HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Recommendation of Evaluation Comm.CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO :
FROM :
Daniel J. Alfonso
City Manager
Jair Espinoza
Chairperson
Evaluation Committee
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REFERENCES:
ENCLOSURES:
November 14, 2014
FILE :
Recommendation of Evaluation
Committee for RFP# 469353
Employee Benefit Life and AD&D
Plans
As Chairperson of the Evaluation Committee ("Committee") for the above services for the City of Miami,
it is my responsibility to offer the findings and recommendation of the Committee. On August 18, 2014, the
City issued RFP# 469353 for the selection of a qualified firm to provide an Employee Benefit Life and
AD&D Plan. On October 6, 2014, four (4) Proposals were received. No proposals were deemed non-
responsive.
The Committee, appointed by the City Manager, met on November 14th, 2014 and was comprised of the
following individuals:
1. Jair Espinoza, Group Benefits Manager, City of Miami (Chair)
2. Carolyn Greaves, Human Resources Director, Village of Key Biscayne
3. Cindy Ducuara, Compensation/Benefits Specialist, City of Coral Gables
The Committee ranked the firms as follows from 4 proposals received:
1. Minnesota Life Insurance Company
2. The Standard
3. UNUM
4. Cigna
The Committee reviewed and scored the proposals submitted by all firms listed above and recommends that
the City enter into contract negotiations with the top ranked firm, Minnesota Life Insurance Company. The
Committee further recommends that should contract negotiations fail with the top ranked firm, Minnesota
Life Insurance Company, that the City negotiate with the second highest ranked firm The Standard. Should
contract negotiations fail with the second highest ranked firm, the Committee recommends that the City
reject all proposals received and issue a new Request for Proposals.
Upon successful contract negotiations, the recommendation from the City Manager to the City Commission
seeking permission to authorize and execute the professional services agreement will be presented at the
next available meeting.
Your signature below represents your approval of the Committee's recommendation.
Approved b
Daniel J. A
City Manager
Date: /1-a-I j
RM FY' 14-15 002
RFP No. 469353
SUMMARY EVALUATION FORM FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT LIFE AND ADBD PLANS
PROPOSERS
.,.;,
EVALUATORS
Qualifications,
Experience and Financial
Stability
Benefits and Additional
Enhancements
.+V t E In 1U1111.d n UU S,
Enrollment Capabilities,
Claims
Administration, Account
Management, and
Banking
Overall Plan Costs and
Rate Guarantee
Local Preference, if
applicable
TOTAL SCORE FOR
TECHNICAL
RANK
#; ;.. .,..:,.we.,:?,8'.:#x;<u«:,.:,.'rr>.:;aor,,,
ii.3u:r �' ,f
f t £ 3 �( )
:k . � £. pp >t£ a s
r s, , f €�:... r ,. F . <. , k t I
}r'iS y E'
.:.E'...sy..,,3 >�..�,� s,
3 i #�
..r. ;; .mnr•r»„;... 1:..rs,
i }�. ,f. Ffn
e ..
wo-r�" , soon + ,. .,
s £3 s�� ,.
�;; � 3 k.�,,,„, K3#€�.
�o: i,
: r r.::.:.r,, ..::... ,.::.,
Ay}
,l f 6 :m
..., I... �, y/:<, f er
£. ,e
£ T
hl €z•Ks;rli3 ri:. <<3t�z%'S::S
,.'C} flf,„}.,. „ ,# r w r.., n:,:
:.,...
£ , ff , . ..
, sr s z • ...E ., 3, r �
s} fn }
, r;,Rz`i'. r%;}, r:�€£fN�l4Y`zr€£Y 3
i>fH:re�r:'f',f£I'aas,:
;. 1 H:.:{.. s
„v,ta. `L .. ds
.sx„a ». ., �",o���.
,.^�:,. ;fz,:sa �y,
,w{;,�:,.. �:rlM:,v£Rrt
« ; '`rsk.�liF is, ;sw
� �; ::e!;..:•r: ,.. .,e...
^�^�yy ;y�y �, p #((
; , , : ..e
„ 3 <££ ,
f „r ,£� ^,
�.' :','e`}, r:�:,l .€' 3:
AM 4.
..,YN #I',��:f2k33't:
, s}r� .�.
K � .k�# 9's "'i'�vz#.�
r, €`,' �
£..£IYr3,mr.�'3>�f��„r`:ar�`tu`�`�,t;.7fu�
�.£^h•"P YR `E ,iy<�- •y+F
'#I� # 4♦ ♦ .�
.:s3fi3£�e£,€N�Ilf3`�'8'tie�if 3i:.k�,
srR ^'"uf<�
.. ;R
t`' �;;7�y.''K'Y
*MS,
Cigna
Cindy Ducuara
14
26
17
7
0
�;c€�;## �j€� ;of } �F`##;;�;
''�j1e t�b :;: � ay:Ze3.r,
4
Jair Espinoza
p
14
24
18
8
0i93i,}
!#'
Carolyn Greaves
15
28
13
8
0
= F'x�'p,`�� •M"z 'y •I°.''<s y^•" is
l% It,.
i�f�'£es31'
,,
COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: 64
UNUM Better Benefits at Work
Cindy Ducuara
14
28
17.5
9
0,
'' °3g,,,"
€fit ?I'..#
3
Jair Espinoza
14
25
16
9
0
It; ' §N"' 'S3i' r.�^„ g;� y'£<
;.€€£€##n.�!G�F.a.r.;�'„�i�...a;>;�r:
f=
apron
L may.
Carolyn Greaves
15
28
15
6
0€fs
COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: 65.5
Minnesota Life
Cindy Ducuara
14
29
20
8
0
,}}g}�7�"',,,,`•3y't�K�`;£�
ak'`€� 1 W. as
;wg''sq¢$,t ��a€`
1
Jair Espinoza
15
28
19
7
0
Carolyn Greaves
15
30
20
10
0'',j`.II'`t`f#:t{,;,$y3??.k`,�'.,.,"�',€��',�.
COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: 71.66666667
Standard Insurance Company
Cindy Ducuara
14.5
29
18
10
0
Sn 1uIgt3i"'°`x
2
Jair Espinoza
14
26
15
10
0
#}t F£ }�,
Carolyn Greaves
15
25
11
10
0`€>fq?i�4i#
>;
COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: 65.83333333
emu` .
j
l ��
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT
RFP NO. 469353
LIFE AND AD&D PLANS
Iii"
Committee Meeting
Prop al Evaluation Form 4 ii
Date: II / i t-1 / J t.-j
IiPre
Evaluator:
Signature:
1 FTZg,D=',rv!,:,"fit
Evaluation
Technical
PROPOSERS
I
Qualifications,
Experience
and Financial
Stability
Benefits and
Additional
Enhancements
Communications
, Enrollment
Capabilities,
Claims
Administration,
Account
Management,
and Banking
Overall Plan
Costs and Rate
Guarantee
Local
Preference, if
applicable
TOTAL
SCORE FOR
TECHNICAL
RANK
'�s
Ia��M
'l
, ' ' `' .:
ea2
,u
Cigna
1 LA
C
UNUM Better Benefits at Work
I LI
1-4
Securian-Minnesota Life
1 9
acii
,,,?0
?
Standard Insurance Company
1 1--‘l • 5
l1 (6
i
0
6
RFP Evaluation Criteria Scoring Matrix: Scoring of ev
+�i 4ant.
y',
I`a� (..
,,{ i
i.+AVa.
re (;�[ro4 5n-sd
`?I, yr 2
Ft YN�
i�Y2 ;i+P ,yyJf
o Y }[/y
{ M ifX t� °�pih�'!
fiy
1' l I I
1
l�!t
i
IY
J, U'91i41B
r�'k.,�
+ty1.'
a j:£G „tr
b r
La'Nk j��4. v�'`M .N
l sV�l���i
.roql,
I'
1l
�F d.
14 4n1.S
,t ki
I
a
,kip
:+15'
.7
A1,
�u,�iP:
d'
P
�t
-
I yhp
'l;b
.y N..
�yy'I % �
I: R, In
,(y
1,0
iil3tlrY.'
,. - atl
ln�`71 1
�WM)B t.l
r, *i�
�1 rI (
fi.
�Y
'
1. .I
L M
�N�,I'�r,l'1F11eYtldy�{5v
I
pniN
.�I
,�+�dt re
y�
1, �;14't
�" F C14v ' .py d�aJ, r�
p��
� l{IE.i'yI5t�!1d"
.LI,'F9tf
l "i1t, ', II
N:. i l,4HN'I���
�� ),,, 7.��,1�
1 f
r...
p r��
�4 6
r.
'
Yfl,
-..
IrN%
-. ...
f 2 ' I�I
�i I',
d �•p'
�N `y''�
......
�,.
?P I��y�I��
;I y
......
,�.
411
'�7
'.
II
4,
...
W;
•v.�..
3 14
,;,,,;q��
�
4'gy 'Y
s..�. eu eees .�a.a ec
15 Points Max
Scoring Criteria
ee eee tICUIU LCIY UCII
20 Points Max
Scoring Criteria
Adjective
.45IN. '1,� tIif
Description
Score
Score
Outstanding
Proposal meets requirements and indicates an outstanding approach and
13.5-15
18-30
Good
Proposal meets requirements and indicates a good approach and
12-13
16-17.5
Adequate
Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and
10.5-11.5
14-15.5
Unacceptable
Proposal does not meet requirements and is unacceptable.
0-10
0-13.5
RFP NO. 469353
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT LIFE AND AD&D PLANS
.
Evaluation Committee Meeting
Technical Proposal Evaluation Form
4 C L>/va/ '_ (i''e' y Date: //'/ ilt7e—O✓ Ve
Evaluator:
Signature:
a.,x ,ems/
___9�..6'2t',2i„
•
PROPOSERS
Qualifications,
Experience
and Financial
Stability
Benefits and
Additional
Enhancements
Communications
, Enrollment
Capabilities,
Claims
Administration,
Account
Management,
and Banking
Overall Plan
Costs and Rate
Guarantee
Local
Preference, if
applicable
TOTAL
SCORE FOR
TECHNICAL
RANK
,igoF�ll
_ .. .. ......... :. . .....,- ._. .. _....,. .., .......
_.L..1_..5u.., :...
7=1+� yc r
b"' ' , �
§�'r, a1nU0p
Cigna
/
8
/ 5
aigor
UNUM Better Benefits at Work
"'r
Securian- Minnesota Life
/ 5
6
..a., 0
/ 0'
0
Standard Insurance Company
/
o25"-s
/ 1
/ O
0
RFP Evaluation Criteria Scoring Matrix: Scoring of evaluation criteria to be completed in accordance with the rating scale immediately below.
!iN ii
�.G�I:sf-�
I� ��r'�0
or
7,.Ib��:
n 7
�R- _�,::,.
� �
�4Ii�h3r'�''Rg'i�.
:V�' 1(, hhfr�a:"i �'hi,°,9' '�s��.1J�.
i �'li l' i u�4T'y F.
�; n 1qU� Bl�@tall .L,+tia:.
,i�.
2���yyqq,,�
l,4i1J�
�U"yrl
N ,' s"�,r!`..F:
��",a
,. .4,9i
•d, v
! I
�`'�.
I �III<:
�.
.��,2
r P 4v'jji
� ��d�'
"w$s.7i"'
1.�-
�.,� �a��
�}
l ii. irn 1.
9I�1 1h '�liii
i.�
q r� ukw�J��E��
L'`,
�IG. n�ld� ��II7i
1 u q ]] @ IIryry
f�'�Ydw`�l"1'7N Fi'l71ry� N4�eJU��'�vr
rj:ter+..tit�rnR i
�� �13��I
�rr�£S85.ha fa�'�a�d Et; d,d.�ah4
�l y�
fir�q�i;"
''v�
�i`�
I
I.6;Y Jf
�";r,�r�
IaS Wan�rm
ni��431
I�f
�If
�i&
r
Ib%'...
�:p•.
�d
��t�
T'�i'
:l
_ ..
_
15 Points Max
Scoring Criteria
.
21DPoints Max
Scoring Criteria
Adjective
Description
Score
Score
Proposal meets requirements and indicates an outstanding approach and
Outstanding
understanding of the requirements,
13.5 15
18 30
Good
Proposal meets requirements and indicates a good approach and
understanding of the requirements.
12-13
16-17.5
Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and
Adequate
understanding of the requirements.
10.5-11.5
14-15.5
Unacceptable
Proposal does not meet requirements and is unacceptable.
0-10
0-13.5
RFP NO. 469353
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT LIFE AND AD&D PLANS
Evaluation Committee Meeting
Technical Proposal Evaluation Form h �/
C .. -/ f i 6S,O !/i(0 Z& Date: r/ y 11
Evaluator:
Signature:
�,� 9
PROPOSERS
Qualifications,
Experience
and Financial
Stability
Benefits and
Additional
Enhancements
Communications
, Enrollment
Capabilities,
Claims
Administration,
Account
Management,
and Banking
Overall Plan
Costs and Rate
Guarantee
Local
Preference, if
applicable
TOTAL
SCORE FOR
TECHNICAL
RANK
' ..:§, OF M
ry .r3
�O�n,/if
"IN,
... _ ,, , ..... .
; r: 4; •
e/
o,
�id{
Cigna
r(I
no s+AC cpi4)
a-v
l�'
9
-9,
UNUM Better Benefits at Work
A 5 / y
02�
/
..
9
--�"'
Securian Minnesota Life
Ar /
ces -6r4re-to
,ryr
s
.,
3pges
r? CIS
111 9/1j4�y1(~s kg**
4, V
OA
•I. �"
.....:.._... ..
w .. _ ..._.,__
Standard Insurance Company
GS / y
d-6.
/�
l V 3r5
RFP Evaluat'on Criteria Scoring Matrix: Scoring of evaluation criteria to be completed in accordance with the rating scale immediately below.
�+��:vYia"r"JY;.i
r
',.
y;lrV�f
#'i,
I.
s. r
"
4�
t
�VII{,,''
i{ , 't
y�'," ;`'i,�y4'
,i h
25'
.
4
h;�
JVi(i�Pl;.;�i
i�
4��,,:.�i.'.
� � i t:
� u�d
r� •i��(,I
jet.
�''�4' III ..,F
�
{G
�cr
`�."rlk'�1
Y'F
��
Y{'iil,
C,u
1i4
C' d?.'F
! i
rr ?.81
yir
ax
r.:.
k it
�. e�
4'
; V
�r iii
I...•.#i'
:�
ti" au- •�
IlgiY,BP
: 14,
,
a
1.
Il�1
�a �M1
I,fi, Il nr.s'll �,{!'•'.'F ie��ii�nyy.Ih
..,2� s ,�
` l�j�N I.;a. "�i�v
,I;p+��.;�1?t.h �.9
i. .�e'"dS.",..; .6 ,N�1'�: ,a
. 'a{ !$ �a . ,4ntlp
IAn�`.
to-
"'� f,�' a 7�•, dzl�,l
y�l..,.lr 1�''VI rp� ��
l� l • VEZrSI�;{:, 4��"•t`lt+rlll il, V
� h,� �� 1 1,1J 1
>'!, '�9�71 Y�. gr',:�..IVi2.�"'P�':.'°
9f,iar
y V(, tBI�. ,y�;ti
'r l�'fi1� X �1�
, ? .�
57' i �3 I
Z �1
�
k Ik •'
,; L {
I�
{V?r.
k
;:8
i='i1,'
;I
15 Points Max
ScoringCriteria
20 Points Max
Scoring Criteria
Adjective
Description
Score
Score
Outstanding
Proposal meets requirements and indicates an outstanding approach and
understanding of the requirements.
13.5 15
18-30
Good
Proposal meets requirements and indicates a good approach and
understanding of the requirements.
12-13
16-17.5
Adequate
Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and
understanding of the requirements.
10.5-11.5
14-15.5
Unacceptable
Proposal does not meet requirements and is unacceptable.
0-10
0-13.5