County of Alameda, General Services Agency – Purchasing

RFP No. 900977, Addendum No. 2

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

ADDENDUM No. 1

to

RFP No. 901203

for

Health and Welfare Consulting Services

Specification Clarification/Modification and Recap of the Networking/Bidders Conferences

Held on February 4, 2014 and February 5, 2014

This County of Alameda, General Services Agency (GSA), RFP Addendum has been electronically issued to potential bidders via e-mail. E-mail addresses used are those in the County’s Small Local Emerging Business (SLEB) Vendor Database or from other sources. If you have registered or are certified as a SLEB, please ensure that the complete and accurate e-mail address is noted and kept updated in the SLEB Vendor Database. This RFP Addendum will also be posted on the GSA Contracting Opportunities website located at .

Alameda County is committed to reducing environmental impacts across our entire supply chain.

If printing this document, please print only what you need, print double-sided, and use recycled-content paper.

RFP No. 900977, Addendum No. 2

Page 1

County of Alameda, General Services Agency – Purchasing

RFP No. 901203, Addendum No. 1

The following Sections have been modified to read as shown below. Changes made to the original RFP document are in bold print and highlighted, and deletions made have a strike through.

Page 13 of the RFP, CALENDAR OF EVENTS, has been modified as follows:

  1. CALENDAR OF EVENTS

EVENT / DATE/LOCATION
Request Issued / January 13, 2014Completed
Written Questions Due / by 5:00 p.m. onFebruary 5, 2014 Completed
Networking/Bidders Conference #1 / February 4, 2014 @ 10:00 a.m.
COMPLETED / at:General Services Agency
Room 1107, 11th Floor,
1401 Lakeside Drive,
Oakland, CA 94612
OR remotely @
Networking/Bidders Conference #2 / February 5, 2014 @ 1:30 p.m.
COMPLETED / at:Dublin Public Library
Program Room
200 Civic Plaza,
Dublin, CA 94568
Addendum Issued / February 24, 2014
Response Due / March 12, 2014 by 2:00 p.m.
Evaluation Period / March 12 - 21, 2014
Vendor Interviews / Week of March 31, 2014April 10 -18, 2014
Board Letter Recommending Award Issued / May 6, 2014May 13, 2014
Board Consideration Award Date / May 20, 2014June 3, 2014
Contract Start Date / June 15, 2014July 1, 2014

Page 14 of the RFP, Section G (EVALUATION CRITERIA/SELECTION COMMITTEE), has been revised as follows:

G.EVALUATION CRITERIA / SELECTION COMMITTEE

All proposals that pass the initial Evaluation Criteria which are determined on a pass/fail basis (Completeness of Response, Financial Stability, and Debarment and Suspension) will be evaluated by a County Selection Committee (CSC). The County Selection Committee may be composed of County staff and other parties that may have expertise or experience inhealth and welfare consulting services. The CSC will score and recommend a Contractor in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in this RFP. Other than the initial pass/fail Evaluation Criteria,the evaluation of the proposals shall be within the sole judgment and discretion of the CSC.

All contact during the evaluation phase shall be through the GSA–Purchasing Department only. Bidders shall neither contact nor lobby evaluators during the evaluation process. Attempts by Bidder to contact and/or influence members of the CSC may result in disqualification of Bidder.

The CSC will evaluate each proposal meeting the qualification requirements set forth in this RFP. Bidders should bear in mind that any proposal that is unrealistic in terms of the technical or schedule commitments, or unrealistically high or low in cost, will be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the County’s requirements as set forth in this RFP.

Bidders are advised that in the evaluation of cost it will be assumed that the unit price quoted is correct in the case of a discrepancy between the unit price and an extension.

As a result of this RFP, the County intends to award a contract to the responsible bidder whose response conforms to the RFP and whose bid presents the greatest value to the County, all evaluation criteria considered. The combined weight of the evaluation criteria is greater in importance than cost in determining the greatest value to the County. The goal is to award a contract to the bidder(s) that proposes the County the best quality as determined by the combined weight of the evaluation criteria. The County may award a contract of higher qualitative competence over the lowest priced response.

The basic information that each section should contain is specified below, these specifications should be considered as minimum requirements. Much of the material needed to present a comprehensive proposal can be placed into one of the sections listed. However, other criteria may be added to further support the evaluation process whenever such additional criteria are deemed appropriate in considering the nature of the goods and/or services being solicited.

Each of the Evaluation Criteria below will be used in ranking and determining the quality of bidders’ proposals. Proposals will be evaluated according to each Evaluation Criteria, and scored on the zero to five-point scale outlined below. The scores for all Evaluation Criteria will then be added, according to their assigned weight (below), to arrive at a weighted score for each proposal. A proposal with a high weighted total will be deemed of higher quality than a proposal with a lesser-weighted total. The final maximum score for any project is five hundred fifty (550) points, including the possible fifty (50) points for local and small, local and emerging, or local preference points(maximum 10% of final score).

The evaluation process may include a two-stage approach including an initial evaluation of the written proposal and preliminary scoring to develop a short list of bidders that will continue to the final stage of oral presentation and interview and reference checks. The preliminary scoring will be based on the total points, excluding points allocated to references, oral presentation, and interview.

If the two-stage approach is used, the threefivebidders receiving the highest preliminary scores and with at least 200 points will be invited to an oral presentation and interview. Only the bidders meeting the short list criteria will proceed to the next stage. All other bidders will be deemed eliminated from the process. All bidders will be notified of the short list participants; however, the preliminary scores at that time will not be communicated to bidders.

The zero to five-point scale range is defined as follows:

0 / Not Acceptable / Non-responsive, fails to meet RFP specification. The approach has no probability of success. If a mandatory requirement this score will result in disqualification of proposal.
1 / Poor / Below average, falls short of expectations, is substandard to that which is the average or expected norm, has a low probability of success in achieving objectives per RFP.
2 / Fair / Has a reasonable probability of success, however, some objectives may not be met.
3 / Average / Acceptable, achieves all objectives in a reasonable fashion per RFP specification. This will be the baseline score for each item with adjustments based on interpretation of proposal by Evaluation Committee members.
4 / Above Average / Good / Very good probability of success, better than that which is average or expected as the norm. Achieves all objectives per RFP requirements and expectations.
5 / Excellent / Exceptional / Exceeds expectations, very innovative, clearly superior to that which is average or expected as the norm. Excellent probability of success and in achieving all objectives and meeting RFP specification.

The Evaluation Criteria and their respective weights are as follows:

Evaluation Criteria / Weight
Completeness of Response:
Responses to this RFP must be complete. Responses that do not include the proposal content requirements identified within this RFP and subsequent Addenda and do not address each of the items listed below will be considered incomplete, be rated a Fail in the Evaluation Criteria and will receive no further consideration.
Responses that are rated a Fail and are not considered may be picked up at the delivery location within 14 calendar days of contract award and/or the completion of the competitive process. / Pass/Fail
Financial Stability (See Exhibit A – Bid Response Packet) / Pass/Fail
Debarment and Suspension:
Bidders, its principal and named subcontractors are not identified on the list of Federally debarred, suspended or other excluded parties located at / Pass/Fail
Cost:
The points for Cost will be computed by dividing the amount of the lowest responsive bid received by each bidder’s total proposed cost.
Consideration of price in terms of overall affordability may be controlling in circumstances where two or more proposals are otherwise adjudged to be equal, or when a superior proposal is at a price that the County cannot afford. / 15 Points
Specific Capabilities and Expertise:
Bidders will be evaluated on their proposed solutions, capabilities, and expertise in the following areas:
  1. Quality and Research Experience (8 points)
  1. Information and legal/regulatory updates – State and Federal
  2. Information, legal/regulatory updates, State and Federal as it pertains Health Care Reform/Affordable Care Act.
  3. Competitive Surveys
  4. Utilization and Experience studies
  1. Support and Strategy (8 points)
  1. Support for Open Enrollment (see I.E - Specific Requirements - Items 1.q and 1.s, Page 8-12 of 28)
  2. Communication Support and examples of communications (see Specific Requirements - Items 1.h, 1.k and 1.r, Page 8-12 of 28)
  3. Health and Welfare Plan Design - fully insured and self-insured (see I.C - Background, Page 6 of 28)
  4. Contract Review and Renewal (see I.E - Specific Requirements - Items 1.a, 1.d and 1.v, Page 8-12 of 28)
  5. Provider Contracting (see I.E - Specific Requirements - Items 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 1.l and 1.w, Page 8-12 of 28)
  6. Provider/Carrier Placement (see I.E - Specific Requirements – Items 1.e and 1.i, Pages 8-12 of 28)
  7. Project management and timelines (see I.E - Specific Requirement – Items 1.e, 1.t, 1.x and 1.z, Page 8-12 of 28)
  8. Support for Health Care Reform/Affordable Care Act.
  1. Problem Prevention and Solving (8 points)
  1. Periodic Carrier Audits/ Monitoring (see I.E - Specific Requirements – Items 1.g and 1.n, Pages 8-12 of 28)
  2. Problem Resolution (see I.E - Specific Requirements – Items 1.o and 1.u, Pages 8-12 of 28)
  3. Vendor Performance Audits (see I.E - Specific Requirements – Items 1.j, 1.m and 1.dd., Pages 8-12 of 28)
  1. Experience working with Required Valuations (8 points)
  1. Retiree Health Plan Liability Valuation
  2. GASB 43 and 45Consultation
  3. Annual calculation of Implicit Subsidy
  4. Voluntary & Non-Voluntary Employee Benefits
/ 32 Points
Relevant Experience and Overall Capabilities of the Firm:
Relevant Experience and Overall Capabilities of the Firm:
Proposals will be evaluated against the RFP specifications and the questions below:
  1. Do the individuals assigned to the project have experience on similar projects? (5 Points)
  2. Are resumes complete and do they demonstrate backgrounds that would be desirable for individuals engaged in the work the project requires? (5 Points)
  3. How extensive is the applicable education and experience of the personnel designated to work on the project? (5 Points)
/ 15 Points
References (See Exhibit A – Bid Response Packet) If a short list process is used for a solicitation, references are only performed on the short list vendors and the score is not included in the preliminary short list score / 12 Points
Description of Proposed Services:
Proposals will be evaluated against the RFP specifications including, but not limited to, Bidder’s proposed strategy and team structure. / 10 Points
Oral Presentation and Interview:
The oral presentation by each bidder shall not exceed sixty (60) minutes in length. The oral interview will consist of standard questions asked of each of the bidders and specific questions regarding the specific proposal. The proposals may then be re-evaluated and re-scored based on the oral presentation and interview. / 16 Points
SMALL LOCALEMERGING BUSINESS PREFERENCE
Local Preference: Points equaling five percent (5%) of bidder’s total score, for the above Evaluation Criteria, will be added. This will be the bidder’s final score for purposes of award evaluation. / Five Percent (5%)
Small and Local or Emerging and Local Preference: Points equaling five percent (5%) of bidder’s total score, for the above Evaluation Criteria, will be added. This will be the bidder’s final score for purposes of award evaluation. / Five Percent (5%)

Responses to Verbal Questions

Q1)Page 18 of the RFP, Section G (EVALUATION CRITERIA/SELECTION COMMITTEE),Evaluation Criteria Table, Row C, Item 4.b. states:

4.Experience working with Required Valuations (8 Points)

b.GASB 43 and 45 –Annual Calculation of Implicit Subsidy.

Will the GASB 43 and 45 valuations be performed as part of this contractor consulting relatedbe performed as part of this contract?

A)No, GASB 43 and 45 valuations will not be performed under this contract. Consulting related to GASB 43 and 45 may be required, if needed under this contract. Additionally, the annual calculation of the Implicit Subsidy is required.

Q2)In theSample Template of Standard Service Agreement it doesn’t mention about any limitation of liability. Can we request a limitation of liability and would that be part of the acceptance in our proposal or is there no limitation acceptedby the County?

A)Any changes or exceptions taken by a Contractor on the County’s standard service agreement will be subject to approval by the County Counsel. If a bidder is taking any exceptions to the RFP and associated bid documents, please use Exceptions, Clarifications, Amendments forms attached to the bid documents. However, the County is under no obligations to accept any exceptions and such exceptions may be a basis for bid disqualification.

Q3)Why is the County going out to bid at this time?

A)The County’s requirements for a contract is three years and can be extended for a single two-year extension. The current contract for health and welfare consulting services is on its 5th year.

Q4)It seems like this particular bid is about benefits more so than anything. Not just contracting a person to come in and help you focus in on benefits and Health Care Acts,and different things like that? Is that correct?

A)Yes, primarily this contract is for a new Health and Welfare consultant that works very closely with the benefits unit department inHuman Resource Services.

Q5)Who is the County’s current contractor for this contract?

A)Hay Group is the current contractor for this contract.

Q6)How much was the total amount of the current contract?

A)The total contract amount for five years is $993,381.

Q7)What were the current contractors consulting fees?

A)The current contract hourly rates were divided into five different positions and as follows:

Position / Year 1 / Year 2 / Year 3
Sr. Benefits Consultant / $330 / $340 / $350
Account Executive/Manager / $330 / $340 / $340
Benefits Consultant / $240 / $250 / $260
Actuary / $160 / $165 / $165
Administrative Assistant / $60 / $62 / $65

Q8)How satisfied is the County with the current consultant?

A)The County is very satisfied with the services provided by the current contractor.

Q9)Can the County provide bidders with a list of small, local and emerging business (SLEB) subcontractors?

A)Bidders can find Certified SLEB’s for different areas from the SLEB Homepage. Go to the County’s Website, g, go to the SLEB Homepage and you can do a search by the NAICS Code 501612 or 501611 as listed on page 22 of the bid documents.If you have any difficulty in finding certified vendors, you may contact the Auditor Controller’s Agency-Contract Compliance Officeat (510) 891-5500 and they are more than happy to assist you.

Q10)Are the bidders still limited to one SLEB or can they have multiple SLEB Partners?

A)Prime bidder can have multiple SLEB subcontractorsas long as it totals to a minimum of 20% of the contract.

Q11)What is the County’s top 3 benefit issues over the next 3 years?

A)The County is declining to respond to this question as this one of the questions being asked in the RFP Questionnaire, Exhibit D #23 and states as follows:

23. List the three (3) most important concerns you see for Alameda County over the next eighteen (18) months.

  1. What resource does your firm have in place to address these concerns?
  2. List your firm’s experience in addressing these concerns.

Q12)When will the Addendum be issued?

A)The addendum will be issued on February 24, 2014.

Q13)Can bidders submit additional written questions?

A)Yes, bidders can submit additional written questions via email to until 5:00 p.m., February 5, 2014

Q14)Is there a list of SLEBsor vendors who attended the bid conference or how can we gain access to who had indicated some interest that was in that category?

A)Attendees of the bid conferences will be included in the addendum. The list will be a short list and we encourage you to do your own research on the County’s website, , in finding SLEB subcontractors.

Q15)Does a prime bidder have to be a SLEB by the time they are contracted or do they have to be a SLEB to be selected?

No, prime bidders don’t have to be a SLEB in order to be selected. Bidders not meeting the definition of a small or emerging local business do not qualify for a bid preference and must subcontract with one or more County certified small and/or emerging local businesses for at least twenty percent (20%) of the total bid amount in order to be considered for contract award.

For further information, please refer to page 22 of the RFP, Section III.M.3 which states:

  1. Small and Emerging Locally Owned Business: The County is vitally interested in promoting the growth of small and emerging local businesses by means of increasing the participation of these businesses in the County’s purchase of goods and services.

As a result of the County’s commitment to advance the economic opportunities of these businesses, Bidders must meet the County’s Small and Emerging Locally Owned Business requirements in order to be considered for the contract award. These requirements can be found online at:

Q16)Are SLEB subcontractors entitled to preference points?

No, SLEB subcontractors are not entitled to preference points. SLEB subcontractors should also be certified by the time of submission to be qualified as a SLEB subcontractors.

Q17)What are the biggest concerns or challenges that the County has, with respect to the delivery of the benefits now? Is it cost?

A)Please see Q11/A11.

The following participants attended the Bidders’ Conferences:

Company Name / Address / Representative / Contact Information
Hay Group
100 Penn Square East
Philadelphia, PA 19107 / Jim McPhillips / Phone: (215) 861-2713
E-Mail:
Prime Contractor: Yes
Subcontractor: No
Certified SLEB: No
Carmen West–Jefferson
256 Lexington Lane
San Leandro, CA 94577 / Carmen West-Jefferson / Phone: (510) 206-0527
E-Mail:
Prime Contractor:
Subcontractor:
Certified SLEB: No
Milliman
650 California Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108 / Susan Pantely / Phone: (415) 409-1333
E-Mail:
Prime Contractor: Yes
Subcontractor: No
Certified SLEB: No
Barney & Barney
1999 Harrison Street
Oakland, CA 94618 / Dave Cannon / Phone: (510) 466-6057
E-Mail:
Prime Contractor: Yes
Subcontractor: No
Certified SLEB: No
Aon Hewitt
707 Wilshire Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90017 / Brent Crane / Phone: (801) 652-1697
E-Mail:
Prime Contractor: Yes
Subcontractor: No
Certified SLEB: No
OmniConsultants
800 Laurel Ct.
Rodeo, CA 94572 / Tess Snook O’Riva / Phone: 925-408-0588
E-Mail:
Prime Contractor: No
Subcontractor: Yes
Certified SLEB: No
Oracle
475 Sansome St, Fl. 15
San Francisco, CA 94111 / Cory Lovell / Phone: 415-717-8782
E-Mail:
Prime Contractor: No
Subcontractor: No
Certified SLEB: No
Phone:
E-Mail:
Prime Contractor:
Subcontractor:
Certified SLEB:

RFP No. 901203, Addendum No. 1