coordinator $190.00 Social Media Coordinator $175.00 Public Relations Coordinator $200.00 Billing Coordinator $165.00 Clerical $175.00 Production Coordinator $175.00 Coder $200.00

The Contractor is encouraged to offer quick payment terms. The number of days must not

Quick payment terms: 1.0% discount off invoice if paid within 15 days after receipt of invoice.

GUD Marketing

MET: $42,000.00; MiABLE: $37,000.00

Submit a detailed breakdown of all the factors that go into the Account Management Fee –

Version 2024-2 Page 15 of 25

6.8%

Contractor Representative $140.00 Senior Level Strategic Counsel / Firm Principal $150.00 Account Manager $125.00 Creative / Art Director $140.00 Media Coordinator $132.00 Social Media Coordinator $132.00 Public Relations Coordinator $132.00 Billing Coordinator $85.00 Clerical $100.00 Production Coordinator $132.00 Coder $100.00

The Contractor is encouraged to offer quick payment terms. The number of days must not

Quick payment terms: 1.0% discount off invoice if paid within 10 days after receipt of invoice.

King Media

MET: $110.00; MiABLE: $110.00

Submit a detailed breakdown of all the factors that go into the Account Management Fee – Fixed Annual Price, indicating the following: Prices per hour for employees (as listed in the

King Media did not provide a detailed breakdown of their Account Management Fee.

10%

Contractor Representative $110.00 Senior Level Strategic Counsel / Firm Principal $110.00 Account Manager $110.00 Creative / Art Director $110.00 Media Coordinator $110.00 Social Media Coordinator $110.00 Public Relations Coordinator $110.00 Billing Coordinator $110.00 Clerical $110.00 Production Coordinator $132.00

Version 2024-2 Page 16 of 25

Coder $100.00

The Contractor is encouraged to offer quick payment terms. The number of days must not

Quick payment terms: 0.5% discount off invoice if paid within 14 days after receipt of invoice.

Lambert Global Inc.

$989,000.00

Submit a detailed breakdown of all the factors that go into the Account Management Fee – Fixed Annual Price, indicating the following: Prices per hour for employees (as listed in the

Assuming this price is total for both programs (their detailed breakdown was not clear).

6.8%

Senior Level Strategic Counsel / Firm Principal $140.00 Account Manager $120.00 Creative / Art Director $130.00 Media Coordinator N/A Social Media Coordinator $120.00 Public Relations Coordinator $140.00 Billing Coordinator $100.00 Clerical $100.00 Production Coordinator $125.00 Coder $120.00

The Contractor is encouraged to offer quick payment terms. The number of days must not

M3 Group, LLC

MET: $91,000.00; MiABLE: $63,000.00

Submit a detailed breakdown of all the factors that go into the Account Management Fee –

5.9%

Version 2024-2 Page 17 of 25

Position Hourly Rate

Contractor Representative $150.00 Senior Level Strategic Counsel / Firm Principal $150.00 Account Manager $150.00 Creative / Art Director $150.00 Media Coordinator $150.00 Social Media Coordinator $150.00 Public Relations Coordinator $150.00 Billing Coordinator $150.00 Clerical $150.00 Production Coordinator $150.00 Coder $150.00

The Contractor is encouraged to offer quick payment terms. The number of days must not

Quick payment terms: 1.0% discount off invoice if paid within 14 days after receipt of invoice.

Perich + Partners, Ltd.

$94,200.00 (MET and MiABLE combined)

Submit a detailed breakdown of all the factors that go into the Account Management Fee – Fixed Annual Price, indicating the following: Prices per hour for employees (as listed in the

Their detailed Management Fee breakdown has a total price of $98,100.00 (combined).

7.0-10.0%

Contractor Representative $165.00 Senior Level Strategic Counsel / Firm Principal $175.00 Account Manager $158.00 Creative / Art Director $165.00 Media Coordinator $150.00 Social Media Coordinator $145.00 Public Relations Coordinator $145.00 Billing Coordinator $100.00 Clerical $80.00 Production Coordinator $145.00 Coder $158.00

The Contractor is encouraged to offer quick payment terms. The number of days must not

Quick payment terms: 1.5% discount off invoice if paid within 10 days after receipt of invoice.

Version 2024-2 Page 18 of 25

Virtual Marketing, LLC (dba: Fusion92)

$600,624.00 (MET and MiABLE combined)

Submit a detailed breakdown of all the factors that go into the Account Management Fee – Fixed Annual Price, indicating the following: Prices per hour for employees (as listed in the Contracted Positions table) and items identified in Section A.1-4 above.

The price is total for both programs; on the detailed breakdown the price is $600,650.00.

MET: $420,455.00 and MiABLE: $180,195.00.

6.0%

Contractor Representative $130.00 Senior Level Strategic Counsel / Firm Principal $130.00 Account Manager $130.00 Creative / Art Director $130.00 Media Coordinator $130.00 Social Media Coordinator $130.00 Public Relations Coordinator $130.00 Billing Coordinator $130.00 Clerical $130.00 Production Coordinator $130.00 Coder $130.00

The Contractor is encouraged to offer quick payment terms. The number of days must not include processing time for payment to be received by the Contractor's financial institution.

Second Round Pricing

Brogan

MET: $28,320.00; MiABLE: $28,320.00

Submit a detailed breakdown of all the factors that go into the Account Management Fee –

6.25%

Contractor Representative $118.00

Version 2024-2 Page 19 of 25

Senior Level Strategic Counsel / Firm Principal $118.00 Account Manager $118.00 Creative / Art Director $118.00 Media Coordinator $118.00 Social Media Coordinator $118.00 Public Relations Coordinator $118.00 Billing Coordinator $118.00 Clerical $118.00 Production Coordinator $118.00 Coder $118.00

The Contractor is encouraged to offer quick payment terms. The number of days must not

Daniel Brian & Associates

MET: $185,300.00; MiABLE: $167,350.00

Submit a detailed breakdown of all the factors that go into the Account Management Fee –

Contractor Representative $185.00 Senior Level Strategic Counsel / Firm Principal $210.00 Account Manager $165.00 Creative / Art Director $185.00 Media Coordinator $150.00 Social Media Coordinator $150.00 Public Relations Coordinator $175.00 Billing Coordinator $135.00 Clerical $115.00 Production Coordinator $165.00 Coder $165.00

The Contractor is encouraged to offer quick payment terms. The number of days must not

Davison Dietsh McCarthy (dba: dda marketing + communications)

MET: $69,680.00; MiABLE: $49,310.00

Version 2024-2 Page 20 of 25

Submit a detailed breakdown of all the factors that go into the Account Management Fee –

8.0%

Contractor Representative $200.00 Senior Level Strategic Counsel / Firm Principal $200.00 Account Manager $185.00 Creative / Art Director $185.00 Media Coordinator $175.00 Social Media Coordinator $160.00 Public Relations Coordinator $160.00 Billing Coordinator $160.00 Clerical $160.00 Production Coordinator $160.00 Coder $185.00

The Contractor is encouraged to offer quick payment terms. The number of days must not

GUD Marketing

MET: $34,125.00; MiABLE: $30,000.00

Submit a detailed breakdown of all the factors that go into the Account Management Fee –

Senior Level Strategic Counsel / Firm Principal $140.00 Account Manager $125.00 Creative / Art Director $140.00 Media Coordinator $115.00 Social Media Coordinator $115.00 Public Relations Coordinator $115.00 Billing Coordinator $85.00 Clerical $100.00 Production Coordinator $115.00

Version 2024-2 Page 21 of 25

Coder $100.00

The Contractor is encouraged to offer quick payment terms. The number of days must not

Quick payment terms: 1.0% discount off invoice if paid within 10 days after receipt of invoice.

King Media

MET: $2,600,000.00; MiABLE: $1,000,000.00

Submit a detailed breakdown of all the factors that go into the Account Management Fee –

MET: 10%; MiABLE: 15%

Senior Level Strategic Counsel / Firm Principal $110.00 Account Manager $110.00 Creative / Art Director $110.00 Media Coordinator $110.00 Social Media Coordinator $110.00 Public Relations Coordinator $110.00 Billing Coordinator $110.00 Clerical $110.00 Production Coordinator $132.00 Coder $100.00

The Contractor is encouraged to offer quick payment terms. The number of days must not

Quick payment terms: 0.5% discount off invoice if paid within 14 days after receipt of invoice.

Lambert Global Inc.

MET: $539,770.00; MiABLE: $342,320.00

Submit a detailed breakdown of all the factors that go into the Account Management Fee –

$0.00 - $500,000.00: 6.8% $500,000.01 - $1,000,000.00: 6.5%

$1,000,000.01: 6.3%

Version 2024-2 Page 22 of 25

Senior Level Strategic Counsel / Firm Principal $110.00 Account Manager $110.00 Creative / Art Director $110.00

Media Coordinator N/A (covered under media fee)

Social Media Coordinator $110.00 Public Relations Coordinator $110.00 Billing Coordinator $110.00 Clerical $110.00 Production Coordinator $110.00 Coder $110.00

The Contractor is encouraged to offer quick payment terms. The number of days must not

M3 Group, LLC

MET: $76,250.00; MiABLE: $52,500.00

Submit a detailed breakdown of all the factors that go into the Account Management Fee –

5.9%

Contractor Representative $150.00 Senior Level Strategic Counsel / Firm Principal $150.00 Account Manager $125.00 Creative / Art Director $150.00 Media Coordinator $150.00 Social Media Coordinator $150.00 Public Relations Coordinator $150.00 Billing Coordinator $150.00 Clerical $150.00 Production Coordinator $125.00 Coder $150.00

The Contractor is encouraged to offer quick payment terms. The number of days must not

Quick payment terms: 2.0% discount off invoice if paid within 20 days after receipt of invoice.

Version 2024-2 Page 23 of 25

Perich + Partners, Ltd.

MET: $52,000.00; MiABLE: $36,000.00

Submit a detailed breakdown of all the factors that go into the Account Management Fee –

10% on first $500,000.00; 7% on any additional media above $500,000.00 placed in the same year

Contractor Representative $165.00 Senior Level Strategic Counsel / Firm Principal $175.00 Account Manager $158.00 Creative / Art Director $165.00 Media Coordinator $150.00 Social Media Coordinator $145.00 Public Relations Coordinator $145.00 Billing Coordinator $100.00 Clerical $80.00 Production Coordinator $145.00 Coder $158.00

The Contractor is encouraged to offer quick payment terms. The number of days must not

Quick payment terms: 1.5% discount off invoice if paid within 15 days after receipt of invoice.

Virtual Marketing, LLC (dba: Fusion92)

MET: $420,424.00; MiABLE: $180,196.00

Submit a detailed breakdown of all the factors that go into the Account Management Fee –

Contractor Representative $130.00 Senior Level Strategic Counsel / Firm Principal $130.00 Account Manager $130.00

Version 2024-2 Page 24 of 25

Creative / Art Director $130.00 Media Coordinator $130.00 Social Media Coordinator $130.00 Public Relations Coordinator $130.00 Billing Coordinator $130.00 Clerical $130.00 Production Coordinator $130.00 Coder $130.00

The Contractor is encouraged to offer quick payment terms. The number of days must not

Quick payment terms: 0.0% discount off invoice if paid within 30 days after receipt of invoice.

Version 2024-2 Page 25 of 25

The State went back for pricing clarifications and wanted the bidder to submit their Account Management Fee (per program) for the month, the year, three-year price (per program), and the total three-year contract price. See table below for results:

Monthly / Yearly / Total Price Monthly Price Yearly Price Three-Year Total Price

Total Contract Price MET MiABLE MET MiABLE MET MiABLE Brogan $2,360.00 $2,360.00 $28,320.00 $28,320.00 $84,960.00 $84,960.00 $169,920.00 DBA $15,441.66 $13,945.83 $185,300.00 $167,350.00 $555,900.00 $502,050.00 $1,057,950.00 DDM $5,806.67 $4,109.17 $69,680.00 $49,310.00 $209,040.00 $147,930.00 $356,970.00

GUD $2,843.75 $2,500.00 $34,125.00 $30,000.00 $102,375.00 $90,000.00 $192,375.00

King $41,965.00 $24,979.17 $503,580.00 $299,750.04 $1,510,740.00 $899,250.12 $2,409,990.12 Lambert $15,891.67 $9,266.67 $190,700.04 $111,200.04 $572,100.12 $333,600.12 $905,700.24 M3 $6,354.16 $4,375.00 $76,249.92 $52,500.00 $228,749.76 $157,500.00 $386,249.76 Perich $4,333.33 $3,000.00 $52,000.00 $36,000.00 $156,000.00 $108,000.00 $264,000.00 Virtual $35,035.33 $15,016.00 $420,423.96 $180,192.00 $1,261,271.88 $540,576.00 $1,801,647.88