Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Recommendation of Evaluation CommitteeCITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM Daniel J. Alfonso TO : City Manager FROM:: Thru: nnie Perez F'P Chief procurement Officer Yadissa Calderon, CPPB Chairperson, Evaluation mmittee September 4, 2015 DATE: Recommendation of Evaluation SUBJECT : Committee for RFP 495345 Employee Benefit Dental Plan REFERENCES: ENCLOSURES: FILE : Based on the findings below, as the Chairperson of the Evaluation Committee (Committee) for the above services for the City of Miami, it is my responsibility to offer the recommendation of the Committee. On June 19, 2015, the Procurement Department (Procurement) issued RFP 495345 for Employee Benefit Dental Plan. Nine (9) of the ten (10) proposals received on July 27, 2015, were deemed responsive. The Committee, appointed by the City Manager, met on September 4, 2015, and was comprised of the following individuals: 1. Angella Breadwood, Claims Manager, Risk Management Department, City of Miami (COM) 2. Eddie Beecher, Risk Manager, City of Pompano Beach 3. Sonya Bridges, Risk Manager, City of Miami Beach 4. Jair Espinoza, Group Benefits Manager, Risk Management Department, COM 5. Latasha Nickle, Claims Manager, City of South Miami The Committee has completed the evaluation of the nine (9) proposals deemed responsive pursuant to the guidelines published in the solicitation. The final average scores are as follows: Proposer Average Score* 1. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co. 87.7 2. United Healthcare Insurance Co. 82.7 3. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. 82.2 4. Humana Insurance Co. 73.5 5. Delta Dental Insurance Co. 70.7 6. Aetna Life Insurance Company 65.1 7. Solstice Benefits Inc. 61.6 8. United Concordia Insurance Co. 51 9. Assurant Employee Benefits 44.2 *Average score represents the sum of all individual scores divided by five (5) (Committee Members). Refer to the attached Summary of Evaluation Form for Technical Proposal. The Committee scored Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co.'s (Cigna) proposal as the top -ranked firm. The Committee further recommends that the City enter into contract negotiations with Cigna, should contract negotiations fail with Cigna, that the City begin negotiation with the second highest -ranked firm, United Healthcare Services, Inc. (United Healthcare). Should contract negotiations fail with United Healthcare, the Committee further recommends that the City begin negotiation with the third highest -ranked firm, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (MetLife). Should contract negotiations fail with MetLife, the Committee recommends to 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,,; 1 Date: f - -7 Daniel J. City Manager DP tar) RFP No. 495345 SUMMARY EVALUATION FORM FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EMPLOYEE BENEFIT DENTAL PLAN PROPOSERS EVALUATORS Proposer's Organization, Qualifications, Capabilities and Financial Stability Proposed Network and. Plan(s) Designs Customer Services, Baking, Reporting Capabilities, and Benefit Administration Price and Cost Effectiveness Performance Guarantees Local Preference, if applicable TOTAL SCORE FOR TECHNICAL RANK ... ., �. a,... ..."... ...,ram .. �rw o e ... , u ... ..�w;:as..... .�...:.... .:..." .:. ,,. a ..,.,,;:,'�:E�,cam`s,..��.w<utVr"�s„�m.Y;...r�..,o _.. ,. �". ...w:... .,,w.v, ,a,,. s: ".. .. �.. ..F..� .. ,.. . :£:aS' .......:."::..fc.`:...ha ., �izs'<..:.i�i:'r.u.,.n�,..�o,.�.:�rrT:A .. ..�,. .. .,,.Y < .., r,.,,3^;/ ..,.,:A:. ,. F,..,<>ft;..�,..�...?'... y t,Y, .; :.; } ..,.�.".:`f�nNn., : .. ,.A .. .w w,.""". �..t:.x.. ..... , c1k" ,. .,[ w..,....'�.�.. s{",:,,.ad' ds T�'`�":,._.'.•m3;:.,"6,;: .. . x ., .9;3. �.i? Mm .. .0 ...V."...:/:`� .d .. .. &e'F, ". �: :: w:�.... .'11�.", s,..a:s.... , 15 . yr ..q,. :.,.:.c,.., .! :,,.:., >..,....:s'�r:.«:, ..�".,, _.`.:,.,. ; �:.,„ ;:.e..... 12 �,x;35yh;« !'": �...'w•'�'.`5•."..i:,,t .-%s.��Sr ;�'.:, ., ., R. ... .�... ,,..: ..s ." 3 �h'S:,� �k ........� .... <:Y;.... , ''u�' u.;�?„� 0 �..x,«=,m,;:y„ A: "Y. n�7%". "P'�� ...,�h!.... %:.. ?r;, "'� '.rk€,5`Z`s•s .. wry,,: ..k: !/.,« ..:5 .. 6 AETNA Breadwood; Angella Beecher. Eddie 12 10 15 22- 18 22 5 0 Bridges, Sonya 125 18.5 13.5 18.5 25 0 Espinoza, Jair 12 17 13 19 3 0 Nickel, Latasha 14 15 10 20 3 0 p.,r . sYsibur;: COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL 65.1 ASSURANT Breadwood; Angella Beecher, Eddie 6 5 6 5 0 0 9 10 15 10 20 0 0 Bridges, Sonya 11 15 10 12 0 O,°S1£.4=uAjj'gi(.9?�s'rv.'•`:�.%� Espinoza: Jair 9 12 10 15 0 0 r�„e''Oz„s4,z"•'xr'aks`.•.°�.',�' Nickel, Latasha 14 8 8 20 0 0 ';;<.'?'x'.�`,�.•.t}`5",�,c.%';. COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: 44.2 CIGNA Breadwood, Angella Beecher, Eddie 14 24 20 27 4 0 % ' � ,} � f, .,"• '46 .�, 15 23 19 25 5 0 Bridges, Sonya. 14 21.5 19.5 28 4 0 Espinoza, Jair 14 24 19 27 3.5 0 Nickel, Latasha 14 23 20 28 3 0 COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL' 87.7 DELTA Breadwood, Angella Beecher, Eddie 13 20 17 25 4 0 5 13 21 15 23 4 0 a„3a Bridges, Sonya 10 19 17 22 3.5 0 y16�'F y.;?.';'yr"i'�,s:a?:r';F?s Espinoza, Jair 9 17 14 19 3 0 '! Nickel, Latasha 14 10 15 23 3 0 �. �' COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNIC:AL PROPOSAL: 70.7 HUMANA Breadwood, Angella Beecher, Eddie 12 22 17.5 20 3.5 0 14 22 17 25 3 0 Bridges, Sonya 125 22 14 23 25 0 x„ ,?z 4 Espinoza, Jair 13.5 23 18 26 3 0 Nickel. Latasha 13 10 10 19 2 0 COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL' 73.5 METLIFE Breadwood, Angella Beecher, Eddie 14 24 18 26 4 0 ,. ; 15 22 17 25 4 0 Bridges, Sonya 13 22 17 24 4 0 Espinoza, Jair 14 23 17 24 4 0 Nickie, Latasha 14 23 16 23 4 0 COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: 822 SOLSTICE Breadwood, Angella Beecher, Eddie 8 13 9 22 c 0 10 15 16 25 3 0 � "'i�' ��ao?,„��.�r% z;:•w�;.y7•-:;:«:�s e;✓. s.sx1' 7 Bridges, Sonya 10 125 12 23 25 0 Espinoza, Jair 11 16 18 20 3.5 0 iSi i • y. Nickie. Latasha 10 16 10 18 2.5 0 COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: 51.6 UNITED CONCORDIA DENTAL Breadwood, Angella Beecher, Eddie 10 12 9 20 2 0 Eti"-H 31'" 10 15 10 22 3 0 Bridges, Sonya 7.5 12 10 12 25 0 ''%%�t'<F'y;'S'yw�..'3, 8 Espinoza, Jair - 8 12 10 18 3 0 Nickie, Latasha 13 8 8 15 3 0 COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: 51 UNITED HEALTHCARE Breadwood, Angella Beecher, Eddie 14 24 19 26 4 0 �... ;.F s<.'..' •.:{:'�;i w, "�r•�. �;_ 13 23 17 23 4 0 Bridges, Sonya 14.5 72_5 ' 17 28.5 4.5 0 Espinoza, Jair 14 23 19 26 3.5 0>�$ Nickie, Latasha 14 22 15 20 3 0 COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: Evaluator: Signature: RFP NO. 495345 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT DENTAL PLAN Evaluation Committee Meeting Technical P,eposal Evaluation 'on Form )�ef✓tDate 1 PROPOSERS Proposer's Organization, Qualifications, Capabilities and Financial Stability Proposed Network and Plan(s) Designs Customer Services, Baking, Reporting Capabilities, and Benefit Administration Price and Cost Effectiveness Performance Local Preference, Guarantees if applicable TOTAL SCORE FOR RANK TECHNICAL a Aetna Assurant Cigna Delta Humana MetLife Solstice United Concordia Dental United HealthCare 12- IQ 13 L±iL..........�y I� 13 p I (;? i o _(-3 0 I� P3 9-9 a6 Li n. A& 0 RFP Evaluation Criteria Scoring Matrix: Scoring of evaluation criteria to be completed in accordance with the rating scale immediately below. "�'•';,.�. '.°+",.<• hi h.- .�..o„�rsw:;> : gf` .•s ,;a -..- ..):,» .n.H:::r..<::.,. .xxo�.�✓gi«.,..<�:,.F..,.,q✓a�,... .nnx.s,f,...l.rs�. u..sf.,,s>4s�.s. 3Y.�..:.v.ia..wy. .,tr..G.n.w.�m.s{n�......+...-..>fi...:.,.n�...,.'g.,....�....'',,.. ,..w.....,.Da.,�..,>�n:$s ....r:.,.».',<, . a�:•x.^> ,`uz' . ! ems; F NxxiT�"�i>+R^Hs; ) ( � 7 '", :�:, ' 5};,:g:, fir'. :.^'•'�,,::: :>-':.: .^;s•: :,...�..: � .:•>x.r.3• ,✓;.:',.e:ii,sd.. ':.;i,;f....s}<.s',dR��.,.;�•.._i.a..'<..<..L<.u/s<a•.s?..?.,.a3..�..4»`i..h.r<u . >& �.4..e;...a<,a�n ; IS Points Max Scoring Criteria Score 30 Points Max Scoring Criteria Score Adjective Description 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 Evaluator: Signature: RFP NO. 495345 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT DENTAL PLAN „�- ,.Y,: ;,:.. ;:. :» ..:EMMA.s:.:: a �. —o fir. N ... z...�._::�.bc«�.�uo�:>k:..,,r...,nrm:::w._........ .:..:.�:o(.u. v)hzh::.,fes:.er>rCxsuvsss;a ... .. ... Evaluation Committee Meeting cict f� J,TAGOInical Pro osal Evaluation Form Date: CI Ll PROPOSERS Proposer's Organization, Qualifications, Capabilities and Financial Stability Proposed Network and Plan(s) Designs Customer Services, Baking, Reporting Capabilities, and Benefit Administration Price and Cost Effectiveness Performance Local Preference, Guarantees if applicable TOTAL SCORE FOR TECHNICAL RANK Aetna 5 za I Assurant /Q 5" /_ 0 2_ 0 Cigna Delta Humana MetLife Solstice United Concordia Dental United HealthCare /5 2 /5 22_ 3 . Z3 15 2-3 17 25 3 /! 2S // 1 25 /0 22. 3 3 ( 7 Z3 I-1 0 RFP Evaluation Criteria Scoring Matrix: Scoring of evaluation criteria to be completed in accordance with the rating scale immediately below. :.. . �. :.,..✓✓;;..:r:r�.•,e,..,..r,..e t 7.'Yrk. :h;.. `Cr�. . 'Ff �' .?.s, qq,.,. vr:n' . .,. ,..,,, .:. .. .., ,....F'; /e.¢���ti �.sR, �, .,, ^I^.:..... .r,✓,. f '4'.. k^s' : ;,,,. _. .'f. 35• :..:,...;n.:r:.,. '`'�''e' Cr ,. '^ss. „.,"-; ,5=, , ��;,,.�•�, �., ,,..: s ,.� ,.fy.,..... :: /. .,., ,: .. .. -r. £,....,a.rk:.1.'...^. rr✓csi .. .:.w.,....., } ... :£'..+' . .,,s'�>::, ,. Yi '.<:, ;�`+3 3 �,.," L,Y i' 'i`i' k:.'a& :��k_: ,.Rs'i ..: m;,:;,.:�wr 3'"+�i' r::3} :>•� w>>3iiY ).F F 3i:, i . $'J�a) `s Y, fizr'}yr%q;>:s'S; .o;;. .�?` e..v�rsi .Q`;s<:uw/fssr �' �'�Points .,:.w.... o-..,.ess/../.� ��..: � s� >,.,:::.� E.< .,o, N� . )'4£ ..<.....,,.�..=;x.a.�.r...r� c.�C3r'�,;Fly{ �u '. a3n.rc o.. t, .. ..:�. .�..�� ... .. .... ... :..n. `ram^:'��+��,5� .. `i ",a :5b ..<F �...=s^�:sa: a,. ,� .u....:�«:.q".'�NsnsyS;v.. ..:i^:?.�K,.. r,=,n:»3.3.i����. � 'y ^,T x,3;y`+�xnY. M. � . ,. e5 �r f.n,. , hK,S; ,,,,,�<„> ....,.>ba. :rw.,,,. . .,':s'r,.: 5::'z:: ..""` : ,:., "`.,:u x"", _:xh;''.c%%,:'T-%'a%:SY,,. n,'wS+F'. 3.' g"•: :.s ` a, ae,,,s ....f, , :::3^5. : �' ., i . � <g c..� � � '>y' � •:� arc y� �,;: �a33=r;q.,�5„ .x. „� _= n5�.�a F . '..z. ^ ..,4.'s� 4 ...X. .. .s ......nw`:.. ..,. ...r .. .... .. .......... .....:... .,,:. ri.:r:r:...,. ..s............. .nv, .....,�:. ,,.../..:..,: ,,::,,� ,<,^aG ........ .....,.._..,, .�.. ...,...5�. ��,,., a... . .... ...N t F........ ro .....:. ?' fy.. S .......... �w,= 15 Points MaxMaxS[Orin g Criteria 30 o is Max ScoringCriteria 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 Evaluator: $ -e Signature: RFP NO. 495345 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT DENTAL PLAN Evaluation Committee Meeting Teobnical proposal Evaluation Form rt C Date: PROPOSERS Proposer's Organization, Qualifications, Capabilities and Financial Stability Proposed Network and Plan(s) Designs Customer Services, Baking, Reporting Capabilities, and Benefit Administration Price and Cost Effectiveness Performance Guarantees Local Preference, TOTAL SCORE if applicable FOR RANK TECHNICAL Aetna Assurant mr-g3 *Rip 12- 5 is-- 5 13- 5 r• 11 [0 (,z Cigna Delta 16L5 10 c 17 S -s- Humana F k MetLife 7 Solstice ID a3 United Concordia Dental 5 la )D 2,5 United HealthCare it-f.5 2\)--S '7 LE, S RFP Evaluation Criteria Scoring Matrix: Scoring of evaluation criteria to be completed in accordance with the rating scale immediately below. �w......:,.:.G:<.:•.t:.. 'r.d.k�:.. ,',s^ .....u. ...yc .r...r...�;..., n.}.�.X..,.i. .w.iJ. „J' , ...:,f:.i..n<,.i//<.:., F: .<� rd^.�.,..r... a:".`<<.Fn> .:y..u>....x�.. /'<...,./J.::c::?.<:.r; .:.x..!a.:%,.r. „c<..»fiJv,„rYN..,,<G:.r.'Y,.is:.:^.,,%:�:.':..,:...•, <x..:x:.r`.E.,.<.:�:n:,.... f<...,%.r^..}l.,:..,,s,+n:n.^3..<, a.'3..�v. .> J.<' n.�..:<...E.su., .. .. a r . IN .... . :. ....:...:... .....:...n., u .. .. .. n.. "�'� ,.. .< .... .. . x ., .a..l : ......:..... ....^.... ,:J.,,,:, ,, _..ter, ,.. ,... ... :...........<.,�.�..... :3=' `xf/�.rsn,....:..:....::...nn... �:?.�.,.`�`.�`..%<`>x..,.. <�..,,.,..:..,:... ns...,.......K,:. ;..>,.<,.:.'..s::r. y. >. �.<. �,•.P.. 'rr .,» :�E?Eyn,>.v. .u.,4,;,:<:x .. ..,....a.... ..,y•.» :scF».:....... `rs.s..,...r..n..F.n... ..r. �.,..'\,'s4. .u:.r.a..:•.}..<.c:.x.>..J... . :,PE, >• } .�.' .a,.s,.:a<...,s<w.i.,....,n.F.�....:..:.. ,:, ., .^r:...,..::.3/...>.„.8...>.y..<r:.,V.....>i,a»+.,.d.hq.>...:.a.:.M•...h»...Z :�..^..w. .:.3.:.n.< ......X. ...... .':, ..>.., ax.....o• :,::'.'s"'i: .r'^3"< >s#'s .:.... ...,. irn ,. X .. <..<'Q'<<L ...... .... ^:<...J ...... .». ^.,.<..:.33. .., .........' >......%'%>...<......: ....fix <ay. ........, ..V x<.v ,irys......,.....,.,^..... ...:..... :. .........✓....... ... .., n. '�v a:.. J.J, e<�Y�.s:. z. ...:. ...•............:... ... .. ..m ....� .. ..>..... ri.:..... ........ . 1. Ss.a ..s:.< •x �>...<.:.:..a».»,.>.. ...... f. .:: ..r. ...:.:: a:,, .�... ,.. .: R::n: >.... .... .....:... :s«as •cs.>c.,�x' •-'�"r`' n PS Points Max Scoring Criteria 30 Points Max Scoring g 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 Evaluator: Signature: RFP NO. 495345 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT DENTAL PLAN ezwek»,... '.:.,>....•x„:x.a:..:.->awsrnm:r.".`�g�.'.�:wF�,nra'�M..::. Evaluation Committee Meeting Tecrhinical Prop esal Evaluation Form err c Date: 61/ 5 PROPOSERS Humana MetLife Solstice United Concordia Dental Proposer's Organization, Qualifications, Capabilities and Financial Stability ustomer Proposed Services, Baking, Network and Reporting Price and Cost Plan(s) Capabilities, Effectiveness Designs and Benefit Administration Performance Guarantees Local Preference, TOTAL SCORE FOR TECHNICAL if applicable RANK United HealthCare /7 3 RFP Evaluation Criteria Scoring Matrix: Scoring of evaluation criteria to be completed in accordance with the rating scale immediately below. a k ..;nr.^•.,;<;se.. ......i`..0 ..::.w ..:....._. .... ..,J. .. . ar: <.......�, . .. .... ..€n �i .�... .. Y . .. n:..n: ..: ..... .,J ... ....,Y.' ,... ,<a. ........,� ...... .. ..L ...., r..... ... :�•; ::� ,bs....i: z...« .,.. ..<. .r ;,, ,...,. ... ..s <... .,. s,........ �»<. ,i .�......,.,.... s:»,� ,.,>.,..,....,,� `�°Y.::..��as,.» ., .,., n. ... ...... .. ....<,,.._.uJ . ., ...... ,., ,.. ... ,...,. �' . J........C., - c>, ..:..r.......�,,.., ......>.,....J,,..,.., a.,� >!... ..: r.,.c.>-...,,. :, ... .J'�....Y .i... 5. . ..: ., w.n. �"X;,.?�:..,<..v>ma,a�,s.»...`><r"K'<...:3'..,�i3.:..,,. .. 3 sr, ..3. sl^: .3a, fa ,,...... ...<... .. .. s .. .......: .s ..::, ..3� :>;,r, «a', ,»,. <.:,r.. ._, a .......,,.< ...,.. ._ .<..... .. .. .. .........?rh?.......3'.. ,.z•- ..v .< 't!r'c., ...e!w1.£,... ...e ....... .... : .. .. ... ..:...s..fby. u..;<n .. �.^,r....>.».....>:.:.,.a� :.:cc..,.rn::��:cc ... �. ..... : r...., y.� .,......,;� .... ..,.., .. <,:. a .. .. . r<. .,s;;;.o,•;•»s .•,.>. nnn.>:ua::•...ss:.�. .y.. �ar� h�erY3s'ss "r tx>a'.o>. ,...F. .,,._.a ....... ., r� ..s,e....a....i,.... ..,..,M .r, ,.6. ,...c......rx£. ";..s,......s'si.<.. w. :, N.... ........... #. .::..< .3 w. <.... .. ...... .. „..`�..... .,.......4..:.,.. .. : �a...s£.s ;.:dff 's'.£G�r'�.::v •.«.. :, s„W.....,: ,.ram }t � �a„ ... •, - ,...'�:,s iRnv ...,', i :� .. �,_.. .. .r, .,..:, ».< .��G•"..> .,s s.?s.n : ,....,rs;s'.' w,n f' .,;.., ,. .,:...:,,».�;,,, . i-•,..:..,.: a.ai<..:'�M <! .:<:..,:,..:..J:i;-�-> .£ ..� .,..r, vmx..... r. . o..t.. i.. ... ._,x;S:.:...:>. � s ,:..a,.. „„<,.. . ..`.`<.. .,.:.�:.C..:' ':..:iC. w...J: �.,:.y..<..,..:,... '/ ... .., ..., r.>..,:T...<......n.ss✓.?.......sn..........x ................�....,,.n•n'xN, ,...s;h c ,;.,,,S�t. ....... ,........F� .. ... ::;h�>'e?>r.�... ...,..,,» Description 15 Points Max Scoring30 Criteria Score Points Max Scoring Criteria B Score Adjective 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 14-155 Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and is unacceptable. 0-10 0-13.5 22,7,?:,'ENZMWASMTS.521Et. PROPOSERS Evaluator: Signature: Proposer's Organization, Qualifications, Capabilities and Financial Stability RFP NO. 495345 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT DENTAL PLAN ---mgnms---,fRragaz4z6",aciturzw.aummme,,, Evaluation Committee Meeting TechnicatProposal Evaluation Form L-i0,Lc_ /0 ..r-t-e Custom r Services, Baking, Proposed Reporting Network and Price and Cost Capabilities, Plan(s) Effectiveness and Benefit Designs Administration ',E./...V.BEERMEERMEEMMUME„ ,m,r,e,mar, • Date: 1 Performance Guarantees Guarantees TOTAL SCORE Local Preference, FOR if applicable TECHNICAL RANK Aetna 1 Li 14- 12111,215142113,1,11k -1,051.1NOVIMESPROMIZIO4 3 Ae.;.:7-7,41C,:"0, Assurant Cigna Delta Humana t I L-( JL4 13 ej 3 I0 z� 0 I b 0 3 / te) 1 MetLife Solstice z4 I LP 1 t> United Concordia Dental 1 3 United HealthCare ers 3 RFP Evaluation Criteria Scoring Matrix: Scoring of evaluation criteria to be completed in accordance with the rating scale immediately below. ,,,, , 0,',.' „, ..4. .„ ,-, : .,,w ''..,,, v ,., A*4 ' ••;'.. 't %,,,, AA lr '.i.' i A .'g '''',,, •Te4:60' , ,,.., -0-A. ., vA- :,, *,, ,:i; W.,?,,r 1, ,7 ,-,- . ",..147 ,:,.., f., .30'" •vA5*: . • 15 Points Max Scoring Criteria Score 30 Points Max Scoring Criteria Score Adjective Description 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