NIA1 250000000614.pdf

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 250000000614

Notice of Intent to Award Date: 5/2/2025

The Michigan Department of Education office has completed the evaluation of RFP 250000001005 Video Production Services - #proudMIeducator and has recommended an award to Biddle City in the amount of $174,120.00, 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:

Carol Munroe, Solicitation Manager.

munroec@michigan.gov

517-241-3329

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide videographer services to film, edit, and deliver promotional videos for Michigan Department of Education - specifically for the #proudMIeducator campaign. The term of this contract is two (2) years, with up to three (3) additional two (2) year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on January 14, 2025, for 14 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of January 28, 2025.

Bidder Address, City, State, Zip Code SDVOB* GDBE**

Biddle City Project, LLC dba Biddle City

1038 E. Oakland Ave, Lansing, MI 48906 N/A N/A

Breyko LLC 15626 Woodmont St, Romulus, MI 48174 N/A N/A

Michigan Blueprint Strategies dba Change Media Group LLC

975 Cherry St SE, Suite 3, Grand Rapids, MI 49506 N/A N/A

Creative Day Technologies

379 Executive Drive, Troy, MI 48083 N/A N/A

CS Detroit, LLC dba Cutters Studios Detroit

13320 Northend Ave, Oak Park, MI 48237 N/A N/A

First Fight LLC 2111 Woodward Ave, Suite 1003, Detroit, MI 48201 N/A N/A https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/state-ad-board

Image Studios Inc 1100 South Lynndale Drive, Appleton, WI 54914 N/A N/A

JV Studios LLC 711 Pleasant St, Saint Joseph, MI 49085 N/A N/A

Kicker Inc. dba Kicker Video

1001 Woodward Ave, Suite 500 Detroit, MI 48226 N/A N/A

Leap Group Network LLC dba Spark

2500 Technology Drive, Louisville, KY 40299 N/A N/A

M-1 Studios, LLC 23452 Woodward, Ferndale, MI 48220 N/A N/A

M2 McMillian Media LLC 3920 Pine Terrace Blvd, Apt 3, Kalamazoo, MI 49006

N/A N/A

Overneath Creative Collective LLC dba Overneath Creative

4000 Portage St, Ste GL2, Kalamazoo, MI 49001 N/A N/A

Proversity Inc., Construct Education

823 Congress Ave, Suite 150 1581 TX N/A N/A

American Eagle Co., Inc dba Q+M

320 S. Main St, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 N/A N/A

Seventy 7 Productions Inc

4822 Leafdale Blvd, Royal Oak, MI 48073 N/A N/A

Water Hill Creative, Inc 625 Felch St, Ann Arbor, MI 48103 N/A N/A

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

II. Evaluation Method

Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Voting Voting

Jennifer Robel – Department Manager MDE/Office of Educator Excellence

Carol Skillings – Financial Manager MDE/ Office of Educator Excellence

Barbara Diou-Roig – Financial Specialist MDE/ Office of Educator Excellence

Jenny Manar - Buyer MDE/Office of Financial Management

Carol Munroe – Solicitation Manager MDE/Office of Financial Management

III. Evaluation Results

A. Biddle City Project LLC dba Biddle City

The Evaluation Team determined that Biddle City based on a score of 86, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Sample Videos. 43/50 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Could not determine if all sample videos were in 1080p.

b. Audio volume was inconsistent on videos.

2. Delivery and Service Capabilities - Schedule A, Statement of Work, General Requirements, Video Content, Technical Specification, Service Levels, Key Personnel – Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities. 16/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Some work is being done by subcontractors.

3. Project Management - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Project Management Section. 17/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Project management plan is lacking detail.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that the bidder met requirements.

Total Score: 86/100

B. Breyko LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that Breyko LLC based on a score of 34, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Sample Videos 20/50 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. No identifiable list of sample videos. It is unclear if sample videos embedded in resumes provided were a representation of vendors’ work, or employees work history.

b. Videos did not include closed captioning.

c. Videos were not on an educational subject.

d. No clear branding message.

e. Videos did not meet length requirement.

2. Delivery and Service Capabilities - Schedule A, Statement of Work, General

Requirements, Video Content, Technical Specification, Service Levels, Key Personnel – Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities. 5/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder did not provide responses to all questions.

3. Project Management - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Project Management Section. 0/20

The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were not satisfactory as stated below:

a. No project management plan submitted.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 9/10

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder has no State of Michigan experience.

Total Score: 34/100

C. Michigan Blueprint Strategies dba Change Media Group LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that Change Media Group based on a score of 80, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Sample Videos. 42/50 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Some sample videos did not include closed captioning.

b. Video quality and lighting poor in some areas.

Personnel – Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities. 15/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Some key personnel are located out of state. No clear direction on how this would impact filming schedule.

3. Project Management - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Project Management Section. 15/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Project management plan lacks detail.

b. Unclear what key personnel will be on site for filming.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 8/10 satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Project Manager is located out of state.

Total Score: 80/100

D. Creative Day Technologies

The Evaluation Team determined that Creative Day Technologies based on a score of 18, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Sample Videos. 0/50

The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were not satisfactory as noted below:

a. Unable to access sample videos.

2. Delivery and Service Capabilities - Schedule A, Statement of Work, General Requirements, Video Content, Technical Specification, Service Levels, Key Personnel – Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities. 9/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Some work is being done by subcontractors.

b. Lacking detail, more specifics needed

c. Formatting issues.

3. Project Management - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Project Management

Section. 0/20

The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were not satisfactory as noted below:

a. No project management plan submitted.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 9/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

Total Score: 18/100

E. CS Detroit, LLC dba Cutters Studio Detroit

The Evaluation Team determined that Cutters Studio Detroit based on a score of 44, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Sample Videos. 32/50 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Some sample videos did not include closed captioning.

b. Could not determine if all sample videos were in 1080p.

c. Sample videos were not documentary style.

d. Sample videos were not on an educational subject.

2. Delivery and Service Capabilities - Schedule A, Statement of Work, General Requirements, Video Content, Technical Specification, Service Levels, Key Personnel – Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities. 5/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder did not respond to all questions.

3. Project Management - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Project Management Section. 0/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, as noted below:

a. No project management plan was submitted.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 7/10

a. Bidder has no State of Michigan experience.

b. Bidder did not fully answer questions.

Total Score: 44/100

F. First Fight LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that First Fight LLC based on a score of 68, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Sample Videos. 30/50

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Sample videos did not include closed captioning.

b. Not all sample videos were in 1080p.

c. Subject/branding was unclear in a few videos.

d. Videos were not on an educational subject.

e. Videos did not meet length requirement.

2. Delivery and Service Capabilities - Schedule A, Statement of Work, General Requirements, Video Content, Technical Specification, Service Levels, Key Personnel – Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities 14/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Some work is being done by subcontractors.

3. Project Management - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Project Management Section. 14/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Project management plan is lacking detail.

b. Project plan is not expansive enough.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 9/10

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder has limited State of Michigan experience.

Total Score: 68/100

G. Image Studios Inc

The Evaluation Team determined that Image Studios Inc based on a score of 58, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Sample Videos. 40/50

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Some punctuation/grammar errors on closed captioning.

b. Videos did not meet length requirement.

c. No clear branding message.

2. Delivery and Service Capabilities - Schedule A, Statement of Work, General Requirements, Video Content, Technical Specification, Service Levels, Key Personnel – Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities. 12/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Key personnel are located out of state. No clear direction on how this would impact filming schedule.

b. Key personnel resumes were missing.

3. Project Management - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Project Management Section. 0/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, as noted below:

a. No project management plan was submitted.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 6/10

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

b. Some of the responses were limited and not detailed.

Total Score: 58/100

H. JV Studios LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that JV Studios LLC based on a score of 84, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Sample Videos. 46/50

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Some punctuation/grammar errors on closed captioning.

2. Delivery and Service Capabilities - Schedule A, Statement of Work, General Requirements, Video Content, Technical Specification, Service Levels, Key Personnel – Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities. 16/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Some work is being done by subcontractors.

3. Project Management - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Project Management Section. 16/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Unclear who the primary contact would be.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet. 6/10

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder has no State of Michigan experience.

Total Score: 84/100

I. Kicker Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Kicker Inc. based on a score of 62, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Sample Videos. 30/50

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Some sample links did not work.

b. Videos did not include closed captioning.

c. Videos were not in 1080p.

d. Subject/branding was unclear in a few videos.

e. Most sample videos were not on an educational subject.

2. Delivery and Service Capabilities - Schedule A, Statement of Work, General Requirements, Video Content, Technical Specification, Service Levels, Key Personnel – Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities. 15/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Key personnel resumes were missing.

3. Project Management - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Project Management Section. 8/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Project management plan lacked detail.

b. Project plan did not clear direction.

c. Unclear who will be managing the work.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 9/10

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly

Total Score: 62/100

J. Leap Group Network, LLC dba Spark

The Evaluation Team determined that Spark based on a score of 48, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Sample Videos. 26/50

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Videos did not include closed captioning.

b. Videos did not meet documentary style.

c. Videos were not on an educational subject.

d. Branding was geared toward businesses not education focused.

e. Videos did not meet length requirements.

f. Responses were limited and lacked detail.

2. Delivery and Service Capabilities - Schedule A, Statement of Work, General

Personnel – Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities. 11/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Key personnel are located out of state. No clear direction on how this would impact filming schedule.

b. Detail was lacking.

3. Project Management - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Project Management Section. 5/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Project management plan lacked detail.

b. Project plan did not have a clear direction.

c. Project plan did not include a sample schedule.

d. Unclear who will be managing work.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 6/10

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder has no State of Michigan experience.

Total Score: 48/100

K. M-1 Studios LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that M-1 Studios LLC based on a score of 85, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Sample Videos. 40/50 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Videos had punctuation/grammar errors on closed captioning.

b. Some sample transition frames were choppy not smooth.

c. Videos did not meet length requirement.

2. Delivery and Service Capabilities - Schedule A, Statement of Work, General Requirements, Video Content, Technical Specification, Service Levels, Key Personnel – Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities. 18/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly

a. Unclear what staff will be assigned to this project.

3. Project Management - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Project Management Section. 17/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Project management plan is lacking detail.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 10/10

The Evaluation Team determined that the vendor met requirements.

Total Score: 85/100

L. M2 McMillian Media LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that M2 McMillian Media LLC based on a score of 69, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Sample Videos. 39/50

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Videos did not provide closed captioning.

b. Videos had punctuation/grammatical errors on closed captioning.

c. Branding was unclear.

d. Videos did not fit documentary style.

2. Delivery and Service Capabilities - Schedule A, Statement of Work, General Requirements, Video Content, Technical Specification, Service Levels, Key Personnel – Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities. 13/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. One staff member assigned to project. No clear direction on how this would impact filming schedule.

b. Detail was lacking.

3. Project Management - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Project Management Section. 11/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Project management plan is lacking detail.

b. Logistics could be difficult with only one staff member.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 6/10

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. No State of Michigan Experience.

b. No relevant experience.

Total Score: 69/100

M. Overneath Creative Collective

The Evaluation Team determined that Overneath Creative Collective based on a score of 84, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Sample Videos. 43/50

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Could not determine if videos were in 1080p.

b. Videos did not have closed captioning.

2. Delivery and Service Capabilities - Schedule A, Statement of Work, General Requirements, Video Content, Technical Specification, Service Levels, Key Personnel – Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities. 19/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. MDE needs direct contact with filming staff.

3. Project Management - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Project Management Section. 13/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Turnaround time per video is too long.

b. Project management plan is lacking detail.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 9/10

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. No State of Michigan Experience.

Total Score: 84/100

N. Proversity Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Proversity Inc. based on a score of 60, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Sample Videos. 38/50

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Videos did not have closed captioning.

b. Branding was unclear.

c. Limited educational component.

d. Could not determine if videos were in 1080p.

Personnel – Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities. 13/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Timeline is too long for the turnaround necessary.

b. Detail was lacking.

3. Project Management - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Project Management Section. 9/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Project management plan is lacking detail.

b. Project plan is not aligned to the needs of this RFP.

c. The review process is too lengthy.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 0/10

The Evaluation Team determined that vendor did not meet requirements.

a. Bidder did not provide the vendor questions worksheet.

Total Score: 60/100

O. American Eagle Co., Inc dba Q+M

The Evaluation Team determined that Q+M 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. Product Quality – Sample Videos. 32/50

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Video link was not easily accessible. Misspellings on the webpage.

b. Videos did not provide closed captioning.

c. Could not determine if the videos were in 1080p.

d. Sound and light quality were poor.

e. Bidder responses provided were not descriptive or detailed in some areas.

Personnel – Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities. 13/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Detail is lacking.

b. Did not sufficiently answer the question on growth of company.

3. Project Management - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Project Management Section. 13/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Project management plan is lacking detail.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 5/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. No State of Michigan Experience

b. Questions were not answered professionally.

c. Answers were not consistent.

Total Score: 63/100

P. Seventy 7 Productions

The Evaluation Team determined that Seventy 7 Productions based on a score of 69, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Sample Videos. 36/50

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Errors noted in closed captioning.

b. Closed captioning was not available on every video.

c. Could not determine if videos were in 1080p.

d. Videos submitted were older and only 1 current.

e. Sound and light quality were poor.

2. Delivery and Service Capabilities - Schedule A, Statement of Work, General Requirements, Video Content, Technical Specification, Service Levels, Key Personnel – Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities. 10/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Detail was lacking.

b. No information on who is assigned to the project.

3. Project Management - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Project Management Section. 14/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Project plan was limited in scope.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 9/10

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. No State of Michigan Experience.

Total Score: 69/100

Q. Water Hill Creative

The Evaluation Team determined that Water Hill Creative based on a score of 80, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Sample Videos. 41/50

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Videos did not provide closed captioning.

b. Could not determine if sample videos were in 1080p

2. Delivery and Service Capabilities - Schedule A, Statement of Work, General Requirements, Video Content, Technical Specification, Service Levels, Key Personnel – Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities. 16/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Two staff members. No clear direction on how this would impact filming schedule.

3. Project Management - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Project Management Section. 13/20

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Project management plan is lacking detail.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 10/10

The Evaluation Team determined that the bidder met requirements.

Total Score: 80/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Selection Criteria

Bidders

Product Quality

Delivery and Service Capabilities

Project Management Capabilities

Vendor Questions Worksheet

TOTAL

1 Biddle City Project, LLC dba Biddle City

43 16 17 10 86

2 Breyko LLC 20 5 0 9 34

3 Michigan Blueprint Strategies dba Change Media Group LLC

42 15 15 8 80

4 Creative Day Technologies

0 9 0 9 18

5 CS Detroit, LLC dba Cutters Studios Detroit

32 5 0 7 44

6 First Fight 30 14 15 9 68

7 Image Studios 40 12 0 6 58

8 JV Studios 46 16 16 6 84

9 Kicker 30 15 8 9 62

10 Leap Group Network LLC dba Spark

26 11 5 6 48

11 M-1 Studios 40 18 17 10 85

12 M2 McMillian Media 39 13 11 6 69

13 Overneath Creative Collective

43 19 13 9 84

14 Proversity 38 13 9 0 60

15 American Eagle Co., Inc dba Q+M

32 13 13 5 63

16 Seventy 7 Productions

36 10 14 9 69

17 Water Hill Creative 41 16 13 10 80

V. Pricing Summary

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

Bidders

3 ½ Minute Video

(15) Estimated

# of videos

30- Second Video

(40) Estimated

# of videos

Travel Costs

Annual Video

Production Total

2 Year Video

Production Total

1 Biddle City

$3,308 $49,620 $686 $27,440 $10,000 $87,060 $174,120

2 Change Media

$24,100 $361,500 $3,800 $152,000 $10,000 $523,500 $1,047,000

3 JV Studios $4,997 $74,995 $1,704 $68,160 $10,000 $153,115 $306,230

4 M-1 Studios

$3,140 $47,100 $770 $30,800 $10,000 $87,900 $175,800

5 Overneath Creative

$6,300 $94,500 $1,620 $64,800 $10,000 $169,300 $338,600

6 Water Hill $5,885 $88,275 $1,250 $50,000 $10,000 $148,275 $296,550

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.

Biddle City provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include the technical score as well as the estimated contract value.

Award Recommendation is made to Biddle City in the amount of $174,120.00.