FROM: / Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”), Finance Division for Human Resources Division
ISSUE DATE: / November 3, 2005
SUBJECT/PURPOSE OF MEMO: / Request for proposals: Propose Workers’ Compensation claims administration services for the State of California’s judicial branch
ACTION REQUIRED: / You are invited to review and respond to the attached Request for Proposals (“RFP”):
Project Title: Workers’ Compensation TPA Program Consolidation
RFP Number: HR 0502
DUE DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF QUESTIONS: / Prior to submittal of proposals, questions may be submitted in writing no later than:
1:00 p.m. on November 22, 2005
SUBMISSION OF QUESTIONS: / Questions are to be submitted to the following email address:
PROPOSAL DUE DATE AND TIME: / Proposals must be received by:
1:00 p.m. on December 9, 2005
SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL: / Proposals must be submitted to:
Judicial Council of California,
Administrative Office of the Courts
Attn: Nadine McFadden
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NUMBERSECTION
IIntroduction
IIGeneral Rules Governing Requests for Proposals
IIIEvaluation Criteria and Process
IVProposal Submittal and Format Instructions
NUMBERATTACHMENT
1Contract Terms, including:
Exhibit A, Standard Provisions
Exhibit B, Special Provisions
Exhibit C, Payment Provisions
Exhibit D, Work to be Performed
2Cost Proposal Form
3DVBE Participation Form
4Reference Form
5Project Example Form
LETTERAPPENDIX
ACaliforniaJudicial Officers and Court Employees
BClaims Summary By Year
CCustom Claim Summary JBWCP Open Claims
DCustom Claim Summary JBWCP Closed Claims
EWorkers’ Compensation Claims TPAs for California Counties
END OF TABLE
Workers’ Compensation TPA Program Consolidation, RFP No. HR 0502
Page i
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
This Request for Proposals (RFP) is for a consolidated workers’ compensation program of Judicial Branch Workers’ Compensation Program (JBWCP) that will combine the two separate programs currently in existence for the judicial branch of the state of California. The two programs are: (1) the Judiciary Program (Judiciary) which includes the State Supreme Court and the six Courts of Appeal, Commission on Judicial Performance, Habeas Corpus Resource Center, Judicial Library, the Judicial Council of California,Administrative Office of the Courts, and trial court judges; and (2) the Trial Court Workers’ Compensation program (TCWCP) which includes the employees and subordinate judicial officers of fifty-four active trial courts and the potential for an additional four trial courts, including Los Angeles, Mono, Inyo, and Yuba, which are not part of the program at this time, and any runoff claims that may exist with the respective counties with injury dates of 1/1/01 to the date of inception into the TCWCP, as follows:
- The date of inception into TCWCPwas 1/1/03 for the following trial courts: Alpine, Amador, Del Norte, Lake, Mariposa, Riverside, and San Bernardino.
- The date of inception into TCWCP was 7/1/03 for the following trial courts:Alameda, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Fresno, Humboldt, Imperial, Kings, Lassen, Madera, Marin, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Orange, Placer, Sacramento, San Benito, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne, and Ventura.
- The date of inception into TCWCP was 7/1/04 for the following trial courts: Kern, Plumas, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Clara, and Yolo.
- The date of inception into TCWCP was 7/1/05 for the following trial court: Glenn.
The current third party administrator (TPA) for the Judiciary is JT2 Integrated Resources (JT2) and the current TPA for the TCWCPis Tristar Risk Management (Tristar). For JT2’s summary of claims as of 9/30/05, reference Appendix B, Claims Summary By Year; for Tristar’s summary of claims as of 9/30/05, referenceboth Appendix C,Custom Claim Summary JBWCP Open Claims, and Appendix D, Custom Claim Summary JBWCP Closed Claims. Various TPAs have been used by the counties: these are identified in Appendix E, Workers’ Compensation Claims TPAs for California Counties. Note that the following eight counties have been transferred to Tristar as of this RFP: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Diego, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, and Ventura.
For the purpose of this RFP, the term “trial court” is used synonymously with “superior court.”
1.1.1Trial Courts
AB433 and SB2140 legislation merged the municipal courts and superior courts of California into one Superior Court system. The Superior Court system in California is comprised of fifty-eight trial courts, one in each county, with from one to fifty branches, located throughout the state. Trial courts provide a forum for resolution of criminal and civil cases under state and local laws.
Trial courts have been insured or self-insured for workers’ compensation alone or as a part of a master program with their respective counties in which they are located. The legislation establishes the trial courts as separate public entities from the counties and requires the AOC to develop a workers’ compensation alternative for the trial courts. There are approximately 19,958 employees in the California trial courts. The trial courts range in size fromsix to more than 5,300 employees (full–time equivalent (FTE) basis). Appendix A,California Judicial Officers and Court Employees, provides a list of the trial courts and their FTE for your information.
1.1.2Judiciary
Members of the Judiciary program are primarily located in San Francisco with the exception of the trial court judges who reside in their respective courts and the Second through Sixth Appellate Districts of the Courts of Appeal who are located in respective order in Los Angeles,Sacramento,San Diego, Riverside, Santa Ana,Fresno, and San Jose. The First Appellate District is in San Francisco. The Judiciary provides coverage for approximately 1,600 judicial branch employees, 111 justices, and approximately 1,500 trial court judges. In addition, the AOC maintains three regional offices in San Francisco, Sacramento, and Burbank. Judiciary program claims, prior to JT2, was adjusted by the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF).
1.2 PURPOSE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
The goal of this RFP is to secure one vendor to serve as a third-party administrator (TPA) for the entire Judicial Branch Workers’ Compensation Program (JBWCP). The JBWCP will consolidate both the TCWCP and Judiciary program into one joint program. The JBWCP mayconsist of as many as 58 trial courts and their respective, existing runoff claims and any new court runoff claims that are transferred from their respective counties, and, the Judiciary program claims and its existing runoff. Currently, there are only 54 trial courts which will be participating in the JBWCP. The selected vendor will provide appropriate Workers’ Compensation (WC) claims services that will include analysis of losses, development of methods of reducing wc costs while improving program efficencies and effectiveness. The TPA shall also support the individual members of the JBWCP with their WC inquiries and participate and assist in any AOC training programs.
Prospective vendors are advised to carefully read the requirements of this RFP.
END OF SECTION
Workers’ Compensation TPA Program Consolidation, RFP No. HR 0502
Page I- 1
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
SECTION II
GENERAL RULES GOVERNING REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS
2.1GENERAL
2.1.1This solicitation document, the evaluation of proposals, and the award of any contract shall conform with current competitive bidding procedures as they relate to the procurement of goods and services. A vendor’s proposal is an irrevocable offer for 60 days following the deadline for its submission.
2.1.2In addition to explaining the Administrative Office of the Courts’ (AOC’s) requirements, the solicitation document includes instructions which prescribe the format and content of proposals.
2.2TERM OF AGREEMENT
2.2.1The AOC anticipates the initial term of the awarded agreementshall be for two years beginning February 1, 2006 and ending March 31, 2008, with the option to extend the agreement for up to three consecutive one-year terms. Implemention will occur the first month of the intial term; JT2 and Tristar will assist in the implementation period, as appropriate.
2.2.2AOC reserves the option to extend the agreement for the optional extension periods. These extensions will be based upon acceptable vendor performance, and will be at the prices and/or ratesand fees to be negotiated for the applicable optional extension period, subject to the terms and conditions of the executed agreement.
2.3PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The Project Manager for this RFP project is:
Hiroko Nagata, Senior Human Resources Analyst
Human Resources Division
Judicial Council of California,
Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA94102
2.4MANDATORY PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE
2.4.1The conference will be held to clarify the requirements of this RFP. The time, date, and location of the mandatory conference is as follows: commencing at 10:00 A.M., November 17, 2005, at theAdministrative Office of the Courts, 455 Golden Gate Ave., 3rd floor, Sequoia Room, San Francisco, CA 94102.
2.4.2Only proposals from firms which have attended the mandatory conference will be accepted. Representatives attending the conference must sign-in; additionally, businees cards will be accepted, of conference attendees only, to ensure correct identification of names, phone numbers, and email addresses.
2.5DISABLED VETERAN BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PARTICIPATION GOALS
The State of California Executive Branch requires contract participation goals of a minimum of three percent (3%) for disabled veteran business enterprises (DVBEs). The AOC, as a policy, follows the intent of the Executive Branch program. Therefore, your response should demonstrate DVBE compliance; otherwise, if it is impossible for your company to comply, please explain why, and demonstrate written evidence of a "good faith effort" to achieve participation. Your company must complete Attachment 3, DVBE Participation Form and include the form with your separately sealed Cost Proposal. If your company has any questions regarding the form, you should contact the individual listed in the Submission of Proposal section on the coversheet of this RFP. For further information regarding DVBE resources, please contact the Office of Small Business and DVBE Certification, at 916-375-4940, or access DVBE information on the Executive Branch’s Internet web site at:
2.6QUESTIONS REGARDING THE RFP
2.6.1If a vendor’s question relates to a proprietary aspect of its proposal and the question would expose proprietary information if disclosed to competitors, the vendor may submit the question in writing, conspicuously marking it as "CONFIDENTIAL." With the question, the vendor must submit a statement explaining why the question is sensitive. If the AOC concurs that the disclosure of the question or answer would expose proprietary information, the question will be answered, and both the question and answer will be kept in confidence. If the AOC does not concur regarding the proprietary nature of the question, the question will not be answered in this manner and the vendor will be notified.
2.6.2Vendors interested in responding to the solicitation may submit questions on procedural matters related to the RFP or requests for clarification or modification of this solicitation no later than the deadline set forth on the RFP cover memo. If the vendor is requesting a change, the request must set forth the recommended change and the vendor’s reasons for proposing the change. All questions and requests must be submitted in writing (email is authorized). Questions or requests submitted after the due date will not be answered. Without disclosing the source of the question or request, a copy of the questions and the AOC’s responses will be posted on the Courtinfo website (
2.7ERRORS IN THE RFP
2.7.1If, prior to the date fixed for submission of proposals, a vendor discovers any ambiguity, conflict, discrepancy, omission, or error in this solicitation document, the vendor shall immediately notify the AOC in writing and request modification or clarification of the RFP in accordance with item 2.6, above. Without disclosing the source of the request, the AOC may modify the solicitation document prior to the date fixed for submission of proposals by posting an addendum to the solicitation on the AOC’s web site “Courtinfo” (
2.7.2If a vendor fails to notify the AOC of an error in the RFP known to vendor, or an error that reasonably should have been known to vendor, prior to the date fixed for submission of proposals, vendor shall bid at its own risk. Furthermore, if vendor is awarded the TPA agreement, vendor shall not be entitled to additional compensation or time by reason of the error or its later correction.
2.8ADDENDA
The AOC may modify the solicitation document prior to the date fixed for submission of proposals by posting an addendum on the Courtinfo website ( If any vendor determines that an addendum unnecessarily restricts its ability to bid, it must notify the Project Manager, as listed in item2.3, above, no later than one day following the receipt of the addendum.
2.9WITHDRAWAL AND RESUBMISSION/MODIFICATION OF PROPOSALS
A vendor may withdraw its proposal at any time prior to the deadline for submitting proposals by notifying the AOC in writing of its withdrawal. The notice must be signed by the vendor. The vendor may thereafter submit a new or modified proposal, provided that it is received at the AOC no later than the proposal due date and time listed on the cover memo of this RFP. Modifications offered in any other manner, oral or written, will not be considered. Proposals cannot be changed or withdrawn after the proposal due date and time listed on the coversheet of this RFP.
2.10ERRORS IN THE PROPOSAL
If errors are found in a proposal, the AOC may reject the proposal; however, AOC may, at its sole option, correct arithmetic or transposition errors or both on the basis that the lowest level of detail will prevail in any discrepancy. If these corrections result in significant changes in the amount of money to be paid to the vendor (if selected for the award of the agreement), the vendor will be informed of the errors and corrections thereof and will be given the option to abide by the corrected amount or withdraw the proposal.
2.11RIGHTS TOREJECT OR AWARD PROPOSALS
2.11.1The AOC may reject any or all proposals and may or may not waive an immaterial deviation or defect in a bid. The AOC’s waiver of an immaterial deviation or defect shall in no way modify the solicitation document or excuse a vendor from full compliance with solicitation document specifications. The AOC reserves the right to accept or reject any or all of the items in the proposal, to award the contract in whole or in part and/or negotiate any or all items with individual vendors if it is deemed in the AOC’s best interest. Moreover, the AOC reserves the right to make no selection if proposals are deemed to be outside the fiscal constraint or against the best interest of the State of California.
2.11.2In addition to the right to reject any and all proposals, in whole or in part, the AOC also reserves the right to issue similar RFPs in the future. This RFP is in no way an agreement, obligation, or contract and in no way is the AOC or the State of California responsible for the cost of preparing the proposal. One copy of a submitted proposal will be retained for official files and becomes a public record.
2.11.3Vendors are specifically directed NOT to contact any AOC or AOC Group personnel or consultants for meetings, conferences, or discussions that are specifically related to this RFP at any time prior to any award and executionof a contract. Unauthorized contact with any AOC or AOC Group personnel or consultants may be cause for rejection of the vendor’s proposal.
2.12CONFIDENTIAL OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
The Administrative Office of the Courts policy is to follow the intent of the California Public Records Act (PRA). If a vendor’s proposal contains material noted or marked as confidential and/or proprietary that, in the AOC’s sole opinion, meets the disclosure exemption requirements of the PRA, then that information will not be disclosed pursuant to a request for public documents. If the AOC does not consider such material to be exempt from disclosure under the PRA, the material will be made available to the public, regardless of the notation or markings. If a vendor is unsure if its confidential and/or proprietary material meets the disclosure exemption requirements of the PRA, then it should not include such information in its proposal.
2.13DISPOSITION OF MATERIALS
All materials submitted in response to this solicitation document will become the property of the State of California and will be returned only at the AOC’s option and at the expense of the vendor submitting the proposal. One copy of a submitted proposal will be retained for official files and become a public record. Any material that a vendor considers as confidential but does not meet the disclosure exemption requirements of the California Public Records Act should not be included in the vendor’s proposal as it may be made available to the public.
2.14PROTEST PROCEDURE
2.14.1General
Failure of a vendor to comply with the protest procedures set forth herein will render a protest inadequate and non-responsive and will result in rejection of the protest.
2.14.2Prior to Submission of Proposal
An interested party that is an actual or prospective proposer with a direct economic interest in the procurement may file a protest based on allegedly restrictive or defective specifications or other improprieties in the solicitation process that are apparent, or should have been reasonably discovered prior to the submission of a proposal. Such protest must be received prior to the proposal due date and time. The protestor shall have exhausted all administrative remedies discussed in this Section prior to submitting the protest. Failure to do so may be grounds for denying the protest.