Death RFP Q&A (Updated).pdf

Death RFP- Mortality Verification Services Opportunity #21260804153218

Q&A (Updated)

1. Retiree Population and Pricing Should vendors assume the retiree population will remain approximately 35,000 throughout the contract term, including any renewal periods, or should pricing account for anticipated changes in the population?

Response: The approximately 35,000-recipient figure is the Board's current estimate, not a guaranteed population for the full contract term or any renewal term. Applicants should base their fixed recurring pricing on that estimate and identify any material volume assumptions, pricing tiers, or adjustments they propose if the population changes materially. Ordinary fluctuations should be included in the proposed fixed pricing.

2. Evaluation of Mortality Verification Accuracy How will the City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement objectively evaluate and compare the mortality verification accuracy and effectiveness of competing vendors, including vendors’ ability to identify deaths that may not be reported by other mortality data sources or providers?

Response: Consistent with Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 5 of the RFP, the Board will evaluate the totality of each proposal. For mortality-verification accuracy and effectiveness, the Board may (but is not required to) consider the breadth, reliability, and update frequency of the Applicant's data sources;

matching methodology; controls for false positives and false negatives; quality-control and audit procedures; timeliness; relevant experience and references; and the Applicant's ability to identify deaths not available through commonly used sources. The Board may request clarifications, supporting documentation, presentations, or demonstrations. No single data source or self-reported accuracy percentage will be dispositive.

3. Proof of Concept / Common Dataset Will the Board conduct or require a proof of concept or comparison using a common participant dataset so that finalists’ mortality verification results can be evaluated on an apples-to-apples basis?

Response: The RFP does not require a proof of concept or a common-dataset test as a mandatory proposal component, and the Board does not presently plan to provide a live participant dataset to all Applicants during the initial proposal evaluation. The Board reserves the right to request a presentation, demonstration, clarification, sample or de-identified output, or a limited validation exercise from one or more Applicants, subject to appropriate confidentiality and data-security protections.

4. Validation of Vendor Performance Claims If a proof of concept or common-dataset comparison is not planned, what methodology will the Board use to independently validate vendors stated mortality match accuracy, coverage, and performance claims as part of the evaluation process?

Response: The Board may validate performance claims through review of each Applicant's documented data sources, matching methodology, quality-control procedures, sample or de-identified reports, independently verifiable performance evidence, relevant experience, client references, demonstrations, and responses to follow-up questions. The final contract will also include performance monitoring based on the areas identified in Section 3.2, including timeliness, completeness, matching accuracy, fulfillment rates, secure handling of Board data, and reporting accuracy.

5. May Keystone participate as a subcontractor or joint-venture partner with an experienced death-audit or mortality-verification firm, rather than serve as the sole prime contractor?

Response: Yes. Keystone may participate as a disclosed subcontractor to a prime Applicant or as a member of a joint venture. A subcontracting arrangement must satisfy the proposal-disclosure requirements in Section 4.1 and the applicable contract requirements. A joint-venture proposal must comply with Section 6.2, including submission in the name of the existing or proposed joint venture and the required documentation identifying and committing the joint-venture members.

6. May the prime contractor subcontract any portion of the required services, including local administrative coordination, document-retrieval support, quality-control tracking, secure reporting coordination, or other operational support?

Response: Yes, provided the proposed subcontracting is fully disclosed, the subcontractor is qualified and eligible, and the arrangement complies with the RFP and resulting contract. The proposal must identify each proposed subcontractor, EIN, scope of work, and percentage of total work.

Subcontracting does not relieve the prime contractor of responsibility for complete and satisfactory performance, and any subcontract under the resulting contract will be subject to the City's required approval and contract terms.

7. If Keystone participates as a subcontractor, must Keystone independently satisfy the RFP’s similar-project experience and three-reference requirements, or are those qualifications evaluated primarily at the prime-contractor or joint-venture level?

Response: The Applicant must satisfy the RFP's proposal requirements, including the statement of qualifications and at least three references. The RFP does not require every subcontractor to submit a separate set of three references. The proposal should, however, clearly describe the experience, qualifications, personnel, and role of each subcontractor whose capabilities are material to the proposed solution. For a joint venture, the proposal should demonstrate the qualifications of the joint venture and identify the relevant experience contributed by each member; the required references may reflect relevant work performed by the joint venture or its members.

8. Must every subcontractor independently carry all insurance coverage listed in the General Consultant Services terms, or may required coverage be satisfied through the prime contractor’s policies, depending on the subcontractor’s assigned scope

Response: Insurance compliance will be determined under Appendix A, the resulting contract, and any direction from the City's Risk Management Division. The General Consultant Services provisions generally require the prime contractor to procure, or cause to be procured, the required coverage for performance of the services and require approved subcontracts to bind subcontractors to the applicable contract terms. A prime contractor's policies therefore do not automatically satisfy every subcontractor's obligations. Coverage may be structured through the prime contractor where the policies actually cover the subcontracted work and personnel and the arrangement is acceptable to the City; any waiver or modification requires the applicable City approval.

9. Are there any prequalification, licensing, data-security, or certification requirements that a prospective subcontractor must satisfy before being included in a proposal?

Response: The RFP does not identify a separate industry-specific prequalification, license, or certification that every prospective subcontractor must hold before being listed. All subcontractors must be eligible to participate in a City contract, comply with applicable laws and City contracting requirements, hold any licenses required for their assigned work, and be fully disclosed in the proposal. Any subcontractor that will receive, store, process, or transmit Board data must satisfy the RFP's security requirements, use secure methods approved by the Board, restrict access to authorized personnel, maintain appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, and comply with HIPAA if applicable. Applicants should identify relevant security certifications, independent audits, or assessments even though the RFP does not mandate a particular certification.

10. Is there a minimum number of qualifications to include in the proposal?

Response: No numerical minimum applies to the number of qualifications. Applicants must provide enough information to demonstrate the capacity, personnel, data sources, operational processes, and relevant experience required by Sections 3.1 and 4.1. The separate references requirement does require at least three references.

11. Is there a page limit for the proposal?

Response: No page limit is stated in the RFP. Applicants should provide a complete but reasonably concise response organized in the order required by Section 4.1.

12. Should the cost proposal be submitted as a separate Exhibit/Appendix or as part of section 4 in the SOW?

Response: While the cost proposal is required as part of Proposal Requirement 4, it may be presented within that section or as a clearly labeled exhibit or appendix that is expressly incorporated and cross-referenced in Section 4. In either format, it must include the line-item detail required by Section 3.1 and all costs proposed to be charged to the City.

13. Does the City consider electronic copies of death certificates sufficient to meet the requirements specified in this RFP?

Response: Yes. A complete, legible electronic copy of an official death certificate, transmitted through a secure method approved by the Board, will generally satisfy the RFP requirement. The Board reserves the right to request a certified copy or other verification in a particular matter when reasonably necessary.

14. Would the City like vendors to include descriptions of optional value-added services that extend beyond the requirements of this RFP?

Response: Yes. Section 3 permits Applicants to propose additional tasks, methods, or services.

Optional services should be clearly identified as optional, separately priced, and accompanied by a concise explanation of how they would advance the Board's objectives. The Board is not obligated to purchase an optional service merely because it is included in a proposal.

15. The RFP states, “The selected Applicant will be responsible for the cost of benefit overpayments resulting from its failure to report the death of a benefit recipient as required by the contract.” Could the City please provide additional clarification regarding this requirement, including the circumstances under which the Applicant would be held liable for such overpayments?

Response: This provision is intended to address overpayments caused by the selected provider's failure to identify and report a death within the audit frequency, reporting timeframe, matching standards, and other requirements established by the contract. Liability would not arise merely because a death was absent from the sources reasonably available under the agreed methodology, because the Board supplied materially incomplete or inaccurate data, or because the Board failed to act after receiving a timely and accurate report. The contract will define the required reporting timeframes and procedures and will address causation, documentation, recovery, and calculation of any amount owed. Applicants seeking different terms must identify the requested change in the proposal's Requested Exceptions to Contract Terms section.

16. Will the recipient file also include last known address?

Response: Yes. The Board anticipates that the monthly recipient file will include the recipient's last known mailing address, in addition to the identifying information listed in the RFP. The final file layout, fields, and secure-transfer method will be established with the selected provider.

17. Is there an incumbent currently performing this work?

Response: Yes. Pension Benefit Information, LLC, doing business as PBI Research Services, is the incumbent death-audit provider.

18. Regarding the responsibility for benefit overpayments mentioned in the RFP. Would this apply only when a death was available through the agreed data sources but was not identified or reported by the vendor? Also, is there a limit on this liability?

Response: Yes, the liability would only be if the vendor should have been able to pick up the death but did not or fails to notify us appropriately. The liability would be limited to the amount of unrecovered/unrecoverable funds.