RFP# 260000000764 - Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.docx

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 260000000764 Marketing and Advertising Services for MSP – OHSP and has recommended an award to Brogan & Partners in the amount of $18,000,000.00, 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:

Adam Ashley, Solicitation Manager.

Ashleya2@michigan.gov 517-855-1376 Public copies of all bidder proposals can be found here: DTMB - Bid Proposals (michigan.gov) Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Marketing and Advertising Services. The term of this contract is 3 years, with up to 2 1-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on January 21, 2026, for 23 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of February 12, 2026.

Ferndale, MI 48220

Grand Rapids, MI 49503

Lambert Global LLC

47 Commerce St., SW Grand Rapids, MI 49503

*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 80 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 80 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 the Solicitation Manager in collaboration with the Joint Evaluation Committee which consisted of the following individuals:

Voting

Adam Ashley, Solicitation Manager DTMB – Central Procurement Services

Nancy Feldbush, Communications Section Manager Office of Highway Safety Planning

Kara Hengesbach, Communications Project Coordinator Office of Highway Safety Planning

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

The Evaluation Team determined that Brogan & Partners Advertising Consultancy, Inc., based on a score of 98, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 35/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-5 18/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Only 6 out of the 9 Key Personnel requirements were completed.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 30/30 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 98/100

B. Davison Dietsch & McCarthy, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Davison Dietsch & McCarthy, Inc. based on a score of 83, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 30/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. While images were provided, none were identified or labeled for social media use. Additionally, the bidder did not provide ad samples for Gas Station TV and Rich Media.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-5 8/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly unsatisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder provided only 1 out of the 3 OHSP media campaigns that were requested.

b. Bidder went over the allotted budget of $130,000.00 for the commercial research and production requirement.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 30/30 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 83/100

C. Zoned Marketing Bidder did not meet the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to not including the Vendor Questions Worksheet document.

D. Lambert Global LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Lambert Global LLC, based on a score of 93, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 35/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-5 13/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The media plans did not detail all the cost associated with each project.

b. The State requested a weekly report sample, but the bidder provided a monthly report sample.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 30/30 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 93/100

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

1. Product Quality – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 30/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Gas Station Topper sample was not provided. Additionally, the links to view the Splash Pages and Rich Media did not work.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-5 14/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The media plans did not detail all the cost associated with each project.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 30/30 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 89/100

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Version 2024-2 IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Oral Presentations/Demonstrations A. Brogan & Partners Advertising Consultancy, Inc.

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

1. Company Information/Quality of presentation 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Research Plan/Methodology Rationale 24/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The rationale for the research methodology was provided but could have been explained in greater depth.

3. Media Plan, Message Plan, and Value Add 35/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Creative and Messaging Concepts/Innovation/Cutting-edge Strategy 30/30 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 99/100

B. Davison Dietsch & McCarthy, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Davison Dietsch & McCarthy, Inc. based on a score of 78, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Oral Evaluation Criteria.

1. Company Information/Quality of presentation 9/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The bidder did not introduce all their personnel on the call.

2. Research Plan/Methodology Rationale 19/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Surveys and focus groups were mentioned on the timeline slide, but the bidder did not elaborate on what they would involve.

3. Media Plan, Message Plan, and Value Add 25/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The cost of creative production and research exceeded the budget requirements.

b. Impressions fall short of the required goal without Added Value, with only 35 million presented compared to the minimum requirement of 44 million.

4. Creative and Messaging Concepts/Innovation/Cutting-edge Strategy 25/30 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The commercial concepts presented lacked storyboards.

Total Score: 78/100

C. Lambert Global LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Lambert Global LLC, based on a score of 75, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Oral Evaluation Criteria.

1. Company Information/Quality of presentation 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Research Plan/Methodology Rationale 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Media Plan, Message Plan, and Value Add 15/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly unsatisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted.

a. The campaign exceeded the $130,000.00 budget requirement for the research and video production budget requirement.

b. The platform and the corresponding impression totals were not specified.

c. The presentation provided a year‑long paid media timeline, although the State’s proposed timeline was October–November and January–July.

4. Creative and Messaging Concepts/Innovation/Cutting-edge Strategy 25/30 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The commercial concept was not fully developed in the presentation, with only basic‑level details included.

Total Score: 75/100

D. GUD Marketing The Evaluation Team determined that GUD Marketing, based on a score of 96, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Oral Evaluation Criteria.

1. Company Information/Quality of presentation 9/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The office name was incorrectly titled on the first page of the presentation.

2. Research Plan/Methodology Rationale 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Media Plan, Message Plan, and Value Add 32/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Media Placement agency fees were not specified in the presentation.

b. There was no cost breakdown provided for the research and production of the commercial.

4. Creative and Messaging Concepts/Innovation/Cutting-edge Strategy 30/30 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 96/100

VI. Oral Presentation Evaluation Summary

VII.

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

1. Brogan & Partners Advertising Consultancy, Inc.

2. Gud Marketing Inc.

IX. Negotiations The awarded vendor provided second-round pricing that is reflected in the Pricing Summary above.

X. 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 experience in public service media, detailed media plans, and the ability to accurately break down research and creative production costs ensure efficient resource management, cost control, and high-quality deliverables within budget requirements.

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

Award Recommendation is made to Brogan & Partners Advertising Consultancy, Inc.in the amount of $18,000,000.00.

image1.png