Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.docx

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 250000003097 Health Insurance Database Management System and has recommended an award to Merative US L.P. in the amount of $2,226,337.00 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:

Adam Ashley, Solicitation Manager.

Ashleya2@michigan.gov

(517) 855-1376 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 Health Insurance Database Management System for Office of Retirement Services. The term of this contract is 6 years, with up to 4 1-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on September 15, 2025. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of October 13, 2025.

*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: Mandatory Minimum Requirements

1. Plan Sponsor currently requires Contractor to accept the following data feeds from their designated sources:

a. Eligibility: MPSERS health plans eligibility/enrollment data from ORS. See Schedule F1.

b. Medical (including lab and hearing data):

i. Non-Medicare medical paid claims from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. See Schedule F2.

ii. Medicare Advantage medical paid claims from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. See Schedule F3.

iii. Non-Medicare lab data from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. See Schedule F4.

iv. Medicare lab data from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. See Schedule F5.

v. Routine hearing care utilization data from TruHearing (data from TruHearing does not include SSNs, so Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan supplies a routine hearing care claimant SSN file to accompany the routine hearing care data). See Schedule F6.

c. Prescription drug:

i. Non-Medicare paid pharmacy claims from Optum Rx. See Schedule F7.

ii. Medicare paid pharmacy claims from Optum Rx. See Schedule F8.

d. Dental: Dental paid claims from Delta Dental. See Schedule F9.

e. Vision: Vision paid claims from EyeMed Vision Care. See Schedule F10.

Proposal Instructions: Evaluation Process If all mandatory minimum requirements are met, 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 the Solicitation Manager in collaboration with the Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Adam Ashley, Solicitation Manager DTMB – Central Procurement Services Stephanie Coe, Consultant Contractor - Willis Towers Watson US LLC

Danyelle Stoddard, Departmental Analyst Michigan Office of Retirement Services Dan Maloney, Data Analyst Contractor- Michigan Office of Retirement Services

Elizabeth Harrison, Business Process Owner Michigan Office of Retirement Services

III. Evaluation Results A. Merative US L.P.

The Evaluation Team determined that Merative US L.P., based on a score of 95, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet, Schedule A Statement of Work 17/20 (EXCLUDING Sections 1.1 General Requirements, 1.2 Database Services, 1.4 Additional Services, 1.6 Training, 2. Specific Standards, and 5.5 Reporting).

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

a. Vendor Questions Worksheet, Contact Information- Vendor customer code in SIGMA VSS not provided.

b. Vendor Questions Worksheet, Company Background and Information- Gross annual sales for the last 5 years were not provided.

c. Vendor Questions Worksheet, Company Background and Information- Independent rating of financial strength was not provided.

d. Schedule A 4.9, Disclosure of Subcontractors – Bidder did not provide their active subcontractors in their initial bid.

e. Schedule A 4.10, Security- Bidder did not provide name of company providing background checks.

f. Schedule A 9, Liquidated Damages- Bidder noted exception to requirement.

g. Schedule A 10, Service-Level Agreement (SLA)- Bidder did not agree to SLA Metric 4.

2. Statement of Work Sections 1.2.1 Data Architecture, and 1.2.3 Vendor 30/30 Experience.

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work Sections 1.1 General Requirements, 30/30

1.2.2 Data Integrity and Quality, and 2. Specific Standards

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work Sections 1.2.4 End User Experience, 18/20

1.6 Training, and 5.5 Reporting

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

a. Schedule A 1.2.4.3.13- Bidder noted exception to ability to project migration in response to changes in contributions and plan design.

b. Schedule A 5.5.7.1- Bidder did not provide response to requirement in initial bid.

c. Schedule A 5.5.2.1- Bidder noted exception to requirement.

d. Schedule A 5.5.2.2- Bidder noted exception to requirement.

Total Score: 95/100

B. Loop Rides Enterprises LLC Loop Rides Enterprises LLC has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to not submitting an applicable proposal.

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement V.

Version 2024-2 VI. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of their price proposals:

1. Base Services. Contractor's fixed monthly fee must include, at minimum, all of Schedule A, with the exception of Schedule A Section 1.4 Additional Services.

Hourly Rates

VII. Negotiations The awarded vendor provided second-round pricing that is reflected in the Pricing Summary above.

VIII.

IX. 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.

Merative US L.P. provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation included their knowledge and experience with the scope of work.

Award Recommendation is made to Merative US L.P. in the amount of $2,226,337.00.

image1.png