250000002307 Award Recommendation and Synopsis.pdf

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Version 2024-2 Page 1 of 22

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 260000000549

Notice of Intent to Award Date: 6/12/2026

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP No. 250000002307 for Vision Insurance Administration Services for Michigan Public School Employees’ Retirement System (MPSERS) and has recommended an award to EyeMed Vision Care, LLC in the amount of $32,540,000.00, 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:

Mary Ostrowski, Solicitation Manager ostrowskim@michigan.gov

(517)249-0438

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 administration of post-employment vision benefit coverage for members, including Retirees, beneficiaries, COBRA participants, and Dependents, of the Michigan Public School Employees’ Retirement System (MPSERS), administered by the Michigan Office of Retirement Services (ORS). The term of this contract is three years and five months, with up to seven additional one-year renewal options. The Contract is to be effective July 23, 2026, through December 31, 2030. July 23, 2026, through December 31, 2026, is the implementation period and services are to begin without interruption on the Plan Effective Date, January 1, 2027. No payment will be made to the Contractor during the implementation period.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on September 3, 2025, for four weeks and six days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of October 7, 2025.

Bidder Address, City, State, Zip Code SDVOB* GDBE**

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

600 E. Lafayette Blvd.

Detroit, MI 48226

No Yes

EyeMed Vision Care, LLC 4000 Luxottica Place, Mason, OH 45040 No No https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/state-ad-board mailto:ostrowskim@michigan.gov https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/procurement/contractconnect/bid-proposals https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/procurement/contractconnect/bid-proposals

Version 2024-2 Page 2 of 22

MetLife Inc. for Davis Vision, Inc.

500 Jordan Rd.

Troy, New York 12180

No No

MetLife, Inc. for Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

200 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10166-0188

No No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business **GDBE: Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

Version 2024-2 Page 3 of 22

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: Mandatory Minimum Requirements

6. MANDATORY MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: To avoid disqualification, the bidder must provide documentation to support the following:

6.1 The Contractor must be a licensed Third-Party Administrator (TPA) in the State of Michigan, or insurance company licensed to do business in Michigan, or must qualify in any other capacity as an entity that is properly licensed by statute to provide administrative services only and cost-plus arrangements, or to act as a TPA. Contractor must provide proof of current licensure with their proposal submission. Refer to Schedule A, Section

1.1.11 for the associated requirement and Bidder response area.

6.2 Self-funded Proposals only: The Contractor must ensure Transparency and Pass- Through Pricing for all Services provided. Refer to Schedule A, Section 1.1.6 for the associated requirement and Bidder response area.

6.3 Contractor must fully implement the Plan Sponsor’s current Plan Design as provided in Schedule F. Refer to Schedule A, Section 1.2.2 for the associated requirement and Bidder response area.

Only proposals meeting the mandatory minimum requirements will be considered for evaluation.

Proposal Instructions: Evaluation Process

7. EVALUATION PROCESS. If all mandatory minimums are met, the State will evaluate each proposal based on the following factors:

Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

1.

Schedule A (EXCLUDING Sections: 4. Staffing, 5. Project Management, 7. Financial Administration and Pricing Requirements, Sections 1.4 and 1.9)

2. Schedule A, Section 4. Staffing 5

3.

Schedule A, Section 5. Project Management, Section 7. Financial Administration and Pricing Requirements

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Network Requirements Section 1.4 10

5.

Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.9 Service Organization Control (SOC) Audits

Version 2024-2 Page 4 of 22

Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

6.

Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 2.13, Section 5 Prior Experience, and Section 12

Total 100

Proposals receiving 80 or more technical evaluation points will have pricing evaluated and considered for award.

The full evaluation process is stated in the RFP Proposal Instructions.

II. Evaluation Method

Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by a Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Voting Advisory

Mary Ostrowski, Category Specialist Department of Technology, Management, and Budget (DTMB), Central Procurement Services

(CPS)

Doug Neil, Business Relationship Manager DTMB Agency Services

Courtney Landon, Departmental Analyst DTMB, Office of Retirement Services (ORS)

Mike Bartkowiak, Information Technology Specialist, DTMB Michigan Cyber Security (MCS)

Elizabeth Harrison, Business Process Owner, DTMB, ORS

Donald Apel, Senior Consultant

WTW

Sarah Harwood, Business Process Leader, DTMB, ORS

Erik Poppe, Health Care Actuary

WTW

Ashley Bryson, Healthcare Consultant

WTW

Patrick Guysky, Pension Administration Specialist

DTMB, ORS

III. Evaluation Results

A. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM)

Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 6. (No points deducted):

• Bidder provided redlines to Hybrid Contract Terms.

The Evaluation Team determined that BCBSM based on a score of 80, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A (EXCLUDING Sections: 4. Staffing, 5. Project Management, 7.

Financial Administration and Pricing Requirements, Sections 1.4 and 1.9)

Version 2024-2 Page 5 of 22

53/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

A. 1.1.8: Bidder did not agree to this requirement and submitted redlines to the HIPAA

BAA.

B. 1.1.12: Bidder did not provide a copy of their independent ratings of financial strength instead only stated their rating and a copy of their financial statement, in Bidders initial response.

C. 1.5.1: Bidder did not agree to this requirement and indicated a later start time of 9AM instead of 8:30AM.

D. 1.5.8: Bidder's response was unclear on whether the Plan Sponsor can opt out of the hearing offering. No points deducted.

E. 1.7.10: Bidder did not describe their process for Medicare members, only the non- Medicare portion of vision members, in Bidder's initial response.

F. 1.10.4: Bidder did not agree to this requirement and limited claim audits by stating that "Claim audits are limited to claims paid within the previous 24 months with a sample size of 200 claims".

G. 1.10.11: Bidder did not agree to this requirement, indicating that they do not agree to cover the total cost of the audit.

H. 1.10.13: Bidder did not agree to this requirement and stated, "Audits take into account both overpayments and underpayments to determine the amounts owed/due back to the group", in Bidder's initial response.

I. 1.10.18: Bidder did not agree to this requirement and stated, "If a pattern of payment errors is identified for a particular provider, BCBSM will perform an error analysis to determine financial impacts and will remediate the issue with the provider through reach out, training or referring to CFI for handling, if necessary", in Bidder's initial response.

J. 2.6 and Schedule G: Bidder did not address latency times for software in columns C, D, E, F, G, I, J, K in Schedule G.

K. 2.7 and Schedule G: Bidder did not sufficiently explain how they will meet the requirements for Access Control for all Schedule G software in columns C through K.

L. 2.8 and Schedule G:

• Bidder did not sufficiently describe how it communicates changes to its roadmaps for software in Columns G through K.

• Bidder did not provide their method for collaboration for software in Columns G through K (Row 27), in Bidder’s initial response.

• Bidder stated N/A for Whyzen, when it actually is applicable (Row 26, Column

G), in Bidder’s initial response.

M. 2.9: Bidder did not provide a sufficiently detailed Disaster Recovery (DR) Plan overall, in that the plan for VSP was more so a high-level summary and planning for disaster not sufficient as it pertains to working with their subcontractors. In addition, a 24-hour RTO was stated instead of the required 4-hour RTO.

Version 2024-2 Page 6 of 22

N. 2.10.2 and Schedule G: Bidder did not indicate where the data is stored/processed for VSP claim system, in Bidder’s initial response (Row 28, Column K).

O. 2.11 and Schedule G: Bidder's subcontractor VSP in Schedule G indicated following their own data retention schedule and not the states (Row 35, Columns H-K).

P. 2.12: Bidder did not agree to this requirement and indicates use of other processes instead of Suite. In addition, the other process to be used was not sufficiently detailed such as sample deliverables list and timeline.

Q. 8: Bidder did not agree to the liquidated damages requirement and stated "Blue Cross understands how important contracting activities are for ORS. We will strive to meet all requirements and deliver timely on all activities. We agree to develop mutual language that would be agreeable by both parties”.

R. 9.2 and 9.11: Bidder does not agree to these requirements in regard to ensuring that the SLA’s are measured using data attributable only to Plan Sponsor's membership stating, “While we are not able to report on group specific data, we are able to report out on VSP’s Book of Business”.

2. Schedule A, Section 4. Staffing 4/5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

A. 4.3: In Bidder's initial response:

• Bidder did not disclose all subcontractors/permitted subcontractors on their organizational chart.

• Bidder did not include Implementation Manager Kelly Barlage on their organizational chart.

• Bidder's Organizational chart is not overall; there was no reference to call center and claims processing areas.

B. 4.7: Bidder did not disclose all third parties/Subs/Permitted Subs which had been referenced in Schedule G Row 29, in Bidder’s initial response.

3. Schedule A, Section 5. Project Management, Section 7. Financial

Administration and Pricing Requirements 5/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

A. 5.6.1.13: Bidder did not agree to this requirement with indication that they do not believe SOC 1 Type 2 audit results apply for VSP since they are not a financial services organization.

B. 5.6.1.14: Bidder indicated they agreed to the requirement but unclear as it applies to SOC 1 Type 2 for subcontractors such as VSP. No points deducted. -

C. 7.1: Bidder did not agree to this requirement and indicated adjustment to pricing terms if there are changes in enrollment or coverages "If there is more than a 10 percent (10%) change in the number of Employees from the number stated in Schedule N of the RFP during any month of the Contract Year or a change in Coverages, BCBSM may revise any affected pricing terms to reflect such changes in

Version 2024-2 Page 7 of 22

Enrollment and/or Coverages. Any revisions will be effective beginning on the first day of the first full month following thirty (30) day notification by Blue Cross to ORS."

D. 7.2: Bidder did not respond to this requirement and left it blank in their initial response.

E. 7.8: Bidder did not agree to this requirement and adjusted the timing on invoices as well as combining vision and medical claims: "Vision claims will be presented as a separately identified line item along with the medical claims on the weekly MPSERS ASC commercial/MA summary invoice. The claims detail report will reconcile vision claims at the contract level to the MPSERS invoice. The vision claims will bill monthly on Mondays with invoices presented electronically on Tuesdays and payments due within 24 hours (Wednesdays)."

F. 7.9: Bidder did not agree to this requirement and stated: "Weekly invoiced arrangements bill on Mondays with invoices presented electronically on Tuesdays and payments due within 24 hours (Wednesdays)".

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Network Requirements Section 1.4 9/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

A. 1.4.5: Bidder did not sufficiently address improving provider access in any area where standards are not met (stated what they use but now how they use to improve)

B. 1.4.10: Bidder did not agree to this requirement as stated even though they do not appear to be in a position that exceeds 25%.

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.9 Service Organization Control (SOC) Audits 3/5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

A. 1.9:

• Bidder did not provide VSP SOC 1 Type 2 instead provided SOC 2 Type 2 and provided SOC 1 Type 2 for BCBSM which covers medical and pharmacy claims.

• 1.9.2, 1.9.4, 1.9.5, 1.9.7: Although Bidder agreed to these requirements, there was concern if Bidder would be able to truly comply with these requirements not having proof of VSP SOC1 Type 2 report. No points deducted.

6. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 2.13, Section 5 Prior Experience, and Section 12 6/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

A. 5.1 Experience 1:

• Bidder did not provide approximate number of covered lives (total membership) at the end of the last plan year, in Bidder's initial response.

Version 2024-2 Page 8 of 22

• Bidder did not address a (full contract term), b(1-Year total contract value) and c(1-Year total administration fees paid to Bidder, and instead only gave one unspecific value, in Bidder's initial response.

• Bidder's provided project detail indicated renewal, however Bidder did not address: If Contractor has prior consecutive contract(s) with this company, please provide these dates as well, along with detailed explanation, in Bidder's initial response.

B. 5.2 Experience 2:

• Bidder did not provide approximate number of covered lives (total membership) at the end of the last plan year in Bidder's initial response.

• Bidder did not address a(full contract term), b(1-Year total contract value) and c(1-Year total administration fees paid to Bidder, and instead only gave one unspecific value in Bidder's initial response.

• Bidder's provided project detail indicated renewal, however Bidder did not address: If Contractor has prior consecutive contract(s) with this company, please provide these dates as well, along with detailed explanation, in Bidder's initial response.

C. 5.3 Experience 3:

• Bidder did not provide approximate number of covered lives (total membership) at the end of the last plan year in Bidder's initial response.

• Bidder did not address a(full contract term), b(1-Year total contract value) and c(1-Year total administration fees paid to Bidder, and instead only gave one unspecific value in Bidder's initial response.

• Bidder's provided project detail indicated renewal, however Bidder did not address: If Contractor has prior consecutive contract(s) with this company, please provide these dates as well, along with detailed explanation, in Bidder's initial response.

Total Score: 80 /100

B. EyeMed

Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 6. (No points deducted):

• Bidder provided redlines to Hybrid Contract Terms, in Bidder’s initial response.

• Bidder provided redlines to Schedule E Data Security requirements, in

Bidder’s initial response.

Bidder’s proposal was difficult for the JEC to evaluate due to the intermingling of subsidiaries referred to throughout the proposal as one when they are separate legal entities and with inconsistencies in use requiring extensive clarification. (No points deducted).

Version 2024-2 Page 9 of 22

The Evaluation Team determined that EyeMed based on a score of 81, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A (EXCLUDING Sections: 4. Staffing, 5. Project Management, 7.

Financial Administration and Pricing Requirements, Sections 1.4 and 1.9) 52/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

A. 1.1.7: Bidder did not agree to this requirement and submitted redlines to Section 36 of the Hybrid Contract Terms, in Bidder's initial response.

B. 1.1.12: Bidder did not provide sufficient proof of financial strength for EyeMed Vision Care, LLC, instead provided information for Essilor Luxottica.

C. 1.3.13: Bidder did not sufficiently explain their process related to Coordination of Benefits when someone is covered by another insurance policy, in Bidder's initial response.

D. 1.5.1: Bidder did not check the bidder agreement box and left it blank, in Bidder's initial response.

E. 1.5.7: In Bidder's initial response:

• Bidder did not address their methods to monitor responses for quality in their plan.

• Bidder did not indicate if written correspondence for members and providers is attached to the customer account.

F. 2.1: Bidder did not agree to this requirement and proposed alternate language.

Alternate language was mutually agreed to in negotiation.

G. 2.6 and Schedule G: Bidder did not provide latency response times for all 4 software in columns C, D, E and F (Row 13).

H. 2.7 and Schedule G: Bidder did not sufficiently explain how they will meet the requirements for Access Control for all software in columns C, D, E and F; instead, only addressed their login characteristics and their 2-factor authentication. In clarification/negotiation it was resolved that the State can accept the Bidder’s Plan Sponsor Portal not having Single Sign-On (SSO).

I. 2.8 and Schedule G:

• Bidder's response for all 4 software in columns C, D, E and F in Rows 23 and

24 are a repeat of Row 22 and did not answer the specific questions.

• For all 4 software in columns C, D, E and F in Row 25, Bidder did not sufficiently describe how it communicates changes to its roadmaps, in Bidder’s initial response.

• For all 4 software in columns C, D, E and F in Row 27, Bidder did not provide sufficient detail on methods to collaborate in the decision-making process for upgrades, maintenance, and change control with the state, in Bidder’s initial response.

J. 2.10.1:

Version 2024-2 Page 10 of 22

• Bidder did not agree to this requirement and provided redlines in Schedule D. Language was mutually agreed to in negotiation.

• Bidder did not provide a sufficient DR Plan.

K. 2.10.2: Bidder did not agree to this requirement and indicated redline in Hybrid

Contract Terms Section 36, in Bidder's initial response.

L. 2.10.2 and Schedule G:

• For all 4 software in columns C, D, E and F Bidder did not complete Rows 30 through 34 accurately (service should be selected if providing a hosting services) according to indicating that Equinex is used, which is a third-party.

• DXC and Equinex were not sufficiently described in Schedule G.

M. 2.12: Bidder did not agree to this requirement and instead indicated that they will follow their own processes.

N. 8.: Bidder did not agree to the liquidated damages requirement and adjusted the amounts.

2. Schedule A, Section 4. Staffing

4/5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

A. 4.3: Bidder did not provide an overall organizational chart and there was no reference to the call center and claims processing center.

B. 4.7: Bidder did not disclose all 3rd parties/subcontractors/permitted subcontractors as required, in Bidder's initial response.

C. 4.8: Bidder did not check the Bidder agreement box and left it blank, in Bidder's initial response. In addition, Bidder did not address the 5 response boxes for subcontractor First American Administrators, having claims processing duties.

3. Schedule A, Section 5. Project Management, Section 7. Financial Administration and Pricing Requirements 7/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

A. 5.4.1: Bidder did not address 2-9 of implementation plan.

B. 5.6.1.3: Bidder did not check the Bidder agree box and left it blank in Bidder's initial response.

C. 5.6.1.13: Bidder does not agree to this requirement in that they will not provide a copy of the subcontractor’s report upon Plan Sponsor request.

D. 5.6.1.14: Bidder did not agree to this requirement as stated and indicated they will only be providing attestations for subcontractors.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Network Requirements Section 1.4

9/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

Version 2024-2 Page 11 of 22

A. 1.4.4: Bidder does not meet the urban/suburban/rural access standard for opticians with just 57.8% of MPSERS Members not having sufficient access, as Bidder does not track all opticians, only stand-alone opticians.

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.9 Service Organization Control (SOC) Audits 1/5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly unsatisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

A. 1.9.1: Bidder did not provide a copy of their SOC1 Type 2 for EyeMed and FAA, only included what they describe as evidence. In clarification/negotiation, a copy of EyeMed's was provided.

B. 1.9.5: Bidder did not agree to this requirement and is objecting to providing any SOCs for their subs and would only attest. Alternate language was mutually agreed to in clarification/negotiation.

C. 1.9.6: Bidder did not agree to this requirement regarding SOC 1 Type 2 for subcontractors with significant service.

6. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 2.13, Section 5 Prior Experience, and Section 12 8/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

A. 2.13: Bidder did not provide gross annual sales for the contractor EyeMed and instead provided sales for their ultimate parent company EssilorLuxottica.

B. 5.1 Experience 1:

• Bidder did not address a(full contract term), b(1-Year total contract value) in

Bidder’s initial response.

• Bidder did not address c (1-Year total administration fees paid to Bidder, and instead only gave one unspecific value range.

C. 5.2 Experience 2:

• Bidder did not address a(full contract term), b(1-Year total contract value) in Bidder’s initial response.

• Bidder did not address c (1-Year total administration fees paid to Bidder, and instead only gave one unspecific value range.

D. 5.3 Experience 3:

• Bidder did not address a(full contract term), b(1-Year total contract value) in

Bidder’s initial response.

• Bidder did not address c (1-Year total administration fees paid to Bidder, and instead only gave overall values.

Total Score: 81 /100

C. Davis Vision

Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 6. (No points deducted):

Version 2024-2 Page 12 of 22

• Bidder provided redlines to Hybrid Contract Terms in Bidder’s initial response

• Bidder provided redlines to Schedule E Data Security Requirements in Bidder’s initial response.

Bidder’s proposal was difficult for the JEC to evaluate due to the intermingling of subsidiaries referred to throughout the proposal as one when they are separate legal entities and with inconsistencies in use requiring extensive clarification. (No points deducted).

The Evaluation Team determined that Davis Vision, based on a score of 83, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

53/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

A. 1.1.7: Bidder did not agree to this requirement and provided redlines to Hybrid Contract Terms Sections 36 and 37, in Bidder's initial response.

B. 1.1.12: Bidder did not provide ratings for Davis Vision, and instead only stated ratings for MetLife along with links which are not allowed in submitted proposals.

C. 1.3.4: Bidder did not address plan for overpayment for members in their plan.

D. 1.3.10: Bidder did not provide the name of the Claim processing system and

Eligibility system and did not provide a sufficient plan for meeting the requirement by addressing lag time, in Bidder's initial response.

E. 1.3.13: Bidder did not sufficiently describe their processes related to Coordination of Benefits (COB), in Bidder's initial response.

F. 1.3.14: Bidder did not address their process for correct non-compliance with billing requirements, in Bidder's initial response.

G. 1.3.14.2: Bidder did not address member recoveries in their process, in Bidder's initial response.

H. 1.5.4: Bidder did not address providers in their plan, in Bidder's initial response.

I. 1.5.6: Bidder did not agree to this requirement and indicated they cannot provide plan specific videos.

J. 1.7.12: Bidder did not check the bidder box and left in blank, in Bidder's initial response.

K. 1.7.12: Bidder's response was unclear on whether Plan Sponsor can set access to read-only for their employees. No points deducted.

L. 2.5: Bidder agreed to comply with ADA requirements, but the detail of how Bidder will comply with current state policy and any forthcoming policy wouldn't meet the

Version 2024-2 Page 13 of 22 new standards set by the federal government which was requiring 2.1 (as of April 2026), in Bidder’s initial response.

M. 2.6 and Schedule G:

• Row 10, Column D Member Portal Software: Bidder indicated only 750+ individuals can access the member portal concurrently although the estimated members are 260,000.00.

• Row 10, Software in Columns C, D, E, and F: Bidder did not address concurrent (access at the same time).

• Row 11 Software in Column E: Bidder did not explain how the Provider Portal can support the expected number of concurrent users, in Bidder’s initial response.

• Row 12 Software in Column F: Bidder did not explain how they will scale up or down for the Claims Processing System, in Bidder’s initial response.

• Row 13 Software in Columns C, D, E, F: Bidder did not provide latency response times (need the performance metrics; actual response time).

• Row 15 Software in Columns C, D, E: Bidder did not provide name, type, version, release number, etc.

N. 2.8 and Schedule G: In Bidder’s initial response:

• Row 24 Software in Column F: Bidder did not sufficiently describe if their

Claims Processing System can support the original environment throughout the term of the contract.

• Row 25 Software in Columns: Bidder did not sufficiently describe how it communicates changes to its roadmaps to the Plan sponsor.

O. 2.10.1 Disaster Recovery and Schedule G:

• Bidder did not provide DR plan for MetLife, but MetLife portals/software are listed to be used in Schedule G, Columns C, D and F.

• Bidder's Versant/Davis DR plan referenced RTO and RPOs that do not align with Schedule D's requirement of 4 hours for each.

P. 2.10.2 and Schedule G:

• Row 30, Software in Column F: In Bidder’s initial response:

Based on the information provided, Bidder completed table inaccurately here.

Bidder stated “Software” but is not providing software. Bidder should have selected “Software as a Service” which is a SAAS.

• Row 32, Software in Column F: In Bidder’s initial response: Based on the information provided, Bidder response is incorrect because of Row 30;

Bidder should have indicated if a 3rd party is providing the service and should not have stated N/A.

• Row 33, Software in Columns C, D, E, F: Bidder did not answer specific to the Software disclosed in these 4 columns and instead just listed all the subcontractors they use overall.

2. Schedule A, Section 4. Staffing 3/5

Version 2024-2 Page 14 of 22

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

A. 4.2.3.11: Bidder's resume for Back-Up Senior Account Manager Ashley Jewell did not include education.

B. 4.2.3.10 and 4.2.3.11: Bidder did not provide accurate information for Senior Implementation Leader Jessica Adams upfront in proposal in the Key Personnel table and did not provide her resume, in Bidder's initial response.

C. 4.3:

• Metropolitan Life Insurance Company was not on Contractor's

Organizational Chart

• Bidder did complete Contractor's Organizational Chart properly for Versant, according to Bidder's proposal arrangement.

D. 4.5: Bidder indicated technical support hours would be 8:00AM-5:00 PM instead of

7AM -6PM.

E. 4.7: Bidder did not include the following separate legal entities in the table:

• Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

• Versant

• MetLife

• ABB Concise Optical (contact lens fulfillment referenced in Schedule G)

3. Schedule A, Section 5. Project Management, Section 7. Financial Administration and Pricing Requirements

9/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

A. 5.4: Bidder appeared to not recognize they are submitting a proposal to the State of Michigan in one area of their implementation plan, which was a generic response that makes sense for companies who are not state. No points deducted.

B. 5.4: Bidder did not provide a detailed protocol and escalation communication process (#7).

C. 5.6.1.8 : Bidder did not agree to this requirement, indicating there may be an additional cost by stating "often at no additional cost", in Bidder’s initial response.

D. 7.3: Bidder did not agree to this requirement, indicating that accounts would not be interest-bearing.

E. 7.4: Bidder did not agree to this requirement and indicated disagreement with the 30-day timeline by stating "Overpayments occur periodically and we credit the Plan Sponsor’s bank account as they are recovered. However, we cannot guarantee the timeline in which overpayments are recovered and the account is credited.”

Alternate language was mutually agreed to in negotiation.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Network Requirements Section 1.4 8/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

Version 2024-2 Page 15 of 22

A. 1.4.4: Bidder’s GeoAccess results indicated that 27.2% of MPSERS members would not have sufficient access to Ophthalmologists in urban, suburban and rural areas combined according to the standard; specifically in the rural areas, 36.9% of enrollees would not have sufficient access to care as the access standard is 2 Ophthalmologists within 30 miles.

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.9 Service Organization Control (SOC) Audits 2/5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly unsatisfactory, and the following deficiency was noted:

A. 1.9.1: Bidder did not provide SOC 1 Type 2 report specific to Davis Vision; Instead, it referenced parent or subsidiaries, in Bidder's initial response.

6. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 2.13, Section 5 Prior Experience, and Section 12 8/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

A. 2.13: Gross Annual Sales speaks to MetLife and not Davis Vision who is a separate legal entity that is indicated to be the contract holder.

B. 5.1 Experience 1:

• Bidder did not provide phone for this reference and stated N/A.

• Bidder did not provide approximate number of covered lives (total membership) at the end of the last plan year.

• Bidder did not provide c. 1-year total administration fees paid to Bidder and indicated proprietary and confidential.

C. 5.2 Experience 2:

• Bidder did not provide approximate number of covered lives (total membership) at the end of the last plan year.

• Bidder did not provide c. 1-year total administration fees paid to Bidder and indicated proprietary and confidential.

D. 5.3 Experience 3:

• Bidder did not provide phone for this reference and stated N/A.

• Bidder did not provide approximate number of covered lives (total membership) at the end of the last plan year

• Bidder did not provide c. 1-year total administration fees paid to Bidder and indicated proprietary and confidential.

Total Score: 83 /100

D. Metropolitan Life

Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 6. (No points deducted):

• Bidder provided redlines to Hybrid Contract Terms in Bidder’s initial response

Version 2024-2 Page 16 of 22

• Bidder provided redlines to Schedule E Data Security Requirements in Bidder’s initial response.

Bidder’s proposal was difficult for the JEC to evaluate due to the intermingling of subsidiaries referred to throughout the proposal as one when they are separate legal entities and with inconsistencies in use requiring extensive clarification. (No points deducted).

The Evaluation Team determined that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Fully- Insured proposal), based on a score of 87, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

54/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

A. 1.1.7: Bidder did not agree to this requirement and provided redlines to Hybrid Contract Terms Sections 36 and 37, in Bidder's initial response.

B. 1.1.12: Bidder only stated ratings and gave links, which are not allowed in submitted proposals, in Bidder's initial response.

C. 1.3.8: Bidder did not respond to this requirement and left it blank in their initial response.

D. 1.3.10: Bidder did not provide the name of the Claim processing system and Eligibility system and did not provide a sufficient plan for meeting the requirement by addressing lag time, in Bidder's initial response.

E. 1.3.13: In Bidder's initial response:

• Bidder did not check the bidder agreement box for this requirement and instead left it blank.

• Bidder did not sufficiently describe their processes related to COB.

F. 1.3.14.1: Bidder did not address their process for correct non-compliance with billing requirements, in Bidder's initial response.

G. 1.3.14.2: Bidder did not address member recoveries in their process, in Bidder's initial response.

H. 1.5.4: Bidder did not address providers in their plan, in Bidder's initial response.

I. 1.5.7: Bidder did not address 1.5.7.3. Methods to report Plan Sponsor-specific metrics, standards and ad hoc report generation.

J. 1.7.4: Bidder checked both agree and disagree, in Bidder's initial response.

K. Section 2 and Schedule G: Bidder indicated use of Mimecast software to be used for their email encryption solution in their initial proposal which was inaccurate.

L. 2.6 and Schedule G:

• Row 10, Software in Columns C, D, and E: Bidder did not address the number of concurrent users (access at the same time).

Version 2024-2 Page 17 of 22

• Row 11, Software in Column E: Bidder did not explain how it will be able to support the expected number of concurrent users, in Bidder's initial response.

• Row 12, Software in Column F/Software: Bidder did not explain how they will scale up or down for the Claims Processing System, in Bidder’s initial response.

• Row 13, Software in Columns, C, D, E, F: Bidder did not provide latency response times (need the performance metrics - actual response time).

• Row 15, Columns C, D, E: Bidder did not provide Name, type, version, release number, etc.

M. 2.8 and Schedule G: In Bidder's initial response:

• Row 24, Software in Column F: Bidder did not sufficiently describe if it can support the original environment for their Claims Processing System throughout the term of the contract.

• Row 25, Software in Columns C, D, and E: Bidder did not sufficiently describe how it communicates changes to its roadmaps to the Plan Sponsor.

N. 2.10.1: Bidder's documentation provided for the DR plan is more so a high-level outline where the specific DR information appears to be located at a linked source that is not accessible and was not provided with their proposal.

O. 2.10.2 and Schedule G:

• Row 30, Software in Column F: In Bidder’s initial response:

Based on the information that was provided, Bidder completed table inaccurately here In Bidder's initial response. Bidder stated “Software” but is not providing software. Bidder should have selected “Software as a Service” which is a SAAS.

• Row 32, Software in Column F: In Bidder’s initial response:

Based on the information that was provided, Bidder completed table inaccurately here in Bidder’s initial response. Bidder response is incorrect because of Row 30; Bidder should have indicated if a 3rd party is providing the service and should not have stated N/A.

• Row 33, Software in Columns C, D, E, F: Bidder did not answer specific to the Software disclosed in these 4 columns and instead just listed all the subcontractors they use overall for their response.

2. Schedule A, Section 4. Staffing 3/5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

A. 4.2.3.10: Bidder's resume for proposed Senior Account Manager Ashley Jewell did not include education.

B. 4.2.3.11: Bidder's resume for proposed Customer Services Call Center Manager Dean Ellis did not include education.

C. 4.2.3.10 and 4.3:

Version 2024-2 Page 18 of 22

• Bidder indicated Dean Ellis, Customer Services Call Center Manager, was a Direct, however on provided Organizational Chart this individual appeared under Davis Vision and with a Versant email address which was unclear. No points deducted.

• Bidder indicated Skyler Jones, Claims Center Manager, was a Direct, however on provided Organizational Chart this individual appeared under Davis Vision and with a Versant email address which was unclear. No points deducted.

D. 4.3:

• Bidder did complete their organizational chart properly for Versant, based on their proposal.

• It was unclear if the organizational chart was completed properly as it pertained to MetLife based on bidder's proposal. No points deducted.

E. 4.5: Bidder indicated technical support hours would be 8:00AM-5:00 PM instead of

7AM -6PM.

F. 4.7: Bidder did not include the separate legal entity Versant in the table.

3. Schedule A, Section 5. Project Management, Section 7. Financial

Administration and Pricing Requirements 9/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

A. 5.4.1:

• "Bidder's plan lacked detail on activation of call center and steps leading up to it, in Bidder's initial response.

• In Bidder's initial response: #14 and #18 in Bidder's provided timeline did not contain the content referenced in Exhibit 9, #4 regarding summaries and booklets; instead, it seemed like a terms-related document for this fully-insured proposal.

• Bidder did not provide a detailed protocol and escalation communication process (#7), in Bidder's initial response."

B. 5.6.1.8 : Bidder checked both boxes of agree and disagree and indicated that they are not providing a tool with proposal that the Plan Sponsor can access, as well as indicated that there may be an additional cost by stating "often at no additional cost", which was not provided upfront in proposal. Bidder also indicated that all ad hoc reports will be provided by your assigned client services consultant at a mutually agreed upon schedule.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Network Requirements Section 1.4 8/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

A. 1.4.4: Bidder’s GeoAccess results indicated that 27.2% of MPSERS members would not have sufficient access to Ophthalmologists in urban, suburban and rural areas combined according to the standard; specifically in the rural areas, 36.9% of

Version 2024-2 Page 19 of 22 enrollees would not have sufficient access to care as the access standard is 2 Ophthalmologists within 30 miles.

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.9 Service Organization Control (SOC) Audits 3/5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

A. 1.9: In Bidder's initial response, Bidder did not provide SOC report for Davis Vision which is identified as a subcontractor performing service significant to the state

6. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 2.13, Section 5 Prior Experience, and Section 12

10/10 The JEC determined that the Bidder met the requirements of this section without exception.

Total Score: 87 /100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Selection Criteria Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

EyeMed Vision Care, LLC.

Davis Vision, Inc.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

1 Schedule A (EXCLUDING Sections: 4. Staffing, 5.

Project Management, 7.

Financial Administration and Pricing Requirements, Sections

1.4 and 1.9)

60 Points

54 52 53 54

2 Schedule A, Section 4.

Staffing

5 Points 4 4 3 3

3 Schedule A, Section 5.

Project Management, Section 7. Financial Administration and Pricing Requirements

10 Points

4 7 9 9

Version 2024-2 Page 20 of 22

4 Schedule A, Statement of Work, Network Requirements Section 1.4

10 Points

5 9 8 8

5 Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.9 Service Organization Control (SOC) Audits

5 Points

3 1 2 3

6 Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 2.13, Section 5 Prior Experience, and Section 10 Points

6 8 8 10

Total 80 81 83 87

V. Pricing Summary

Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of their price proposals:

(1) Values are incomplete, refer to summary details below.

(2) Administrative values were projected using estimated members and contracts in table above based on enrollment (contracts and members) increasing slightly over each of the plan years.

(3) 4-year claims values use a 2% illustrative growth rate applied to the annual claims costs. Claims costs were estimated in Schedule O Claims Repricing Worksheet using the average number of claims multiplied by the formulaically determined member and plan cost.

Plan Year 1 Plan Year 2 Plan Year 3 Plan Year 4 Total Contracts: 170,090 170,516 170,942 171,369 Total Members: 263,898 264,558 265,220 265,883

Pricing Type 1 Year Estimate 4 Year Estimate 1 Year Estimate 4 Year Estimate 1 Year Estimate 4 Year Estimate 1 Year Estimate 4 Year Estimate Self-Funded Contract Pricing - Annual Rate (2) 696,690.72$ 2,797,235.76$ 265,340.40$ 1,065,350.52$ 142,875.60$ 573,650.28$ Claims Costs(3) 8,713,098.16$ 35,911,975.08$ 6,605,348.34$ 27,224,656.56$ 6,714,516.00$ 27,674,602.86$ Total 9,409,788.88$ 38,709,210.84$ 6,870,688.74$ 28,290,007.08$ 6,857,391.60$ 28,248,253.14$ Member Out of Pocket Claims Costs (4) 19,296,509.87$ 19,045,554.05$ 10,631,524.00$ Self-Funded Member Pricing - Annual Rate (2) 696,690.72$ 2,797,235.76$ 265,340.40$ 1,065,350.52$ 161,505.58$ 648,450.11$ Claims Costs(3) 8,713,098.16$ 35,911,975.08$ 6,605,348.34$ 27,224,656.56$ 6,714,516.00$ 27,674,602.86$ Total 9,409,788.88$ 38,709,210.84$ 6,870,688.74$ 28,290,007.08$ 6,876,021.58$ 28,323,052.97$ Member Out of Pocket Claims Costs (4) 19,296,509.87$ 19,045,554.05$ 10,631,524.00$ Self-Funded Contract Pricing - Fixed Rate (2) 699,308.94$ 2,797,235.76$ 266,337.63$ 1,065,350.52$ 143,412.57$ 573,650.00$ Claims Costs(3) 8,713,098.16$ 35,911,975.08$ 6,605,348.34$ 27,224,656.56$ 6,714,516.00$ 27,674,602.86$ Total 9,412,407.10$ 38,709,210.84$ 6,871,685.97$ 28,290,007.08$ 6,857,928.57$ 28,248,252.86$ Member Out of Pocket Claims Costs (4) 19,296,509.87$ 19,045,554.05$ 10,631,524.00$ Self-Funded Member Pricing -Fixed Rate (2) 699,308.94$ 2,797,235.76$ 266,337.57$ 1,065,350.28$ 158,933.85$ 635,735.00$ Claims Costs(3) 8,713,098.16$ 35,911,975.08$ 6,605,348.34$ 27,224,656.56$ 6,714,516.00$ 27,674,602.86$ Total 9,412,407.10$ 38,709,210.84$ 6,871,685.91$ 28,290,006.84$ 6,873,449.85$ 28,310,337.86$ Member Out of Pocket Claims Costs (4) 19,296,509.87$ 19,045,554.05$ 10,631,524.00$ Fully Insured Contract Pricing - Annual Rate Premium (Total) (5) 9,184,860.00$ 39,423,340.68$ Member Out of Pocket Claims Costs (4) $2,800,380.00 Fully Insured Member Pricing - Annual Rate Premium (Total) (5) 9,183,650.40$ 39,420,994.44$ Member Out of Pocket Claims Costs (4) $2,800,380.00 Fully Insured Contract Pricing - Fixed Rate Premium (Total) (5) 9,854,492.31$ 39,417,969.24$ Member Out of Pocket Claims Costs (4) $2,800,380.00 Fully Insured Member Pricing -Fixed Rate Premium (Total) (5) 9,853,898.70$ 39,415,594.80$ Member Out of Pocket Claims Costs (4) $2,800,380.00

BCBSM EyeMed Davis Vision (1) Metropolitan Life (1)

Version 2024-2 Page 21 of 22

(4) Member out of pocket costs were estimated in Schedule O Claims Repricing Worksheet using the average number of claims by the expected member out of pocket cost for each service.

(5) Premium values were projected using estimated members and contracts in table above based on enrollment (contracts and members) increasing slightly over each of the plan years. Premium rates were provided in Schedule B.

The pricing propoals were evaluated utilizing the the pricing worksheet (Schedule B). The bidder responses in the pricing worksheet were based on inputs into that worksheet as well as the claims repricing worksheet (Schedule O).

Davis Vision did not complete the Schedule O Claims Repricing Worksheet correctly and initially submitted a file that didn’t follow the instructions.

The initial submission included unauthorized modifications to non-input cells (i.e., cells not shaded yellow), including changes to formulas and/or values that were required to remain intact.

Despite 2 rounds of clarification and requests for correction, Davis Vision did not provide complete information necessary to determine Plan and Member Costs. Davis Vision indicated that it could not provide fully accurate data due to the locked formulas within Schedule O.

A revised Schedule O and supplemental materials were subsequently provided; however, these submissions did not support a complete or comparable pricing evaluation across bidders. The revised Schedule O was also not accompanied by a corresponding updated Schedule B, preventing alignment of financial results for evaluation purposes by the JEC.

In addition, the results presented in Schedule O were not consistent with historical experience and raised concerns regarding accuracy. For example, projected annual member out-of-pocket costs of $8,909,331 are approximately $10 million below historical levels. Errors remained in multiple key cost components, including out-of-network exam costs, progressive lenses, frame cost per claim, total lens cost per claim, and conventional contact lens costs.

As a result of these deficiencies, the Davis Vision pricing submission could not be reasonably validated or compared on a consistent basis with other bidders.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company did not complete Schedule O Claims Repricing worksheet and submitted a blank file with their proposal, therefore the JEC was unable to evaluate the estimated claims costs for their fully insured proposal. In addition, the Member Out of Pocket Claim Costs of $2,800,380.00 referenced on their Schedule B Price page is unreasonable compared to historical experience and is approximately $16 Million lower than expected.

VI. Clarification and Negotiations

Version 2024-2 Page 22 of 22

Clarifications and negotiations were performed for all four Bidders who passed the technical evaluation. Pricing was further negotiated with EyeMed and Davis Vision and is reflected in the table above.

VII. Award Recommendation

Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who offers the best value to the State of Michigan. Best value is based on the proposal meeting the minimum point threshold and offering the best combination of the factors stated in the Proposal Instructions Evaluation Process section, and price.

EyeMed Vision Care, LLC provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include full agreement to the State’s Hybrid Contract Terms, Schedule E Data Security requirements, and Exhibit 2 to Schedule E HIPAA BAA requirements without exception, most comparable references with the MPSERS population the most favorable financial proposal costs and having minimal member disruption.

As part of the best value determination, overall economic impact to the State of Michigan was considered and is not a determinative factor in making this award.

Award Recommendation is made to EyeMed Vision Care, LLC in the amount of $32,540,000.00.