Synopsis of Bid Proposals Received



Synopsis of Bid Proposals Received

For

Marketing Research and Recommendations

Recreation Passport Program

RFP-JH-MOD-751R2201040

For

Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

Background

This solicitation was for marketing research services to determine the demographics of Recreation Passport purchasers and non-purchasers as well as additional research information to assist the Department of Natural Resources in increasing sales of the Recreation Passport. This included recommendations on best practices to target both segments and messaging and marketing campaign recommendations.

The successful bidder will be asked to conduct all market research provide recommended messaging and marketing campaign with promotional/ marketing material recommendations, which will be produced in-house by DNR Marketing & Outreach Division.

Building strong support for the Recreation Passport

The Recreation Passport is the new funding model for outdoor recreation in Michigan. At a cost of just $10 ($5 for motorcycles), Michigan motorists can purchase a Recreation Passport when renewing their annual vehicle registration at a Secretary of State (SOS) branch office, website or by mail. The Recreation Passport replaced the “window sticker” for state park entrance and boat launches in October 2010. By purchasing the Recreation Passport, visitors gain access to Michigan state parks, recreation areas, state forest campgrounds, non-motorized state trail head parking and boat launches. The Recreation Passport is good until the purchaser’s next license plate registration renewal.

The Recreation Passport provides much needed support for these facilities and also supports cultural and historic resources within state parks and recreation areas.. A portion of the Recreation Passport revenue is also earmarked for a community park grant program. In 2011, nearly $600,000 in Recreation Passport grant money was awarded to 24 neighborhood parks throughout the state, from the western Upper Peninsula to the lower reaches of the southern Lower peninsula. Out-of-state motorists can purchase the non-resident Recreation Passport in the form of a window sticker ($24/annual, $8/daily) from state park and recreation areas.

An important marketing component for non-park users is the Passport Perks program. This program, open to businesses around the state at no cost and no investment, offers service and/or merchandise discounts from participating businesses to visitors who have purchased their Recreation Passport through the Secretary of State.. Various discounts are currently offered by over 1,000 Michigan businesses.

During the 2010-2011 fiscal year, the Recreation Passport exceeded the 24.3 % goal of sales to eligible motorists, which is approximately 7 million, by hitting 24.7%. The 2011-2012 fiscal sales goal is 30%. We must meet this goal. October 2011 sales, the first month of the fiscal year, was just over 22%. Expanding market share is a departmental priority.

ITB Bidder Response:

700 companies accessed the attachments OR received notice of the Request for Proposal (RFP) thru the Bid4Michigan website. Questions were due 6/6/2012 and Bids were due 06/14/12. Eleven (11) organizations submitted timely responses. One bidder is registered as a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Company (SDV).

1. American Eagle Co. Inc. Quack!Media

2. Methods Consultants of Ann Arbor

3. MOVE Communications

4. Keith King & Associates (SDV)

5. MetaOps, Inc

6. Marketing Resources Group, Inc.

7. Newport Consulting Group, LLC

8. TecEd, Inc

9. King Media

10. Consumer Insights, Inc.

11. Pace & Partners

Bidders were required to submit a technical proposal. Proposals were evaluated on completeness of the proposal/the methodology for conducting the survey/responses to particular issues raised by the DNR regarding data needed/ project management, prior experience, and staffing qualifications.

Bidders were given a base score for the method of survey chosen – factors included planning, reach, confidence levels and error rate, feasibility, creativity, implementation and overall anticipated success. Responses to additional questions (3-8) were scored at the base factor with points being added or removed based on information provided by the Bidder.

In the prior experience areas of evaluation the statement “no measureable” is stating that example did not provide the information requested to be able to measure what the standard was before the plan and what the standard is after to measure the success of the implemented plan.

Only one Bidder, Pace & Partners passed technical, meaning they received a minimum of 80 points in the evaluation.

It was determined that Pace & Partners provided the best overall proposal scoring 92.8 out of 100 on the technical review and providing a proposal within the allocated budget, therefore DNR Procurement recommends a contract be awarded in the amount of $50,000.00 to Pace and Partners. Since the evaluation of the proposals took longer than anticipated, the contract will begin a month later than anticipated (8/1/12) and the deliverables will be adjusted accordingly.

Evaluation:

The Proposals were evaluated by Jana Harding-Bishop, Buyer with DNR Procurement Services with input from the following individuals:

Jolene Priest

DNR, Marketing and Outreach

Chris Kargel

DNR, Parks and Recreation

Evaluation Information for Pace and Partners:

Base Score - 4 out of 5 for overall methodology. Web based survey – will use Research Now to obtain willing participants as it is a controlled sample. Total target sample 1066 . By admission will under represent those not using computers.

Work and Deliverables: Points: 29.8 out of 35

Pace and Partners provided a very good overall methodology for survey. Answers to questions 3-8 showed thought as to how to obtain the requested information in a manner which will be useful for market recommendations.

Pace and Partners did a very good job of explaining how they will take the research data to a marketing recommendation.

Project Plan: Points: 12.5 out of 12.5

(+) The proposal referenced tracking with a tool called Workamajig.

(+) The proposal addressed how issues/changes would be dealt with.

(+) The proposal discussed methods of communications and timeframes.

(+) The proposal included a chart which was good.

Reports: Points: 2.5 out of 2.5

Acknowledged

Prior Experience: Points: 28 out of 30

Three examples were evaluated. MSP example was similar in scope/size and contained research and recommendations. EarlyOn was similar in scope/size and contained research and recommendations (no measurable due to the project not being implemented yet) – MSHDA – similar in scope/size and contained research/recommendations.

Staffing: Points: 17 out of 17

Staffing for this Bidder is excellent for the project.

Contractor Roles/Responsibilities: Points 3 out of 3

Complete

Total points awarded for Pace and Partners: 92.8 out of 100

This is the only bidder who passed technical.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evaluation Information for Marketing Resources Group:

Base Score - 5 out of 5 for overall methodology. The Bidder will hold focus groups to aid in the survey development. Telephone survey with a sampling of 1250 with a 80/20 split for landline/cell.

Work and Deliverables: Points: 30.6 out of 35

Market Resources Group provided a very good overall methodology for the survey portion. Telephone survey would be less than 10 min. PSC will handle all aspects of survey. Phones numbers will be purchased from SSI and will be a sampling based on geographic areas. This proposal gave a very good overview of the survey method, however did not address the specific requests in items 3-8

Market Resources Group did a very good job of detailing research to marketing recommendations/strategies.

Project Plan: Points: 10 out of 12.5

(-) The proposal did not provide a method to track status other than keeping up to date at meetings.

(+) The proposal addressed how issues/changes would be taken care of.

(+) The proposal stated various methods of communications and timeframes.

(-) The proposal included a chart which provided most information other than work dates – only showed due dates.

Reports: Points: 2.5 out of 2.5

Acknowledged

Prior Experience: Points: 20 out of 30

Several examples were provided by both the Contractor and the Subcontractor. The two highest scoring examples for the Contractor were MUCC and Nestle Water. MUCC was an example of auditing marketing materials and developing a strategy for increasing membership (no dates, cost or measurable provided) and Nestle Water was a example of a PR campaign and assisting with communications (no dates, no cost, no measurable). Both examples showed some marketing development but lacked details.

The Subcontractor was evaluated on the Huron-Clinton Master plan example which provided good insight into the capabilities of PSC and was similar in scope and size. No cost was provided.

Staffing: Points: 12.6 out of 17

Staffing for this proposal is good – the marketing recommendations portion of staff is not particularly evident based on the information provided. The survey analyst is lacking time lines for experience. The Project Manager for this proposal is the subcontractor and there is no evidence of prior relationship.

Contractor Roles/Responsibilities: Points 3 out of 3

Staffing for this project is small but complete

Total points awarded for Marketing Resources Group, Inc for Technical: 78.7 out of 100

This Bidder’s proposal did not pass technical.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evaluation Information for MOVE Communications:

Base Score – 3 out of 5 points due to small sample size

Work and Deliverables: Points: 28 out of 35

Move Communications proposed a dual approach to survey – First doing 10 interviews lasting 30 min then sample 450 online responses. The multi reach approach was good – however, it was unclear how the bidder was going to choose people to interview. The sample size is small for an online survey. Many of the responses anticipated exceeding the requested confidence level.

Move Communications had a good plan for taking survey information to marketing recommendations.

Project Plan: Points: 10 out of 12.5

(+) The proposal stated a spreadsheet would be used to keep the project on course.

(-) The proposal did not address issues/changes would be addressed only who to contact with questions.

(+) The proposal stated various methods of communications and timeframes.

(+) The proposal included a chart with all necessary information.

Reports: Points: 2.5 out of 2.5

Acknowledged

Prior Experience: Points: 22 out of 30

Two projects were evaluated for the Primary Contractor and one for the Sub Contractor.

The Primary had an example from Cornerstone University (no measureable) which scored a 4 out of 5 and an example from Johnson Controls (marketing only) which scored a 3 out of 5.

The Sub Contractor provided an example from Lutheran Church Schools (no measureable) which scored a 4 out of 5.

Staffing: Points: 11.3 out of 17

This proposal contained very good staffing as it pertained to the research portion of the project, however the staffing listed in this proposal does not show experience/education for the marketing recommendations portion of this project.

Contractor Roles/Responsibilities: Points 1.2 out of 3

The subcontractor was not mentioned in this section (but was identified in the staffing area) and the chart does not address who will be doing the marketing recommendations.

Total points awarded for Move Communications for Technical: 75 out of 100

This Bidder’s proposal did not pass technical.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evaluation Information for MetaOps, Inc:

Base Score - 2 out of 5 for overall methodology. The Bidder is stating that the DNR would provide contact information for Passport Purchasers; however the RFP clearly states this information is not available.

Work and Deliverables: Points: 23.3 out of 35

MetaOps, Inc was not clear on the exact method which would be used to carry out the survey portion of this project. The Bidder provided several options, which include the DNR providing contact information for the survey. I the end the Bidder anticipated either an online or mail survey. The sample reach proposed is small (400-800) and a wide range for the method chosen with a confidence level of 95% with +/- 4 to 5% (higher than requested). MetaOps did provide insight into some of the more specific questions requested in items 3-8.

MetaOps, Inc provided an excellent response on how they would convert data into a message recommendation.

Project Plan: Points: 8.8 out of 12.5

(+) The proposal stated the use of Gantt chart to track status.

(-) The proposal did not address how issues/changes would be addressed just that any changes would be discussed promptly and implemented immediately.

(+) The proposal stated various methods of communications and timeframes.

(-) The proposal included a “sample” chart – not one specific to this RFP.

Reports: Points: 2.5 out of 2.5

Acknowledged

Prior Experience: Points: 17 out of 30

MetaOps, Inc provided many samples of work performed – After review the top three scoring examples were used for evaluation. Creative Lodging Solutions, Garfield County and Mesa County provided the most appropriate examples of scope. Each of these examples provided either research or marketing plans, not both and they were lacking in details such as cost, contract information, dates work performed.

Staffing: Points: 17 out of 17

Staffing for this proposal is excellent.

Contractor Roles/Responsibilities: Points 3 out of 3

Staffing for this project is small but qualified.

Total points awarded for MetaOps, Inc for Technical: 71.6 out of 100

This Bidder’s proposal did not pass technical.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evaluation Information for Consumer Insights, Inc.:

Base Score - 4 out of 5 for overall methodology. Bidder will hold 6 focus groups, 2 in Grand Rapids area and two in Troy area. Would invite 11 and expect 8 then would do on online survey with a sample size of 1100 and meet the DNR’s confidence level and margin of error.

Work and Deliverables: Points: 29.2 out of 35

Consumer Insights provided a very good overall methodology for survey. It was unclear how they were going to invite people to the focus groups or ensure a minimum of 8 shows up. The proposal did not deal directly with the following requested responses, Passport purchaser’s expectations and the Passport Perks program responses but overall was good.

Consumer Insights put thought into taking the research to a marketing recommendation however they focused on what the DNR is already doing thru the SOS rather than considering other potential marketing recommendations. The Bidder’s response was in reference to a DNR’s budget; however no budget amount has been mentioned or determined at this time for future marketing efforts.

Project Plan: Points: 9.4 out of 12.5

(+) The proposal referenced tracking with an electronic calendar.

(-) The proposal did not address how issues/changes would be dealt with only staff who would respond to DNR requests.

(-) The proposal did not discuss methods of communications or timeframes only point of contact.

(+) The proposal included a chart which was good.

Reports: Points: 2.5 out of 2.5

Acknowledged

Prior Experience: Points: 16 out of 30

Three examples were provided. Washington State anti-smoking was a good example of research but no marketing recommendations (no dates, no measureable) – US Postal Svc is an example of research and it is state that they “worked with” an Ad Agency but what was done is unclear (no dates, no measurable) – Carpet One this example did research which was designed to distinguish a brand (not similar to the RFP) – (no dates, no measurable).

Staffing: Points: 10.4 out of 17

Staffing for this Bidder does not show the experience required at the “hands on” level (Kris and Ian). There are conflicts between the qualifications and roles as stated (Kristin). Also of concern is that the Senior Project Manger is a consultant and to the Contractor and there isn’t a clear relationship provided.

Contractor Roles/Responsibilities: Points 3 out of 3

Complete

Total points awarded for Consumer Insights Inc: 70.5 out of 100

This Bidder’s proposal did not pass technical.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evaluation Information for TecEd:

Base Score - 2 out of 5 for overall methodology. Bidder will do in-person and online surveys. Bidder assumes that they can set up tables at SOS offices to conduct interviews. All interviews and online invitations will be done in Wayne County area. Suggests posting the survey to DNR Internet; however a bias would be added by tapping into existing awareness of the DNR and activities.

Work and Deliverables: Points: 17.8 out of 35

TECED proposed a good methodology but the scope was much to limited to get good research regarding the Passport. All interviews will be done in Wayne County area and ½ of the online responses. Bidder does not address how they will determine the validity of where the online responses are coming from, nor how results would be obtained from other parts of the state. If posted on the DNR site – this introduces a bias to those already familiar with the DNR. There was no confidence levels provided for the survey methods. The Bidder did not address the specific requests in items 3-8 of the RFP.

TECED put significant thought into taking the research to a marketing recommendation.

Project Plan: Points: 5.6 out of 12.5

(-) The proposal did not provide a method to track status only PM will keep an eye on it.

(-) The proposal did not address how issues/changes would be dealt with.

(-) The proposal stated minimal discussion on methods of communications and timeframes. PM is single point of contact.

(-) The proposal included a chart which was lacking some details – staff names and dates are generalized.

Reports: Points: 2.5 out of 2.5

Acknowledged

Prior Experience: Points: 20 out of 30

Three prior experiences were evaluated. The Scotts example was excellent – the Lexis Nexis example was an example of research using focus groups, no marketing plan development (no measureable, no contact info) and the Plex Systems was some survey work, however no marketing – end result was a new website design.

Staffing: Points: 15.3 out of 17

Staffing for this proposal is very good – the only short coming is the survey programmer – there are no competency or qualifications provided for this staff member for what she is tasked with doing.

Contractor Roles/Responsibilities: Points 2.4 out of 3

Complete – does not list Subcontractor as such.

Total points awarded for TecEd for Technical: 63.6 out of 100

This Bidder’s proposal did not pass technical.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evaluation Information for King Media:

Base Score - 3 out of 5 for overall methodology. Telephone survey of 800 people – small for method – makes assumptions and is going to ask questions to determine if correct. When assumptions are made as to the results anticipated, this leads to a bias in the questions being asked.

Work and Deliverables: Points: 18.1 out of 35

King Media has proposed using telephone surveys as research method. The error rate quoted exceeds that requested. The sample size is small considering method. Many of the responses provided for items 3-8 state that they are making assumptions as to why things are or are not which is a faulty mindset when developing survey questions and responses. The Bidder did not provide details for items 3-8 in regard to the specific questions being asked other than to ask the question as posed in the RFP.

King Media put significant thought into taking the research to a marketing recommendation.

Project Plan: Points: 8.8 out of 12.5

(-) The proposal referenced an “action plan” which will be created and used but not necessarily as a tracking tool.

(-) The proposal did not address how issues/changes would be dealt with only staff who would respond to DNR requests.

(+) The proposal had good methods of communications, timeframes and contact people.

(-) The proposal included a chart which was good but it was unclear time frames as it referenced both hours and weeks throughout.

Reports: Points: 2.5 out of 2.5

Acknowledged

Prior Experience: Points: 14 out of 30

Several experiences were provided – the top three scored were Greenstone – good example of marketing but lacking in how research was performed (no dates, costs or contact – no measureable) – Accent Surfaces – good example of market research but no marketing plan – example is of a internet site development to better suit the needs of the market (no dates, no cost, no contact info and no measurable) – Capitol Bancorp – example of research within a company and marketing limited to staff – (no cost, no contact info, no measurable).

Staffing: Points: 13.2 out of 17

Staffing for this proposal is very good in the marketing strategy area however the experience and qualifications provided for the hands on research staff (Josh Fick and Dr. Barboza) were not provided.

Contractor Roles/Responsibilities: Points 2.4 out of 3

Complete – does not list Subcontractor as such.

Total points awarded for King Media for Technical: 58.9 out of 100

This Bidder’s proposal did not pass technical.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evaluation Information for Keith King and Associates:

Base Score - 4 out of 5 for overall methodology. The telephone reach was good – the survey length was long (20 min) and the survey was computer aided.

Work and Deliverables: Points: 24.5 out of 35

Keith King and Associates provided a basic telephone survey as the preferred method. The reach was good but the Bidder failed to provide insight and details into dealing with several of the individual issues requested in items 3-8. The confidence level achieved for the greater Detroit Area was above the requested margin of error at +/- 8%.

The use of a computer aided system was not seen as a good device to get people to participate in the survey.

Keith King and Associates did not explain how they would convert data into a message, rather provided a general overall statement.

Project Plan: Points: 9.4 out of 12.5

(+) The proposal stated the use of AAAR to track status.

(-) The proposal did not address how issues/changes would be addressed other than the PM will offer steps to correct the problem.

(+) The proposal stated various methods of communications and timeframes.

(-) The proposal included some information for the Work plan, however the titles provided did not match with roles in section 1.31. The sample chart provided was not for this project.

Reports: Points: 2.5 out of 2.5

Acknowledged

Prior Experience: Points: 14 out of 30

Keith King and Associates provided three examples of work performed on behalf of the VA. Each of the examples provided contained relevant information regarding research; however no marketing recommendations were provided and no measurable.

The subcontractor (Left Brain Concepts) provided many examples, however not enough detail was provided to evaluate if the projects were of similar scope and size.

Staffing: Points: 6 out of 17

Staffing for this proposal is lacking in most areas. The PM has some experience, however the “Contract Employee” does not show any experience other than stating the number of years in the business. The proposal states that the research will be done by a subcontractor to be named later, therefore we were unable to evaluate this portion of the proposal.

Contractor Roles/Responsibilities: Points 1.8 out of 3

Staffing for this project consisted of a lead and a Contract employee, neither listed as providing marketing recommendations. No mention of a subcontractor for the survey portion of this project.

Total points awarded for Keith King and Associates for Technical: 58.1 out of 100

This Bidder’s proposal did not pass technical.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evaluation Information for Method’s Consultants of Ann Arbor:

Base Score - 3 out of 5 for overall methodology. The DNR could do Survey Monkey research without the aid of a contractor.

Work and Deliverables: Points: 26.8 out of 35

Method Consultants purposed using Survey Monkey as their approach to the survey. The company provided some very good insight for some of the questions and responses, however overall using Survey Monkey to obtain data is something which the DNR could do relatively easily, without the assistance of a consultant. Survey Monkey does not have the ability to screen multiple responses from the same user.

Method Consultants provided a good overview of how the survey data would be used to geographically determine where to place media; however the process of recommending media in the proposal was lacking. The methods mentioned were those already being used by the DNR.

Project Plan: Points: 8.8 out of 12.5

(-) The proposal did not address any tracking tools to be used.

(+) The proposal addressed how issues changes would be addressed by PM

(-) The proposal mentioned a single point of contact and the RFP required communications but did not discuss methods of communication/time frames

(-) The proposal included the required Gantt Chart/Work plan; however the date span on the chart was very general.

Reports: Points: 2.5 out of 2.5

Acknowledged

Prior Experience: Points: 0 out of 30

Method Consultants by admission does not have the experience requested which is similar in scope and size to what is requested by this RFP and therefore no examples were provided for evaluation.

Staffing: Points: 6.8 out of 17

This bidder does not have the experience or show the education to do marketing research or recommend marketing plans such as is required in this RFP.

Contractor Roles/Responsibilities: Points 1.8 out of 3

There is only one person dedicated to the research portion of this project and one person developing marketing recommendations. Minimal staffing is of concern.

Total points awarded for Methods Consultants of Ann Arbor for Technical: 46.7 out of 100

This Bidder’s proposal did not pass technical.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evaluation Information for Newport Marketing Group, LLC:

Base Score - 1 out of 5 for overall methodology. On-line or Mail surveys were to be done with post cards to be handed out at SOS offices or mailed to known lists. The Bidder was relying on the DNR to provide more than what was stated in the RFP, including additional funding for post card printing and distributing, office space, technology and administrative support for them.

Work and Deliverables: Points: 7.6 out of 35

Newport Marketing Group provided a proposal that was nothing near the scope as stated in the RFP. The DNR nor the SOS are going to provide more services or funding than stated in the RFP. There were no confidence levels provided for the survey methods. The Bidder did not address the specific requests in items 3-8 of the RFP.

Newport Marketing did provide some insight into using the research to determine the nuisances of geographic areas; however they are relying on the DNR to assist in reviewing survey results and developing marketing recommendations.

Project Plan: Points: 5 out of 12.5

(-) The proposal did not provide a method to track status.

(+) The proposal addressed how issues/changes would be dealt with – uses issue logs.

(-) The proposal stated minimal discussion on methods of communications and timeframes.

(-) The proposal included a chart which was lacking significant details – staff names, hours dedicated, subtasks.

Reports: Points: 2.5 out of 2.5

Acknowledged

Prior Experience: Points: 10 out of 30

Three prior experiences were evaluated based on submissions. Oakland County Mental Health – reviewed business strategies and developed a marketing plan (no measureable or relevance) – Camp Talahi – review of financial and marketing analysis (cost not disclosed, no measureable) some credit for forward use of marketing and Redding Convention – no research, only leveraging what had been done into a strategy (no cost, ongoing project – no measureable).

Staffing: Points: 11.1 out of 17

Staffing for this proposal is small and is lacking experience in doing market research but has the background to develop marketing strategies

Contractor Roles/Responsibilities: Points 1.8 out of 3

Per the Bidder’s admission they will be mostly hands off (anticipating that the State will do the work) for the survey portion of this project.

Total points awarded for Newport Consulting Group, LLC for Technical: 37.9 out of 100

This Bidder’s proposal did not pass technical.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evaluation Information for American Eagle Co. Inc. Quack!Media:

Work and Deliverables: Points: 7.6 out of 35

Baseline score – 1 point out of 5 for overall methodology. The approach proposed is not grounded in standard research and would not produce results with any reasonable confidence level or big picture market research.

Quack!Media purposed a “man on the street” approach to the survey. The plan provided was very general and did not address the survey sample to be reached nor the confidence levels. The cons of their methodology were not provided. The Bidder did not address specific questions asked in responses 1-8.

The method provided would obtain information for a very limited group of people, most of whom are already recreation enthusiasts based on the places proposed for the interviews. The methodology is not grounded in standard research and the demographics and reach are lacking.

Project Plan: Points: 4.4 out of 12.5

(+) The proposal stated the use of Project Management Software to keep project on course

(-) The proposal did not speak to how issues and changes would be addressed

(-) The proposal did not discuss methods of communication/time frames

(-) The proposal did not include the required Gantt Chart/Work plan

Reports: Points: 2.5 out of 2.5

Acknowledged

Prior Experience: Points: 6 out of 30

The three examples provided were not relevant to the scope of work described in the RFP – they were examples of media campaigns rather than market research and recommendations.

Staffing: Points: 6.2 out of 17

The staffing provided for this proposal has some experience in multi-media campaign development but lacks significantly in market research and creating a marketing plan. The primary points of contact as proposed for this contract show very little experience or qualifications.

Contractor Roles/Responsibilities: Points 1.8 out of 3

Kieley does not have a marketing degree as stated in Section 1.31 per section 4.013 (Biology). Chart states that Michelle organizes promotions, events and does bookkeeping, however Section 4.013 states that she is the in field researcher. Brande Wix is listed in 1.31 but not in 4.013

Total points awarded for Quack!Media for Technical: 28.5 out of 100

This Bidder’s proposal did not pass technical.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download