Hillsborough County evaluators discuss three health-plan bids, record preliminary scores on pricing and operations

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY — A county evaluation committee continued deliberations on RFP24-24912 on a virtual meeting that reviewed three proposals to administer the county's self-funded employee health benefits, recording preliminary consensus scores on pricing and operations and flagging several technical gaps the committee asked staff to resolve before final recommendation.

The committee, chaired by Tom Fessler, the county’s chief financial administrator, discussed written proposals from Aetna, Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company and UnitedHealthcare and heard a side‑by‑side review and clarifications from Baldwin Group consultants. “This is the evaluation committee meeting of possible scoring for request for proposal, RFP24-24912,” procurement chief buyer Sakina Ford told attendees at the start of the session.

Why it matters: the committee’s work narrows which vendor(s) will be recommended to the board for award and shapes the terms (rate guarantees, administrative-service fees, pharmacy provisions and the use of vendor-provided financial credits) that will affect the county’s cost and employee experience for a plan the county pays directly as a self-funded employer.

What the committee did and where it landed

- Scoring. The committee recorded preliminary consensus scores for the 15-point Pricing and Discounts category, with Cigna receiving 13 points, UnitedHealthcare 12 and Aetna 11. In the 5-point Qualifications and Experience category the committee placed all three vendors at the top of the scale (5 points each). For the 15-point Reporting/Integration and Implementation category the group reached a working consensus of Cigna 14, Aetna 14 and UnitedHealthcare 10. These numbers were recorded as the committee’s current consensus for those evaluation buckets and will be confirmed before scores are finalized.

- Documentation gaps and clarifications requested. Committee members and technical advisers repeatedly flagged missing or inconsistent materials in the written proposals: one vendor uploaded an incorrect file where an implementation plan was expected, at least one vendor’s pharmacy-cost summary used inconsistent member counts across year and multi‑year calculations, and another vendor declined or did not commit to certain weekly or discrepancy reports that the county currently uses. Baldwin Group consultants advised the committee that while vendors may have offered clarifications verbally during interviews, the written proposals are the baseline for scoring; errors in submitted calculations may be called out in the evaluation record but not corrected by staff without asking vendors to resubmit.

Key discussion points

- ASO fees and credits. Consultants walked the committee through administrative‑services‑only (ASO) fees, the length of vendors’ rate guarantees and how each bidder proposed to fund value‑add programs (on‑site clinics, wellness, behavioral health, etc.) with annual or one‑time credits. Committee members emphasized that the total employer cost is a composite of the ASO fee plus expected claims — and that some vendors combined clinic and wellness costs differently, complicating one‑line comparisons.

- Pharmacy pricing. The group spent substantial time on pharmacy pricing and rebate pass‑throughs. Consultants noted that one vendor’s three‑year repricing numbers appeared inflated because the proposer used inconsistent enrollment/member counts; the committee agreed to treat the annual net employer cost as the more comparable figure for scoring. Committee members also discussed differences in formulary management and whether vendors would provide “one‑time grandfathering” for members on medications affected by a formulary change; Cigna indicated it would provide some grandfathering, while others did not commit, a distinction the HR team said matters for member continuity.

- Reporting and integrations. Technical advisers stressed the county’s need for weekly claims and discrepancy reporting and for data formatted to support downstream systems (eligibility, payroll, pharmacy). Committee members flagged that Aetna’s written response indicated limitations for some custom reports the county currently receives, while Cigna committed to provide the county’s existing reports and UnitedHealthcare’s written materials omitted a clear commitment to the discrepancy report the county uses now.

- Implementation and operational details. The committee noted that one vendor’s submitted “implementation plan” file did not contain the Gantt chart or attachments listed in the plan, so the evaluation team could not fully score that vendor on implementation milestones. Consultants said implementation timelines are typically negotiable but that the written plan is used for scoring.

Clarifying details recorded in the meeting

- The county’s current wellness funding from the incumbent provider was stated as $211,000 annually and is used for programs such as WellBeats and other wellness programming. - A utilization exhibit in the proposal documents showed 1,128 FSA participants and 2,527 HSA participants for a prior year; technical advisers stated current monthly HSA enrollment is roughly 25,100 (approximate, used for PEPM calculations) and an approximate 1,400 active FSA participants reported verbally by staff. - Consultants said implementation of a new contract could take roughly seven to eight months; the procurement timeline aims for a board recommendation by the end of February and then implementation following award.

What the committee asked staff to do next

Committee members directed staff and the Baldwin Group consultants to: (1) flag and document apparent errors or omissions in proposers’ submitted calculations (for example, inconsistent three‑year pharmacy repricing numbers) so that the committee’s record reflects those discrepancies; (2) request corrected or supplemental written materials where a proposer clearly submitted the wrong attachment (for instance, an implementation plan missing Gantt charts); and (3) confirm which vendor commitments made in interview presentations were also present in the written submissions, so scoring reflects proposal text rather than verbal clarifications.

What was not decided

No formal award or final scoring was adopted at the meeting. The committee did not take a binding vote to select a recommended vendor; members repeatedly emphasized that final scores will be verified and that scoring may be revisited when corrected or supplemental materials are added to the procurement record.

Next steps

Procurement staff and the Baldwin Group will provide the committee updated materials and corrected exhibits where available, and the group will reconvene to finalize scores. Committee members were reminded that the county remains under a procurement “cone of silence” tied to the solicitation until award or cancellation, and that any technical clarifications must be captured in the public procurement record.