Interoffice Memorandum
DATE: February 7, 2025
TO: Mayor Jerry L. Demings and County Commissioners
FROM: Carrie Mathes, CFCM, NIGP-CPP, CPPO, C.P.M., Manager II, Procurement Division
CONTACT: Eric Blanc, Deputy Director, Orange County Convention Center
PHONE: 407-685-9833
SUBJECT: Selection of Firm, Request for Proposals Y25-100-JA, Digital Advertising Services for the Orange County Convention Center
RECOMMENDATION:
title
Selection of Xponet Corporation dba Xpodigital to provide Digital Advertising Services for the Orange County Convention Center, Request for Proposals Y25-100-JA.
Further request Board authorization for the Procurement Division to negotiate and execute a contract for a five-year term in the total estimated revenue amount of $2,350,000. Further request Board authorization for the Procurement Division to renew the contract for one additional five-year term. ([Orange County Convention Center Fiscal and Operational Support] Procurement Division)
body
PROCUREMENT:
The contractor shall be an official service partner of the Orange County Convention Center (OCCC) to market and provide digital advertising services on permanent displays or temporary mobile displays to external clients (show management and exhibiting companies), internal service vendors, and national, regional, and local organizations on a revenue sharing basis at the Convention Center. The contractor will be the exclusive provider in using the digital signage network at the OCCC for its content delivery and advertising display services to clients. The contract also provides for repairs, upgrades, and enhancements or the purchase of equipment and related components, if needed. It is projected that revenue share to the OCCC for the five-year term to be approximately $2,350,000 or approximately $470,000 annually.
FUNDING:
Revenue funds will be captured in account number 4430-035-0900-4188.
DISCUSSION:
The OCCC and Business Development Division concur with this recommendation.
One proposal was received in response to this Request for Proposals (RFP). To ensure an open and competitive solicitation process, the RFP was posted on the County’s e-procurement platform. A query from staff to potential proposers that declined to compete on this project resulted in the following:
• 14B Solutions: The operational scope, particularly the management of OCCC-owned digital signage hardware, exceeded our current capabilities for this project.
• Alyssa A. Hogan Enterprise LLC: The individual is a business consultant and was searching contracting opportunities for businesses they work with.
• A&P International, Inc.: The company advised the project was too big for their capability to compete.
• BKN Creative: The company did not submit to the RFP because they are a creative agency and selling ad space for a client is not in their provided services.
• CorePHP: The company decided not to compete based on the requirement for a dedicated onsite Sales Manager, which they are unable to fulfill at this time.
• Digital Conventions: Informed by another industry partner about the RFP but was not informed with enough time to develop a response to the RFP.
• Federal Gov Advisors: The company reviewed the solicitation for another contractor.
• Hoot Board: The company is typically a supplier to the types of companies that would submit a proposal for this type of solicitation. They are not qualified to propose on the whole scope of work.
• Left Hand Agency: The Scope of Work was not the services they offer.
• NoviSign: Employee at the firm stated they just started employment there and missed it when it was sent out.
• Planar: Company had some changes in the coverage over the past 45 days that could have affected their participation in this RFP.
• Reza Painting: The company decided not to continue the proposal opportunity due to the size of the project. They would need to sub-contract a partner company to make the job.
• Sirena Media: Writing proposals is an intensive effort that demands a great deal of strategy, time, and resources. It is disheartening to put in so much work and see little opportunity for a small business like theirs to compete.
• Smart City Networks: No longer includes digital signage sales and services in their portfolio of products
• Sunshine Enterprise USA: Their team worked diligently on the proposal but unfortunately missed the deadline by a few minutes.
• Sylvain Capital Solutions LLC: Did not propose due to time constraints causing them not to have enough time to submit.
• Temoney Banks Consulting: Their company would provide Project Management, Project Oversight, QA/QC of Cost Estimates, Vendor Management, and Invoice Approval/Review as a subcontractor.
• The Gold Group: They had a personnel change, and the RFP went unnoticed due to the change.
The Procurement Committee evaluated the responsive proposal in accordance with the criteria set forth in the subject RFP.
The item was evaluated by the Procurement Committee on February 5, 2025. Commissioner Nicole Wilson was assigned to the Procurement Committee. The Procurement Committee’s consensus scores are attached