RFP 250000001055 - Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 250000001055 - Creative Media Advertising & Clearinghouse Services - MDHHS and has recommended an award to Brogan & Partners Advertising Consultancy, Inc. in the amount of $90,000,000.00, 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:

Marissa Gove, Solicitation Manager.

Govem1@michigan.gov 517-449-8952 Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for the selection of a Contractor to provide Creative Media Advertising & Clearinghouse Services for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. The term of this contract is 3 years, with up to 2 renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on January 21, 2025, for 28 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of February 18, 2025.

Suite 200, Farmington Hills, MI 48331

*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 Step 1: The following chart represents factors that will be utilized to score Step 1. Bidders who receive a minimum score of 152 will pass Step 1 and a limited number of Bidders will be further evaluated based on the criteria identified in Step 2. Bidders who do not meet the minimum point threshold in Step 1 will not be considered for award.

Step 2: Oral Presentation A limited number of Bidders who pass Step 1 will be required to make an oral presentation to the State as follows: The top 4 Bidders with the highest-ranking scores who pass Step 1 will be contacted after the initial JEC meetings to establish a date and time for the oral presentation. Oral presentations are preferred to be held in person, however, can be held virtually if the bidder chooses. In the case of a tie or if the State deems otherwise necessary, the number of bidders could change. The Schedule G will be utilized for the oral presentation. Note that the response to Schedule G does not have to be submitted with the initial RFP response.

Bidders will be evaluated on their ability to create a strategically sound presentation detailing their marketing solutions for the campaign as detailed in Schedule G and in alignment with all Contract requirements. Oral presentations will last no longer than three hours, including responses to questions fielded from the JEC.

The following chart represents factors that will be utilized to score Step 2. Proposals receiving a minimum score of 152 in Step 1 and a minimum score of 80 in Step 2 in the evaluation of the complete proposal will have their Pricing (Schedule B) evaluated and be 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, which consisted of the following individuals:

Marissa Gove, Category Specialist DTMB-Central Procurement Vicki Moore, Departmental Analyst

MDHHS

Amy Miller, Communications Manager

MDHHS

Ashourina Slewo, Communications Representative

Courtney Covington-Watkins, Communications Representative

Darice Darling, State Office Administrator

Laura Blodget, Senior Deputy Director

III. Technical Evaluation Results A. Brogan & Partners Advertising Consultancy, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Brogan & Partners Advertising Consultancy, Inc. based on a score of 184.5, 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, Section 1 98.5/102 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.3 Creative and Production Services, A. Creative: The Bidder failed to describe their process on how they would ensure culturally competent advertising communications.

b. Section 1.4 Clearinghouse Services, B. Phone System Requirements – IRV/CSR: The Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with providing support on mailing operations related questions.

c. Section 1.4 Clearinghouse Services, H. Additional Services – Public Relations & Special Events: The Bidder failed to describe how they would handle special events.

d. Section 1.12 Required Functionality Relating to Data Retention, Disposal, and Retrieval: The Bidder failed to describe how data retention or disposal requirements would be met.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-4 38/38 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for these sections.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-9 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for these sections.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 28/30 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experience 1: The response lacked some detail concerning the research component.

b. Experience 3: The response lacked some detail concerning the research component.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Excluding Experience 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for these sections.

Total Score: 184.5/100 B. Davison Dietsch & McCarthy, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Davison Dietsch & McCarthy, Inc. based on a score of 166.5, 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, Section 1 83/102 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.2 Media Management and Development, B. Media Placement: The Bidder failed to indicate partnerships or processes that would allow them to meet this requirement around direct mail services.

b. Section 1.3 Creative and Production Services, A. Creative: The Bidder failed to describe their process on how they would ensure culturally competent advertising communications.

c. Section 1.3 Creative and Production Services, B. Creative Brief: The Bidder did not reference cost-effective strategies in their approach to ensuring alignment with MDHHS objectives.

d. Section 1.3 Creative and Production Services, C. Production: The Bidder failed to describe how they would manage location scouting, casting talent, filming, recording or editing, and didn’t include recent experience.

e. Section 1.3 Creative and Production Services, D. Production Internet/Web: The submitted samples lacked diversity, representing only a single campaign. Additionally, the video ad was non-functional, and all other ads were static, offering limited insight into the full range of creative execution.

f. Section 1.3 Creative and Production Services, E. Production – Other: The submitted samples lacked diversity, representing only a single campaign. Additionally, the video ad was non-functional, and all other ads were static, offering limited insight into the full range of creative execution.

g. Section 1.4 Clearinghouse Services, A. Phone Service (Call Center) Requirements: The Bidder failed to mention how many toll-free lines, less than 1% ring busy rate, less than 3% abandoned call rate, average hold time of 30-seconds, or return calls within 24 hours.

h. Section 1.4 Clearinghouse Services, B. Phone System Requirements – IRV/CSR: The Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with providing support on mailing operations related questions.

i. Section 1.4 Clearinghouse Services, D. Mailing Operations: The Bidder failed to address kitting and assembly services for publications/mailings.

j. Section 1.4 Clearinghouse Services, H. Additional Services – Public Relations & Special Events: The Bidder failed to describe how they would handle special events.

k. Section 1.5 Transition: The Bidder did not address end of contract conversion beyond items in the warehouse.

l. Section 1.6 Specific Standards, ADA Compliance: The Bidder lacked detail on how they would meet this requirement.

m. Section 1.11 Hosting: The Bidder failed to provide a disaster recovery plan for themselves. The one provided was that of their clearinghouse subcontractor.

n. Section 1.12 Required Functionality Relating to Data Retention, Disposal, and Retrieval: The Bidder failed to describe how data retention or disposal requirements would be met.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-4 33.5/38 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 3.7 Key Personnel: The Bidder’s proposed account manager, designated 100% of the time, has only two years of experience, which falls short of the required minimum of five years.

o. Section 3.9 Disclosure of Subcontractors: Much of the work is subcontracted, raising concerns about control over the execution of the contract.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-9 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for these sections.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 30/30 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for this section.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Excluding Experience 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for these sections.

Total Score: 166.5/100 C. Virtual Marketing, LLC dba Fusion92 The Evaluation Team determined that Virtual Marketing, LLC dba Fusion92 based on a score of 176, 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 94.5/102 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.2 Media Management and Development, A. Media: The Bidder lacked detail in a thorough evaluation of all media tactics available to the State.

b. Section 1.2 Media Management and Development, C: The Bidder failed to address how they would comply if there were findings.

c. Section 1.3 Creative and Production Services, C. Production: The Bidder failed to provide recent experience or discuss delivering rough cuts, finished spots, and producing and duplicating media materials.

d. Section 1.4 Clearinghouse Services, A. Phone Services (Call Center) Requirements: The Bidder failed to mention how many toll-free lines, less than 1% ring busy rate, less than 3% abandoned call rate, average hold time of 30-seconds, or return calls within 24 hours.

e. Section 1.4 Clearinghouse Services, B. Phone System Requirements – IRV/CSR: The Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with providing support on mailing operations related questions.

f. Section 1.4 Clearinghouse Services, D. Mailing Operations: The Bidder failed to address kitting and assembly services for publications/mailings.

g. Section 1.4 Clearinghouse Services, H. Additional Services – Public Relations & Special Events: The Bidder failed to describe how they would handle special events.

h. Section 1.5 Transition: The Bidder failed to address transition of physical property.

i. Section 1.12 Required Functionality Relating to Data Retention, Disposal, and Retrieval: The Bidder failed to explain how data is disposed of.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-4 31.5/38 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 3.7 Key Personnel: The Bidder did not complete the required table for certain key personnel, and the individual designated to manage the contract for the greatest percentage of time has not yet been identified.

b. Section 3.9 Disclosure of Subcontractors: The Bidder referenced the use of multiple production companies in their proposal narrative; however, these entities were not listed in the subcontractor table.

c. Section 4.1 Media Plan: The Bidder failed to identify staff assigned in their samples provided.

d. Section 4.3 Reporting: The samples provided by the Bidder were not legible.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-9 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for these sections.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 30/30 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for this section.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Excluding Experience 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for these sections.

Total Score: 176/100 D. Gud Marketing, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Gud Marketing, Inc. based on a score of 152.5, 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, Section 1 82/102 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1 General Requirements, B. Communication & Marketing, c: The Bidder did not address their ability to adjust active projects.

b. Section 1.2 Media Management and Development, A. Media: The Bidder lacked detail in a thorough evaluation of all media tactics available to the State.

c. Section 1.2 Media Management and Development, C: The Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with this requirement.

d. Section 1.3 Creative and Production Services, A. Creative: The Bidder did not address how they would ensure creative concepts will be free of copyright restrictions.

e. Section 1.3 Creative and Production Services, D. Production Internet/Web: The link provided to the samples was inaccessible.

f. Section 1.3 Creative and Production Services, E. Production – Other: The provided link to the samples was inaccessible.

g. Section 1.4 Clearinghouse Services, A. Phone Service (Call Center) Requirements: The Bidder failed to mention how many toll-free lines, less than 1% ring busy rate, less than 3% abandoned call rate, average hold time of 30-seconds, or return calls within 24 hours.

h. Section 1.4 Clearinghouse Services, B. Phone System Requirements – IRV/CSR: The Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with providing support on mailing operations related questions.

i. Section 1.4 Clearinghouse Services, D. Mailing Operations: The Bidder failed to address kitting and assembly services for publications/mailings.

j. Section 1.5 Transition: The Bidder did not address end of contract conversion beyond items in the warehouse.

k. Section 1.6 Specific Standards, Mobile Responsiveness: The Bidder failed to list all features that can be performed via a mobile device.

l. Section 1.11 Hosting: The Bidder failed to provide a disaster recovery plan for themselves. The one provided was that of their clearinghouse subcontractor.

m. Section 1.12 Required Functionality Relating to Data Retention, Disposal, and Retrieval: The Bidder failed to describe how data retention, disposal, or retrieval requirements would be met.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-4 35.5/38 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 3.7 Key Personnel: The Bidder did not specify the graphic designer’s years of experience.

b. Section 4.3 Reporting: The reporting samples provided were not relevant to the samples required.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-9 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for these sections.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 15/30 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experience 1: The link provided to the samples was inaccessible.

b. Experience 2: The link provided to the samples was inaccessible.

c. Experience 3: The link provided to the samples was inaccessible.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Excluding Experience 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for these sections.

Total Score: 152.5/100 E. Lambert Global, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Lambert Global, LLC based on a score of 104.5, 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 50.5/102 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1 General Requirements, A. Annual Media Plan Overview: The Bidder’s response provided minimal details regarding their philosophy and approach to working with MDHHS and developing a marketing strategy. Additionally, the link to the media plan was inaccessible.

b. Section 1.1 General Requirements, B. Communication & Marketing, d: The Bidder did not provide a response to this question, and the file-sharing link provided was inaccessible.

c. Section 1.2 Media Management and Development, A. Media: The file-sharing link provided was inaccessible.

d. Section 1.2 Media Management and Development, B. Media Placement: The Bidder failed to mention the Michigan Association of Broadcasters (MAB) or Michigan Cable Telecommunications (MCTA) in their response.

e. Section 1.3 Creative and Production Services, A. Creative: The Bidder failed to describe their process on how they would ensure culturally competent advertising communications and did not address how they would ensure creative concepts will be free of copyright restrictions.

f. Section 1.3 Creative and Production Services, C. Production: The Bidder’s response lacked detail in describing how they would comply with this requirement.

g. Section 1.3 Creative and Production Services, D. Production Internet/Web: The Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with this requirement and the file-sharing link provided was inaccessible.

h. Section 1.3 Creative and Production Services, E. Production – Other: The Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with this requirement and the file-sharing link provided was inaccessible.

i. Section 1.4 Clearinghouse Services, A. Phone Service (Call Center) Requirements: The Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with this requirement.

j. Section 1.4 Clearinghouse Services, B. Phone System Requirements – IRV/CSR: The Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with this requirement.

k. Section 1.4 Clearinghouse Services, C. IRA/CSR Requirements Continued: The Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with this requirement.

l. Section 1.4 Clearinghouse Services, D. Mailing Operations: The Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with this requirement.

m. Section 1.4 Clearinghouse Services, E. Mailing Operations – Shipping & Delivery Services: The Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with this requirement.

n. Section 1.4 Clearinghouse Services, F. Online Services: The Bidder lacked details on how they would comply with this requirement.

o. Section 1.4 Clearinghouse Services, G. Web Hosting, Order Processing & Customer Service: The Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with this requirement.

p. Section 1.5 Transition: The Bidder did not address end of contract conversion beyond items in the warehouse.

q. Section 1.7 User Type and Capacity: The Bidder failed to provide details on how each of these requirements would be met.

r. Section 1.11 Hosting: The Bidder’s disaster recovery plan lacked detail and was presented as a high-level outline rather than a comprehensive plan.

s. Section 1.12 Required Functionality Relating to Data Retention, Disposal, and Retrieval: The Bidder failed to describe how data retention, disposal, or retrieval requirements would be met.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-4 20/38 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 3.1 Contractor Representative: The Bidder failed to identify their Contractor Representative.

b. Section 3.4 Customer Service Number: The Bidder failed to identify their customer service number.

c. Section 3.5 Customer Service Representative Service Requirements: The Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with this requirement.

d. Section 3.7 Key Personnel, B: The Bidder failed to provide resumes for most key personnel.

e. Section 3.10 Security: The Bidder provided limited details for this requirement.

f. Section 4.1 Media Plan, A: The Bidder failed to include tasks, resources, or staff in their media plan.

g. Section 4.1 Media Plan, B: The file-sharing link provided was inaccessible.

h. Section 4.3 Reporting: Only one of the reporting samples provided was relevant to the samples required.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-9 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for these sections.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 14/30 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experience 1: The link provided to the samples was inaccessible and the Bidder failed to indicate whether the outcomes of their work were favorable in relation to the expected behavior change.

b. Experience 2: The link provided to the samples was inaccessible and the Bidder failed to indicate whether the outcomes of their work were favorable in relation to the expected behavior change.

c. Experience 3: The link provided to the samples was inaccessible and the Bidder failed to indicate whether the outcomes of their work were favorable in relation to the expected behavior change.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Excluding Experience 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for these sections.

Total Score: 104.5/100 F. M3 Group, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that M3 Group’s submission was non-responsive, as it did not include the required Schedule A - Statement of Work responses.

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Oral Presentations The JEC chose to move forward with the three bidders selected for oral presentations due to their demonstrated capacity to meet the RFP requirements through their internal resources and expertise. Each of these bidders presented a qualified team with relevant experience across the key components of the RFP. Additionally, their proposals demonstrated a cohesive approach, with the majority of tasks managed directly by their own staff. This in-house capability ensured better oversight, communication, and consistency. While all three bidders planned to utilize subcontractors for certain portions of the work, they would ensure that at least 20% would be awarded to Michigan-based Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (GDBEs), in compliance with the RFP requirements.

A. Brogan & Partners Advertising Consultancy, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Brogan & Partners Advertising Consultancy, Inc. 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. Company Information/Quality of Presentation 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for this section.

2. Project Plan 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for this section.

3. Research Plan/Methodology Rationale 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for this section.

4. Media and Message Plan and Value Add 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for this section.

5. Creative and Messaging Concept/Innovation/Cutting-edge Strategy 30/30 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for this section.

Total Score: 100/100 B. Virtual Marketing, LLC dba Fusion92 The Evaluation Team determined that Virtual Marketing, LLC dba Fusion92 based on a score of 88, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Company Information/Quality of Presentation 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for this section.

2. Project Plan 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for this section.

3. Research Plan/Methodology Rationale 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for this section.

4. Media and Message Plan and Value Add 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for this section.

5. Creative and Messaging Concept/Innovation/Cutting-edge Strategy 18/30 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory for this section, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. B. Theme and Messaging: The target audience was inconsistent throughout the presentation.

b. C. Creative Execution: The Bidder’s creative concepts were limited to digital formats, with no inclusion of other advertising channels and the concepts did not effectively reflect or support MDHHS objectives.

Total Score: 88/100 C. Gud Marketing, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Gud Marketing, Inc. based on a score of 77, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Company Information/Quality of Presentation 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for this section.

2. Project Plan 9/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory for this section, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. The Bidder did not include total anticipated costs in their project plan.

3. Research Plan/Methodology Rationale 18/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory for this section, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. The Bidder’s research lacked depth and comprehensiveness. The response focused more on the potential approach rather than demonstrating actions already taken in support of this campaign.

4. Media and Message Plan and Value Add 17/25 The Evaluation Team determined that that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory for this section, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. A. Media vehicle and schedule: The Bidder did not adequately address cultural competency in their presentation.

b. C. Media Budget Breakdown: The Bidder failed to provide a budget breakdown.

5. Creative and Messaging Concept/Innovation/Cutting-edge Strategy 23/30 The Evaluation Team determined that that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory for this section, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. C. Creative Execution: Concepts one and three did not effectively reflect or support MDHHS objectives.

Total Score: 77/100 VI. Oral Presentations Evaluation Summary

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

Initial Pricing:

Clearinghouse Services Pricing

Second Round Pricing:

Clearinghouse Services Pricing

VIII. Negotiations Bidders who passed the technical and oral presentation evaluations were offered an opportunity to submit second round pricing. Two out of the three qualified bidders responded with revised Contractor Fee percentages and offered a reduction as detailed in the Pricing Summary table above.

IX. 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. provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include: Documented knowledge, key personnel experience, ability to tailor messaging and media strategy to effectively engage the intended audience, and creative capability in alignment with MDHHS vision and desired outcomes.

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.

Award Recommendation is made to Brogan & Partners Advertising Consultancy, Inc. in the amount of $90,000,000.00.

Version 2024-2 image1.png