RFP 250000002730 - Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 250000002730 Healthcare and Benefit Auditing - Consulting and has recommended an award to Willis Towers Watson US LLC for two separate contracts for Office of Retirement Services (ORS) in the amount of $4,884,880.00 and Michigan Civil Service Commission (MCSC) in the amount of $2,830,106.00, 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:

Kyle London, Solicitation Manager.

LondonK1@michigan.gov 517-614-3616 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 the selection of a Contractor to provide Healthcare and Benefit Auditing - Consulting. The term of these contracts are four (4) years, with up to five (5) additional one (1) year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on July 28th, 2025, for five weeks and one day. The following bidder submitted its proposal by the published due date of September 2nd, 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: Evaluation Process The State will evaluate each proposal for each statement of work separately and based on the below factors.

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

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 - ORS Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by a Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Kyle London, Category Analyst DTMB Central Procurement Services Sarah Harwood, Departmental Manager 13 DTMB Office of Retirement Services

Allison Wardlaw, Plan Development and Compliance Director DTMB Office of Retirement Services Lisa Gonyea, Senior Financial Analyst DTMB Office of Retirement Services

Elizabeth Harrison, Business Process Owner – Benefit Plan and Design DTMB Office of Retirement Services Anthony Estell, Executive Director DTMB Office of Retirement Services

D’Andra Kawaelde, Department Analyst DTMB Office of Retirement Services Patrick Guysky, Pension Administration Specialist DTMB Office of Retirement Services

Joy Nakfoor, Category Manager – Services DTMB Central Procurement Services

III. Evaluation Method - MCSC Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by a Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Kyle London, Category Analyst DTMB Central Procurement Services Joy Nakfoor, Category Manager – Services DTMB Central Procurement Services

Bethany Beauchine, Bureau Director Michigan Civil Service Commission

Rebecca Guyski, Director of Employee Benefits Division & MI HR Service Center Michigan Civil Service Commission

IV. Evaluation Results - ORS The Evaluation Team determined that Willis Towers Watson US LLC based on a score of 83/100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A1 Statement of Work, excluding Section 3 Staffing and Section 4 Project Management (24.25/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1.8: Bidder agreed to comply with all requirements of HIPAA without exceptions, but had many redlines to the HIPAA BAA.

b. Section 1.1.10: Bidder did not describe the notification process of notifying the Program Manger within twenty-four hours of any issues affecting any aspect of the program or administration thereof.

c. Section 1.2.1.21: Bidder reworded the requirement of providing negotiation support as it pertains to the technical evaluation, but did not provide descriptive information.

d. Section 1.2.1.22: Bidder reworded the requirement of providing negotiation support as it pertains to the financial evaluation, but did not provide descriptive information.

e. Section 1.2.3.4: Bidder did not completely answer the question regarding assisting the Plan Sponsor in conducting market research to determine the potential Bidder pool.

f. Section 1.3.4.1: Bidder is missing the response to validating final settlements.

g. Section 1.7.2: Bidder agreed to this section, yet did not describe how it would comply, simply restated redlines to the Contract Terms.

h. Sections 1.10 and 2.1: Bidder agreed to requirements in all sections of 1.10 and 2.1, but redlined the sections specified in the Contract Terms.

i. Section 9: Bidder deemed Service Level Agreements unusually severe and wanted remediation only instead of statutorily required service level credits.

2. Schedule A1 Statement of Work Section 3 Staffing (28.75/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 3.4.3.2.2: Bidder did not describe how Pharmacy Consultant(s) will meet requirements.

b. Section 3.4.3.3.2: Bidder did not answer how the Project Manager will meet requirements.

c. Section 3.10.3: Bidder did not provide a scope of background checks; they only provided the name of the company that will complete them.

3. Schedule A1 Statement of Work Section 4 Project Management (14.75/15) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 4.5.1: Bidder was generic with a sample Implementation Plan and did not explain how they would escalate beyond the Program Manager.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (15.25/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 5 Hybrid Contract Terms: Bidder had many redlines to the Contract Terms.

b. Section 12, Experience 1: Size was small and did not provide the dollar value of the full Contract term.

c. Section 12, Experience 2: Did not include the dollar value of the full contract term.

d. Section 12, Experience 3: Size was small and did not provide the dollar value of the full Contract term.

e. Section 12, Experience 4: Size was small and did not provide the dollar value of the full Contract term.

Total Score:83/100 V. Evaluation Results - MCSC The Evaluation Team determined that Willis Towers Watson US LLC based on a score of 88.5/100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A2 Statement of Work, excluding Section 3 Staffing and Section 4 Project Management (29/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1.11: Bidder agreed to comply with all requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) without exceptions, but had many redlines to HIPAA BAA.

2. Schedule A2 Statement of Work Section 3 Staffing (28.5/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 3.6: Bidder did not have a reporting structure with Non-Key Personnel, and subcontractors were not included.

3. Schedule A2 Statement of Work Section 4 Project Management (15/15) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory:

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (16/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 5 Hybrid Contract Terms: Bidder had many redlines to the Contract Terms.

b. Section 13, Experience 1: Did not include the dollar value of the full contract term.

c. Section 13, Experience 2: Did not include the dollar value of the full contract term.

d. Section 13, Experience 3: Did not include the dollar value of the full contract term.

e. Section 13, Experience 4: Did not include the dollar value of the full contract term.

Total Score:88.5/100 VI. Technical Evaluation Summary - ORS

VII. Technical Evaluation Summary - MCSC

VIII. Pricing Summary - ORS Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of their price proposals:

IX. Pricing Summary – MCSC Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of their price proposals:

X. Negotiations Willis Towers Watson US LLC and the State of Michigan negotiated Contract terms and pricing which is reflected above.

XI. 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.

Willis Towers Watson US LLC provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include Willis Towers Watson US LLC’s experience with state contracts and their knowledge of the Healthcare and Benefit Auditing - Consulting industry.

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 Willis Towers Watson US LLC in the amount of $4,884,880.00 for ORS and $2,830,106.00 for MCSC.

Version 2024-2 image1.png