Award Recommendation Letter. Mark Hempel, Director of Account Management, Indiana Department of Administration

Transcription

1 STATE OF INDIANA Michael R. Pence, Governor Department of Administration Procurement Division 402 W Washington Street, Room W468 Indianapolis, Indiana Award Recommendation Letter Date: March 13, 2015 To: From: Mark Hempel, Director of Account Management, Indiana Department of Administration Adam Thiemann, Sr. Account Manager, Indiana Department of Administration Subject: Recommendation of Selection for RFP , Advertising and Public Relations (PR) Services Based on the evaluation of responses to RFP , Cabello Associates is recommended to begin contract negotiations to provide Advertising and PR Services for the Indiana Family & Social Services Administration. Cabello has committed to subcontract 10% to Morales Group, Inc. (a certified Minority-owned Business (MBE)), 9% to SR Advise (a certified Woman-owned Business (WBE)), and 3% to Jarbo (a certified Indiana Veteran Business Enterprise (IVBE)) of the contract value. The terms of this recommendation are included in this letter. Estimated Amount of Contract: $480,000 The evaluation team received six (6) proposals from: Cabello Associates (Cabello) Ferguson Advertising (Ferguson) Hirons & Company (Hirons) McFarland PR and Public Affairs, Inc. (McFarland) Shank Public Relations Counselors, Inc. (Shank) SMDG, LLC (SMDG) The proposals were evaluated by FSSA and IDOA according to the following criteria established in the RFP: Adherence to Mandatory Requirements (Pass/Fail) Management Assessment/Quality (MAQ) (50 points) Cost Proposal (25 points) Indiana Economic Impact (5 points) Buy Indiana (5 points) Minority and Women Business Sub-Contractor Commitment (10 points + 2 available bonus points) Indiana Veteran Business Enterprise (IVBE) Subcontractor Commitment (5 points + 1 available bonus point) 1

2 The proposals were evaluated according to the process outlined in Section 3.2 ( Evaluation Criteria ) of the RFP. Scoring was completed as follows: A. Adherence to Requirements Each proposal was reviewed for adherence to mandatory requirements and deemed responsive. Each proposal was then evaluated based on its Business Proposal and Technical Proposal. B. Management Assessment/Quality Business Proposal (15 points) For the business proposal evaluation, the team considered the information each respondent provided in the business proposal. These areas were reviewed to assess the respondent s ability to serve the State: Company Structure Financial Information Integrity of Company Structure References Subcontractors Experience Experience Serving State Government Technical Proposal (35 Points) For the technical proposal evaluation, the team considered each respondent s proposal in the following areas: Experience and differentiators Staff experience, education and qualifications Staffing plan for FSSA account Managing similar projects Statewide public awareness, education, and similar experience PR/Advertising for another state agency Team organization given fluctuating workload Project management approach and communication Advise on media buying Managing the creative process Metrics for public awareness campaigns Sample materials for similar projects Actual prior campaign Sample campaigns #1 & #2 from RFP The evaluation team s scoring is based on a review of the Respondents proposed approach to each section of the technical proposal, Section 2.4, as well as specific questions that respondents were asked to respond to in the RFP and clarifications. The results of the management assessment/quality evaluation are shown below: Table 1: Management Assessment/Quality s MAQ SCORE (50 Max) Cabello 45.3 Ferguson

3 Hirons 43.3 McFarland 38.1 Shank 34.3 SMDG 25.9 C. Cost Proposal (25 points) Price points were awarded based on the evaluation of the Respondent s Effective Hourly Rate (EHR) as follows: = If Respondent s EHR is lowest among all Respondents, then score is 25 If Respondent s EHR is NOT lowest among all Respondents, then score is 25 * (Lowest Respondent s EHR) (Respondent s EHR) The cost scoring as a result of Respondents initial proposals is as follows: Table 2: Initial Cost s COST SCORE (25 Max) Cabello 25.0 Ferguson 18.2 Hirons 17.2 McFarland 15.2 Shank 14.7 SMDG 24.1 D. Short Listing The combined MAQ and Cost scores from the initial evaluations are listed below. Table 3: First Round Total s TOTAL SCORE (75 Max) First Round Result Cabello 70.3 Short-Listed 3

4 Ferguson 52.9 Removed Hirons 60.5 Short-Listed McFarland 53.3 Removed Shank 49.0 Removed SMDG 50.0 Removed Based on the combined MAQ and Cost scores from the initial evaluations, the following Respondents were removed from consideration: Ferguson McFarland Shank SMDG The remaining two Respondents were short-listed for further consideration. These short-listed Respondents were invited to oral presentations and given an opportunity to reduce pricing through a Best and Final Offer (BAFO). The short-listed Respondents are listed below: Cabello Hirons E. Post Short-Listing Evaluations After short-listing, the remaining Respondents MAQ and cost scores were updated based on oral presentations and BAFOs. The final scores for the short-listed Respondents after these updates are as follows: Table 4: Post Short-Listing Evaluation s (Short-Listed Respondents Only) MAQ Cost Respondent Total Points Possible Cabello Hirons F. IDOA Scoring IDOA scored the Respondents in the following areas: Buy Indiana (5 points), Indiana Economic Impact (5 points), Minority and Women Business Participation (5 points + 1 available bonus point each) and Indiana Veteran Business Enterprise Participation (5 points + 1 available bonus point) using the criteria outlined in the RFP. When necessary, IDOA clarified certain Buy Indiana, Indiana Economic Impact, Minority and Women Business Participation and Indiana Veteran Business Enterprise Participation information with the Respondents. Once the final MWBE, IVBE and IEI forms were received from the Respondents, the total scores out of 103 possible points were tabulated and are as follows: Table 5: Final Evaluation s 4

5 Respondent MAQ Cost Buy IN IEI MBE* WBE* IVBE* Total Points Possible Cabello Hirons * See Sections and of the RFP for information on available M/W/VBE bonus points. Award Summary During the course of evaluation, the State scrutinized all proposals to determine the viability of the proposed business solutions ability to meet the goals of the program and the needs of the State. The team evaluated proposals based on the stipulated criteria outlined in the RFP document. The term of the contract shall be for a period of four (4) years from the date of contract execution. There may be two (2) one-year renewals for a total of six (6) years at the State s option. 5