RFP Questions and Responses 8-17-26.pdf

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED ON SOLICITATION #1519 - REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS

FOR CONSULTANT TO CONDUCT A FEASIBILITY STUDY AND PROPOSE A PLAN TO ADDRESS

THE NONPROFIT LIABILITY INSURANCE AVAILABILITY CONCERNS IN CONNECTICUT

As of August 17, 2026

Engagement Terms

1. Did CID, another Connecticut agency, or the General Assembly previously retain or compensate any consultant, actuary, broker, data provider, or other vendor for work related to nonprofit liability insurance availability?

Response: No.

2. For any prior related contracts—or if the current $200,000 allocation was informed by a prior estimate or cost analysis—can CID provide the contract values, cost assumptions, estimated level of effort, and portions of work that the selected consultant should avoid duplicating?

Response: There are no prior related contracts. The $200,000 allocation was established through the legislative process.

Data, Data Collection Framework & Methodology

3. Will CID provide existing contact lists or facilitate targeted follow-up with the organizations and individuals that prepared or presented the Working Group materials—including Brown & Brown, Alera Group, DCF, and the nonprofit survey sponsors—so the selected consultant can validate and extend their work?

Response: Yes.

4. Which prior Working Group findings, data, or recommendations may the selected consultant treat as established background, and which specific limitations, unresolved questions, or data gaps does CID expect to be independently revalidated or prioritized in the feasibility study?

Response: The selected consultant may treat the findings and data in the Connecticut Nonprofit Liability, Property & Casualty Insurance Working Group Report, dated February 2026, as background. However, the selected consultant will need to verify any data relied upon, and develop independent and fully supported findings and recommendations.

5. Are there any confidentiality, ownership, licensing, attribution, or data-use restrictions that would limit the selected consultant’s use of prior Working Group materials, respondent-level survey data, or third-party presentations in project workpapers or the final public report?

Response: The Department will work with the selected consultant to determine whether there are any confidentiality, ownership, licensing, attribution, or data-use restrictions that would limit the selected consultant’s use of prior Working Group materials, survey data or third-party presentations.

6. Beyond the publicly available Working Group research and work product included as Exhibits A–E of the Supplemental Information, will CID provide the selected consultant with any nonpublic or respondent-level materials—such as survey files, meeting minutes, testimony, carrier submissions, interview notes, data dictionaries, analyses, or workpapers—from the 2025–2026 Working Group process?

Response: Recordings of the Working Group meetings can be found at the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/@cga-insuranceandrealestate8130/streams. The Department does not have any survey files, interview notes, data dictionaries, analysis or workpapers.

7. The Q&A response to Q1f confirms CID will consider proposals with "efficient and effective processes and methodologies" for data collection given budget constraints. Would CID accept a mobile-first, structured field-data-collection methodology (geo-tagged digital surveys with built-in automated quality control) as a qualifying alternative to manual paper-based data calls or spreadsheet-based data requests, provided consent and data-security protocols are documented in the proposal?

Response: Proposers may propose methodologies for data collection that are efficient and effective.

8. The Q&A response to Q1d confirms "a valid sample size is acceptable" for the study population. Does CID have a target statistical confidence level, margin of error, or minimum number of participating nonprofits in mind for that "valid sample," or is the proposer expected to propose and justify its own sampling methodology and confidence targets in the proposal itself?

Response: CID expects the proposer to propose and justify its own sampling methodology and confidence targets in the proposal. The sample must be consistent with the applicable actuarial standards of practice.

9. Does CID expect the data collection effort to achieve proportional geographic representation across Connecticut's counties/regions, or is a concentration of readily available, cooperative respondents acceptable given the fixed $200,000 budget?

Response: Proportional geographic representation is preferred. However, to the extent that is not possible as a result of the available data and budgetary restrictions, a concentration of readily available, cooperative respondents is acceptable. Any limitation of the data must be noted and explained in the work product.

Actuarial / Underwriting / Financial Analysis

10. The Q&A response to Q3c states the Department expects "at least 1,084 claims in the data set to achieve full credibility" per ASOP 25. Given that Connecticut's nonprofit human-services sector is a comparatively small population, has CID identified — or will it help identify or share — supplemental aggregated data sources (e.g., NAIC statistical plan data, ISO/Advisory Organization loss data, or carrier data of the kind referenced anonymously in the Brown & Brown and Alera exhibits) sufficient to reach that credibility threshold, or is the consultant expected to source this volume of claims entirely independently?

Response: CID will help identify or share supplemental aggregated data sources where possible. Otherwise, the selected consultant may have to look at additional available resources to develop a credibility threshold.

11. RFP Section II.C.3 requires evaluation of "reinsurance and stop loss needs," and the Q&A response to Q2c states carrier/broker integration "should consider all potential options."

Will CID facilitate introductions to reinsurance markets and Excess & Surplus lines carriers already engaged with CT nonprofits — for example, those referenced anonymously in the Brown & Brown and Alera market presentations — or is the consultant expected to independently source this reinsurer engagement within the fixed budget?

Response: Yes. The CID will facilitate introductions to reinsurance markets and Excess & Surplus lines carriers already engaged with Connecticut nonprofits.

12. The Q&A responses to Q8a and Q8b confirm the $200,000 appropriation is a hard cap covering the feasibility study and plan only (not implementation), with no additional funds available. Given that this fixed budget must cover statewide data collection, actuarial analysis, stakeholder interviews, legal/tort analysis, and financial modeling, does CID have a preferred allocation or priority order across these scope components if cost trade-offs become necessary, or is the proposer expected to determine that allocation independently in its cost proposal?

Response: The financial and actuarial analysis should be the primary focus.

Captive / Pool / Program Structure

13. The Q&A response to Q1c confirms the study's focus is the Human Services sector and excludes hospitals, colleges, and religious organizations. However, the Alera Group and DCF exhibits both identify faith-affiliated providers (e.g., diocesan or church-sponsored human-service agencies) as a distinct, heavily impacted segment. Please confirm whether a faith-affiliated organization that primarily delivers in-scope human services (foster care, child care, elder care, behavioral health) under a religious sponsoring body is considered an in-scope "nonprofit entity," or whether the Q1c exclusion of "religious organizations" extends to these hybrid providers.

Response: A faith-affiliated organization that primarily delivers in-scope human services (foster care, child care, elder care, behavioral health) under a religious sponsoring body is not in-scope.

14. Recommendation 4 of the Working Group Report calls for evaluating "limited motor vehicle self-insurance flexibility" for well-capitalized nonprofits as a standalone option, separate from the captive/pool structures. Should this self-insurance alternative be evaluated as one of the "other insurance program" options under RFP Section I.B.7(a) and II.C.1, independent of the captive/pool feasibility analysis, or only as a design feature within a captive/pool structure?

Response: All options allowing for a limited motor vehicle self-insurance should be addressed.

15. The Q&A response to Q4d confirms that, if a captive is recommended, "the study/plan should address options for ownership of the captive." Should the consultant evaluate a state-sponsored or quasi-public ownership model — consistent with Recommendation 2's reference to a "Connecticut-domiciled captive" — given that the RFP's sole identified funding source is a one-time $200,000 CID appropriation and the Q&A (Q8b) confirms no funds are contemplated for implementation?

Response: All potential options that consider a state sponsored or a quasi-public ownership model should be addressed, and should include the needed funding for such options.

Third-Party Litigation Funding

16. Recommendation 5 of the Working Group Report specifically calls for coordinating any tort-or litigation-funding-related legislative recommendations "in concert with the Judiciary Committee and other relevant committees." Will CID facilitate direct consultant engagement with Judiciary Committee staff on this topic as part of the engagement, or is that outreach the consultant's sole responsibility to initiate?

Response: CID will facilitate outreach to any relevant committees, including the Judiciary Committee.

17. The Q&A response to Q1b states the Department will share "third-party litigation funding information in its possession." Can CID specify the form or format of that data (e.g., aggregated case counts, funder disclosures made under any applicable Connecticut litigation-funding disclosure requirement) and confirm whether it is expected to be sufficient for the Section II.C.6 tort-cost-driver analysis, or whether primary research (e.g., court record review) will also be required?

Response: The CID does not have data that would assist with the analysis of third-party litigation funding. The information in the CID’s possession is limited to publicly available information.

Stakeholder Engagement

18. Recommendation 3 of the February 2026 Working Group Report proposes a "Nonprofit Undersecretary and Advisory Cabinet at OPM" to coordinate ongoing market-condition monitoring with the sector. Has this liaison role or advisory cabinet been established since the report's publication? If so, should the selected consultant treat OPM's designated liaison as a required stakeholder under the RFP's stakeholder-engagement scope, and will CID facilitate that introduction?

Response: Public Act 26-102 establishes within OPM a Nonprofit Provider Advisory Board.

CID will make any necessary introductions with respect to OPM staff.

19. The Q&A response to Q6a lists nonprofits, carriers, reinsurers, brokers, trade associations, legislators, and regulators as potential interview stakeholders. Does CID have an expected minimum number of stakeholder interviews or meetings per group, or is the scope and depth of stakeholder engagement left entirely to the proposer's judgment within the fixed budget?

Response: The scope of stakeholder engagement is left to the proposer’s judgment, but it is expected to be comprehensive.

20. Will CID expect the consultant to specifically engage the brokers who presented to the Nonprofit Working Group (Brown & Brown, Alera Group) and the national advocacy coalition behind the 2025 "Insuring Care" survey (NOSAC/ACRC), given that their materials are attached as exhibits to this procurement, or is the consultant expected to independently identify which market participants to engage?

Response: The CID will facilitate introductions Nonprofit Working Group presenters as needed. However, the select consult should consider engaging with additional market participants as appropriate.

Budget Structure & Contract Terms

21. RFP Section II.C.13 permits either a fixed-fee or milestone-based pricing structure. Does CID have a preference between the two, and if milestone-based, does CID have an anticipated payment-milestone schedule in mind (e.g., percentage due at draft feasibility study, at final plan/financial analysis, and at final report submission)?

Response: CID does not prefer one pricing structure over the other.

22. The contract is anticipated to start 10/6/2026, with the final report due to the General

Assembly by 2/1/2027 — an approximately 17-week engagement window. Within that window, does CID have an internal target date for completion of primary nonprofit data collection, to ensure adequate time remains for actuarial analysis, plan design, financial modeling, and report drafting/review?

Response: CID will work with the selected consultant on realistic target dates.

23. Will the selected consultant be expected to present findings directly to the Insurance and Real Estate Committee or otherwise support legislative hearings following the February 1, 2027 submission, and if so, is that support included within the fixed $200,000 budget or treated as a separately negotiated cost item?

Response: The selected consultant will be expected to present findings to the Insurance and Real Estate Committee following the February 1, 2027 submission. This support is included within the $200,000 budget and will not be a separately negotiated cost item.

Proposal Team Structure & Evaluation

24. Section I.B.7 requires demonstrated expertise across actuarial analysis, financial analysis, captive/risk-management program development, and preferably nonprofit-insurance-sector experience. For a multi-firm proposing team (e.g., an actuarial/insurance consulting firm as prime with a specialized data-collection or analytics subcontractor), will the Organizational Expectations criterion (weighted 10 of 100 points) be evaluated based on the qualifications of the prime alone, or on the qualifications of the full proposing team in aggregate?

Response: The full proposing team.

25. Section I.B.7.b.v requires disclosure of "any proposed sub-consultants, along with their roles and qualifications." Does CID impose any restriction on the number of subcontracting tiers permitted, or any requirement that a minimum percentage of the work be performed directly by the prime contractor's own employees?

Response: No.

Data Security, Confidentiality & Technology Requirements

26. Section II.C.11 requires "current security protection for all systems and electronic communications" and "appropriate retention of records and data collection," but does not reference a specific compliance standard. Given that nonprofit-submitted operational and incident data may include sensitive details of abuse-related claims involving minors, does CID require a specific data-security certification or framework (e.g., SOC 2, NIST 800-53) for the platform used to collect and store this data, or is the proposer expected to define and justify its own security architecture in the proposal?

Response: The proposer expected to comply with the requirements in the form of contract.

27. Will data collected directly from participating nonprofits (e.g., incident histories, staffing levels) be treated as confidential, with individual organizations' identities withheld from the public final report submitted to the General Assembly, or will organization-level data become part of the public record?

Response: Determinations as to confidentiality will be decided on a case by case basis.

28. Section V.D.5 states that any product developed under a contract awarded as a result of this RFP is the sole property of the State. Does this provision extend to the underlying survey instruments and de-identified, aggregated datasets the consultant develops to conduct the study, or only to the final feasibility study, plan, and report themselves? Specifically, may the consultant retain a de-identified copy of the aggregated dataset for internal benchmarking or use in similar studies for other states?

Response: The selected consultant may not use retain or use de-identified data for other purposes without express consent.

29. The Performance Measures under Section II.D reference monitoring "data completeness and quality across participating nonprofits" as an ongoing accountability metric, and CID reserves the right to request additional data and metrics from providers under Section II.E.

Does CID expect the consultant to deliver a live dashboard or interim reporting tool showing real-time data-collection progress and completeness by nonprofit segment, or will periodic written status reports (as described in the Q&A response to Q7b) satisfy this requirement?

Response: Periodic written status reports are sufficient.