The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Michigan.gov/MiProcurement
Michigan.gov/MiProcurement
AWARD RECOMMENDATION – A2
| Notice of Intent to Award Number: 240000001400 |
| Notice of Intent to Award Date: 9/9/2024 |
The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 240000001792, Actuarial Service for Rate Review & Examination (A2) and has recommended a multi award to Axene Health Partners, 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., National Actuarial Network Inc., in the total amount of $15,000,000.00, 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(s) for the regulation of life and health (L&H) and property and casualty (P&C) insurance companies as authorized under the Michigan Insurance Code of 1956, PA 218 of 1956 (Code). DIFS is charged with the responsibility for ensuring that all rate development complies with statutory standards. DIFS needs P&C actuaries to opine to the adequacy, compliance, and actuarially soundness of rates, rating methodologies, classifications, and rating rules filed by P&C insurers. Additionally, DIFS needs L & H actuaries to opine to the adequacy, compliance, and actuarially soundness of rates and rating methodologies filed by individual and group health insurers. 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.
| Bidder |
| Address, City, State, Zip Code |
| SDVOB* |
| GDBE** |
| Axene Health Partners, LLC |
| 24630 Washington Ave, Suite 203, Murrieta, CA 92562 |
| No |
| No |
| Davies Actuarial, Audit & Consulting, Inc. |
| 5550 Peachtree Parkway, Suite 600, Peachtree Corners, GA 30092 |
| No |
| No |
| Examination Resources, LLC |
| 20 10th Street NW, Suite 803, Atlanta, GA 30309 |
| No |
| No |
| Hause Actuarial Solutions, Inc. |
| 7201 W 129th Street, Suite 310, Overland Park, KS 66213 |
| No |
| No |
| INS Consultants, Inc. |
| 419 S. 2nd Street, New Market, Suite 206, Philadelphia, PA 19147 |
| No |
| No |
| Lewis & Ellis, LLC |
| 6600 Chase Oaks Boulevard, Suite 150, Plano, TX 75023 |
| No |
| No |
| NovaRest, Inc. |
| 156 W Calle Guija, Sahuarita, AZ 85629 |
| No |
| No |
| Paradigm Actuaries, LLC |
| 4526 North Hermitage Ave, Chicago, IL 60640 |
| No |
| No |
| Pinnacle Actuarial Resource, Inc. |
| 3109 Cornelius Drive, Bloomington, IL 61704 |
| No |
| No |
| Risk & Regulatory Consulting, LLC |
| 20 Batterson Park Road, Suite 380, Farmington CT 06032 |
| No |
| No |
| Taylor & Mulder, Inc |
| 10508 Rivers Bend Ln, Potomac, MD 20854 |
| No |
| No |
| National Actuarial Network, Inc. |
| 55 Cooper Road, Voorhees, NJ 08043 |
| No |
| No |
*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business **GDBE: Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
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: 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:
| Technical Evaluation Criteria for Schedule A2 |
| Weight |
| 1. |
| Product Quality – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-3 |
| 35 |
| 2. |
| Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 4-5 |
| 20 |
| 3. |
| Delivery Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-8 |
| 20 |
| 4. |
| Vendor Questions Worksheet |
| 25 |
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:
| Julie Merriman, Administrative Law Specialist, DIFS |
| Drew Simon, Purchasing and Travel Manager, DIFS |
| Christopher Arth, Manager, DIFS |
| Miranda Wellman, Senior Executive Management Assistant, DIFS |
Melissa Beck, Solicitation Manager, DTMB
III. Evaluation Results A. Axene Health Partners The Evaluation Team determined that Axene Health Partners 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 2.D-E, Bidder accepted the requirement, however, did not provide a description of how they will meet the requirement.
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 Question Worksheet 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.
Total Score: 99.5/100 B. Davies Actuarial, Audit & Consulting, Inc.
The Evaluation Team determined that Davies Actuarial, Audit & Consulting, Inc. based on a score of 96.5, 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 33.5/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:
a. Section 1.1 A-C, Bidder accepted the requirement, however, did not provide a description of how they will meet the requirement.
2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4-5 18/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:
a. Section 4.1, Bidder did not list contract representative.
b. Section 5.1, Bidder did not provide project plan.
c. Section 5.3, Bidder did not provide sample reports.
3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-9 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: 96.5/100
C. Examination Resources, 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 33/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:
a. Section 2. A-C, bidder both agreed and took exception to Statutory Reports and Public Policy and Research Actuarial Services for the Office of Innovation and Research. Bidders can not decide not to perform this work.
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 6-9 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: 98/100 D. Hause Actuarial Solutions, Inc.
The Evaluation Team determined that Hause Actuarial Solutions, Inc. 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 35/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.
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 5.1, 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 6-9 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 E. INS Consultants, Inc.
The Evaluation Team determined that INS Consultants, Inc. 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 1.1 A-C, Bidder did not accurately and specifically identify how they would comply with the requirements listed.
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 6-9 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 F. Lewis & Ellis LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Lewis & Ellis 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 6-9 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 NovaRest, Inc. 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 1.1 A-C, agreed with no exception but did not agree to all categories.
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 6-9 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 Paradigm Actuaries, 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 35/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.
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 5.1, Project plan lacked explanation.
3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-9 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 I. Pinnacle Actuarial Resource, Inc.
The Evaluation Team determined that Pinnacle Actuarial Resources, Inc., based on a score of 98.5, 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.
a. Section 2.D-E, agreed with no exception but did not describe how they comply with requirements.
2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4-5 19/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:
a. Section 4.1, did not list a Contract Representative.
b. Section 4.6, did not address subcontractor.
3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-9 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: 98.5/100 J. Risk & Regulatory Consulting, Inc.
The Evaluation Team determined that Risk & Regulatory Consulting, Inc., based on a score of 97.5, 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 19.5/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:
a. Section 5.1, 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 6-9 18/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:
a. Section 9, bidder took exception to liquated damages.
4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.
Total Score: 97.5/100 K. Taylor & Mulder, Inc.
The Evaluation Team determined that Taylor & Mulder, Inc. 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 2. A-C, agreed with no exception but did not agree to all categories.
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 6-9 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 L. National Actuarial Network Inc.
The Evaluation Team determined that National Actuarial Network, Inc. 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:
b. Section 1.1 A-C, agreed with no exception but did not agree to all categories.
2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4-5 20/20 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.
3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-9 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 IV. Technical Evaluation Summary
| Selection Criteria |
| Axene Health Partners |
| Davies Actuarial, Audit & Consulting, Inc. |
| Examination Resources, LLC |
| 1 |
| Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-3 |
| 34.5 |
| 33.5 |
| 33 |
| 2 |
| Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 4-5 |
| 20 |
| 18 |
| 20 |
| 3 |
| Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-8 |
| 20 |
| 20 |
| 20 |
| 4 |
| Vendor Questions Worksheet |
| 25 |
| 25 |
| 25 |
| Selection Criteria |
| Hause Actuarial Solutions, Inc. |
| INS Consultants, Inc. |
| Lewis & Ellis LLC |
| 1 |
| Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-3 |
| 35 |
| 34.5 |
| 35 |
| 2 |
| Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 4-5 |
| 19.5 |
| 20 |
| 20 |
| 3 |
| Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-8 |
| 20 |
| 20 |
| 20 |
| 4 |
| Vendor Questions Worksheet |
| 25 |
| 25 |
| 25 |
| Selection Criteria |
| NovaRest, Inc. |
| Paradigm Actuaries, LLC |
| Pinnacle Actuarial Resource, Inc. |
| 1 |
| Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-3 |
| 34.5 |
| 35 |
| 34.5 |
| 2 |
| Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 4-5 |
| 20 |
| 19.5 |
| 19 |
| 3 |
| Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-8 |
| 20 |
| 20 |
| 20 |
| 4 |
| Vendor Questions Worksheet |
| 25 |
| 25 |
| 25 |
| Selection Criteria |
| Risk & Regulatory Consulting, LLC |
| Taylor & Mulder, Inc. |
| National Actuarial Network Inc. |
| 1 |
| Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-3 |
| 34 |
| 34.5 |
| 34.5 |
| 2 |
| Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 4-5 |
| 19.5 |
| 20 |
| 20 |
| 3 |
| Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-8 |
| 19 |
| 20 |
| 20 |
| 4 |
| Vendor Questions Worksheet |
| 25 |
| 25 |
| 25 |
V. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of their price proposals:
| Deliverable |
| Axene Health Partners |
| Davies Actuarial, Audit & Consulting, Inc. |
| Examination Resources, LLC |
| 1 |
| Quick Payment Terms |
| 2.5%/30 days |
| NA |
| 3%/15 days |
| 2 |
| Administrative Associate |
| 4 |
| Associate Actuary |
| $275 |
| $280 |
| $225.00 |
| 5 |
| Actuary |
| $275 |
| $285 |
| $275.00 |
| Deliverable |
| Hause Actuaries, LLC |
| INS Consultants, Inc. |
| Lewis & Ellis LLC |
| 1 |
| Quick Payment Terms |
| 5%/30 days |
| NA |
| 3%/5 days |
| 2 |
| Administrative Associate |
| $130 |
| $60 |
| $60 |
| 3 |
| Actuarial Student |
| $240 |
| $120 |
| $220 |
| 4 |
| Associate Actuary |
| $280 |
| $160 |
| $300 |
| 6 |
| Lead Actuary |
| $350 |
| $235 |
| $320 |
| Deliverable |
| Nova Rest, Inc. |
| Paradigm Actuaries, LLC |
| Pinnacle Actuarial Resource, Inc. |
| 1 |
| Quick Payment Terms |
| 5%/25 days |
| 5%/30 days |
| NA |
| 2 |
| Administrative Associate |
| $60 |
| $50 |
| $95 |
| 4 |
| Associate Actuary |
| $155 |
| $25 |
| $300 |
| 6 |
| Lead Actuary |
| $255 |
| $380 |
| $425 |
| 7 |
| Peer Review |
| $305 |
| $380 |
| $425 |
| Deliverable |
| Taylor & Mulder, Inc. |
| National Actuarial Network Inc. |
| Risk & Regulatory Consulting, Inc. |
| 1 |
| Quick Payment Terms |
| 2%/10 days |
| 3%/15 days |
| NA |
| 2 |
| Administrative Associate |
| $50 |
| $35 |
| $95 |
| 3 |
| Actuarial Student |
| $170 |
| $60 |
| $195 |
| 4 |
| Associate Actuary |
| $170 |
| $100 |
| $275 |
| 6 |
| Lead Actuary |
| $350 |
| $220 |
| $355 |
| 7 |
| Peer Review |
| $350 |
| $170 |
| $355 |
I. Negotiations – 2nd Round Pricing
| Deliverable |
| Axene Health Partners |
| Davies Actuarial, Audit & Consulting, Inc. |
| Examination Resources, LLC |
| 1 |
| Quick Payment Terms |
| 2.5%/30 days |
| NA |
| 3%/15 days |
| 2 |
| Administrative Associate |
| 4 |
| Associate Actuary |
| $260 |
| $275 |
| $225 |
| Deliverable |
| Hause Actuaries, LLC |
| INS Consultants, Inc. |
| Lewis & Ellis LLC |
| 1 |
| Quick Payment Terms |
| 5%/30 days |
| NA |
| 3%/5 days |
| 2 |
| Administrative Associate |
| 3 |
| Actuarial Student |
| $120 |
| $120 |
| $220 |
| 4 |
| Associate Actuary |
| $230 |
| $230 |
| $300 |
| 6 |
| Lead Actuary |
| $300 |
| $230 |
| $320 |
| 7 |
| Peer Review |
| $325 |
| $230 |
| $320 |
| Deliverable |
| Nova Rest, Inc. |
| Paradigm Actuaries, LLC |
| Pinnacle Actuarial Resource, Inc. |
| 1 |
| Quick Payment Terms |
| 5%/25 days |
| 5%/30 days |
| NA |
| 2 |
| Administrative Associate |
| $60 |
| $50 |
| $95 |
| 4 |
| Associate Actuary |
| $155 |
| $250 |
| $300 |
| 6 |
| Lead Actuary |
| $255 |
| $380 |
| $400 |
| 7 |
| Peer Review |
| $300 |
| $380 |
| $400 |
| Deliverable |
| Taylor & Mulder, Inc. |
| National Actuarial Network, Inc. |
| Risk & Regulatory Consulting, Inc. |
| 1 |
| Quick Payment Terms |
| 2%/10 days |
| 3%/15 days |
| NA |
| 2 |
| Administrative Associate |
| $50 |
| $35 |
| $90 |
| 3 |
| Actuarial Student |
| $170 |
| $60 |
| $190 |
| 4 |
| Associate Actuary |
| $170 |
| $100 |
| $270 |
| 6 |
| Lead Actuary |
| $345 |
| $210 |
| $350 |
$350
II. 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.
The following bidders provided the best value to the State: Axene Health Partners, 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 & Mulder, Inc., National Actuarial Network 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 Axene Health Partners, 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 & Mulder, Inc., National Actuarial Network Inc, in the total amount of $15,000,000.00, approximately $1,363,636.00 per contract.
Version 2024-2 image1.png