Insurance Programs
Introduction
From time to time, ESD 112 Insurance Programs releases a request for proposal. This page provides the related RFP documents and relevant answers for the application process. For questions, contact Peggy Sandberg, Director of Risk Management.
Request for Proposal for Actuarial Services
The Southwest Washington Risk Management Insurance Cooperative, a self-insured, self-administered property/casualty cooperative of 35 public school districts and related entities in Washington State, is soliciting proposals from qualified firms to perform actuarial services for a five-year term commencing Sept. 27, 2010, with an option for three additional single year terms. The actuarial firm selected will conduct a solvency report as of the end of the fiscal year (by October 31st) and a rate setting report for the coming year (by March 31st) and provide other related services as requested. Proposals are due by September 10, 2010.
A copy of the RFP is found below.
For more information, please contact Peggy Sandberg, RFP Coordinator, at peggy.sandberg@esd112.org or 360.750.7504.
RFP for Actuarial Services - Questions and Answers
FOLLOWING ARE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FROM BIDDERS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE RFP COORDINATOR
Info 1 - There was an error in the RFP sent to some of you that listed two different due dates for the proposal. The corrected RFP is attached to this page. The proposals are due September 10, 2010 (not the 17th). We apologize for this error.
Q1: Should we be asking these questions via a different medium than email (fax, letter, etc.)?
A: Asking questions via email is the preferred method. Questions answered in this RFP process will be posted on this RFP website.
Q2: Who is the incumbent actuary?
A: PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is the incumbent actuary.
Q3: What are the annual professional fees charged by the incumbent actuary in fiscal year 2008-09, if this is public information?
A: We prefer to disclose this post award.
Q4: Are the professional services performed by the incumbent actuary the same, broader, or narrower than the scope of services contemplated in the RFP? If different (broader or narrower), would you provide the differences?
A: They are the same as what is currently being provided, with the exception of including information on ceded claims, which is a new requirement of the State Risk Manager.
Q5: Ref V.H. How many hours of SWRMIC staff are available for working with the service provider?
A: Whatever is needed. Generally, staff spends about 120 hours/year gathering and reviewing information for the actuary and reviewing actuary reports.
Q6: Ref V.H. Are the claims loss runs available in an electronic format? If yes, what data format (csv, txt, xls, etc.)?
A: Claims loss runs are available in Excel format (xls).
Q7: Will the final agreement be drafted by SWRMIC or can it be drafted by the service provider? If it were drafted by SWRMIC, would you be able to share the standard terms and conditions contemplated for this contract?
A: We generally use a standard contract template (copy attached below), which references the service provider’s proposal as the addendum. The agreement can be drafted by the service provider with our approval.
Q8: Ref VI. J. It appears that the RFP requires an unlimited indemnification by the service provider. Is that required by SWRMIC's statute or is it specific for this RFP? Can the maximum indemnification amount be specified, for example a) professional service fees, or b) $1 million, as implied by VI. K?
A: It is specific for this RFP and is somewhat negotiable. (Note: This answer was amended on 8/30/10 – see Q13 below.)
(Posted 8/20/10)
Q9: It appears that the SWRMIC self-funds for the property, general liability and auto liability coverages; however, there is also mention of the auto physical damage coverage in the RFP. Could you please confirm the coverages to be reviewed?
A: We have four categories of coverage: property; general liability; auto liability; and auto physical damage.
Q10: With regard to the due dates for the two analyses (the End-of-Year Solvency Review and the Rate-Setting Report), could you please confirm the due date for the draft and final version of each? There were a couple of different dates mentioned (for example, for the Solvency Review, a final date of November 1 is mentioned, as is a date of one week before the Executive Committee’s meeting in early December), so we just wanted to make sure that we had the correct dates reflected in our proposal.
A: November 1 is the date for final numbers to be presented to SWRMIC staff, the bound copies need to be received in the office at a minimum of one week before the Executive Committee meeting.
Q11: Are you at liberty to share the prior actuarial reports? This would permit us to address issues such as data credibility which may dictate methodologies that would be employed in a prospective analysis.
A: We are not providing prior actuary reports.
Q12: Can you let me know the average annual number of claims reported by coverage for property, GL and auto?
A: For FY 2008-09, SWRMIC has 74 reported claims as follows: APD (auto physical damage) – 16, AL (auto liability) – 11, PD (property damage) – 21, and GL (general liability) – 26. For FY 2009-10 to date, SWRMIC has 60 reported claims as follows: APD – 11, AL – 19, PD – 15, and GL – 15.
Q13: VI J. Can the Hold Harmless qualification be removed altogether? SWRMIC has a right to sue the vendor in the event of breach of contract under common law and our firm believes that the common law offers reasonable protection to both parties of the contract.
A: No. We want the Hold Harmless provision to remain as stated in the RFP. (This is a change from our answer provided on August 20th.) We believe that a company should indemnify its clients for its errors and omissions that damage its clients.
Q14: VI J. If the above answer is "No", can the Hold Harmless qualification be limited to indemnification for bodily injury and damage to tangible personal property arising out of the acts of vendor's employees in the performance of the professional services?
A: No.
Q15: VI K. Can the liability for vendor's misconduct (other than willful misconduct or fraud) be limited to the fees actually paid for the services rendered?
A: No.
Q16: III.C notes that the proposal will be incorporated by reference into any final agreement. Can the reference be limited to the Scope section of the Proposal only? Other sections of a proposal contain information extraneous to the contract (e.g. bios, references) and other generally imprecise marketing language that cannot be turned into the kind of narrow scope and legal representations required in a contract.
A: No, we want the entire proposal included as an addendum to the contract.
Q17: V.D. states that copies of actuarial reports will be given to the State Risk Manager’s Office and the State Auditor’s Office. Can we ask for confidentiality of these reports and that they would not be distributed further (beyond SWRMIC, State Risk Manager’s Office, and the State Auditor’s Office) without our consent?
A: No, as SWRMIC is a public agency, we cannot guarantee confidentiality of the actuarial reports or limiting of its distribution.
Q18: V.E. Can the working papers retention period be limited to a fixed time, for example 7 or 20 years?
A: If the actuarial firm requested of SWRMIC that working papers be destroyed at 20 years, this would probably be granted.
Q19: V.E. Can the access to working papers be limited to subpoenas arising out of legal disputes? At any time during the retention period, the actuarial report would be available to SWRMIC, but the working papers may include budget, work plan, copies of this discussion, and other information extraneous to the report.
A: No, working paper access should remain as stated.
Q20: Can the agreement be subject to Alternative Dispute Resolution arrangement (arbitration)?
A: If a dispute arises, ADR could be considered.
(Posted 8/30/10)