A Minimum Acceptable Score was also established for each Part in Sections B and C, based on all four Committee combined. If a Part in a members’ scores vendor’s proposal was scored below the Minimum Acceptable Score, no points were awarded for that Part. For the cost proposal Deloitte provided a summary of each financial result and vendor’s suggested point assignment, based on guidance provided by staff regarding the total points allocated to this portion of the proposal. Points for the cost proposal were assigned by allotting 100% of the points to the lowest cost vendor. The second lowest cost vendor received the portion of the total points that represents the difference in their costs from the lowest cost vendor. For example, if the second lowest cost vendor was 5% more expensive than the lowest cost vendor they would receive 95% of the possible points available. The same scoring arithmetic was used for each vendor. The following table shows the maximum points assigned for each Part. Maximum Points Awarded to Top Scoring Vendor(s) Section B Proposer Qualifications: – Part 1.0 Organization Capabilities 55 – Part 2.0 Staff Qualifications 40 – Part 3.0 Vendor References 55 – 150 Section B Total Points Section C Administrative Capabilities: – Part 1.0 Client, Member & Provider Services 70 – Part 2.0 System Capabilities 70 – Part 3.0 Claims Administration 60 – Part 4.0 Transition, Implementation & Turnover Plans 25 – Part 5.0 Formulary Management & Clinical Programs 100 – Part 6.0 Network Accessibility & Disruption 75 – Part 7.0 Medicare Part D 100 – 500 Section C Total Points 350 Section D Cost Proposal Total Points: – – 1,000 Total Overall Points Discussion In general, the vendors whose proposals were evaluated by the committee appear to be capable of administering the proposal was the Board’s programs. However, Navitus’ most thorough, and best addressed the specific needs of the Board, as illustrated by the scoring and point allocation shown in the table on the next page and in Attachment A.
A Minimum Acceptable Score was also established for each Part in Sections B and C, based on all four Committee members’ scores combined. If a Part in a vendor’s proposal was scored below the Minimum Acceptable Score, no points were awarded for that Part. For the cost proposal Deloitte provided a summary of each vendor’s financial result and suggested point assignment, based on guidance provided by staff regarding the total points allocated to this portion of the proposal. Points for the cost proposal were assigned by allotting 100% of the points to the lowest cost vendor. The second lowest cost vendor received the portion of the total points that represents the difference in their costs from the lowest cost vendor. For example, if the second lowest cost vendor was 5% more expensive than the lowest cost vendor they would receive 95% of the possible points available. The same scoring arithmetic was used for each vendor. The following table shows the maximum points assigned for each Part. Maximum Points Awarded to Top Scoring Vendor(s) Section B – Proposer Qualifications: Part 1.0 – Organization Capabilities 55 Part 2.0 – Staff Qualifications 40 Part 3.0 – Vendor References 55 Section B Total Points 150 Section C – Administrative Capabilities: Part 1.0 – Client, Member & Provider Services 70 Part 2.0 – System Capabilities 70 Part 3.0 – Claims Administration 60 Part 4.0 – Transition, Implementation & Turnover Plans 25 Part 5.0 – Formulary Management & Clinical Programs 100 Part 6.0 – Network Accessibility & Disruption 75 Part 7.0 – Medicare Part D 100 Section C Total Points 500 Section D – Cost Proposal – Total Points: 350 Total Overall Points 1,000 Discussion In general, the vendors whose proposals were evaluated by the committee appear to be capable of administering the Board’s programs. However, Navitus’ proposal was the most thorough, and best addressed the specific needs of the Board, as illustrated by the scoring and point allocation shown in the table on the next page and in Attachment A.
ETJJ7%20PBM%20Vendor%20Evaluation%20Redac_20101222.docx