Exhibit B-Scored Non Cost Factors.docx

EXHIBIT B – SCORED NON-COST FACTORS (SERVICES)

Type/print full legal name of bidder company

Instructions:

Note: Bidders must follow the instructions outlined in this Exhibit, or the bid will be deemed to be nonresponsive and rejected.

1. Insert bidder’s legal business name in the box above.

2. Review and respond to all questions. Bidders must respond to all Requirement ID’s (REQ ID). Bidders submitting a bid for the following categories must also respond to the following questions.

3. Provide a written response that addresses how the bidder meets or exceeds each requirement in the Written Response column.

a. Supporting Information. Please make sure to include references in Exhibit A – Bidder’s Certifications that align with the information provided in this exhibit. Enterprise Services may request additional information or references to help verify the information provided by the bidder in this exhibit. A bidder’s failure to provide such requested information to DFI within five (5) business days may result in disqualification.

b. Bidder’s Commitments. The bidder’s responses to the performance requirements below will be incorporated into such awarded bidder’s contract, if awarded. Therefore, the bidder is cautioned to propose only commitments that bidder can fully meet throughout the term of the contract. If an awarded bidder is unable to meet the terms of the contract, bidder will be in breach and subject to termination and/or damages as described by the contract. See Exhibit D- Contract Template.

c. Page/Word Limit. Bidder’s responses must fully demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter. Limited responses may receive lower scores than those that more fully demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter. However, conciseness is also preferred, and the following limits are provided:

· The total page/word count for all written responses must not exceed 15,000 words. Any text in excess of this limit will be deleted prior to forwarding the submittals to the evaluation team. Attachments specifically referenced below will not count toward the word limit.

· Each written response must be complete and will be evaluated as written. Additional materials such as links to external content or embedded documents are not allowed and will not be evaluated.

4. Submit the exhibit as a Microsoft Word document without modifying the formatting. If you need to print out this document for any reason, please note this document is sized Legal 8.5” x 14”.

Important Note: Bidders must follow the instructions above as they complete this exhibit, or the bid will be deemed nonresponsive and rejected. Enterprise Services may, at its discretion, waive informalities and/or request clarification of a bid response, as described in the solicitation Section 4 – Bid Evaluation of the Competitive Solicitation.

· An informality is an immaterial variation from the exact requirements, which has no effect, or a negligible effect, on the good or services being solicited. Enterprise Services, at its discretion, may waive informalities.

· If clarification is requested, Enterprise Services will do so in writing. The request will include a response deadline (5 business days), and the bidder’s response to clarification requests must be received by that deadline, or the bid will be deemed nonresponsive.

Evaluation: Bidder’s written response to this Exhibit will be evaluated as follows:

Bidder’s Response Required:

Stated Business Need

To meet the minimum acceptable standard [0%]: The Bidder must demonstrate at least five (5) years of experience providing investment consulting services to public-sector clients, including support for investment policy development, manager evaluation, and fiduciary oversight. The bidder must have provided investment consulting services to public or institutional clients managing at least $1 billion in assets.

Bidder must provide a narrative overview of their firm, including:

· A brief history and description of services offered

· Organizational structure, including how the firm’s structure supports delivery of services under this contract

· Experience consulting with state governments or similar entities

· Identification of proposed personnel (including subcontractors), with years of experience at current and previous firms

· Titles and roles of proposed team members

· Confirmation that replacements must be pre-approved and meet or exceed original qualifications

Bidders who do not meet this minimum acceptable standard will be disqualified from further consideration.

Added value: Firms with substantial experience supporting public investment programs—including retirement, 529, or ABLE—and teams with deep institutional knowledge of public-sector consulting will be rated more favorably.

Experience will be evaluated based on its relevance, depth, and recency. The highest scores will be awarded to bidders with direct experience supporting the launch or early implementation of auto-IRA or other state-facilitated retirement savings programs. Experience with 529 or ABLE programs will be considered valuable, followed by experience advising state investment boards, public pension systems (e.g. PERS/STRS), or similar entities. Proposals that clearly demonstrate how prior engagements align with the services sought under this RFP will receive additional consideration.

Written Response Required. Provide the following information regarding your firm and the key personnel who will be assigned to this contract. Responses should clearly demonstrate the qualifications and relevant experience of each proposed team member, including subcontractors if applicable. Provide as much information as needed to address the Performance Requirement and Stated Business Need. Please address each of the following:

· Firm name, organizational structure, and a brief history

· Overview of services the firm will bring to this contract

· Identification of all key personnel, including:

· Name, title, and firm affiliation (including subcontractor status if applicable)

· Role on this contract and primary responsibilities

· Years of relevant experience and years with the current firm

· Prior relevant employment and roles supporting public investment consulting or state-run savings programs

· Detailed resumes for all key personnel, including any proposed subcontractors. Resumes may be included as attachments.

· Identification of the individual with ultimate responsibility for the contract, including:

· Availability for in-person and virtual meetings with the Board

· Communication protocols and expectations for responsiveness

· Backup procedures in the event the primary individual becomes unavailable

· Confirmation that any replacements will require prior approval and possess equal or greater qualifications and experience

To meet the minimum acceptable standard [0%]: The bidder must describe the firm’s DEI policies and initiatives, including concrete efforts to promote workforce diversity and inclusion in leadership and staff hiring practices. Responses should address how the firm’s policies apply across a broad range of demographic groups, including (but not limited to) women, racial and ethnic minorities, veterans, individuals with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ individuals.

Bidders who do not meet this minimum acceptable standard will be disqualified from further consideration.

Value-Added Considerations The highest scores will be awarded to bidders that demonstrate:

· Active DEI councils or leadership bodies charged with accountability.

· Formalized equity action plans or policies.

· Regular DEI-related staff training programs.

· Third-party DEI certifications or recognitions.

· Demonstrated progress toward measurable DEI goals over time.

Written Response Required. Please provide an overview of your firm’s DEI commitments and practices. Your response should include:

· Key policies or initiatives that guide DEI within your firm.

· Specific efforts to recruit, hire, promote, and retain a diverse workforce, including leadership roles.

· Any DEI-related councils, training programs, certifications, or formal action plans.

· Evidence of measurable progress, accountability mechanisms, or lessons learned.

· How your policies apply across demographic groups, including women, minorities, veterans, individuals with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ individuals.

· Leadership Demographics (this portion will not be scored)

· Percentages of senior leadership and professional staff who identify as women, racial and ethnic minorities, veterans, individuals with disabilities, or LGBTQ+.

· Optional narrative explanation, which may include:

· How your firm compares to industry benchmarks.

· Evidence of progress over time or recent initiatives that have expanded representation.

· Policies, programs, or accountability mechanisms in place to improve leadership diversity.

To meet the minimum acceptable standard [0%]: Bidder must describe whether the firm has any supplier diversity policies, initiatives, or practices, and indicate if they have engaged diverse subcontractors or vendors in the past.

Bidders who do not meet this minimum acceptable standard will be disqualified from further consideration.

Added value: The highest scores will be awarded to bidders that:

· Provide examples of subcontracting or vendor relationships with certified diverse-owned businesses.

· Demonstrate measurable outcomes, such as the percentage of spend or share of subcontractors directed to diverse suppliers (rather than absolute dollar amounts).

· Maintain formal supplier diversity policies, targets, or reporting practices.

· Show evidence of intentional, sustained efforts to expand opportunities for diverse suppliers over time.

Written Response Required. Please describe your firm’s supplier diversity practices. Your response should include:

· Whether your firm maintains formal supplier diversity policies or initiatives.

· Examples of subcontractors or vendors used in investment consulting or related services who meet diversity criteria.

· (If available) Data on the percentage of spend or subcontracted work awarded to diverse-owned businesses.

· Lessons learned, best practices, or commitments to expand supplier diversity going forward.

To meet the minimum acceptable standard [0%]: The bidder must describe how DEI principles are incorporated into their investment consulting services. This may include, but is not limited to:

· Evaluating or recommending investment managers with attention to diversity factors;

· Supporting clients in developing policies or practices that reflect DEI priorities;

· Integrating related frameworks such as Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) or Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) strategies where appropriate.

Added value: Responses will be scored more favorably if they demonstrate:

· Concrete frameworks or methodologies for incorporating DEI into investment evaluations;

· Evidence of advising clients on policies that balance fiduciary duty with DEI commitments;

· Examples of work that goes beyond compliance (e.g. developing board education, DEI investment dashboards, or new evaluation criteria for managers).

· The specific processes, frameworks, or tools your firm uses to evaluate or recommend managers with DEI in mind;

· Examples of how DEI considerations have influenced client decisions or policies;

· If applicable, how Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) or Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) strategies have been applied in ways that align with DEI objectives;

· Lessons learned or best practices for embedding DEI in advisory work that may be applicable to Washington Saves.

To meet the minimum acceptable standard [0%]: None specified. This question is intended to identify added value only. Firms are encouraged to share examples or insights, but lack of experience in this area will not result in disqualification.

Added value: Responses will be considered added value if they demonstrate:

· Experience advising clients on or allocating assets to diverse-owned or -led investment managers;

· A clear understanding of the challenges and opportunities in expanding access to capital for such firms (e.g. barriers to entry, scale limitations, or pipeline development);

· Strategies for helping public clients integrate diverse managers into investment portfolios in a way that balances fiduciary responsibility and DEI goals;

· Use of transparent definitions, frameworks, or metrics for identifying diverse-owned or -led managers.

· Definitions or frameworks your firm uses to evaluate ownership or leadership diversity;

· Data or estimates on the percentage of assets under advisement with such managers;

· Examples of how you have supported clients in engaging with diverse managers;

· Insights into industry barriers and evolving best practices to broaden participation of diverse managers.

To meet the minimum acceptable standard [0%]: The bidder must identify at least three (3) prior or current public-sector clients for which the firm has provided investment consulting services that included both (a) support in developing or refining investment policies and (b) interpreting and presenting investment performance data.

Bidders who do not meet this minimum acceptable standard will be disqualified from further consideration.

Added value: Experience will be evaluated based on its relevance, depth, and recency. The highest scores will be awarded to bidders with direct experience supporting the launch or early implementation of auto-IRA or other state-facilitated retirement savings programs. Experience with 529 or ABLE programs will be considered valuable, followed by experience advising state investment boards, public pension systems (e.g. PERS/STRS), or similar entities. Proposals that clearly demonstrate how prior engagements align with the services sought under this RFP will receive additional consideration.

· Name of client entity

· Brief description of the engagement and its scope

· Services provided and duration of relationship

· Staff assigned and their roles

· Any similarities between that client’s needs and the Washington Saves program

· Whether the engagement included program launch or major program design work

· Examples of how investment policy formulation and performance data interpretation were handled and presented. Examples may be included as attachments,

To meet the minimum acceptable standard [0%]: The bidder must provide a clear description of the data, tools, and advice it will deliver; the methodologies used to evaluate performance and measure risk; and the process for tailoring these to the needs of a public fiduciary board.

Bidders who do not meet this minimum acceptable standard will be disqualified from further consideration.

Added value: Proposals will be evaluated for their ability to customize performance dashboards, risk metrics, and presentation formats to the unique needs of state-facilitated retirement programs. Highest scores will be awarded to bidders demonstrating:

· Experience providing reporting that informed board decision-making in auto-IRA or other state investment programs.

· A track record of designing materials that enable both financially experienced and lay board members to engage in informed oversight discussions.

· Types of performance data delivered.

· Risk measurement methodology.

· How data will be distilled and presented to accommodate a range of financial expertise.

· Examples of how your reporting has informed past board decisions.

· Attach up to three samples of past reports or presentations (anonymized if necessary) that illustrate your approach.

To meet the minimum acceptable standard [0%]: The bidder must identify at least three (3) prior or current public-sector investment programs for which the firm has provided oversight, monitoring, or development support to a governing board or similar entity.

Bidders who do not meet this minimum acceptable standard will be disqualified from further consideration.

Added value: The highest scores will be awarded to bidders with:

· Direct experience advising during the startup, development, or implementation of a state-facilitated investment program (e.g. 529, ABLE, or auto-IRA).

· Experience will be evaluated based on its relevance, depth, and recency. The highest scores will be awarded to bidders with direct experience supporting the launch or early implementation of auto-IRA or other state-facilitated retirement savings programs. Experience with 529 or ABLE programs will be considered valuable, followed by experience advising state investment boards, public pension systems (e.g. PERS/STRS), or similar entities.

· Involvement in investment lineup design, governance framework development, or launch strategy.

· Demonstrated ability to distill lessons learned from past engagements and apply them to new program contexts.

· Name of program, agency, or board, and timeframe of engagement.

· Type of program (e.g. 529, ABLE, retirement, or other public investment program).

· The firm’s role, including oversight, monitoring, governance support, or strategic advising.

· Whether the engagement included startup, development, or launch activities.

· Lessons learned that may inform your work with Washington Saves.

· Key considerations and challenges in advising on the startup of a new investment program.

Minimum Acceptable Standard [0%]: The bidder must describe at least one (1) prior engagement where the firm aligned an investment lineup or strategy with the program’s participant profile and design characteristics. The description must include how participant needs (e.g. new savers, low balances, or underserved populations) informed investment selection.

Bidders who do not meet this minimum acceptable standard will be disqualified from further consideration.

Value-Added Considerations: The highest scores will be awarded to bidders that:

· Demonstrate experience tailoring investment strategies to underserved or first-time savers.

· Provide examples of balancing risk/return, liquidity, and cost in the context of auto-IRA, 529, ABLE, or similar programs.

· Show evidence of translating investment principles into simple, accessible lineups that accommodate behavioral realities (e.g. inertia, low account balances).

· Demonstrate experience evaluating trade-offs of default investment structures (e.g. target date funds, capital preservation options, managed accounts).

· Offer lessons learned from prior engagements that directly inform how to structure Washington Saves’ investment lineup.

· The types of programs and participant populations considered.

· Examples of how risk/return, cost, and vehicle selection were tailored to meet program needs.

· Any tradeoffs considered (simplicity vs. diversification, liquidity vs. returns, cost vs. scalability).

· Outcomes of the alignment, including participant adoption, satisfaction, or performance.

· Lessons learned that would inform Washington Saves.

· Optional: You may also attach sample investment lineup documents, strategy frameworks, or related materials from prior engagements if you believe they demonstrate your approach effectively.

Minimum Acceptable Standard [0%]: The bidder must describe its manager selection process and provide at least one prior example of supporting an investment manager procurement, including evaluation of responses.

Bidders who do not meet this minimum acceptable standard will be disqualified from further consideration.

Value-Added Considerations: Responses will be viewed more favorably if they:

· The highest scores will be awarded to bidders who:

· Demonstrate experience supporting manager selection within state-facilitated savings programs (auto-IRA, 529, or ABLE).

· Show how their process accounted for program-specific factors such as cost constraints, participant demographics, or mission-driven objectives.

· Provide evidence of lessons learned that could inform Washington Saves’ approach to manager selection.

· Steps in the process, including development of evaluation criteria, scoring methodology, and finalist selection.

· A prior example of supporting an RFP for investment management services, including your role and the outcome.

· Lessons learned and how those would apply to Washington Saves.

· Key requirements you would recommend including in an investment management solicitation for Washington Saves.

· Optional: You may attach redacted samples of past evaluation frameworks, scorecards, or recommendation memos if you believe they demonstrate your process effectively.

Minimum Acceptable Standard [0%]: The bidder must describe experience with at least one conservative product and one pooled strategy relevant to public-sector programs, including their role in evaluating, recommending, and/or monitoring these products.

Bidders who do not meet this minimum acceptable standard will be disqualified from further consideration.

Value-Added Considerations: Responses that demonstrate thoughtful alignment between product selection and participant needs, including behavior, risk tolerance, and contribution patterns, will be scored more favorably. Additional consideration will be given to:

· Direct experience evaluating or advising on reserve or stable value options in auto-IRA or startup retirement programs.

· Knowledge of insurance-backed or capital-preservation products with strong liquidity and transparency.

· Evidence of tailoring pooled strategies for programs with high participant turnover or small-dollar contributions.

· Types of products evaluated or implemented and their purpose.

· Examples of state or public programs where these options were used.

· Your firm’s methodology for evaluating appropriateness and provider selection.

· Any relevant lessons learned or best practices applicable to Washington Saves.

· Optional: Attach examples of product evaluations, reserve fund analyses, or lineup recommendations that illustrate your approach.

Minimum Acceptable Standard [0%]: The bidder must demonstrate understanding of benchmark principles and provide at least one example of a benchmark selection or development process used in a prior engagement, for investment options similar to those expected in Washington Saves (e.g. target date funds, money market/stable value, equity, or bond funds).

Bidders who do not meet this minimum acceptable standard will be disqualified from further consideration.

Value-Added Considerations: Proposals will be scored more favorably if they demonstrate:

· Experience designing or applying benchmarks specifically for IRA-based, pooled, or public-sector investment programs

· Development of customized benchmarks aligned to participant demographics, small-dollar contributions, or capital preservation goals

· Evidence of tailoring benchmarks to fiduciary oversight, including how benchmarks inform performance monitoring, risk assessment, and decision-making at the board level

· Experience explaining and presenting benchmark methodologies in clear, accessible terms for diverse board audiences

· The principles and criteria your firm uses in benchmark selection

· Examples of benchmarks applied in public investment programs and why they were chosen

· Any experience creating custom benchmarks and the context in which they were developed

· How your approach to benchmarks has informed board or client decisions about investment performance

· At least one illustrative example or anonymized benchmark framework relevant to the program options identified under ‘minimum acceptable standard’ (as an attachment, if available; anonymized if confidentiality requires).

Tools and Processes for Investment Evaluation DFI seeks to award a contract to a firm with strong tools and processes for evaluating investment performance, identifying underperformance, and supporting fiduciary oversight. This includes providing clear, actionable reporting that is accessible to board members with varying levels of financial expertise.

Minimum Acceptable Standard [0%]: The bidder must describe its investment evaluation tools and processes and provide at least one sample of an evaluation report or summary prepared for a public client.

Bidders who do not meet this minimum acceptable standard will be disqualified from further consideration.

Value-Added Considerations: Proposals will be scored more favorably if they demonstrate:

· Use of customized dashboards, scorecards, or watchlists tailored for public fiduciary boards

· Clear criteria for flagging underperforming or noncompliant investments

· A structured process for escalating concerns, including when and how to recommend placing an investment on a watchlist and, if necessary, replacing or removing it

· Evidence of effective communication strategies that translate complex data into digestible formats for boards and non-technical stakeholders

· The types of reports and analyses provided on a recurring basis

· Criteria and methodology used to identify underperformance or risk concerns

· How issues are escalated to staff and boards, including watchlist or replacement recommendations

· Examples of how your evaluations have informed past board decision-making

· At least one sample evaluation tool, watchlist, or board report (attached as an exhibit)

Account History and Lost Engagements DFI seeks transparency regarding the bidder’s history of client relationships to better understand the firm’s stability and track record.

Minimum Acceptable Standard [0%]: The bidder must provide a complete and honest disclosure of any investment consulting accounts lost in the past four (4) years, including the reasons for disengagement.

Bidders who fail to provide full disclosure will be disqualified from further consideration.

Value-Added Considerations: Responses may be viewed more favorably if they demonstrate:

· A record of sustained client relationships with minimal turnover.

· Transparent explanations for client disengagements.

· Lessons learned from prior disengagements that have strengthened the firms practices.

· Type of client (public, private, or nonprofit)

· Duration of engagement before termination

· Reason for disengagement (e.g. scope change, competitive rebid, client restructuring)

· Any lessons learned, if applicable

Minimum Acceptable Standard [0%]: The bidder must describe a project approach that:

· Aligns to the Scope of Work in Exhibit D Contract.

· Addresses how the firm would support fixed governance tasks, including development of investment beliefs and an Investment Policy Statement (IPS).

· Explains how the firm would adapt its services under both (1) a standalone program model and (2) a partnership model.

· Confirms the firm’s capacity to adjust services if the Board’s direction or program needs change.

Bidders who do not meet this minimum acceptable standard will be disqualified from further consideration.

Value-Added Considerations:

The highest scores will be awarded to bidders that:

· Demonstrate excellence and a proven track record in guiding public boards through the development of investment beliefs and IPS documents, including clear examples or samples.

· Provide clear, practical approaches for both standalone and partnership scenarios.

· Anticipate how responsibilities may shift under each path (e.g. full investment manager RFP support vs. independent monitoring in partnership).

· Show foresight in adapting to other contingencies, such as evolving Board priorities or regulatory changes.

· Tailor project management and communication methods to public boards with diverse fiduciary expertise.

· How your firm would approach fixed tasks such as developing investment beliefs and an IPS, including examples from past clients.

· How your approach would differ under both a standalone model and a partnership model.

· Key tasks and sequencing you would anticipate in each scenario.

· Any assumptions or contingencies that could materially change the scope of your work.

· How you ensure flexibility and continuity of service as Board decisions evolve.

· Identification of any tasks you would subcontract.

· Confirmation of capacity to meet all requirements.

· Optional: You may attach sample investment belief statements or IPS documents from prior engagements to illustrate your approach.

Return this exhibit to Procurement Coordinator at:

wasaves@dfi.wa.gov

EXHIBIT B – SCORED NON-COST FACTORS (SERVICES) (REV 4/10/25) PAGE 2

image1.jpeg