RFP_31786-00193_Amendment_Three_for_posting.docx
DOCX document 101 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFP 31786-00193
- Issued by
- Davidson County, Tennessee
About this file
This is Amendment Three to RFP 31786-00193 issued by the State of Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration, Division of Benefits Administration, for group fully-insured life and accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) insurance services. The procurement covers three integrated insurance products: voluntary term life insurance (employee-paid), voluntary AD&D insurance (employee-paid), and basic term life with basic AD&D insurance (employer-paid through minimum premium arrangement) for eligible employees of State Government and State Higher Education agencies and their dependents. Services include employee life coverage, spouse coverage, child life riders, and supplemental riders such as waiver of premium for total and permanent disability, accelerated death benefits for terminal conditions, repatriation benefits, seatbelt benefits, and adaptive home/vehicle modification benefits. Administrative services encompass claims processing, enrollment administration, medical underwriting, and system integration with the state's Edison platform. Proposals were due November 13, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. Central Time, with a pre-response conference held on August 31, 2026. The Notice of Intent to Award is expected January 28, 2027. The contract runs from January 1, 2028 through December 31, 2032, with a claims run-out period extending through June 30, 2034.
Historical enrollment data provided by the state includes approximately 68,000 to 72,000 basic term life and basic AD&D enrollees with total coverage volumes of $10.2 billion to $11.2 billion monthly, voluntary term life enrollment of 12,132 employee lives covering $2.03 billion, 5,094 spouse lives covering $110.1 million, and 8,143 child rider lives covering $74.4 million as of June 2026. The incumbent carrier is Minnesota Life Insurance Company (Securian Financial) with Policies 34175 (Voluntary Term Life), 34294 (Basic Term Life & AD&D), and 34295 (Voluntary AD&D). Respondents must hold a current Tennessee Certificate of Authority and demonstrate at least six years of experience providing life and AD&D insurance to at least five employer accounts, with at least one account serving a minimum of 10,000 members. The contractor must maintain call center operations in the contiguous United States with specified service level agreements and process claims within defined timeframes. Evaluation uses 100 total points: general qualifications and experience (10 points), technical qualifications, experience, and approach (40 points), and cost proposal (50 points). The cost proposal is based on guaranteed monthly premium rates for each coverage type and contract year, with premium rates constrained so that ported coverage premiums cannot exceed active employee rates by more than 20 percent for any age bracket, and voluntary term life active employee rates must comply with IRS Section 79 straddle rule requirements. All current state employees will be automatically transitioned to the new contractor on the effective date with guaranteed issue and credit toward limitations based on prior enrollment length.
View the file
Other files
Show all 41
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
STATE OF TENNESSEE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION, BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS #31786-00193
AMENDMENT #THREE
FOR LIFE AND ACCIDENTAL DEATH AND DISMEMBERMENT INSURANCE
DATE: October 30, 2026
RFP #31786-00193 IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
1. This RFP Schedule of Events updates and confirms scheduled RFP dates. Any event, time, or date containing revised or new text is highlighted.
| EVENT |
| TIME |
(central time zone)
DATE
1. RFP Issued
August 20, 2026
| 2. Disability Accommodation Request Deadline |
| 2:00 p.m. |
| August 26, 2026 |
| 3. Pre-response Conference |
| 10:00 a.m. |
| August 31, 2026 |
| 4. Notice of Intent to Respond Deadline |
| 2:00 p.m. |
| September 1, 2026 |
5. Written “Questions & Comments” Deadline *NOTE: Submit written questions and comments on Appendix 7.24 the written questions and comments template.
2:00 p.m.
September 11, 2026
6. State Response to Written “Questions & Comments”
October 14, 2026
7. Round 2 Written “Questions & Comments” Deadline *NOTE: Respondents may submit no more than five (5) questions to the State in the 2nd round of Written Questions and Comments.
October 21, 2026
8. State Response to Written “Questions & Comments” Round 2
October 30, 2026
| 9. Response Deadline |
| 2:00 p.m. |
| November 18, 2026 |
10. State Completion of Technical Response Evaluations
December 17, 2026
| 11. State Opening & Scoring of Cost Proposals |
| 2:00 p.m. |
| December 18, 2026 |
| 12. Negotiations |
| 4:30 p.m. |
| January 6-8, 2027 |
13. State Notice of Intent to Award Released and RFP Files Opened for Public Inspection
2:00 p.m.
January 28, 2027
14. End of Protest Period
February 4, 2027
15. State sends contract to Contractor for signature
February 5, 2027
| 16. Contractor Signature Deadline |
| 2:00 p.m. |
| February 12, 2027 |
2. State responses to questions and comments in the table below amend and clarify this RFP.
Any restatement of RFP text in the Question/Comment column shall NOT be construed as a change in the actual wording of the RFP document.
| Section |
| Question |
| State Response |
| 1 |
| Question regarding Contractor’s IT security documentation (referenced throughout RFP |
| Please confirm whether the State will accept summaries of IT security documentation and/or reasonable redactions of unrelated third-party confidential information, proprietary information, or information that would create a genuine security risk if disclosed. However, we understand that summaries or documents with redactions must not prevent the State or the Comptroller from evaluating the Contractor’s security posture, control effectiveness, material findings, exceptions, scope, service coverage, or corrective actions. The Contractor should provide complete reports whenever legally and reasonably possible. Any redaction must be limited, explained upon request, and accompanied by sufficient substitute information. The Contractor may not use confidentiality restrictions to withhold material findings, modified opinions, control exceptions, significant deficiencies, or information necessary to evaluate risks associated with State Data. The State retains the right to request additional evidence under appropriate confidentiality protections. Defer to Comptroller due to audit rights. |
| The State does not agree to the use of summaries or redacted versions of the IT security documentation required by the RFP. Complete, unredacted documentation must be provided as required. |
| 2 |
| A.2(rr) – State Data |
| With respect to Section A.2(rr), would the State be willing to clarify that the definition is not intended to give the State ownership or control over MetLife’s pre-existing or independently developed materials, methodologies, or know-how used in performing the Contract? |
| This definition is not intended to give the State ownership of the Contractor's proprietary materials but would include materials developed on behalf of the State in the performance of the Contract. |
Definition A.2.rr has been removed. State Data is defined in D.36.
| 3 |
| A.3.e Staffing |
| Round 1 Question: Will the State agree to the following revisions: that Contractor reserves the right to make final decisions regarding our own employees, but that Contractor will perform regular check-ins and accept feedback on employees and will provide ample notice prior to any staff changes? |
State response: Please provide the specific proposed contract language, including exact revisions to the applicable Contract Section, in Round 2 of written questions and comments.
Round 2 Question: e. At the State’s request, In Writing, the Contractor must replace staff members or subcontractors will review the performance of staff members or subcontractors providing core services exclusively for the State, taking into consideration the State’s feedback regarding said performance in consideration of that staff member or subcontractor’s continuing appointment to the State’s policies. The Contractor reserves the right to replace them in their service to the group. Additionally, the Contractor solely reserves the right to choose staff to perform services. Core services are defined as those that touch or affect Members, specifically Member customer services, Member call center, mail services, and appeals processing at all levels. Also included are any services that affect the State, such as the Contractor’s account team that routinely interacts with the State. The State’s decision on these matters shall not be subject to appeal.
The state does not agree.
| 4 |
| A.3.e |
| Round 1 Question: We are very amenable to our clients requesting changes to our key staff members, particularly those who are account-facing, but are uncomfortable with a client having employment decision-making authority, without the possibility of appeal, for other employees in our organization as described by this language. Would the State be open to softening this language to either the Contractor considering such a staffing request, or to limiting this type of request to only those on the account team that routinely interacts with the State? |
State Response: Please provide the specific proposed contract language, including exact revisions to the applicable Contract Section, in Round 2 of questions.
Round 2 Question: The State previously indicated to our question on Section A.3.e. that they wanted to see the specific proposed contract language to the section. Our proposed language is as follows, which we feel helps us balance our need to retain ultimate employment decision-making authority over our internal-facing employees while preserving the State’s initial ability to have a say over its account team that routinely interacts with the State:
“At the State’s request, In Writing, the Contractor must reasonably consider replacing staff members or subcontractors providing core services. Core services are defined as those that touch or affect Members, specifically Member customer services, Member call center, mail services, and appeals processing at all levels. Also, at the State’s request, In Writing, the Contractor must replace staff members on included are any services that affect the State, such as the Contractor’s account team that routinely interacts with the State. The State’s decision on these such matters shall not be subject to appeal.”
The state does not agree.
| 5 |
| A.10.n Administrative Services |
| Round 1 Question: Will the State agree to language that Contractor shall use reasonable efforts to ensure that the State does not receive undelivered mail? |
State response: Please provide the specific proposed contract language, including exact revisions to the applicable Contract Section, in Round 2 of written questions and comments.
Round 2 Question: n. The Contractor shall use reasonable efforts to ensure that the U. S. Postal Service or other mailing service does not return any undeliverable mail to the State.
The state agrees. See amendment item #3.
A.11(i)(10) – Security Risk Assessment
| With respect to Section A.11(i)(10), the Contractor's annual security risk assessment may contain confidential, proprietary, and security-sensitive information, including information relating to other customers and Contractor systems. Would the State be willing to clarify that it would accept a summary of the Contractor’s security risk assessment which may exclude information that, in the Contractor's reasonable judgment, could compromise the security of Contractor systems or the confidentiality of other customers' information, and that any such disclosure will be subject to an appropriate confidentiality agreement? |
| The State cannot accept these terms. |
| 7 |
| A.13 and D.36 |
| Would the State be open to a compromise on the audit authority provisions and any other audit or audit like provisions in the agreement (e.g., D.36 (d))? In particular, could the State clarify whether it would consider (1) a process under which any auditor is mutually agreeable to the State and Contractor (for example, one that is not a direct competitor of Contractor and is bound by appropriate confidentiality terms), and (2) a narrower definition of "Contractor" for audit purposes, under which subcontractors would be addressed through Contractor's reasonable efforts to facilitate audit access rather than being audited directly as part of Contractor? |
| The State cannot accept these terms. |
| 8 |
| A.13.a Audit Authority |
| Round 1 Question: Will the State agree to contractual language that any audit rights are subject to applicable privacy laws and regulations? |
State Response: Please provide the specific proposed contract language, including exact revisions to the applicable Contract Section, in Round 2 of questions.
Round 2 Question: a. Upon thirty (30) days written notice and the establishment of applicable third party confidentiality agreement(s), privacy laws, and regulations, if any, reasonably required by the Contractor, the State and/or its representative shall have the right to examine and audit Contractor services and pricing to ensure compliance with all applicable requirements. For the purpose of this requirement, the term, "Contractor," shall include its parent organization, affiliates, subsidiaries, and subcontractors, who provide services under this Contract. Reasonable efforts will be made to review the performance of subcontractors under this policy. These requirements are separate and distinct from the audit requirements set forth in D.11 and E.4.
The State cannot accept these terms.
| 9 |
| A.13.k Audit Authority |
| Round 1 Question: Will the State agree to contractual language providing that Contractor is not required to share data from insurance compliance audits that would jeopardize its privilege under applicable laws? |
State Response: Please provide the specific proposed contract language, including exact revisions to the applicable Contract Section, in Round 2 of questions.
Round 2 Question: Please describe an "internal quality assurance plan" under this policy. Internal processes are considered company confidential.
As noted in A.13.k, an internal audit plan should address, at a minimum, “the Contractor’s methodology for conducting internal Claims and operational audits, including audits to determine Claims payment and processing accuracy and Claims payment turnaround.”
| 10 |
| D.36.a.8 |
| Round 1 Question: Will the State accept the following addition to ensure we are allowed to follow our corporate record retention requirements, based on applicable law? |
(8) Upon termination of this Contract and in consultation with the State, the Contractor shall destroy, and ensure all subcontractors shall destroy, all State Data it holds (including any copies such as backups) in accordance with the current version of National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) Special Publication 800-88. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the Contractor shall be allowed to keep copies of all necessary data and information in accordance with its record retention policies or as may be required by law. The Contractor shall provide a written confirmation of destruction to the State within ten (10) business days after destruction.
State Response: The proposed language is not acceptable as written because it could allow State Data to remain indefinitely after termination without a defined State-directed process or retention limit.
Round 2 Question: Section D.36.a(8) requires the Contractor to destroy all State Data upon termination of the contract. However, as an insurance provider, we are subject to legal and regulatory record-retention requirements that may require certain data to be maintained after contract termination. Consistent with those obligations, our record-retention policies are based on applicable legal requirements across jurisdictions and are designed to retain records for the longest required retention period. Further, we will have the need to retain information following contract termination in the event a claim shows up after termination. We note that the current agreement includes the following language in Section E.7.a(5): “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the Contractor shall be allowed to keep copies of all necessary data and information in accordance with its records retention policies or as may be required by law.” In light of these ongoing legal obligations, would the State consider permitting the Contractor to retain and destroy State Data in accordance with its records-retention policies and applicable law?
The State does not fully agree, but the State has revised the language in D.36.a(8). See amendment item #4.
| 11 |
| E.4 |
| Round 1 Question: Would the State be open to discussing artificial intelligence more broadly to align on a set of criteria or guidelines to be followed by the awarded carrier on the use of AI such that any future AI use, if fit within the criteria or guidelines, would be deemed to be approved; any potential use of AI that falls outside the guidelines would need to be brought up to the State for consent? |
State response: The State does not agree.
Round 2 Question: We utilize employee productivity AI tools such as enterprise versions of Copilot, ChatGPT, and Claude. Are those enterprise AI tools already approved by the State of TN for use? Which AI tools/solutions have already been approved by the State of Tennessee AI Review Committee as referenced in Section E of the State’s Enterprise Artificial Intelligence Policy?
We need clarification on the scope of the State’s approval requirements before agreeing to these restrictions. These tools are already integrated into our enterprise operations, and we cannot reasonably enter into an agreement that could require us to discontinue or materially restrict their use without first understanding which tools are permitted and whether the approval requirements extend to our existing internal productivity tools.
Yes, the AI tools referenced in the question have been approved by the State. The complete list of authorized tools is confidential and cannot be shared; however, it is robust.
The State's AI contract language is required by the State Information Systems Council (ISC) Policy 3.00 Artificial Intelligence, which requires that that all use of AI on State owned machines, networks, or used to process state data be regulated through a framework laid out by Strategic Technology Solutions (STS). This policy can be found here: ISC Policy 3.00: Artificial Intelligence (AI). STS expanded on this policy with the Enterprise Artificial Intelligence Policy 200-POL-007, where the requirement that only authorized AI solutions being used for processing of State data is laid out. In practice, vendor compliance with this policy is much less onerous than it appears. The vendor provides a list of all AI software that will be used to process or be exposed to state data. The state will review the vendor AI list against currently approved software. This list is confidential for cybersecurity reasons and cannot be shared directly with the vendor. If any of the software is not already authorized, the state agency can submit for an exception, and a review of the software will be conducted the STS.
3. Delete Pro Forma Contract, Section A.10.n in its entirety and insert the following in its place:
n. The Contractor shall use reasonable efforts to ensure that the U. S. Postal Service or other mailing service does not return any undeliverable mail to the State.
4. Delete Pro Forma Contract, Section D.36.a(8) in its entirety and insert the following in its place:
(8) Upon termination of this Contract and in consultation with the State, the Contractor shall destroy, and ensure all subcontractors shall destroy, all State Data it holds (including any copies such as backups) in accordance with the current version of National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) Special Publication 800-88. The Contractor shall provide a written confirmation of destruction to the State within ten (10) business days after destruction. However, for any State data that must be retained due to applicable law, the Contractor must also identify retained data, the legal or approved basis for retention, the retention period, storage location, security controls, access restrictions, and final destruction date. Backups must be addressed through a documented deletion or expiration process.
5. Add the following revised appendix:
Appendix 7.15 Voluntary Term Life Census REVISED 2
6. Delete RFP #31786-00193 Release 2 in its entirety, and replace with RFP #31786-00193, Release 3. Revisions of the original RFP document are emphasized within the new release. Any sentence or paragraph containing revised or new text is highlighted.
7. RFP Amendment Effective Date. The revisions set forth herein shall be effective upon release. All other terms and conditions of this RFP not expressly amended herein shall remain in full force and effect.
RFP #31786-00193 – Amendment Three Page 1 of 14 image1.jpeg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .