Hillsborough County committee finalizes scores for RFP‑25‑00033 disability benefits proposals

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY — During a virtual evaluation committee meeting, county staff and outside technical advisors reviewed reference checks and finalized consensus scores for Request for Proposals RFP‑25‑00033, for fully insured disability benefits for the county’s human resources department.

The committee — chaired by Tom Hessler and run by procurement chief buyer Sakina Ford — heard a presentation of reference-check results from Rosemary Kissell, then discussed pricing, technical approach and organizational qualifications before agreeing on final scores that will inform the county’s next procurement steps.

The Standard received the committee’s highest total score, 98 points; MetLife totaled 84 points; and OCHS, Inc., on behalf of Madison National Life, totaled 78 points. Committee members confirmed those consensus scores at the meeting’s close and signed a final scoring sheet for the procurement record.

Why it matters: The scoring will be used by procurement staff as part of the county’s selection process for the fully insured short‑ and long‑term disability benefits contract. The county’s cone of silence remained in effect during the meeting; procurement staff said the cone ends on the earlier of five business days after the county posts its notice of intent to award or the date the solicitation is canceled.

Reference checks and participation: Each proposer submitted five references as requested in the RFP. According to Rosemary Kissell’s presentation of the follow‑up questionnaire results, MetLife provided one responding reference (HealthFirst, Inc.), OCHS provided four responses (noting some responses covered life and long‑term disability rather than short‑term disability), and The Standard provided three responding references, including the City of Dallas, the City of Orlando and Santa Clara County. Kissell read respondents’ ratings of implementation, contract compliance, communication and overall satisfaction; she reported that the Standard and MetLife references rated their carriers highly on implementation and service.

Key discussion points: Committee members focused on three decision factors: pricing and discounts (category 1), technical approach and understanding of the scope (category 2), and proposer qualifications and references (category 3). The committee also noted whether proposals included rate guarantees, how carriers would handle data feeds and enrollment interfaces, and whether carriers would issue W‑2s and pay applicable FICA for benefit payments during the transition period.

• Rate guarantees: Committee members emphasized that The Standard’s proposal included a multi‑year rate guarantee, which several members described as valuable for budgeting. The committee discussed a 7% figure mentioned for years 4 and 5 in the Standard proposal during the meeting record; committee members said a known cap on future rate increases would help the county forecast costs.

• Administrative capabilities and integration: Several members raised concerns that MetLife and OCHS lacked the same level of interface integration offered by The Standard. Committee members said limited integration would increase county staff workload because county teams would need to provide enrollment and payroll data and handle additional manual reconciliation.

• W‑2s and payroll/FICA handling: The record shows the committee discussed that MetLife and OCHS would not provide W‑2 statements to employees for benefit payments and would not pay FICA for the first six months of certain benefit payments; The Standard was noted as providing W‑2s and an on‑site specialist in reference comments, which committee members characterized as reducing county workload.

Committee scoring and next steps: The committee applied the published criteria: category 1 (pricing and discounts; monthly premium rates proposed), category 2 (understanding of scope, technical approach and work plan) and category 3 (organization qualifications and references). Category 4 (DM/DWBE bonus points) was not applied; procurement staff reported that none of the three proposers requested the DM/DWBE bonus points, so all received zero in that category. After discussion and individual scoring, the committee reconvened and confirmed the agreed consensus scores: The Standard 98, MetLife 84, OCHS (Madison National Life) 78. Procurement staff said they will print and have committee members sign the final scoring sheet, then proceed with the procurement process according to county rules.

What was not decided: The committee made no award during the meeting and did not make a formal motion to select a vendor; the meeting record shows only finalized evaluation scores. Any notice of intent to award, contract award, or further negotiations will be handled in subsequent procurement steps and are subject to the cone‑of‑silence and other procurement rules noted in the solicitation.

The meeting closed after the committee confirmed the scores and procurement staff indicated how the final scoring sheet would be signed for the record.