Captive Actuarial Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Insurance and Financial Services has completed the evaluation of Request for Proposal 260000002052 Captive Insurance Company Actuarial Examinations and has recommended an award to: Actuarial and Technical Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $22,222.00; Axene Health Partners, LLC in the amount of $22,222.00; Columbia Point Consulting, LLC in the amount of $22,222.00; Examination Resources, LLC in the amount of $22,222.00; INS Consultants, Inc. in the amount of $22,222.00; Lewis and Ellis, Inc. in the amount of $22,222.00; Noble Consulting Services, Inc. in the amount of $22,222.00; Paradigm Actuaries, LLC in the amount of $22,222.00; and Pinnacle Actuarial Resources, Inc. in the amount of $22,222.00 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:

Darcie Payne, Solicitation Manager payned3@michigan.gov 517-930-9402 Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses to establish a pre-qualification pool of Contractors to provide captive insurance company actuarial examination services. The term of this contract is three years, with up to three 2-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on 5/20/26. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of 6/15/26.

*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 could 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 The State will evaluate each proposal based on the following criteria:

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

If applicable, the State will also consider whether you qualify as a Qualified Disabled Veteran/Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Business (QDV/SDVOB) under MCL - Section 18.1261 - Michigan Legislature. For more information, visit DTMB - Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Business Preference.

You are strongly encouraged to accept the State’s Contract Terms and Schedules as written. The State may consider your proposal non-responsive if you do not accept these terms.

If you propose changes to the Contract Terms or Schedules, you must:

· Submit them using track changes (i.e., visible edits), and

· Include a clear explanation for each proposed change. Utilize the comment feature in Word.

If you do not include tracked changes and explanations, the State will assume you accept the Contract Terms or Schedules as-is. General statements, such as reserving the right to negotiate terms, may also be considered non-responsive.

· Changes suggested only in the comments and not demonstrated in track changes format may be considered non-responsive for failure to follow directions.

The State may disqualify you if you fail to respond to requests for clarification or negotiation during the evaluation process by the deadline set by the Solicitation Manager.

At any point during the evaluation, the State may, but is not required to:

· Conduct an on-site visit to inspect your facilities

· Request an oral presentation of your proposal

· Conduct interviews, reference checks or background checks

· Request additional price concessions

· Conduct refinement sessions to ensure clarity and alignment with requirements 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 Subject Matter Experts, which consisted of the following individuals:

David Piner, Manager DIFS, Office of Insurance Evaluation

Dennis Dawis, Captive Specialist DIFS, Office of Insurance Evaluation

Darcie Payne, Purchasing Specialist DIFS, Office of Financial and Administrative Services III. Evaluation Results Bidder #1 Actuarial and Predictive Analytics, LLC The evaluation team determined that Actuarial and Predictive Analytics, LLC, based on a score of 45, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their response to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Number 1-3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Numbers 4-12 and Key Personnel The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

Schedule A, Statement of Work #11 Key Personnel, includes only one employee.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Number 13-26 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

Schedule A, Statement of Work, #13 Organizational Chart, lists only one employee.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

Vendor Questions Worksheet #5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience – requests 3 relevant experiences from the last 5 years supporting your ability to successfully manage a contract of similar size and scope for the work described in this Solicitation. No relevant captive experience was listed.

Per Schedule A, 3. General Requirements, B. Contractor Response to SOW, 4. Assigned staff information, e) All the individual staff assigned to the actuarial examination, the areas each individual will be assigned to the examination and the estimated number of hours each individual will participate in the examination. (Note that this description must reflect that the actuarial examination’s senior level actuary has previous experience in auditing captive insurance companies).

Per Schedule A, 3. General Requirements, C. Additional Requirements, 5. Assign staff who are qualified and familiar with Michigan captive insurance laws, regulations, administrative rules and bulletins.

Total Score: 45 /100

Bidder #2 Actuarial and Technical Solutions, Inc.

The evaluation team determined that Actuarial and Technical Solutions, Inc., based on a score of 100, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their response to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Number 1-3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Numbers 4-12 and Key Personnel The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory,

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Number 13-26 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

Total Score: 100 /100

Bidder #3 Axene Health Partners, LLC The evaluation team determined that Axene Health Partners, LLC, based on a score of SCORE, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their response to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Number 1-3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Numbers 4-12 and Key Personnel The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Number 13-26 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

Vendor Questions Worksheet #5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience – requests 3 relevant experiences from the last 5 years supporting your ability to successfully manage a contract of similar size and scope for the work described in this Solicitation. No relevant captive experience was listed.

Per Schedule A, 3. General Requirements, B. Contractor Response to SOW, 4. Assigned staff information, e) All the individual staff assigned to the actuarial examination, the areas each individual will be assigned to the examination and the estimated number of hours each individual will participate in the examination. (Note that this description must reflect that the actuarial examination’s senior level actuary has previous experience in auditing captive insurance companies).

Per Schedule A, 3. General Requirements, C. Additional Requirements, 5. Assign staff who are qualified and familiar with Michigan captive insurance laws, regulations, administrative rules and bulletins.

Total Score: 85 /100

Bidder #4 Columbia Point Consulting, LLC The evaluation team determined that Columbia Point Consulting, LLC, based on a score of 85, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their response to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Number 1-3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Numbers 4-12 and Key Personnel The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Number 13-26 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

Vendor Questions Worksheet #5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience – requests 3 relevant experiences from the last 5 years supporting your ability to successfully manage a contract of similar size and scope for the work described in this Solicitation. No relevant captive experience was listed.

Per Schedule A, 3. General Requirements, B. Contractor Response to SOW, 4. Assigned staff information, e) All the individual staff assigned to the actuarial examination, the areas each individual will be assigned to the examination and the estimated number of hours each individual will participate in the examination. (Note that this description must reflect that the actuarial examination’s senior level actuary has previous experience in auditing captive insurance companies).

Per Schedule A, 3. General Requirements, C. Additional Requirements, 5. Assign staff who are qualified and familiar with Michigan captive insurance laws, regulations, administrative rules and bulletins.

Total Score: 85 /100

Bidder #5 Examination Resources, LLC The evaluation team determined that Examination Resources, LLC, based on a score of 100, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their response to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Number 1-3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Numbers 4-12 and Key Personnel The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Number 13-26 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

Total Score: 100 /100 Bidder #6 INS Consultants, Inc.

The evaluation team determined that INS Consultants, Inc., based on a score of 100, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their response to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Number 1-3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Numbers 4-12 and Key Personnel The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Number 13-26 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

Total Score: 100 /100

Bidder #7 Lewis and Ellis, Inc.

The evaluation team determined that Lewis and Ellis, Inc., based on a score of 100, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their response to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Number 1-3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Numbers 4-12 and Key Personnel The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Number 13-26 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

Total Score: 100 /100

Bidder #8 Noble Consulting Services, Inc.

The evaluation team determined that Noble Consulting Services, Inc., based on a score of 100, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their response to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Number 1-3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Numbers 4-12 and Key Personnel The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Number 13-26 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

Total Score: 100 /100 Bidder #9 Paradigm Actuaries, LLC The evaluation team determined that Paradigm Actuaries, LLC, based on a score of 100, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their response to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Number 1-3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Numbers 4-12 and Key Personnel The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Number 13-26 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

Total Score: 100 /100

Bidder #10 Pinnacle Actuarial Resources, Inc.

The evaluation team determined that Pinnacle Actuarial Resources, Inc., based on a score of 100, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their response to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Number 1-3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Numbers 4-12 and Key Personnel The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Number 13-26 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly 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:

Actuarial and Technical Solutions, Inc.

Axene Health Partners, LLC

Columbia Point Consulting, LLC

Examination Resources, LLC

INS Consultants, Inc.

Lewis and Ellis, LLC

Noble Consulting Services, Inc.

Paradigm Actuaries, LLC

Pinnacle Actuarial Resources, Inc.

VI. 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.

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:

Actuarial and Technical Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $22,222.00 Axene Health Partners, LLC in the amount of $22,222.00 Columbia Point Consulting, LLC in the amount of $22,222.00 Examination Resources, LLC in the amount of $22,222.00 INS Consultants, Inc. in the amount of $22,222.00 Lewis and Ellis, Inc. in the amount of $22,222.00 Noble Consulting Services, Inc. in the amount of $22,222.00 Paradigm Actuaries, LLC in the amount of $22,222.00 Pinnacle Actuarial Resources, Inc. in the amount of $22,222.00

Version 2024-2 image1.png