award_letter_and_synopsis - A1 Actuarial Services.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION – A1

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 240000001792, Financial and Insurance Actuarial Services (A1) and has recommended an award to the following: Axene Health Partners, LLC, Davies Actuarial, Audit & Consulting, Inc., Examination Resources LLC, Hause Actuarial Solutions, Inc., INS Consultants, Inc., Lewis & Ellis LLC, NovaRest Inc., Paradigm Actuaries LLC, Pinnacle Actuarial Resources, Inc., Taylor and Mulder Inc., in the total amount of $5,000,000.00, 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:

Melissa Beck, Solicitation Manager.

BeckM3@michigan.gov 517-897-1502 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 solicit proposals from Bidders to pre-qualify Contractors for Financial and Insurance Actuarial Services to provide Life/Health actuarial consulting services for examinations, Property/Casualty actuarial consulting services for examinations and Particular Insurance Line Actuarial Services and Statutory Reports, and Public Policy and Research Actuarial Services. The term of this contract is 5 years, with up to 5 one- year option renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on Monday, June 10, 2024, for 42 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of Monday July 22, 2024.

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

EVALUATION SYNOPSIS – A1

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: Evaluation Process

1. EVALUATION PROCESS:

Bidders can bid on Schedule A1 or Schedule A2, individually, or bidders can bid on both Schedule A1 and Schedule A2.

The State will evaluate each proposal based on the following factors:

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 Solicitation Manager in collaboration with Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Voting

Abigail Perry, Regional Supervisor, DIFS

Drew Simon, Purchasing and Travel Manager, DIFS

Melissa Beck, Solicitation Manager, DTMB

III. Evaluation Results A. Axene Health Partners, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Axene Health Partners, LLC based on a score of 76, did not meet the requirements of this RFP This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1-3 (35/35) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4-5 (16/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 4.1 Project Plan. Did not give details for identifying the project breakdown, identifying sub-projects, tasks and resources required; expected frequency and mechanisms for updates reviews; process for addressing issues/changes and individuals responsible for receiving/reacting to the requested information.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-8 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Question Worksheet (5/25) The Evaluation Team determined the responses were not satisfactory and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. None of the bidders’ experiences are related to assisting on examinations, but rather providing an actuarial report/opinion and rate review. A bidder with examination experience is required, the State cannot teach this resource.

Total Score: 76/100

B. Davies Actuarial, Audit & Consulting, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Davies Actuarial, Audit & Consulting, Inc. based on a score of 81.5, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1-3 (20.5/35) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

a. Section 1 -1, bidder agreed to the requirement, however, did not describe how they comply with the above requirement.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work Section 4-5 (16/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 4.1 Project Plan. Bidder did not give details for identifying the project breakdown, identifying sub-projects, tasks and resources required; expected frequency and mechanisms for updates reviews; process for addressing issues/changes and individuals responsible for receiving/reacting to the requested information.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-8 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (25/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 81.5/100

C. Examination Resources, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Examination Resources, LLC based on a score of 100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work Section 1-3 (35/35) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4-5 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-8 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (25/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 100/100 Examination Resources, LLC

D. Hause Actuarial Solutions, Inc The Evaluation Team determined that Examination Resources, LLC based on a score of 100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work Section 1-3 (35/35) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4-5 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-8 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (25/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 100/100

E. INS Consultants, Inc The Evaluation Team determined that Examination Resources, LLC based on a score of 100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work Section 1-3 (35/35) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4-5 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-8 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (25/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 100/100

F. Lewis Ellis, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Examination Resources, LLC based on a score of 100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work Section 1-3 (35/35) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4-5 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-8 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (25/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 100/100

G. NovaRest, Inc The Evaluation Team determined that Examination Resources, LLC based on a score of 99.5, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work Section 1-3 (34.5/35) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.2.1.G, The State standard is to have a Fellow of the Society of Actuaries (FSA) sign reports and opinions for property and casualty entities, an Associates of the Society of Actuaries (ASA) is not sufficient.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4-5 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-8 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (25/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 99.5/100

H. Paradigm Actuaries, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Examination Resources, LLC based on a score of 100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work Section 1-3 (35/35) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4-5 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-8 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (25/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 100/100

I. Pinnacle Actuarial Resource, Inc The Evaluation Team determined that Examination Resources, LLC based on a score of 99.50, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work Section 1-3 (34.5/35) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 3.1, a Contractor Representative was not provided.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4-5 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-8 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (25/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 99.50/100

J. Risk & Regulatory Consulting, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Examination Resources, LLC based on a score of 98, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work Section 1-3 (35/35) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4-5 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-8 (18/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 8, bidder took exception to liquidated damages.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (25/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 98/100

K. SL Financial The Evaluation Team determined that Examination Resources, LLC based on a score of 59, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work Section 1-3 (19.5/35) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1, bidder agreed to the requirement, however, did not describe how they comply with the above requirement.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4-5 (19.5/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 4-5, bidder agreed to the requirement, however, did not describe how they comply with the above requirement.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-8 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (0/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. No Vendor Question Worksheet was submitted.

Total Score: 59/100

L. Taylor & Mulder, Inc The Evaluation Team determined that Examination Resources, LLC based on a score of 100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work Section 1-3 (35/35) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4-5 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-8 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (25/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 100/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

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

VI. Negotiations – 2nd Round Pricing

$60

$155

$265

$255

$300

Award Recommendation Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidders 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.

The following bidders provided the best value to the State: Davies Actuarial, Audit & Consulting, Inc., Examination Resources, LLC, Hause Actuarial Solutions, Inc., INS Consultants, Inc., Lewis & Ellis, LLC, NovaRest, Inc., Paradigm Actuaries, LLC, Pinnacle Actuarial Resource, Inc., Taylor & Mulder, Inc. Best value factors for Award Recommendation are 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, including agreement to standard contract terms, insurance and price.

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 Davies Actuarial, Audit & Consulting, Inc., Examination Resources, LLC, Hause Actuarial Solutions, Inc., INS Consultants, Inc., Lewis & Ellis, LLC, NovaRest, Inc., Paradigm Actuaries, LLC, Pinnacle Actuarial Resource, Inc., Taylor & Mulder, Inc. Each contract will be approximately $555,555.55. The total available amount for all contracts will be $5,000,000.00.

Version 2024-2 image1.png