RFP 260000000882 - Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.docx

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 260000000882 - Michigan State Lottery (MSL) Advertising Services and has recommended an award to Simons-Michelson-Zieve, Inc. in the amount of $135,000,000.00, 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 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 Michigan State Lottery (MSL) Advertising Services. The term of this Contract is three years, with up to four renewal option years.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on April 1, 2026 for 36 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of May 6, 2026.

Troy, MI 48084

*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 State will evaluate each proposal based on the following factors:

Step 1: The following chart represents factors that will be utilized to score Step 1. Bidders who receive a minimum score of 224 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 – Lottery Product Launch A limited number of Bidders who pass Step 1 will be required to make an oral presentation to the State as follows: Bidders will be contacted after the initial JEC meetings to establish a date and time for the oral presentation. 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 a Lottery product launch as detailed in Schedule F and in alignment with all Contract requirements. Oral presentations will last no longer than two hours, including responses to questions fielded from the JEC.

The following chart represents particular factors that will be utilized to score Step 2. Bidders who receive a minimum score of 48 in Step 2 will be considered for award. Bidders who do not meet the minimum point threshold in Step 2 will not be considered for award.

Proposals receiving a minimum score of 224 in Step 1 and a minimum score of 48 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 a Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Voting

Marissa Gove, Category Specialist

DTMB - CPS

Amanda Miller, Deputy Commissioner of Games & Marketing

MSL

Brenden Miller, Advertising and Promotions Specialist

MSL

Jessica Mullen, Director of Compliance and Legal Affairs

MSL

III. Technical Evaluation Results A. Daniel Brian & Associates, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Daniel Brian & Associates, Inc. based on a score of 204, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet (Sections 1 – 4, 6 –13) 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory for these sections.

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet (Section 5 – Experience) 42/75 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2, Prior Experience, A, Experience 2: Bidder provided an inaccurate representation of this experience.

b. Section 2, Prior Experience, B, Experience 1: The campaign budget provided did not represent this specific project.

c. Section 2, Prior Experience, B, Experience 2: Bidder did not demonstrate the required experience in repositioning or reintroducing a mature retail product. The project submitted for Section B was the same project identified in Section A as a new product launch and was not shown to meet the distinct requirements of Section B.

d. Section 2, Prior Experience, C, Experience 1: Bidder misrepresented their involvement in conceptualization and development of this experience, and the budget did not represent this specific project.

e. Section 2, Prior Experience, C, Experience 2: The campaign budget did not match the timeframe of the project, and the experience is not relevant to this RFP.

f. Section 2, Prior Experience, D, Experience 2: Bidder’s experience was not within the last 4 years.

g. Section 2, Prior Experience, E, Experience 1: The campaign budget was not for this specific project, and the experience lacked information on radio and broadcast television.

h. Section 2, Prior Experience, E, Experience 2: The campaign budget was not for this specific project, and the experience lacked information on radio and broadcast television.

i. Section 2, Prior Experience, F, Experience 1: Many of the creative examples were digital assets only, and it was unclear if the campaign budget represented the actual project.

j. Section 2, Prior Experience, F, Experience 2: The budget was not representative of the project, some of the creative examples provided were not point-of-sale, and this project was not representative of the size and scope of this RFP.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 1 – Requirements) 60/80 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1.A, Marketing Strategy: Information provided was a misrepresentation of the Lottery analysis and the bidder's answer was limited to their plan for digital advertising.

b. Section 1.1.B, Media: Information provided was a misrepresentation of Lottery statistic facts, and the bidder failed to provide an evaluation of all media vehicles.

c. Section 1.1.C, Creative: Bidder failed to include all media types in their response.

d. Section 1.1.D, Production: Bidder's plan lacked detail on arranging the packing and shipping of materials, and the Lottery facts provided were inaccurate.

e. Section 1.1.E, Traffic: Bidder failed to provide a plan for trafficking traditional media.

f. Section 1.1.F, Promotional/Sponsorship Agreement Evaluation and Administration: Bidder lacked detail on a plan for assessing potential opportunities or offers.

g. Section 1.1.G, Marketing Research Procurement and Evaluation: Bidder's response was limited to digital market research and did not demonstrate their ability to support the full range of market research services required by the RFP.

4. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 2 – Service Requirements through Section 4 – Staffing) 55/75 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 4.6, Key Personnel: Bidder failed to provide resumes for a few of their key personnel and many resumes were incomplete and lacked detail on relevant work experience.

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 5 – Project Management through Section 9 – Service-Level Agreement (SLA)) 37/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 5.4, Reporting: Bidder’s reporting samples provided were representative of dashboard screenshots rather than the actual reports required.

Total Score: 204/280 B. Hart Associates, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Hart Associates, Inc. based on a score of 250, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet (Sections 1 – 4, 6 –13) 9/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 9, Michigan Economic Impact: Bidder failed to disclose information within this section.

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet (Section 5 – Experience) 56/75 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2, Prior Experience, A, Experience 1: It was unclear if the bidder’s stated objectives were achieved.

b. Section 2, Prior Experience, C, Experience 1: Bidder’s experience failed to fully describe how it was a sales promotion.

c. Section 2, Prior Experience, C, Experience 2: Bidder’s experience failed to represent a sales promotion.

d. Section 2, Prior Experience, D, Experience 1: Bidder’s creative examples failed to include radio, out of home, and digital assets.

e. Section 2, Prior Experience, D, Experience 2: Bidder’s creative examples failed to include radio assets.

f. Section 2, Prior Experience, E, Experience 1: Bidder’s creative examples failed to include radio and out of home assets.

g. Section 2, Prior Experience, E, Experience 2: Bidder’s experience lacked details on strategies, objectives, audience, tactics, and research. Campaign timeframe conflicted with the statement in the outcome section. Creative examples failed to show variation across different advertising channels.

h. Section 2, Prior Experience, F, Experience 2: Bidder failed to describe what research was conducted or provide a description of the campaign, and outcomes were not point-of-sale focused.

i. Section 2, Prior Experience, G, Experience 1: Bidder’s experience lacked detail on strategies, objectives, audience, tactics, and research.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 1 – Requirements) 78/80 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1.D, Production: Bidder's plan lacked detail on arranging the packing and shipping of materials.

4. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 2 – Service Requirements through Section 4 – Staffing) 71/75 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 4.6, Key Personnel: Bidder failed to provide a resume for one of their key personnel and it was unclear whether one key personnel was full time or freelance.

b. Section 4.7, Organizational Chart: The organizational chart provided does not show the structure of the organization as a whole.

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 5 – Project Management through Section 9 – Service-Level Agreement (SLA)) 36/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 5.1, General: Bidder failed to provide a response describing their plan to meet the requirements related to proactive account management, supplier oversight, work authorization controls, and schedule management for missed deadlines.

Total Score: 250/280 C. King Media, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that King Media, Inc. based on a score of 168, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet (Sections 1 – 4, 6 –13) 9/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 2, Company Background Information: Bidder failed to disclose the number of employees and failed to explain how they would scale up to manage the services under this RFP.

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet (Section 5 – Experience) 5/75 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly unsatisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2, Prior Experience, A, Experience 1: Bidder's experience was not an example of a marketing strategy involving the launch of a new retail product or service and they failed to provide creative examples.

b. Section 2, Prior Experience, A, Experience 2: Bidder's experience was not an example of a marketing strategy involving the launch of a new retail product or service and they failed to provide creative examples.

c. Section 2, Prior Experience, B, Experience 1: Bidder failed to describe how they repositioned or reintroduced this brand and failed to provide creative examples.

d. Section 2, Prior Experience, B, Experience 2: Bidder's experience did not qualify as a retail product or service, and they failed to provide creative examples.

e. Section 2, Prior Experience, C, Experience 1: Bidder's experience was not representative of a sales promotion, and they failed to provide creative examples.

f. Section 2, Prior Experience, C, Experience 2: Bidder's experience was not representative of a sales promotion but rather a social awareness campaign, and they failed to provide creative examples.

g. Section 2, Prior Experience, D, Experience 1: Bidder failed to describe how they utilized radio or out of home assets, and they failed to provide creative examples.

h. Section 2, Prior Experience, D, Experience 2: Bidder's experience was not retail marketing related, and they failed to provide creative examples.

i. Section 2, Prior Experience, E, Experience 1: Bidder's experience was a repeat of previous experience, there was no mention of radio or audio, and no creative examples were provided.

j. Section 2, Prior Experience, E, Experience 2: Bidder's experience was not retail marketing related, there was no mention of radio or audio, and no creative examples were provided.

k. Section 2, Prior Experience, F, Experience 1: Bidder's experience failed to demonstrate production work performed by their firm, there was no explanation of distribution provided, and no creative examples were provided.

l. Section 2, Prior Experience, F, Experience 2: Bidder’s experience was not a retail marketing experience, did not represent point of sale, and no creative examples were provided.

m. Section 2, Prior Experience, G, Experience 1: This experience was not an example of sports event sponsorship, and no creative examples were provided.

n. Section 2, Prior Experience, G, Experience 2: This experience was not a retail marketing experience, and no creative examples were provided.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 1 – Requirements) 75/80 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1.D, Production: Bidder's plan lacked detail on arranging the packing and shipping of materials.

b. Section 1.1.H, Optional Use Professional Services: Bidder stated that regulatory and compliance review of marketing materials was an optional service.

c. Section 1.3, Specific Standards: Bidder checked the box stating they had exceptions to this requirement but did not describe what the exceptions were.

4. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 2 – Service Requirements through Section 4 – Staffing) 46/75 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 4.6, Key Personnel: One of the bidder’s key personnel is not in compliance with required time commitment between two positions they are assigned, Bidder failed to provide a resume for one key personnel, and multiple key personnels’ experience was not representative of what is required to fulfill the duties in this RFP.

b. Section 4.7, Organizational Chart: The organizational chart provided is inconsistent with their response to Section 4.6, one of their key personnel is not included in the chart, and the account director positions are open.

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 5 – Project Management through Section 9 – Service-Level Agreement (SLA)) 33/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 5.2, Project Plan, A, B, C: Bidder failed to describe their project management practices and explain how their methods will meet the needs and expectations, and their sample project plan failed to demonstrate assigned tasks or breakdown of tasks with subtasks.

b. Section 5.4, Reporting: Bidder failed to provide an example of a conference report as required in this section.

Total Score: 168/280 D. Lambert Global LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Lambert Global LLC based on a score of 238, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet (Sections 1 – 4, 6 –13) 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory for these sections.

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet (Section 5 – Experience) 47/75 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2, Prior Experience, A, Experience 1: Bidder stated that there was no research conducted, and their response lacked examples of marketing strategies beyond packaging.

b. Section 2, Prior Experience, A, Experience 2: Bidder stated that there was no research conducted.

c. Section 2, Prior Experience, B, Experience 1: Bidder stated that there was no research conducted.

d. Section 2, Prior Experience, C, Experience 1: This experience was not representative of retail marketing, and they stated that no research was conducted.

e. Section 2, Prior Experience, C, Experience 2: This experience was not representative of retail marketing.

f. Section 2, Prior Experience, D, Experience 1: Bidder failed to describe how they used radio, audio, digital or out of home assets.

g. Section 2, Prior Experience, D, Experience 2: Bidder failed to describe how they used radio or out of home assets.

h. Section 2, Prior Experience, E, Experience 1: Bidder failed to clearly describe radio, out of home or tv assets.

i. Section 2, Prior Experience, E, Experience 2: Bidder failed to clearly describe radio, or tv assets.

j. Section 2, Prior Experience, F, Experience 1: Bidder failed to provide a description of production or distribution, they stated they did not conduct any research. This example failed to clearly describe point of sale efforts.

k. Section 2, Prior Experience, F, Experience 2: Bidder failed to provide a description of production or distribution, they stated they did not conduct any research. This example failed to clearly describe point of sale efforts.

l. Section 2, Prior Experience, G, Experience 2: Bidder stated that there was no research conducted.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 1 – Requirements) 69/80 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1.A, Marketing Strategy: Bidder failed to describe their plan to identify and evaluate market and sales development opportunities.

b. Section 1.1.B, Media: Bidder failed to provide an evaluation of all media vehicles and failed to outline the KPIs, target audience, tone, etc. in their plan.

c. Section 1.1.E, Traffic: Bidder lacked detail on their asset management solution.

d. Section 1.1.H, Optional Use Professional Services: Bidder failed to describe any optional use services available.

4. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 2 – Service Requirements through Section 4 – Staffing) 72/75 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 4.6, Key Personnel: One of the bidder’s key personnel job descriptions does not match the position they are filling, and the resume does not support the years of experience in their current classification.

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 5 – Project Management through Section 9 – Service-Level Agreement (SLA)) 40/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory for these sections.

Total Score: 238/280 E. Leap Group Network LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Leap Group Network LLC based on a score of 222, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet (Sections 1 – 4, 6 –13) 9.5/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 2, Company Background Information: Bidder failed to include their legal business address.

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet (Section 5 – Experience) 34.5/75 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly unsatisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1, State of Michigan Experience: Bidder failed to provide details on their relevant experience.

b. Section 2, Prior Experience, A, Experience 1: Bidder's experience was not within the last 4 years.

c. Section 2, Prior Experience, A, Experience 2: Bidder's experience was not representative of a new retail product or service.

d. Section 2, Prior Experience, B, Experience 2: Bidder's experience did not qualify as an actual repositioning or reintroduction. There were limited details on development of marketing strategies.

e. Section 2, Prior Experience, C, Experience 1: Bidder's experience was not within the last 4 years.

f. Section 2, Prior Experience, D, Experience 1: Bidder failed to provide radio and tv examples.

g. Section 2, Prior Experience, D, Experience 2: Bidder failed to describe and provide tv or radio examples.

h. Section 2, Prior Experience, E, Experience 1: Bidder's experience lacked detail in their description of the media buying strategy, and the creative example folder was empty.

i. Section 2, Prior Experience, E, Experience 2: Bidder failed to describe and provide tv or radio examples.

j. Section 2, Prior Experience, F, Experience 1: Bidder's experience was not within the last 4 years.

k. Section 2, Prior Experience, F, Experience 2: Bidder failed to provide a description of point-of-sale production or distribution. The experience was not relevant to a retailer who would carry a variety of products, and it wasn’t clear what was created for this campaign that was point-of-sale.

l. Section 2, Prior Experience, G, Experience 1: Bidder's experience was not within the last 4 years.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 1 – Requirements) 75/80 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1.D, Production: Bidder's plan lacked detail on arranging the packing and shipping of materials.

b. Section 1.1.H, Optional Use Professional Services: Bidder failed to describe any optional use services available.

4. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 2 – Service Requirements through Section 4 – Staffing) 66/75 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 4.6, Key Personnel: Bidder failed to provide information on the required second billing coordinator position.

b. Section 4.7, Organizational Chart: Bidder failed to provide an organizational chart.

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 5 – Project Management through Section 9 – Service-Level Agreement (SLA)) 37/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 5.4, Reporting: Bidder failed to provide an example of conference, weekly, monthly, and quarterly reports as required in this section Total Score: 222/280 F. Nativa, Inc.

Nativa, Inc. has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to not responding to bidder response boxes as required in Schedule A – Statement of Work.

G. Orlattle LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Orlattle LLC based on a score of 169.5, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet (Sections 1 – 4, 6 –13) 9.5/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 2, Company Background Information: Bidder failed to include their legal business address.

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet (Section 5 – Experience) 18/75 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly unsatisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2, Prior Experience, A, Experience 1: Bidder failed to provide creative strategy for this experience.

b. Section 2, Prior Experience, A, Experience 2: Bidder failed to provide a creative strategy for this experience. Experience was not a strong example of a new retail product or service, and no description of outcomes was provided.

c. Section 2, Prior Experience, B, Experience 1: Bidder’s experience was not a strong example of a retail product or service, was not related to developing marketing strategies, and no outcomes were provided.

d. Section 2, Prior Experience, B, Experience 2: Bidder’s experience was not a strong example of a retail product or service, was not related to developing marketing strategies, and no outcomes were provided.

e. Section 2, Prior Experience, C, Experience 1: Bidder stated their company was founded in 2023 but the experience is from 2022, it was not representative of a sales promotion, and no research was conducted.

f. Section 2, Prior Experience, C, Experience 2: Bidder's experience was not within the last 4 years.

g. Section 2, Prior Experience, D, Experience 1: Bidder failed to describe and provide tv, out of home, or digital examples, and this experience was not a retail example.

h. Section 2, Prior Experience, D, Experience 2: Bidder failed to describe and provide radio examples, this experience was not a retail example, no research was conducted, and the outcome was limited.

i. Section 2, Prior Experience, E, Experience 1: Bidder failed to describe and provide tv, out of home, or digital examples, this experience was not a retail example, no research was conducted, and the outcome was limited.

j. Section 2, Prior Experience, E, Experience 2: Bidder failed to describe and provide radio examples, this experience was not a retail example, no research was conducted, and the outcome was limited.

k. Section 2, Prior Experience, F, Experience 1: Bidder’s experience was not point of sale example.

l. Section 2, Prior Experience, F, Experience 2: Bidder’s experience was not within the last 4 years.

m. Section 2, Prior Experience, G, Experience 1: Bidder’s experience was not point of sale example.

n. Section 2, Prior Experience, G, Experience 2: Bidder’s experience was not point of sale example.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 1 – Requirements) 60/80 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1.A, Marketing Strategy: Bidder's plan was not tailored to the Statement of Work in this RFP, and they failed to describe how they would utilize research to identify and evaluate market and sales development opportunities.

b. Section 1.1.B, Media: Bidder failed to describe how they would monitor performance and make real-time adjustments to live campaigns.

c. Section 1.1.D, Production: Bidder's plan lacked detail on arranging the packing and shipping of materials, and they failed to address a plan on how they would manage review process with Lottery.

d. Section 1.1.E, Traffic: Bidder failed to describe digital ad serving and traffic instructions for each type of media.

e. Section 1.1.F, Promotional/Sponsorship Agreement Evaluation and Administration: Bidder failed to provide a plan to meet this requirement.

f. Section 1.1.G, Marketing Research Procurement and Evaluation: Bidder lacked detail on their plan to meet this requirement.

g. Section 1.1.H, Optional Use Professional Services: Bidder’s examples of obtaining marketing partnerships and media is not an optional service.

4. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 2 – Service Requirements through Section 4 – Staffing) 46/75 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 4.6, Key Personnel: Bidder’s print production supervisor and research director are to be hired, the second required billing coordinator was not provided, and many of their key personnel showed they work for another company other than the bidder.

b. Section 4.7, Organizational Chart: Bidder’s organizational chart failed to include all key personnel and the organizational structure is unclear.

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 5 – Project Management through Section 9 – Service-Level Agreement (SLA)) 36/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 5.4, Reporting: Reports submitted were not representative of what was required.

Total Score: 169.5/280 H. PP+K, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that PP+K, Inc. based on a score of 225, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet (Sections 1 – 4, 6 –13) 9.5/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 2, Company Background Information: Bidder failed to discuss in detail their company history.

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet (Section 5 – Experience) 54.5/75 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2, Prior Experience, A, Experience 1: Bidder failed to provide description of their research.

b. Section 2, Prior Experience, B, Experience 1: Portions of this experience provided was not within the last 4 years based on their description.

c. Section 2, Prior Experience, B, Experience 2: Bidder's experience was not within the last 4 years.

d. Section 2, Prior Experience, C, Experience 1: Bidder failed to provide description of their research.

e. Section 2, Prior Experience, C, Experience 2: Bidder stated that there was no research conducted and it was not clear how this experience was a sales promotion.

f. Section 2, Prior Experience, D, Experience 1: Bidder failed to provide description of their research.

g. Section 2, Prior Experience, D, Experience 2: Bidder failed to provide description of their research.

h. Section 2, Prior Experience, E, Experience 1: Bidder’s experience example was overly broad and failed to focus on a specific example for the planning and placement of a retail product or service.

i. Section 2, Prior Experience, F, Experience 1: Bidder failed to provide description of their research and there were limited details on the distribution of materials.

j. Section 2, Prior Experience, F, Experience 2: Portions of the bidder’s response focused on work outside of the timeframe required.

k. Section 2, Prior Experience, G, Experience 1: This experience was not an example of sports event sponsorship procurement and activation.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 1 – Requirements) 77/80 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1.G, Marketing Research Procurement and Evaluation: Bidder failed to provide a plan on how they would execute and procure market research through a third party.

4. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 2 – Service Requirements through Section 4 – Staffing) 45/75 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 4.6, Key Personnel: Bidder’s account director has 1 of the 10 required years of experience, the account supervisor has 2 of the required 7 years of experience, the account executive has less than a year of the required 5 years of experience, the research director has 5 of the required 10 years of experience, the print production supervisor’s years in current classification were not provided, the creative director has 6 of the required 10 years of experience, the broadcast producer has 4 of the required 10 years of experience, the media director has 3 of the required 10 years of experience, and the second required billing coordinator was not provided.

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 5 – Project Management through Section 9 – Service-Level Agreement (SLA)) 39/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 5.4, Reporting: Bidder failed to provide an example of a conference report as required in this section.

Total Score: 225/280 I. Preston Spire, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Preston Spire, Inc. based on a score of 201.5, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet (Sections 1 – 4, 6 –13) 9.5/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 2, Company Background Information: Bidder failed to include their gross annual sales.

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet (Section 5 – Experience) 27.5/75 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly unsatisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2, Prior Experience, A, Experience 1: Bidder's experience did not represent the launch of a new retail product or service.

b. Section 2, Prior Experience, A, Experience 2: Bidder's experience was not within the last 4 years.

c. Section 2, Prior Experience, B, Experience 1: Bidder's experience of initial repositioning or reintroducing a mature retail product occurred outside of the timeframe of 4 years.

d. Section 2, Prior Experience, B, Experience 2: Bidder's experience of initial repositioning or reintroducing a mature retail product occurred outside of the timeframe of 4 years.

e. Section 2, Prior Experience, C, Experience 1: Bidder's experience was not representative of a retail sales promotion.

f. Section 2, Prior Experience, C, Experience 2: Bidder's experience was not representative of a retail sales promotion.

g. Section 2, Prior Experience, D, Experience 1: Bidder's experience was not within the last 4 years.

h. Section 2, Prior Experience, D, Experience 2: Bidder's experience was not within the last 4 years.

i. Section 2, Prior Experience, E, Experience 1: Bidder's written description did not make it clear how digital was used.

j. Section 2, Prior Experience, E, Experience 2: Bidder did not describe or provide radio or broadcast tv examples.

k. Section 2, Prior Experience, F, Experience 1: Bidder's experience was not within the last 4 years.

l. Section 2, Prior Experience, F, Experience 2: Bidder’s experience was not representative of a point-of-sale example.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 1 – Requirements) 76.5/80 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1.D, Production: Bidder's plan lacked detail on arranging the packing and shipping of materials.

b. Section 1.1.E, Traffic: Bidder failed to describe traffic instructions for each type of media.

4. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 2 – Service Requirements through Section 4 – Staffing) 55/75 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 4.6, Key Personnel: Bidder failed to provide an executive producer or account executive, the billing coordinator is only committed 20% of the time, and the resumes lacked detail on relevant work experience.

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 5 – Project Management through Section 9 – Service-Level Agreement (SLA)) 33/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 5.2, Project Plan, A, B, C: Bidder’s project plan lacked detail.

b. Section 5.4, Reporting: Reports provided were not representative of what was required.

Total Score: 201.5/280 J. Simons-Michelson-Zieve, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Simons-Michelson-Zieve, Inc. based on a score of 279.5, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet (Sections 1 – 4, 6 –13) 9.5/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 2, Company Background Information: Bidder failed to include their legal business address.

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet (Section 5 – Experience) 75/75 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory for this section.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 1 – Requirements) 80/80 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory for this section.

4. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 2 – Service Requirements through Section 4 – Staffing) 75/75 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory for these sections.

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work (Section 5 – Project Management through Section 9 – Service-Level Agreement (SLA)) 40/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory for these sections.

Total Score: 279.5/280

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Version 2024-2 IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Oral Presentations Results The JEC chose to move forward with the four bidders who passed technical evaluation 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 the recommended awardee.

A. Hart Associates, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Hart Associates, Inc. based on a score of 43, did not meet the requirements of this Oral Presentation. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Evaluation Criteria.

1. Campaign Strategy 16/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section A. Campaign Objectives: Bidder’s response failed to adequately address how the proposed campaign objectives would differentiate the product but also exist alongside the existing family of Fast Cash games.

b. Section B. Target Audience: Bidder lacked detail on rationale on why this target audience was chosen.

c. Section D. Campaign Budgeting: The budget line-item descriptions were unclear, and one item included in the proposed budget should have been included in the contract activities.

2. Creative Development 14/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section A. Creative Strategy: Bidder failed to identify the research, analysis, or supporting rationale used to develop the proposed creative strategy.

b. Section B. Game name, logo, theme, and messaging: Bidder's proposed logo and theme failed to incorporate the Michigan Lottery and Fast Cash logos such that it wasn't messaged properly that this is a Lottery game within the Fast Cash family.

c. Section C. Creative Execution: Creative execution of creative assets did not clearly convey a Michigan Lottery product, and key messaging was missing from different assets.

3. Media Plan 13/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section A. Media Types and Vehicles: Bidder failed to include radio or paid search and did not provide rationale as to why that decision was made.

b. Section B. Scheduling and Flighting: Bidder’s proposal failed to address how a jackpot being hit would impact a planned jackpot surge.

c. Section E. Value-Added Opportunities: Bidder failed to address value added opportunities.

Total Score: 43/60 B. Simons-Michelson-Zieve, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Simons-Michelson-Zieve, Inc. based on a score of 59.5, did meet the requirements of this Oral Presentation. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Evaluation Criteria.

1. Campaign Strategy 20/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory for this section.

2. Creative Development 20/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory for this section.

3. Media Plan 19.5/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Bidder failed to include paid search and did not provide rationale as to why that decision was made.

Total Score: 59.5/60 C. PP+K, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that PP+K, Inc. based on a score of 48, did meet the requirements of this Oral Presentation. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Evaluation Criteria.

1. Campaign Strategy 14/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section A. Campaign Objectives: Bidder failed to clearly articulate campaign objectives specific to the launch of a Fast Cash game within the Fast Cash family, and campaign was built on secondary research regarding instant game tickets.

b. Section B. Target Audience: Bidder lacked detail on rationale on why this target audience was chosen, and no retailer consideration was given.

c. Section E. Measurable and Evaluation: Bidder failed to consider ticket sales in their proposal.

2. Creative Development 17/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section A. Creative Strategy: Bidder failed to identify the research, analysis, or supporting rationale used to develop the proposed creative strategy.

b. Section C. Creative Execution: Some assets presented were missing key messaging points.

3. Media Plan 17/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section A. Media Types and Vehicles: Bidder's purchase pathway did not demonstrate an understanding of the product.

b. Section D. Audience Delivery Goals: Bidder's purchase pathway did not demonstrate an understanding of the product because their response referred to scratch off and instant game players, and failed to provide total impressions they were looking to achieve for this campaign.

Total Score: 48/60 D. Lambert Global LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Lambert Global LLC based on a score of 44, did not meet the requirements of this Oral Presentation. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Evaluation Criteria.

1. Campaign Strategy 15/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section A. Campaign Strategy: Bidder failed to provide basis or rationale for selected campaign, and failed to conduct or present relevant primary or secondary research.

b. Section B. Target Audience: Bidder lacked detail on their rationale on why this target audience was chosen, and no retailer consideration was given.

2. Creative Development 14/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section A. Creative Strategy: Bidder failed to identify the research, analysis, or supporting rationale used to develop the proposed creative strategy.

b. Section B. Game name, logo, theme, and messaging: Bidder failed to differentiate the separate jackpot for the new product from the existing Fast Cash product line jackpot.

c. Section C. Creative Execution: Some assets presented were missing key messaging points. Bidder showed lack of understanding that product is exclusively purchased at retail.

3. Media Plan 15/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section B. Scheduling and Flighting: Bidder failed to consider the impact of jackpots on scheduling and flighting.

b. Section D. Audience Delivery Goals: Bidder's proposed advertising on specific podcasts demonstrated a lack of consideration for brand safety and overlooked segments of the player population.

Total Score: 44/60 VI. Oral Presentations Evaluation Summary

VII. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed both step 1 and step 2 of the evaluation process. The following is a summary of their price proposals:

Pricing:

Simons-Michelson-Zieve, Inc.

Initial Pricing Simons-Michelson-Zieve, Inc.

Second Round Pricing PP+K, Inc.

Initial Pricing PP+K, Inc.

Second Round Pricing

Original Asset Design & Production Initial Pricing Modified Fee Updates to Existing Design & Production Initial Pricing Flat-Rate Fee Original Asset Design & Production Initial Pricing Flat-Rate Fee Original Asset Design & Production Second Round Pricing Modified Fee Updates to Existing Design & Production Initial Pricing

:15 Animated Lottery Asset – Video Only (.AVI,.MOV or HTML5)