RFP 260000000351 - Award Recommendation and Synopsis.docx

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 260000000351- Statewide Marketing and Advertising Services and has recommended an award to the bidders listed in the table below for the amounts shown, 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 Public copies of all bidder proposals can be found here: DTMB - Bid Proposals (michigan.gov) Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of Contractors to provide Statewide Marketing and Advertising 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 8, 2026, for 37 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of February 13, 2026.

*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 particular factors that will be utilized to score Step 1. Bidders who receive a minimum score of 168 will pass Step 1. Bidders who do not meet the minimum point threshold in Step 1 will not be considered for award.

Step 2: Oral Presentations A limited number of Bidders who pass Step 1 will be required to make an oral presentation to the State as follows: The chosen Bidders 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. Schedule F will be utilized for the oral presentation. Note that the response to Schedule F 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 F 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 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:

Marissa Gove, Category Specialist DTMB - Central Procurement, Services Emily Freeman, Recycling Specialist EGLE – Materials Management Division

Erica Quealy, Deputy Communications Director DHHS – Office of Communications Anna Swanson, Buyer MDOT – Contract Services Division, Purchasing

Lucas Verran, External Communications Representative MDOC – Public Information Unit Brandon Colby, Procurement Manager MiLEAP - Operations

Serena Giles, Financial Analyst MDE – Office of Career and Technical Education Mario Matthews, Department Analyst MDOC - Recruitment

Robert Rivera, Buyer MiLEAP - Operations

III. Evaluation Results A. Ace Creatives, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Ace Creatives, LLC based on a score of 156.5, 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 53.5/100 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.A.Strategic Planning and Development: Bidder lacked detail in describing how they would conduct market research, produce, duplicate and distribute media materials, provide public relations services, report campaign results including ROAS and make-good advertising slots, and develop and present creative concepts for State approval.

b. 1.1.B.Annual Communication and Marketing Plans: Bidder lacked detail in describing how they would develop and implement annual communication and marketing plans to meet the State’s requirements for audience-specific strategies, messaging, communication methods, plan updates, and approvals.

c. 1.1.C.Project Management of Multiple Campaigns: Bidder failed to demonstrate their ability to maintain current projects while adding new projects, campaigns, media, and marketing plans.

d. 1.1.D.Market Research: Bidder does not maintain in-house access to proprietary research databases and does not independently conduct primary market research such as intercept surveys, phone surveys, or focus groups.

e. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 2: Bidder’s link provided was not accessible.

f. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 5: Bidder failed to describe their experience and how they would comply with directing and coordinating TV and radio production.

g. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 6: Bidder failed to describe their experience with media material duplication and how they would comply with producing, duplicating, and distributing all media materials.

h. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 8: Bidder failed to describe their experience and failed to describe how they would produce the additional project deliverables listed in this requirement.

i. 1.1.F.Media Plan Development, 1: Bidder lacked detail on their experience developing media plans and implementation.

j. 1.1.F.Media Plan Development, 2: Bidder’s information contradicts claims earlier in the proposal that stated they do not perform market research.

k. 1.1.F.Media Plan Development, 3: Bidder failed to describe their experience working with all media buying.

l. 1.1.F.Media Plan Development, 4: Bidder failed to describe their experience developing communications campaigns and conducting public relations services, and failed to provide an example of a recent communications campaign developed and an example of a recent public relations service provided by their organization.

m. 1.1.G.Media-Negotiations and Placement, 1 & 2: Bidder failed to describe their experience related to negotiations and purchases of radio and TV airtime, and outdoor publication spaces and failed to describe how they would comply with this requirement.

n. 1.1.G.Media-Negotiations and Placement, 4: Bidder failed to address how they would comply with extending a budget or explain their experience with value added media planning and purchasing.

o. 1.1.H.1.Production: Bidder failed to provide an example of production services provided by their firm and failed to describe how they would plan and organize special events and/or consulting.

p. 1.1.H.2.Sporting Event: Bidder failed to provide an example of how they have carried out these services in the past and failed to describe how they would comply with providing sporting event opportunities.

q. 1.1.H.3.Special Events: Bidder failed to provide an example of a special event service provided by their firm and failed to describe how they would comply with this requirement.

r. 1.1.H.4.Website Content Development and Hosting: Bidder stated that they will not be providing the services listed in this requirement.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-5 38/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 3.6.Key Personnel: Bidder failed to provide information for a coder, research staff, or public relations coordinator.

b. 3.6.Key Personnel: Bidder’s resume link was not accessible.

c. 4.1.Project Plan: Bidder’s project plan failed to include project breakdown showing sub-projects, tasks, and resources/staff required, and budget breakdown.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Excluding Experience 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 45/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 156.5/210

B. Idea39, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Idea39, LLC based on a score of 174, 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 78/100 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 4: Bidder failed to describe their experience with talent negotiations.

b. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 6: Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with producing, duplicating, and distributing all media materials.

c. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 8: Bidder failed to describe their experience related to producing the additional project deliverables listed in this requirement.

d. 1.1.F.Media Plan Development, 1: Bidder failed to describe their experience developing media plans and implementation.

e. 1.1.F.Media Plan Development, 2: Bidder failed to describe their experience working with the resources identified and failed to explain how they would comply with this requirement.

f. 1.1.F.Media Plan Development, 3: Bidder failed to describe their experience working with all media buying.

g. 1.1.F.Media Plan Development, 4: Bidder failed to describe their experience developing communications campaigns and conducting public relations services.

h. 1.1.G.Media-Negotiations and Placement, 4: Bidder lacked detail on their experience with value added media planning and purchasing.

i. 1.1.H.1.Production: Bidder failed to provide an example of production services provided by their firm and lacked detail in their description of how they would plan and organize special events and/or consulting.

j. 1.1.H.2.Sporting Event: Bidder failed to provide an example of how they have carried out these services in the past.

k. 1.1.H.3.Special Events: Bidder failed to provide an example of a special event service provided by their firm and lacked detail on how they would comply with this requirement.

l. 1.3.Specific Standards, Mobile Responsiveness: Bidder failed to provide a list of all mobile devices that are compatible with their proposed digital solutions and a list of features that can be performed via a mobile device.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-5 31/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 3.6.Key Personnel: Bidder’s media coordinator has 3 of the required 5 years of experience and their social media manager has 2 of the required 5 years of experience.

b. 3.6.Key Personnel: Bidder failed to provide a resume for one of their key personnel.

c. 4.1.Project Plan: Bidder’s project plan was representative of a standard template rather than the required sample.

d. 4.3.B.Annual Marketing Plan Report: Bidder’s annual marketing plan report was not representative of what was required.

e. 4.3.C.Weekly Report: Bidder’s weekly report was not representative of what was required.

f. 4.3.D.Quarterly Report: Bidder’s quarterly report failed to include budget by purchase type.

g. 4.3.G.Media Placement Report: Bidder’s media placement report failed to include an assessment of Return of Investments (ROIs).

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Excluding Experience 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 45/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 174/210

C. Brogan & Partners Advertising Consultancy, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Brogan & Partners Advertising Consultancy, Inc. based on a score of 209, 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 1 100/100 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-5 44/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. 3.6 Key Personnel: Bidder failed to provide information for a public relations coordinator.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Excluding Experience 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 45/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 209/210

D. Davison Dietsch & McCarthy, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Davison Dietsch & McCarthy, Inc. based on a score of 195, 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 92/100 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.B.Annual Communication and Marketing Plans: Bidder failed to address updating plans to accommodate additional add-on projects.

b. 1.1.F.Media Plan Development, 4: Bidder failed to describe their experience developing communications campaigns and conducting public relations services, failed to provide an example of a recent communications campaign developed by their organization, and failed to provide an example of a recent public relations service provided by their organization.

c. 1.1.H.Additional Services, 1.Production: Bidder failed to provide an example of production services provided by their firm.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-5 39/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 3.6.Key Personnel: Bidder failed to provide information for a researcher, billing coordinator, public relations coordinator, coder, and clerical.

b. 4.3.D.Quarterly Report: Bidder’s quarterly report failed to include ROAS, lessons learned, and pass-through purchase information.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 9/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. 7.2.Payment Methods: Bidder failed to respond to this requirement.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Excluding Experience 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 45/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 195/210

E. Gud Marketing, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Gud Marketing, Inc. based on a score of 210, 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 1 100/100 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-5 45/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Excluding Experience 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 45/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 210/210

F. Hart Associates The Evaluation Team determined that Hart Associates based on a score of 195.5, 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 94/100 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.A.Strategic Planning and Development: Bidder failed to describe how they would produce, duplicate and distribute media materials, provide public relations services, and report campaign results including make-good advertising slots.

b. 1.1.H.4.Website Content Development and Hosting-New and Existing Material: Bidder failed to provide three examples of website services, fully developed websites, or content.

c. 1.7.Required Functionality Relating to Data Retention, Disposal, and Retrieval: Bidder failed to explain how the data retention, disposal, and retrieval requirements would be met and failed to describe their data management capabilities.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-5 37.5/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 3.9.Security: Bidder failed to respond to this requirement.

b. 4.3.C.Weekly Report: Bidder’s weekly report failed to include what funds had been spent and what funds were remaining.

c. 4.3.D.Quarterly Report: Bidder’s quarterly report failed to include budget summary and pass-through purchase information.

d. 4.3.G.Media Placement Report: Bidder’s media placement report was not representative of what was required.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Excluding Experience 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 44/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Experience 1: Bidder’s creative sample was not an executed creative concept.

Total Score: 195.5/210

G. King Media, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that King Media, Inc. based on a score of 201, 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 95.5/100 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.B.Annual Communication and Marketing Plans: Bidder failed to describe how they would develop and implement annual communication and marketing plans to meet the State’s requirements for audience-specific strategies, messaging, communication methods, plan updates, and approvals and their example provided failed to include accommodations for add-on projects.

b. 1.1.C.Project Management of Multiple Campaigns: Bidder failed to describe how large and small-scale projects would be maintained.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-5 40.5/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. 3.6.Key Personnel: Bidder failed to provide information for a media coordinator, researcher, copywriter, production coordinator, social media coordinator, and coder.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Excluding Experience 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 45/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 201/210

H. Lambert Global LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Lambert Global LLC based on a score of 207, 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 97/100 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.A. Strategic Planning and Development: Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with resolving make-good slots or including ROAS.

b. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 8: Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with producing additional project deliverables and their experience related to such deliverables.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-5 45/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Excluding Experience 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 45/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 207/210

I. Michigan Blueprint Strategies dba Change Media The Evaluation Team determined that Michigan Blueprint Strategies dba Change Media based on a score of 209, 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 99/100 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. 1.1.F.Media Plan Development, 4: Bidder’s public relations example included a press release that was written by State of Michigan employees, rather than demonstrating original work produced by the bidder.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-5 45/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Excluding Experience 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 45/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 209/210

J. Nove Communications, Inc. dba LKF Marketing The Evaluation Team determined that Nove Communications, Inc. dba LKF Marketing based on a score of 210, 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 1 100/100 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-5 45/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Excluding Experience 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 45/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 210/210

K. Odonnell Company, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Odonnell Company, Inc. based on a score of 196, 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 87/100 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 1: Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with developing social media, digital media, and new media strategic plans.

b. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 2: Bidder lacked detail in their explanation of how existing advertising and/or creative concepts would be developed and modified.

c. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 6: Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with producing, duplicating, and distributing all media materials.

d. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 7: Bidder failed to describe their experience and lacked detail on how they would comply with producing the internet project deliverables listed in the requirement.

e. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 8: Bidder failed to describe their experience and lacked detail on how they would produce the additional project deliverables listed in this requirement.

f. 1.1.F.Media Plan Development, 2: Bidder failed to describe their experience working with the resources identified and failed to explain how they would comply with this requirement.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-5 44/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. 3.6.Key Personnel: Bidder’s media coordinator has 2 of the required 5 years of experience.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Excluding Experience 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 45/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 196/210

L. Perich & Partners Ltd.

The Evaluation Team determined that Perich & Partners Ltd. based on a score of 171, 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 76/100 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.A.Strategic Planning and Development: Bidder stated that they would not be providing public relations services.

b. 1.1.B.Annual Communication and Marketing Plans: Bidder failed to describe how they would develop and implement annual communication and marketing plans to meet the State’s requirements for audience-specific strategies, messaging, communication methods, plan updates, and approvals.

c. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 4: Bidder lacked detail in describing their experience with talent negotiations.

d. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 6: Bidder failed to describe their experience with media material duplication.

e. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 7: Bidder failed to describe their experience with production of internet supplemental projects.

f. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 8: Bidder failed to describe their experience related to producing the additional project deliverables listed in this requirement.

g. 1.1.F.Media Plan Development, 1: Bidder lacked detail on their experience developing media plans and implementation.

h. 1.1.F.Media Plan Development, 4: Bidder failed to describe their experience developing communications campaigns and conducting public relations services, and failed to provide an example of a recent communications campaign developed and an example of a recent public relations service provided by their organization.

i. 1.1.H.3.Special Events: Bidder failed to provide an example of a special event service provided by their firm.

j. 1.1.H.4.Website Content Development and Hosting: Bidder failed to describe how they would provide website content development and hosting and failed to provide three examples of website services.

k. 1.6.Hosting: Bidder stated that they will not be providing web hosting services and failed to provide a disaster recovery plan.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-5 44/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. 3.6.Key Personnel: Bidder failed to provide information for a public relations coordinator.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Excluding Experience 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 31/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experience 1: Bidder’s creative samples lacked demonstration of technical capability.

b. Experience 3: Bidder’s creative samples lacked demonstration of technical capability.

Total Score: 171/210

M. Simons-Michaelson-Zieve, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Simons-Michaelson-Zieve, Inc. based on a score of 206, 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 96/100 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.E. Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 2: Bidder’s links provided were not accessible.

b. 1.1.H.Additional Services-Production, Special/Sports Events and Website Content, 3. Special Events: Bidder’s response failed to clearly indicate that they plan and organize events rather than support or promote them.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-5 45/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Excluding Experience 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 45/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 206/210

N. Verse and Hook, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Verse and Hook, LLC based on a score of 148, 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 45/100 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly unsatisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.B.Annual Communication and Marketing Plans: Bidder lacked detail in describing how they would develop and implement annual communication and marketing plans to meet the State’s requirements for audience-specific strategies, messaging, communication methods, plan updates, and approvals.

b. 1.1.C.Project Management of Multiple Campaigns: Bidder failed to demonstrate their ability to maintain current projects while adding new projects, campaigns, media, and marketing plans, and failed to describe how large and small-scale projects would be maintained.

c. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 1: Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with developing social media, digital media, and new media strategic plans, and failed to provide the required example.

d. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 2: Bidder lacked detail in their explanation of how existing advertising and/or creative concepts would be developed and modified, and their link provided was not accessible.

e. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 4: Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with acquiring all rights to any materials and ensuring full buy-out/unrestricted use of talent, and failed to describe their experience with talent negotiations.

f. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 5: Bidder failed to describe their experience and how they would comply with directing and coordinating TV and radio production.

g. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 6: Bidder failed to describe their experience with media material duplication and how they would comply with producing, duplicating, and distributing all media materials.

h. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 7: Bidder failed to describe their experience and provide details on how they would comply with producing the internet project deliverables listed in the requirement.

i. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 8: Bidder failed to describe their experience and failed to describe how they would produce the additional project deliverables listed in this requirement.

j. 1.1.F.Media Plan Development, 1: Bidder failed to describe their experience and how they would comply with developing media plans.

k. 1.1.F.Media Plan Development, 2: Bidder lacked detail on their experience working with the resources identified.

l. 1.1.F.Media Plan Development, 3: Bidder failed to describe their experience working with all media buying.

m. 1.1.F.Media Plan Development, 4: Bidder failed to describe their experience developing communications campaigns and conducting public relations services, and failed to provide an example of a recent communications campaign developed and an example of a recent public relations service provided by their organization.

n. 1.1.G.Media-Negotiations and Placement, 1 & 2: Bidder failed to describe their experience related to negotiations and purchases of radio and TV airtime, and outdoor publication spaces and failed to describe how they would comply with this requirement.

o. 1.1.H.1.Production: Bidder failed to provide an example of production services provided by their firm and lacked detail in their description of how they would plan and organize special events and/or consulting.

p. 1.1.H.2.Sporting Event: Bidder failed to provide an example of how they have carried out these services in the past and failed to describe how they would comply with providing sporting event opportunities.

q. 1.3.Specific Standards, Mobile Responsiveness: Bidder failed to provide a list of all mobile devices that are compatible with their proposed digital solutions and a list of features that can be performed via a mobile device.

r. 1.6.Hosting: Bidder’s submitted disaster recovery plan did not reflect a comprehensive or actionable plan.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-5 38/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 3.6.Key Personnel: Bidder failed to provide information for a researcher, copywriter, graphic designer, production coordinator, social media coordinator, public relations coordinator, and coder.

b. 3.6.Key Personnel: Bidder failed to provide length of employment for most of their key personnel.

c. 3.6.Key Personnel: Bidder failed to provide resumes for some of their key personnel.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Excluding Experience 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 45/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 148/210

O. Virtual Marketing, LLC dba Fusion92 The Evaluation Team determined that Virtual Marketing, LLC dba Fusion92 based on a score of 191, 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 99/100 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. 1.1.H.Additional Services, 2.Sporting Event: Bidder failed to provide an example of how they have carried out these services in the past.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-5 30/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 4.3.B.Annual Marketing Plan Report: Bidder’s annual marketing plan report was not legible.

b. 4.3.C.Weekly Report: Bidder’s weekly report was not legible.

c. 4.3.D.Quarterly Report: Bidder’s quarterly report was not legible.

d. 4.3.F.Media Buy Report: Bidder’s media buy report was not legible.

e. 4.3.G.Media Placement Report: Bidder’s media placement report was not legible.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Excluding Experience 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 42/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experience 1: Bidder failed to provide tactics used to reach the audience.

b. Experience 2: Bidder failed to provide tactics used to reach the audience.

c. Experience 3: Bidder failed to provide tactics used to reach the audience.

Total Score: 191/210

P. Yellow Dog Creative The Evaluation Team determined that Yellow Dog Creative based on a score of 120.5, 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 17.5/100 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly unsatisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.A.Strategic Planning and Development: Bidder failed to describe how they would conduct market research, produce, duplicate and distribute media materials, provide public relations services, report campaign results including ROAS and make-good advertising slots, and develop and present creative concepts for State approval.

b. 1.1.B.Annual Communication and Marketing Plans: Bidder failed to describe how they would develop and implement annual communication and marketing plans to meet the State’s requirements for audience-specific strategies, messaging, communication methods, plan updates, and approvals.

c. 1.1.C.Project Management of Multiple Campaigns: Bidder failed to demonstrate their ability to maintain current projects while adding new projects, campaigns, media, and marketing plans, and failed to describe how large and small-scale projects would be maintained.

d. 1.1.D.Market Research: Bidder failed to describe how they would conduct market/audience specific research to better access and understand the target populations.

e. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 1: Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with developing social media, digital media, and new media strategic plans.

f. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 2: Bidder lacked detail in their explanation of how existing advertising and/or creative concepts would be developed and modified.

g. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 4: Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with acquiring all rights to any materials and ensuring full buy-out/unrestricted use of talent, and failed to describe their experience with talent negotiations.

h. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 5: Bidder failed to describe their experience and how they would comply with directing and coordinating TV and radio production.

i. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 6: Bidder failed to describe their experience with media material duplication and lacked detail on how they would comply with producing, duplicating, and distributing all media materials.

j. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 7: Bidder failed to describe their experience and provide details on how they would comply with producing the internet project deliverables listed in the requirement.

k. 1.1.E.Media Management and Development-Concepts, Materials & Production, 8: Bidder failed to describe their experience and failed to describe how they would produce the additional project deliverables listed in this requirement.

l. 1.1.F.Media Plan Development, 1: Bidder failed to describe their experience and how they would comply with developing media plans.

m. 1.1.F.Media Plan Development, 2: Bidder failed to describe their experience working with the resources identified and failed to explain how they would comply with this requirement.

n. 1.1.F.Media Plan Development, 3: Bidder failed to describe their experience working with all media buying.

o. 1.1.F.Media Plan Development, 4: Bidder failed to describe their experience developing communications campaigns and conducting public relations services, and failed to provide an example of a recent communications campaign developed and an example of a recent public relations service provided by their organization.

p. 1.1.G.Media-Negotiations and Placement, 1 & 2: Bidder failed to describe their experience related to negotiations and purchases of radio and TV airtime, and outdoor publication spaces and failed to describe how they would comply with this requirement.

q. 1.1.G.Media-Negotiations and Placement, 3: Bidder failed to explain their experience related to negotiations of make-good media-weight for under-delivered media and failed to describe how they would comply with this requirement.

r. 1.1.G.Media-Negotiations and Placement, 4: Bidder failed to address how they would comply with extending a budget or explain their experience with value added media planning and purchasing.

s. 1.1.H.1.Production: Bidder failed to provide an example of production services provided by their firm and failed to describe how they would plan and organize special events and/or consulting.

t. 1.1.H.2.Sporting Event: Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with providing sporting event opportunities.

u. 1.1.H.3.Special Events: Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with planning and organizing special events.

v. 1.1.H.4.Website Content Development and Hosting: Bidder stated that they will not be providing the services listed in this requirement.

w. 1.2.Transition and Implementation: Bidder failed to describe how they would comply with transition and implementation requirements.

x. 1.3.Specific Standards, Mobile Responsiveness: Bidder failed to provide a list of all mobile devices that are compatible with their proposed digital solutions and a list of features that can be performed via a mobile device.

y. 1.3.Specific Standards, ADA Compliance: Bidder failed to acknowledge their agreement with ADA compliance and provide details for how they would meet the requirement.

z. 1.4.File Sharing: Bidder failed to describe their approach for ensuring full compliance with the file-sharing requirements.

aa. 1.5.Migration: Bidder stated that they will not be providing migration services.

ab. 1.6.Hosting: Bidder failed to provide a disaster recovery plan.

ac. 1.7.Required Functionality Relating to Data Retention, Disposal, and Retrieval: Bidder failed to explain how the data retention, disposal, and retrieval requirements will be met by their solution and describe its data management capabilities.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-5 40/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 3.6.Key Personnel: Bidder’s senior level strategic council has 6 of the required 7 years of experience.

b. 3.6.Key Personnel: Bidder failed to provide information for a researcher, public relations coordinator, and coder.

c. 4.3.D.Quarterly Report: Bidder’s quarterly report failed to include pass-through purchase information.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Excluding Experience 8/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 6. Hybrid Contract Terms: Bidder failed to affirm agreement with Contract Terms.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 45/45 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement Total Score: 120.5/210

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V.

VI. Oral Presentations/Demonstrations The JEC chose to move forward with seven bidders for oral presentations. Information obtained during the oral presentations was used to provide additional insight into each bidder’s approach, capabilities, and overall fit for the State. This was used to support the final selection of recommended awardees.

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

Initial Pricing:

2. Media Placement Agency Fee – Commission Percentage

Second Round Pricing:

2. Media Placement Agency Fee – Commission Percentage

VIII.

IX. Negotiations Bidders who passed the technical and…