HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-12 Bozeman Climate Partners Communications and Outreach Working Group Minutes Bozeman Climate Partners
Communications & Outreach Working Group
�q ca�
Meeting Minutes
April 18,2012, g:ooam
Bozeman City Hall, City Commission Room
Members Attending:
Jeff Moore, Jay Sinnott, Nick Bentley, Paula Beswick, Benjamin Bennett,
Kristen Walser, Benjamin Bennett, Rob Pudner, Cyndy Andrus (Commission
Liaison)
Staff Present:
Natalie Meyer(Staff Liaison), Emily Baker(Energy Corps Member)
1) Call to Order
2) Changes to the Agenda
a. Meyer moved to table the website discussion until the next meeting. Seconded by
Moore, others.
3) Approval of Minutes
a. None approved
4) Public Comment
5) Action Items
a. Logo Design Request for Bids
i. Ranking of Bids
1. The group received 10 responses to our RFB. A scoring rubric was introduced
by Meyer and Andrus; rubric will give the group a common frame of reference
to discuss the logo submissions. Submissions scored on all the aspects we
listed as requirements in our RFB.
a. Scoring:
i. Bid was received electronically by noon April 17, 2012 (5)
ii. Representative will participate in the community meeting on April 25 (5)
iii. Logo portfolio and/or 3 examples of work (25)
iv. Description of software (technical skills to produce vector-based files (15)
v. Have or will obtain Bozeman City Business License (5)
vi. Agree to submit logos in accordance with guidelines outlined (5)
vii. Bid Price (lump-sum or hourly rate description, maximum price) (10)
2. Packet of printed bids from all designers was distributed to all group
members, along with a scoring rubric for each.
3. Paula Beswick asked how we can tell if a designer is local; Cyndy Andrus
answered that we cannot use designer location as criteria for choosing bids.
4. Group discusses how to use rubric; we will use the section on logo
submissions to rank the relative visual impact of logos, notjust note that they
are present for full points.
5. Group looked through their packets for about an hour, and considered bids
carefully. Designers were ranked based upon this close reading, in the various
categories on the score sheet related to what we asked in the RFB.
ii. Combining Individual Scoring
1. Group initially started by going around, and stating top 3 scores. This began to
provide too large a list, so we began again by having each group member list
their top-scoring individual.
2. In this round, a shorter list of"top picks" emerged: Brad Bunker of Engine 8,
Classic Ink, Chris Grinnel of Bearing the Light, and Keri Thorpe.
3. Nick Bentley and Kristen Walser had to leave the meeting for another
engagement at this point.
4. Cyndy Andrus and Benjamin Bennett did not participate in the scored voting;
both chose to recuse themselves due to what might potentially be perceived
as a conflict of interest. Andrus had used one designer for a personal project
previously, and Bennett, as a graphic designer himself, knew virtually all the
submitters,
5. Group went back to our scoring rubrics to reassess the scores we had given
these top picks. After a time to reassess our scores for these candidates, and
ensure they were correct, all group members were asked to give their scores
for each candidate to Natalie Meyer.
6. Meyer tallied the scores from each group member (with the exceptions of
Andrus, Bennett, and Meyer).
a. Brad Bunker: 538
b. Classic Ink: 526
c. Keri Thorpe: 520
d. Bearing the Light:490
iii. Deliberations
1. The group then brought the bid prices into the discussion, in addition to how
they had already been considered in the overall numeric score for the bidders.
a. Brad Bunker: 538, $2475
b. Classic Ink: 526, $3500
c. Keri Thorpe: 520, $250
d. Bearing the Light:490, $1920 to $ 2880
2. Emily Baker asked the group to consider whether we had taken price into
account enough; it was worth only 10% of the initial score, and she thought it
should be given more weight. She thought perhaps the group should dive
back into the logos, and reconsider good work with a smaller bid, such as the
work of John Wallace, which she liked. Some work received a lower score
because they had not addressed things like the meeting, working with the
group, or submitting logos in accordance with guidelines outlined.
3. Meyer & Bennett pointed out other logo quality issues with this lower priced
bid and did not consider it a good idea to review the proposals again. The
logo design made up 25% of the scoring, so the most favored design work
should have ranked well.
4. Meyer commented that we are also evaluating these submittals on their
professionalism and ability to follow direction.
5. Paula Beswick voiced that we can't assume someone will be able to come to
the next meeting, on the 25t", or be willing to obtain a city business liscense as
required in the bid, unless they have specifically said so. Emily agreed that this
is a good point.
6. Cyndy Andrus expressed that next time a city working group writes a similar
bid request, they should be sure to have more specific criteria in the bid, so all
submissions can be sure to address the necessary topics.
7. Natalie Meyer reminded the group that the overall budget for the group is
$6000.
8. Beswick commented that she does not want to undervalue design work and
believed that all the bid prices are reasonable. However, we are a community
group with very limited resources.
9. Group members voiced concern over spending half the budget on a logo;
other members thought spending on a great logo could be worth it over time,
for long-term recognition, and potential fundraising campaigns, etc. Logos can
run be incredibly expensive; Bennett informed the group that MSU's logo cost
near $40,000.
10. Emily Baker voiced her support for keeping as much money as possible for
future campaigns of the group; she was concerned about spending too much
public money on branding and logo work.
11. Bennett pointed out that we also want to host a conference in the fall and will need
money. Others agreed that we should try to save money.
12. Other group members expressed that it could be worth it, to get a really great
logo. The group loved the work of Engine 8, and members scored it the
highest numerically on our evaluation sheets.
13. Jeff Moore said that he loves Keri Thorpe's work. He thinks it is very visually
impactful. He thinks the work of Engine 8 and Classic Ink are phenomenal as
well, and Engine 8 seems to speak really well. However, with Thorpe's proposal
at 10% the price of these other two, the choice seems clear.
14. Group discussion arrived at Thorpe for our first choice of designer, based upon
the combination of her portfolio and price. Cyndy Andrus then shared with the
group that Keri Thorpe is a city employee, and there could be a potential
perceived conflict of interest with picking her, due to state statues relating to
city employees doing consulting work for the city.
15. Andrus was in the process of checking with the city's legal department on this
issue.
16. Meeting adjourned with this issue unresolved.
6) Adjournment-10:50am