RFP 250000003097 - Bidder Question and Answer Response.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 18 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Health Insurance Database Management System
- Solicitation number
- RFP-171-250000003097-2
- Issued by
- Michigan
About this file
This document is a Bidder Question and Answer Response spreadsheet for RFP 250000003097, issued by the Michigan Public School Employees' Retirement System (MPSERS) for a Health Insurance Database Management System (DBMS). The solicitation seeks a new database management solution with implementation beginning March 1, 2026, and full services commencing July 1, 2026. The contract term includes an implementation period from March 1, 2026, to June 30, 2026, followed by the primary services period. No bidders' conference was held, with questions submitted by September 22nd at 3:00 PM EST.
The state is seeking a DBMS vendor capable of providing strategic analytics, invoice reconciliation, vendor reconciliation, and comprehensive reporting capabilities. The preferred solution is web-based, allowing access from multiple devices, with no additional licensing requirements. Pricing will be detailed in Schedule B, with options for base services and potential innovative approaches. The state requires integration with MiLogin for single sign-on, expects monthly data updates, and needs the system to retain data for up to 7 years. The incumbent's contract is expiring, and this procurement ensures equal market access. Key evaluation criteria include strategic partnership, user-friendliness, analytical capabilities, and the ability to provide current retiree benchmarks and industry trend insights.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Schedule F1- Data Feed-ORS.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Schedule F4- Data Feed- Non-Medicare Lab.csv | CSV file | |
| Schedule G Service Availability.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Schedule I Sample Validation Report.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Schedule B - Healthcare Database.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Schedule F2-Data Feed Non-Medicare Medical.csv | CSV file | |
| Schedule F5- Data Feed-Medicare Lab.csv | CSV file | |
| Schedule F8- Data Feed- Medicare Pharmacy.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Schedule J Software Table.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 250000003097 - Health Insurance Database Management System RFP.docx | DOCX document | |
| Schedule F10- Data Feed- Vision.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Schedule F3- Data Feed-Medicare Medical.csv | CSV file | |
| Schedule F6- Data Feed-Hearing.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Schedule F7- Data Feed- Non Medicare Pharmacy.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Schedule F9- Data Feed-Dental.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Schedule H Quarterly Vendor Reconciliation Report.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 16
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Q # | Document and Section | Page # | Bidder Question | States Response |
| 1 | Proposal Instructions | 3 | Will there be a bidders' conference, or will the only opportunity to ask questions be the submission of questions due on the 22nd? | There will not be a bidders conference. The due date to ask questions was September 22nd at 3:00 PM EST. |
| 2 | Vendor Questions Worksheet | 13 | After a quick search of the RFP document, I do not see any indication of references beyond a statement that the State may conduct reference checks. Can you clarify how many references we should include in our response? | The Vendor Questions Worksheet requires Bidders to provide at least 3 relevant experiences from the last 5 years, including company contact information. |
| 3 | Hybrid Contract Terms | 21 | In the RFP timeline, it states that the anticipated contract begin date is March 1, 2026. Our current contract was recently extended to have an end date of 6/30/26 so the expectation was that the new contract from this RFP would start on 7/1/26. Please confirm the start date for the contract. | This Contract is expected to begin on March 1, 2026 with all Services beginning on July 1, 2026. The period of time between the Contract effective date (anticipated March 1, 2026) and the day before Services begin (June 30, 2026) is the Implementation Period. |
| 4 | 5.3.1.1 | 78 | What are the top 5 specific business outcomes or use cases MPSERS hopes to achieve through this new DBMS implementation beyond standard reporting (e.g., trend management, vendor negotiations, benefit optimization)? | 1. Invoice reconciliation. Comparing invoiced claims dollars to paid claims in the database. |
2. Strategic planning, including evaluating program effectiveness and cohort analyses.
3. Holistic MPSERS health plan view for decision making.
4. Areas of opportunities. What is the data telling us and how should we proceed (e.g., consulting).
5. Vendor reconciliation. Validating information we receive from our health plan vendors.
5 1.2.4.3.12 53 Can you provide details on the incumbent DBMS vendor, the current technology stack, and the top 3-5 pain points or limitations that are driving this RFP? The State is looking for a DBMS vendor that:
1. Has current and relevant retiree benchmarks.
2. Is a strategic, innovative partner to consult on industry trends and how MPSERS compares.
3. Has an easy to use tool for non-super users.
4. Has the capabilities to do deep dive analysis in a timely manner with minimal additional programming.
The State is open to any production platform that is capable of meeting the requirements (Services & IT) detailed in this RFP. The existing vendor’s contract is expiring and the State has a responsibility to post new contracts out to the market, ensuring equal access to all businesses.
| 6 | 2.8 | 67 | Is the expectation for the contractor to decide on which DBMS tools (cloud providers, databases, etc.) will be used by the State? What is the State's preferred target technology architecture (e.g., cloud-native on AWS/Azure, hybrid, on-premises), and are there any State enterprise standards or preferred cloud providers that must be considered? | Bidders are given the opportunity to offer the State a solution platform that they provide commercially and have experience with that meets the State’s requirements. The State is interested in in-production commercially available platforms that can meet the State’s requirements (not in building a one-time customized State solution) regardless of whether that is in the cloud, hybrid, or on-premise. |
| 7 | Schedule F | 37 | The RFP is providing sample data feeds and report outputs. What level of detail is required in our response (i.e., should we include detailed data models, data transformation rules and logic, and solution architecture diagrams, recommended technologies, or may we keep our responses at the approach, higher level, and technology agnostic? | We are looking for more of a high-level response. Bidders are expected to review the file and report layouts to ensure they can intake the files and create reports. In the event a Bidder hasn't implemented a file layout, they should indicate that. In the event a Bidder has had issues/challenges with a file layout in the past, that should be explained. |
| 8 | Schedule E | 52 | For the disaster recovery plan requirement, should bidders provide a high-level approach and framework, or is a detailed step-by-step playbook with specific RTO/RPO scenarios expected in the proposal response? | A detailed DR plan identifying RTO/RPO for each system (if more than one providing services) along with detailed descriptions of the Bidder’s DR plan detailing their actions step by step so the State has confidence and can distinguish between Bidders' approaches to DR and Business Continuity. |
| 9 | 1.4.8 | 59 | Section 1.5 mentions "advanced analytics tools" and "predictive modeling" as additional services. To what extent does the State expect AI/ML capabilities to be included in the base solution versus as future add-on services? | Basic cohort creation and analysis capabilities should be included in the base solution (not a buy-up). |
We expect some basic predictive analytics to be included in the base solution (e.g., prospective risk score and predictive prospective allowed cost).
Additional predictive capabilities (e.g. things to manage cost- predicted site of care probabilities, forecasting compliance for wellness and other tests- and to manage population health/strategic risk stratification- predicted coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes scores) can be a future capability in the tool, but once developed, it's expected to be included in the base solution (not be a buy-up).
| 10 | 1.5.2.1 | 62 | Will there be a parallel run period where both old and new systems operate simultaneously, and if so, what is the expected duration? | ORS' current DBMS contract ends 6/30/26. The services under this RFP don't start until 7/1/26, but there is an implementation period from 3/1/26 (anticipated) through 6/30/26. The implementation period will run parallel to the operation of the current DBMS. It is expected that services under this contract are fully up and running on 7/1/26, which requires all implementation, data sharing and testing be complete during the implementation period. |
| 11 | Overall | Would the State value bidders proposing innovative approaches that exceed stated requirements (e.g., real-time data processing, advanced visualization tools, automated anomaly detection), and how would these be evaluated? | The State is open to all proposed solutions. If applicable, the solution could be evaluated as a possible "Best Value". | |
| 12 | 2.8 | 67 | Are there existing data governance, master data management, or data quality tools/processes currently in place that the new solution must integrate with or replace? | This is a stand-alone solution not integrating with any State systems. It must be able to accept MiLogin access credentials. Software running within the State's internally managed IT environment may integrate with the State’s Active Directory services as identified in the 1340.00.020.08 standard. |
The solution must also include integration with Plan Sponsor and Plan Sponsor’s health plan administrators to ensure data feeds are successfully integrated. Please refer to Schedule A Section 5.5 Reporting; this states the data quality validation process.
| 13 | 5.3.1 | 78 | The Contractor must provide an Implementation Plan with July 1, 2026, planned start. Are there critical due dates or preferred end date for all requested services to finish? | Bidders should provide a project plan with key milestones (implementation kick-off, data collection and testing, go-live), assuming a contract and implementation start date of 3/1/26 and all services being fully up and running by 7/1/26. |
| 14 | 4.7.6.4 | 75 | Please list (if any) roles, responsibilities, % allocated from the Plan Sponsor to support the engagement. | There is 1 State of Michigan employee Program Manager who oversees the day-to-day activities of the contract and overall contract management. This is a full time employee estimated to spend 5% of their time on this contract. |
There is also 1 part-time ORS contractor, a Data Analyst, who works extensively in the database and would be engaging with the Contractor regularly on analytic work. This person spends about 30 hours per week on work involving the DBMS.
Other members of the ORS team (other health plan contract managers, Benefit Plan Design managers and ORS leadership) as well as ORS' healthcare consultants will be engaged in the reporting, meetings, and analytic work as needed.
| 15 | 10 | 93 | Are there any existing data sharing and data quality issues? If there are, please describe. | No. |
| 16 | Hybrid Contract Terms | 11 | Can you please clarify the difference between the terms “Implementation period” and “services period”. 3/1/26 – 6/30/26 is the development and launching of the solution, and the period after that (7/1/26 onward) is the operating of the solution? How is the building of the solution different from the professional services that the bidder will ultimately provide? | Yes, the implementation period (anticipated 3/1/26-6/30/26) is the development and launching of the solution. 7/1/26 and onward is when the Health Insurance Database Management System must be available for ORS use, along with all analytic services, consulting, reporting and all other requirements described in this RFP. |
| 17 | 1.2.4 | 41 | Can the State provide clarity and details on what kind of preferred end-user experience is expected as part of this section? Does it need to be desktop-only, or for example, web-based applications, Power BI solutions, a combination of both, etc. would be considered or be acceptable? | Web-based is preferred so this can be accessed from anywhere, including possibly mobile devices. Also, it is preferred that all application functionality is available through the end-user tool with no additional licenses/tools required. Bidders should offer solutions that they have commercially available or in-production that can be scaled to meet the State's requirements. |
| 18 | 1.2.1.6 | 40 | Requirement for the contractor to reach out to health plan administrators if data feeds are delayed in a month. Are these a third party? Is this an expectation for some type of automated notification or is there a live support that needs to be provided? | If a data feed hasn't been received by the agreed upon date, the DBMS vendor must reach out to the data supplier (health plan administrator) to resolve the issue. Also, the DBMS vendor must notify ORS of the delay. |
| 19 | 1.2.1.12 | 41 | There is a list of medical data to be maintained. I would like to understand this better. Is this data also in a tabular format and expected to also be in the database or is it just files expected to be stored for each member? | The medical and other data types listed for 1.2.1.12 are examples of data that the data suppliers (health plan administrators) will provide the DBMS vendor monthly. We are looking for Bidders to confirm they can intake this type of data on a member and claim-level basis. |
| 20 | 1.3 | 51+ | Is the expectation that the contractor is providing seminars on the data analytics and processing being done? | The expectation is that Bidders host/facilitate webinars for end-users of the database tools as a way to educate users on the tools and functionality and discuss best practices. These opportunities would not be specific or custom to our plan and users. It is expected that the Bidder would be hosting such webinars as a forum for all their clients, allowing for discussion where participants can share experiences and ask questions. |
Separately, Bidders may host webinars geared more toward benefit managers to discuss industry trends, analytics, and give an opportunity to share experiences, concerns and lessons learned. If Bidder offers such webinars or educational meetings, ORS staff and/or designees must be allowed to participate without additional cost.
| 21 | 2.6 | 61 | Just looking for clarification on the software points. The expectation is that the State would be advised to use certain database softwares that would have a cost (typically subscription based). I don’t believe the ask is for the contractor to cover those costs as that would be owned by the State, but the call out of “Contractor to provide Software” is fuzzy. Does it just mean one-time software/code that may be used for the initial implementation? | 2.6 states that the DBMS vendor is required to provide software (i.e., an end user application) for the State to use. We are asking for details of the software: name, version, number of licenses, etc. Also, note that the State will not be subject to any additional terms, including a click through license or terms of service. |
| 22 | 5.3.1.9 | 67 | In section 5.3.1.9, in the checkbox area it is stated “Bidder must submit its project plan and clearly label items 6.3.1.1-6.3.1.9 above.” Is the reference to section 6 a typo? Is it meant to specify sections 5.3.1.1-5.3.1.9? | Yes, this is meant to specify section 5.3.1.1-5.3.1.9. |
| 23 | 250000003097 - Health Insurance Database Management System RFP / Hybrid Contract Terms | 21 | Does vendor need to complete items highlighted in green of the contract terms and return with submission? | Yes. |
| 24 | 250000003097 - Health Insurance Database Management System RFP / Schedule B | 96 | Does vendor need to complete items highlighted in green and return with submission? | Yes. |
| 25 | 250000003097 - Health Insurance Database Management System RFP / Schedule B | 96 | Under 1. Base Services, does vendor fill out 1.A OR 1.B? | Bidders can provide pricing for either 1.A or 1.B, or Bidders can provide both pricing options for the State's consideration. |
| 26 | 250000003097 - Health Insurance Database Management System RFP / 1.1.3 Data Sharing Agreements | 41 | Will the State intervene in the event a data supplier is uncooperative regarding data access by the State’s consultants? | Yes. |
| 27 | 250000003097 - Health Insurance Database Management System RFP / 1.2.1.8 Saving Purged Data | 43 | For what period/how many years of purged data should be retained for easy retrieval? | The Contractor must store in the active/online database at least 63 months of Plan Sponsor data. The Contractor must also save 2 years (24 months) of purged data beyond what is maintained in the active, online database. In total, Contractor must retain 7 years (87 months) of data. |
| 28 | 250000003097 - Health Insurance Database Management System RFP / 1.2.1.10 Updatable Software | 44 | Clarify the intent of “able to be updated based on the needs of the Plan Sponsor” | Contractor must have software that is able to be updated and must make a reasonable effort to accommodate the specific needs of the Plan Sponsor as part of its base services. |
Requirement 1.4.16 addresses significant database expansions beyond the scope of this Contract.
Further, the database must be updated at least monthly. If there are issues discovered, the State requires off-cycle database updates to resolve the issue.
| 29 | 250000003097 - Health Insurance Database Management System RFP / 1.2.3.2 Changes in Health Plans | 49 | Is it the State’s intent that database changes to accommodate any future changes in Health Plan vendors is included in the base fee? | Yes. |
| 30 | 250000003097 - Health Insurance Database Management System RFP / 2.7 Access Control and Authentication | 66 | Is the State requesting Single Sign-On capability? | The State is requiring the integration of the State’s Single Sign-On identify and access management tool MiLogin. |
| 31 | 250000003097 - Health Insurance Database Management System RFP / Time spent on large scale projects beyond the scope of this Contract | 62 | Detailed note mentions Schedule B pricing document. Should all additional service prices be included in this pricing document (i.e. additional services and additional software tools)? | Yes, all pricing should be included in the relevant sections of Schedule B. |
| 32 | 250000003097 - Health Insurance Database Management System RFP / 5.5.6.9 System and Organization Controls (SOC) Audit Reports | 88 | Please provide examples of information that the vendor may need to provide relating to “internal controls?” | Examples may include: |
- SOC reports (these are specifically required as part of this RFP)
- HITRUST certification, if applicable
- Cybersecurity overview/summary documents
- Data security overview/summary documents 33 250000003097 - Health Insurance Database Management System RFP / Hybrid Contract Terms/State Data 32 Please provide an overview of the types and numbers of extracts anticipated in 32.c, Extraction of State Data. The State expects all data extracted to be returned within 5 business days of the State's request.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .