Item D45BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: August 20, 2003 Division: Management Services
Bulk Item: Yes X No
Department: Administrative Services
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Approval of contract with KPMG Peat Marwick to update the Fiscal Year 2003 and the Fiscal Year
2004 Full Cost Allocation Plans and the OMB A-87 Cost Allocation Plans.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
Full cost allocation reduces ad valorem taxes by recovering indirect costs from non -ad valorem revenue
funds and corrects for indirect cost subsidy to special taxing districts. These two cost allocation plans
will utilize fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures under a contract with the State of
Florida Department of Management Services (Consulting Services for Management Skills, contract
number 973-001-00-1).
PREVIOUS REVELANT BOCC ACTION:
The BOCC approved implementation of full cost allocation in stages beginning with Fiscal Year 1998.
Each year this plan is updated and adjusted to changing organizational and accounting needs.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
Usually one cost allocation plan is prepared annually. However, over time this process has gotten
behind schedule, we are recommending that two plans be prepared simultaneously so that timing is not
a concern in the future. This contract is for two cost allocation plans, whereas the previous contract
was for one cost allocation plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval.
TOTAL COST: $28,000 (for two plans)
COST TO COUNTY: $28,000
BUDGETED: Yes X No
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Ad Valorem Taxes
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes _ No _ AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty �/ OMB/Purchasing X Risk Management
-z
s'
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
Sheila A. Barker
DOCUMENTATION: Included A —
DISPOSITION:
To Follow X Not Required.
AGENDA ITEM #_b45-
MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CONTRACT SUMMARY
Contract #
Contract with: KPMG Effective Date: August 20, 2003
Expiration Date: N/A- When Project is complete
Contract Purpose/Description: To update the Fiscal Year 2003 and the Fiscal Year 2004 OMB
A-87 and full cost allocation plans These cost allocation plans will utilize fiscal year 2001 and
fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
Contract Manager: Jennifer Hill 4444 Administrative Services
(Name) (Ext.) (Department/ Stop #)
for BOCC meeting on � ZJ� t7� Agenda Deadline: _B ) 3I 0 3
CONTRACT COSTS
Total Dollar Value of Contract: $28,000.00 Current Year Portion: $28,000.00
Budgeted? Yes® No ❑ Account Codes: 001-06001-530340
Grant: $
County Match: $
ADDITIONAL COSTS
Estimated Ongoing Costs: $ /yr For:
(Not included in dollar value above) (eg. maintenance, utilities, janitorial, salaries, etc.)
CONTRACT REVIEW
Changes
Date In Needed _ Reviewer
Division Director Yes[:] No❑(
Risk Management U%3 Yes[—] No�✓
O.M.B./Purchasing o � Yes❑ No0'�
County Attorney 3 Yes❑ No❑' , I
Comments:
MAD L'..,.— D.....,.,..1 nil i in, -- yin
Date Out
U-:.>
303 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Suite 2000
Atlanta, GA 30308
August 5, 2003
Ms. Jennifer Hill
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Monroe County
1100 Simonton Street
Room 2-209
Key West, Florida 33040
Dear Ms. Hill:
Telephone 404 222 3000
Fax 404 222 3050
Thank you for giving KPMG LLP (KPMG) the opportunity to assist Monroe County (the
County) with its preparation of the FY 00 Full Cost and OMB Circular A-87 Cost Allocation
Plans. As part of our continuing relationship with the County, KPMG would like to assist the
County with the preparation of the FY 01 and FY 02 Full Cost and OMB Circular A-87 Cost
Allocation Plans.
This letter is to confirm our understanding of the terms of our engagement and the nature and
limitations of the services we will provide.
KPMG is pleased to submit this Engagement letter to the County to provide professional
consulting services for the development and preparation of an OMB Circular A-87 and a Full
Cost Countywide central services cost allocation plan. The plans will utilize FY O1 and FY 02
actual expenditures, and will be prepared in accordance with Federal OMB Circular A-87, Cost
Principles for State and Local Governments. The Full Cost plan will include some central service
costs which are not allowable under A-87 regulations.
We estimate that an elapsed calendar time of twelve weeks from the date of commencement
would be required to develop and prepare the Countywide cost allocation plans, with
commencement occurring within two weeks from the notice of contract award. This time frame,
of course, is dependent upon the timeliness of requested information furnished by the County.
The County will be responsible for the collection of all statistical information used as allocation
bases. Changes in the existing cost allocation plans will be made to account for and reflect
County organizational changes made since the last plans were prepared.
....KPMG LLP. KPMG LLP a U.S_ limited liability partnership, Is
a member of KPMG International, a Swiss association.
Ms. Jennifer Hill
Monroe County
August 5, 2003
Page 2
Our fees for professional services are based on the time and staffing requirements of the
engagement, and include all expenses incurred by us. Our total contract costs to perform the
professional consulting services for the plans will not exceed $28,000. The engagement fee will
be billed to the County as follows: 50% of the fee thirty days after the initiation of fieldwork,
25% upon delivery of the draft plans, and 25% upon delivery of the final plans. This engagement
will be managed by Don Carter and will be staffed by Ken Carey, an experienced cost allocation
consultant who has previous experience in preparing the County's cost allocation plans.
Additionally, this engagement is subject to the standard terms and conditions included as
Attachment A.
KPMG has a contract with the State of Florida Department of Management Services (Consulting
Services for Management Skills, contract number 973-001-00-1) that the County may use in lieu
of a formal request for proposal.
By submission of this engagement letter to the County, KPMG certifies that the Firm is not on the
convicted vendor list.
We look forward to working with you and your staff on this important project and would be
pleased to discuss this letter with you at any time.
For your convenience in confirming these arrangements, we enclose a copy of this letter. Please
sign it and return it to me at your earliest convenience.
Very truly yours,
KPMG LLP
4 - —
Donald A. Carter
Senior Manager
ACCEPTED:
Authorized Signature
Title
Date
MONROE COUNTY AT) Rh Y
APPROVED AS .. ' 0
7
ASSISTANT PO N AJTOANEY
Date
KPMG LLP
Standard Terms and Conditions
I. Services. Our services may include advice and
recommendations; but all decisions in connection with
the implementation of such advice and
recommendations shall be your sole responsibility.
2. Payment of Invoices. You agree to pay properly
submitted invoices within thirty (30) days of the
invoice date (or any other date that we may agree to in
writing). We shall have the right to halt or terminate
entirely our services until payment is received on past
due invoices. All fees, charges and other amounts
payable to us hereunder do not include any sales, use,
excise, value added or other applicable taxes, tariffs or
duties, payment of which shall be your sole
responsibility, excluding any applicable taxes based
on our net income or taxes arising from the
employment or independent contractor relationship
between us and our personnel.
Term. Unless terminated sooner in accordance with
its terms, this engagement shall terminate on the
completion of our services hereunder. In addition, this
engagement may be terminated by either of us at any
time by giving written notice to the other party not less
than 30 calendar days before the effective date of
termination.
4. Ownership.
(a) KPMG Property. We create, acquire or own various
concepts, methodologies, and techniques; models;
templates; software, user interfaces or screen designs;
general purpose consulting and software tools; and
logic, coherence and methods of operation of systems
(collectively, the "KPMG Property"). We retain all
ownership rights in the KPMG Property. You shall
acquire no right or interest in such property, except for
the license expressly granted in the next paragraph. In
addition, we shall be free to provide services of any
kind to any other party as we deem appropriate, and
we may use the KPMG Property to do so. We
acknowledge that KPMG Property shall not include
any of your confidential information or your tangible
or intangible property, and we shall have no
ownership rights in such property.
(b) Ownership of Deliverables Except for KPMG
Property, and upon full and final payment to us,
deliverables or work product specified in the
engagement letter or proposal to which these terms are
attached (the "Deliverables") will become your
property. If any KPMG Property is contained in any of
the Deliverables, we hereby grant you, a royalty -free,
non-exclusive license to use the KPMG Property in
connection with the use of the Deliverables.
5. Limitation on Warranties. THIS IS A SERVICES
ENGAGEMENT. KPMG WARRANTS THAT IT
WILL PERFORM SERVICES HEREUNDER IN
GOOD FAITH. KPMG DISCLAIMS ALL
OTHER WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT
LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Limitation on Damages. Except for your and our
respective indemnification obligations as described in
these Standard Terms and Conditions, neither you nor
we shall be liable to the other for any actions,
damages, claims, liabilities, costs, expenses or losses
arising out of the services performed hereunder for a
total amount in excess of the fees paid or owing to us
for services rendered by us under this engagement. In
no event shall either you or we be liable for
consequential, special, indirect, incidental, punitive or
exemplary damages, costs, expenses, or losses
(including, without limitation, lost profits and
opportunity costs). The provisions of this Paragraph
shall apply regardless of the form of action, damage,
claim, liability, cost, expense, or loss, whether in
contract, statute, tort, or otherwise.
7. Infringement.
(a) We agree to indemnify, hold harmless and defend you
from and against all claims, liabilities, losses,
expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees), fines,
penalties, taxes or damages (collectively "Liabilities")
asserted by any third party against you to the extent
such Liabilities result from the infringement by the
Deliverables of any third party's trade secrets,
trademarks, copyrights, or patents issued as of the date
of the attached Engagement Letter. The preceding
provisions shall not apply to any infringement arising
out of the following:
(i) use of the Deliverables other than in accordance
with applicable documentation or instructions
supplied by us or other than in accordance with
Paragraph 8(b);
(ii) any alteration, modification or revision of the
Deliverables not expressly agreed to in writing by
us; or
(iii) the combination of the Deliverables with
materials not supplied by us.
(b) In case any of the Deliverables or any portion thereof
is held, or in our reasonable opinion is likely to be
held, in any such suit to constitute infringement, we
may within a reasonable time, at our option, either:
Page 1 Revised 16 Jan. 01
Attachment A
KPMG LLP
Standard Terms and Conditions
W secure for you the right to continue the use
of such infringing item; or
(ii) replace, at our sole expense, such item
with a substantially equivalent non -
infringing item or modify such item so that
it becomes non -infringing.
In the event we are, in our reasonable discretion,
unable to perform either of options described in (i) or
(ii) above, you must return the Deliverable to us, and
our sole liability shall be to refund to you the amount
you paid us for such item.
(c) The provisions of this Paragraph 7 state our entire
liability and your sole and exclusive remedy with
respect to any infringement or claim of infringement.
8. Indemnification.
(a) You and we each agree to indemnify, hold harmless
and defend the other from and against any and all
Liabilities for injury to, illness or death of, any person
or persons regardless of status, and damage to or
destruction of any tangible personal property which
the other party may sustain or incur to the extent such
Liabilities result from the negligence or willful
misconduct of the indemnifying party.
(b) You acknowledge and agree that any advice,
recommendations, information or work product
provided to you by us in connection with this
engagement is for your confidential use. Except as
otherwise required by law, you will not disclose or
permit access to such advice, recommendations,
information or work product to any other party or
summarize or refer to such advice, recommendations,
information or work product or to our engagement
hereunder without our prior written consent. In that
regard, you will indemnify, defend and hold us
harmless from and against any and all Liabilities
asserted against us by any third party to the extent
resulting from that party's use or possession of or
reliance upon our advice, recommendations,
information or work product as a direct or indirect
result of your use or disclosure of such advice,
recommendations, information or work product.
(c) The party entitled to indemnification (the
"Indemnified Party") shall promptly notify the party
obligated to provide such indemnification (the
"Indemnifying Party") of any claim for which the
Indemnified Party seeks indemnification and the
Indemnifying Party shall have the right to conduct the
defense or settlement of any such claim at the
Indemnifying Party's sole expense, and the
Indemnified Party shall cooperate with the
Indemnifying Party. The party not conducting the
defense shall nonetheless have the right to participate
in such defense at its own expense. The Indemnified
Party shall have the right to approve the settlement of
any claim hereunder that imposes any liability or
obligation other than the payment of money damages.
Cooperation. You agree to cooperate with us in our
performance of our services for you, including
providing us with reasonable facilities and timely
access to your data, information and personnel. You
shall be responsible for the performance of your
employees and agents and for the accuracy and
completeness of all data and information provided to us
for purposes of this engagement.
10. Force Majeure. Neither you nor we shall be liable for
any delays resulting from circumstances or causes
beyond our reasonable control, including, without
limitation, fire or other casualty, act of God, strike or
labor dispute, war or other violence, or any law, order
or requirement of any governmental agency or
authority.
11. Limitation on Actions. Neither you nor we may bring
any action arising under or relating to this engagement
more than one year after the cause of action has
accrued, except that we may bring an action for non-
payment not later than one year after the date of the last
payment due to us.
12.Independent Contractor. You and we are both
independent contractors and neither you nor we are, or
shall be considered to be, an agent, distributor or
representative of the other. Neither you nor we shall act
or represent itself, directly or by implication, as an
agent of the other or in any manner assume or create
any obligation on behalf of, or in the name of, the other.
13. Confidentiality. You and we both acknowledge and
agree that all information communicated by one party
(the "Disclosing Party") to the other (the "Receiving
Party in connection with this engagement shall be
received in confidence, shall be used only for purposes
of this engagement, and no such confidential
information shall be disclosed by the Receiving Party or
its agents or personnel without the prior written consent
of the other party. Except to the extent otherwise
required by applicable law or professional standards,
the obligations under this section do not apply to
information that: (a) is or becomes generally available
to the public other than as a result of disclosure by the
Receiving Party, (b) was known to the Receiving Party
or had been previously possessed by the Receiving
Party without restriction against disclosure at the time
Page 2 Revised 16 Jan. 01
Attachment A
KPMG LLP
Standard Terms and Conditions
of receipt thereof by the Receiving Party, (c) was
independently developed by the Receiving Party
without violation of this Agreement or (d) you and we
agree from time to time to disclose. Each party shall be
deemed to have met its nondisclosure obligations under
this Paragraph as long as it exercises the same level of
care to protect the other's information as it exercises to
protect its own confidential information, except to the
extent that applicable law or professional standards
impose a higher requirement. We may retain, subject to
the terms of this Paragraph, one copy of your
confidential information required for compliance with
applicable professional standards or internal policies. If
either you or we receive a subpoena or other validly
issued administrative or judicial demand requiring it to
disclose the other parry's confidential information, such
party shall provide prompt written notice to the other of
such demand in order to permit it to seek a protective
order. So long as the notifying party gives notice as
provided herein, the notifying party shall be entitled to
comply with such demand to the extent permitted by
law, subject to any protective order or the like that may
have been entered in the matter.
14. Survival. The provisions of Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 15 hereof shall survive the
expiration or termination of this engagement.
15. Assignment. Neither party may assign, transfer or
delegate any of its rights or obligations without the
prior written consent of the other party, such consent
not to be unreasonably withheld.
16. Severability. In the event that any term or provision of
this Agreement shall be held to be invalid, void or
unenforceable, then the remainder of this Agreement
shall not be affected, and each such term and provision
of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the
fullest extent permitted by law.
17. Entire Agreement. These terms, and the Proposal or
Engagement Letter to which these terms are appended,
including Exhibits, constitute the entire Agreement
between us with respect to the engagement and
supersede all other oral and written representation,
understandings or agreements relating to the
engagement.
Page 3 Revised 16 Jan. 01
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Meeting Date: 8/20/03
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Division: Management Services
Bulk Item: Yes X No _ Department: Administrative Services
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Approval by the Board of County Commissioners that the County retain PGCS, current Third Party
Administrator for the Counties workers' compensation program, based on the condition Staff continue
to negotiate a reduction in the cost of current bid, bringing a contract back to the Board at the
September meeting. PGCS is the second lowest bidder.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
PGCS has been the Third Party Administrator for the County since 1996. Low Bidder was $74,805.
Difference in cost is insignificant as compared to disruption of service to Monroe County.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
At the 2/19/03 Board of County Commissioners Meeting the Board approved advertising for Bids for
Third Party Administrator. Bids were received and opened on 6/19/03
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
ffm
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval
$80,000.00 Approximate
TOTAL COST: subject to negotiation BUDGETED: Yes X No
COST TO COUNTY: Same
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Primarily ad valorem
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes _ No X AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty — OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: ---dL (��
Sheila A. Barker
DOCUMENTATION: Included X To Follow Not Required
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM #
Revised 1/03
INTERISK
Consultants
Risk Management
Employee Benefits
July 9, 2003
Ms. Nancy Cohen
Workers' Compensation Manager
Monroe County
1100 Simonton Street
Suite 2-274
Key West, Florida 33040
Re: Evaluation of TPA Proposals
Dear Nancy:
CORPORATION
1111 North Westshore Boulevard
Suite 208
Tampa, FL 33607-4711
Phone (813) 287-1040
Facsimile (813) 287-1041
As a follow-up to my July 9, 2003 letter to you regarding the evaluation of the TPA proposals that were
received in response to the County's Request for Proposals (RFP) and our recent visit to Multi -Line Claims
Service, the following information and recommendations are offered.
Following the initial evaluation of the proposals received, it was believed that Multi -Line offered the most
competitive terms. Preferred Governmental Claims Solutions (PGCS), the County's current administrator
offered the next best terms. Since little information was known about Multi -Line, it was decided that a
face-to-face meeting with representatives of Multi -Line was in order. The role the County's TPA plays in
its overall Workers' Compensation program is extremely critical and the mis-handling of one claim could
produce adverse economic effects that far exceed the fees paid to the TPA.
After meeting with Multi -Line, it is believed that they do not have the resources to affectively administer
the County's claims. It was learned during our visit that one adjuster would handle the County's claims
with the supervisor acting as the adjuster's back up. Multi -Line had no other adjusters with the expertise to
handle the complex claims the County faces. When this issue was raised during our meeting, Multi -Line
indicated that they had the capability of bringing part-time assistance in to help.
It is critical to maintain a continuity with a specific adjuster so that past issues of a claim are fully
understood. Without a full understanding of what has transpired on a claim, a proactive approach on the
handling of the claim is impossible. With basically only one adjuster available to handle, not only the
County's claims, but also the rest of Multi -Line clients, this continuity is severely jeopardized. The
potential of the adjuster leaving Multi -Line cannot be overlooked as well. Multi -Line is so dependant upon
the one adjuster, their operations will be severely impacted if she were to leave. Even if she were to
remain, Multi -Line has limited back up (the supervisor) to handle the workload when the adjuster is away
from the office or on vacation.
Multi -Line also indicated that they had lost their largest account, as evidenced by their recent relocation to
smaller facilities. If Multi -Line were to discontinue their operations, the County would be forced to locate
a new TPA on an expedited basis. Even if a new TPA could be located quickly, it would take the new
organization weeks if not months to become familiar with the claims.
Ms. Nancy Cohen
August 7, 2003
2
It is therefore recommended that Multi -Line be eliminated from consideration. As was indicated in my
previous letter, if Multi -Line were to be eliminated from consideration, it would be recommended that
PGCS be retained (on a flat annual fee) as the County's administrator. Prior to finalizing the contract with
PGCS, it is recommended that certain issues be negotiated to reduce the administrative burden and cost
associated with the contract. They include:
1) PGCS has proposed to charge a fee of $1.30 per line to reduce all medical bills to the State
mandated fee. Unless the County receives a copy of every bill, it is impossible to verify the
accuracy of these charges. It is therefore recommended that attempts be made to have PGCS
include this service without a specific charge.
2) PGCS also proposed to charge $5.00 for each 1099 they have to prepare. To my knowledge, no
other TPA requires such a charge. It is recommended that attempts be made to include this within
PGCS' annual fee.
3) PGCS proposed an annual fee of $80,000. This represents a $13,385 (20%) increase over what is
currently being charged. This increase is higher than customary. It is recommended that attempts
be made to have PGCS reduce the annual fee.
As always, please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions.
Cordially,
INTERISK CORPORATION
Sidney G. Webber
CPCU, ARM
INTERISK CORPORATION
Consultants
Risk Management
Employee Benefits
July 9, 2003
Ms. Nancy Cohen
Workers' Compensation Manager
Monroe County
5100 College Road, Room 207
Key West, Florida 33040
Be: Evaluation of TPA Proposals
Dear Nancy:
1111 North Westshore Boulevard
Suite 208
Tampa, FL 33607-4711
Phone (813) 287-1040
Facsimile (813) 287-1041
A total of six (6) firms responded to the County's RFP for TPA services. They included:
➢ The Florida League of Cities in partnership with Unisource Claims Administrators
➢ The Hunt Insurance Group in partnership with Unisource Claims Administrators
➢ Employers Mutual Inc.
➢ Multi Line Claims Administrators
➢ Preferred Governmental Claims Solutions (incumbent TPA)
➢ Crawford and Company
Both Multi -Line and PGCS submitted two different options for consideration.
The proposals were reviewed in detail and issues that were unclear in the written proposal were clarified
with the individual proposer. Attached is a side by side comparison of the major features of each proposal
along with the major features of the County's current program. In addition, a cost estimate worksheet has
been prepared for each proposal and is also attached. For the purpose of this evaluation it has been
estimated that the County will have 27 lost time claims and 140 medical only claims per year. In addition,
it is estimated that the County will have 58 lost time and 58 medical only run out claims that will be
transferred to the new TPA. Following is a brief discussion of each proposal submitted.
Florida League/Unisource
The Florida League has developed a partnership with Unisource Claims Administrators in order to provide
claims administration services for its self -insured clients. While the County does not currently purchase its
Excess insurance from the League, the fact that they submitted a TPA proposal is an indication that they
will be submitting a proposal for the County's Excess insurance for the 2003/2004 policy year.
The League has proposed an blended rate of $473.00 for each Lost Time and Medical Only claim filed. In
addition, The League proposed assuming the "run-off' claims for a fee of $100 per year for medical only
claims and $500 for the first year for lost time claims. If an assumed lost time claim remains open for
more than 12 months, an additional $350 per year will be charged. While the Florida League will not
Ms. Nancy Cohen
July 9, 2003
2
charge an annual maintenance fee, a one time charge of $3,500 will be required to cover the cost of
transferring the historical claim information from PGCS to the League.
Based on the estimated annual claim count and the projected number of run out claims, the estimated fees
that will be paid to the Florida League/Unisource will be $115,725 for the first year and $78,991 in
subsequent years assuming no increase in the per claim fees.
Hunt Group/Unisource
As with the Florida League, the Hunt Group has developed a partnership with Unisource Claims
Administrators for the Florida Sheriffs' Self -Insurance Fund (FSAWCP) members. If the County were to
join FSAWCP, Unisource in conjunction with the Hunt Group could also administer the BOCC claims.
Even if the County were to become a member of FSAWCP, the BOCC claims could be assigned to another
TPA. This would not be the most efficient approach, but would be an option.
The Hunt Group proposed a "Life of Claim" fee of $410 for medical only claims and $1,475 for lost time
claims. Their proposal did not provide a cost for the run-off claims and numerous attempts to obtain this
information from the Hunt Group has proved unsuccessful. In addition, the Hunt Group will charge a one-
time fee of $3,500 for transferring the County's historical loss experience to their claim system and an
annual fee of $2,500 as a broker fee.
Since Hunt's run-off fee cannot be determined at this point, a projected cost for the 2003/2004 contract
year cannot be provided at this time. Once the Hunt Group provides the fees that will be charged for the
run-off claims, an addendum to this letter will prepared.
Employers Mutual Inc.
Employers Mutual Inc. (EMI) proposed annual fees of $585 for lost time claims and $125 for medical only
claims. It should be recognized that these are annual fees and will be applied to all remaining open claims
in subsequent years. EMI has proposed a one time fees of $1,170 for lost time claims and $250 for medical
only claims to assume the County's run-off claims. EMI would not charge the County a maintenance fee
or an additional fee to convert the historical claim information to their computer system.
Applying the fees proposed by EMI to the County's projected claims and the estimated number of run-off
claims, a projected cost of $115,665 for the 2003/2004 contract year is produced. The fact that EMI
proposed an annual claim fee, the County can expect a significantly higher fee in subsequent contract years
if EMI is selected as Monroe's claims administrator as compared to other proposers who either proposed a
life of contract fee or a life of claim fee.
Multi Line Claims
Multi Line Claims proposed a life of contract fee for lost time claims of $625 and $75 for medical only
claims. In addition, Multi Line is agreeable to continue handling all open claims for an additional six (6)
months following the termination of their contract for this one time fee. Multi Line has also agreed to
assume all run off claims at no charge for a period of 1 year. If any of the run off claims remain open
longer than 1 year, Multi Line will charge a one time fee of $450 per claim to continue handling the file.
For the purpose of this analysis, it is being assumed that twenty-five percent (25%) of all lost time run off
claims and seventy five percent of all medical only run off claims will be closed between October 1, 2003
and September 30, 2004. This will reduce the number of lost time run off claims that Multi Line will
charge for to 44 and the number of medical only run off claims to 15. Not only will the number of run off
claims that the County will be charged for be reduced significantly under the Multi Line proposal, all
charges will be deferred for 12 months.
Ms. Nancy Cohen
July 9, 2003
3
Applying Multi Line proposed fees to the estimated claims that will occur between October 1, 2003 and
September 30, 2004 and adding a projected data conversion fee of $4,000, the County can expect a claim
administration fee of $31,375 for the 2003/2004 contract year. Assuming Multi Line does not increase
their fees, an amount of approximately $57,925 can be expected for the 2004/2005 contract year. The
difference being Multi Line's fees for the assumption of the run off claims.
Multi Line also proposed a blended rate of $265 for all claims, regardless of whether they are lost time or
medical only. If this option is selected, the fee for the 2003/2004 contract year is estimated to be $48,255.
In subsequent years (assuming no increase in Multi Line's per claim fee) is estimated to be $74,805.
Preferred Governmental Claims Solutions
The Preferred Governmental Claims Solutions (PGCS) is the County's current claims administrator. They
have proposed to extend the current contract for an additional year subject to a lost time rate of $575 and a
medical only rate of $140. In addition, PGCS charges a fee of $1.30 per line for each medical bill that is
reduced to the State Fee Schedule. In addition, PGCS will charge $5.00 for each 1099 they complete and
will retain 10% of all subrogation recoveries obtained. PGCS also included a $4,000 monthly
administrative fee in their proposal.
PGCS' proposal indicated that a $50 fee would be charged to administer the lost time run out claims. Since
their current contract provides continued service for a one time fee as long as the County and PGCS remain
in contract with each other, PGCS has eliminated this line item from their proposal. Based on the
estimated number of claims for the upcoming year, coupled with the other administrative charges included
in PGCS' proposal, it is projected that the County will pay approximately $88,125 for the upcoming year if
PGCS is retained as the Monroe's TPA.
PGCS also proposed a flat annual fee of $80,000. The only additional charges that would be incurred if
this option were selected would be the bill reduction fee of $1.30 per line and the $5.00 fee per 1099
prepared.
Crawford and Comnan
Crawford and Company proposed a life of claim contract with a fee for lost time claims of $1,320 and a fee
for medical only claims of $105. Crawford will also charge an administrative fee equal to six percent (6%)
of the annual charges. In addition, Crawford will charge $1.35 per line (subject to a minimum of 4 lines)
for each medical bill that is reduced to the State fee schedule. Crawford's proposal is subject to the County
granting Crawford a $15,000 authorization to settle any claim at their discretion.
Crawford has agreed to assume the administration of all run out claims for a lost time fee of $1,600 per
claim and a medical only fee of $105 per claim.
Applying Crawford's rates to the projected number of annual claims Crawford's proposed fee for the
assumption of the County's run out claims and the various administrative fees, it is projected that the
County would pay approximately $152,250 for the 2003/2004 contract year if Crawford were to be
selected as Monroe's TPA.
Summary and Conclusion
Following is a listing of the TPA's that responded to the County's RFP ranked by the projected annual cost
for the 2003/2004 contract year. Since the actual amount paid by the County will depend on the number of
claims that occur, extending beyond the upcoming year would be highly subjective.
Ms. Nancy Cohen
July 9, 2003
4
Ranking
Proposer
Projected
Annual
Cost
1.
Multi Line Claims
$31,375
2.
Multi Line Claims — Blended Rate
$48,255
3.
PGCS — Annual Fee
$80,000
4.
PGCS
$88,125
5.
EMI
$115,655
6.
Florida League of Cities
$115,725
7.
Crawford and Company
$152,250
8.
Hunt Group
Unknown
It should be noted that the Multi Line Projected Annual Cost does not reflect their charge for the
administration of the run off claims since it will be deferred for 12 months. If the County selects either of
Multi Line's proposals, the County will have an additional one time charge of approximately $26,550 in
October 2004 for the administration of these claims.
With the exception of Multi Line Claims, Interisk has had the opportunity of working with each of the
claims administrator that submitted a proposal. It is believed that they all have professional staff with the
qualifications and capability of serving the needs of the County. A telephonic interview with Multi Line
was conducted and based on this preliminary interview, it is believed that Multi Line could also serve the
needs of the County. A critical factor in selecting any claims administrator is ensuring that the adjusters
that will be assigned to the account have the same philosophy regarding the administration of claims as
does the client (Monroe County).
It is believed that EMI, the Florida League and Crawford and Company offered a pricing structure that is
significantly higher than Multi Line and PGCS. Since the Hunt Group has failed to respond to inquires
regarding their proposal, it can not be determined what their ultimate cost projection will be. Based on the
limited information currently known, it is believed that the Hunt proposal would produce an overall cost
higher than PGCS and Multi Line.
It is therefore recommended that EMI, the Florida League, Crawford and Company and the Hunt Group be
eliminated from further consideration.
Since Multi Line has the potential of reducing the County's cost for its claim administration, strong
consideration should be given to selecting Multi Line as the County's claims administrator for the
2003/2004 calendar year. However, prior to making a final decision, it is recommended that you and I visit
Multi Line's office in Ft. Lauderdale to ensure they can provide quality claim service. If after the meeting,
it is believed that Multi Line can offer the level of services as indicated in their proposal, strong
consideration should be given to selecting Multi Line as the County's claims administrator for the
2003/2004 contract year. If, after meeting with Multi Line, there are concerns regarding their ability to
serve the needs of the County, PGCS should be retained as the claims administrator. It appears as if
PGCS's flat fee of $80,000 would produce the lower cost for the County if PGCS is retained.
Ms. Nancy Cohen
July 9, 2003
5
Once you have had an opportunity to review this letter, I will make myself available to discuss this issue in
more detail. If you agree that a on -site visit to Multi Line is in order, I can make the arrangements.
Cordially,
INTERISK CORPORATION
x
Sidney G. Webber
CPCU, ARM
b
n
a
cCDn
r
C
CD^.
�'
nCD
c
CD
b
o
w
CD CD
CD
'p
14
In
CD
I
CD
CD
CD
co
r
r
o
0,0�
c_
y
N
A
b
a
CD
�00�
�
�
_
�
�a
N
C
oo
v
U
N
O
O
N
CI.A
to
U
p
J
p
m
n
0
c
(IQ
CCD
CD <D C9
Cep
°
0 •+
o t
.ti
w
co mCD
c
COD.
CD c
yCD
•tea
CD
O O
_
a5'
n C-D o
o.a�'P'
p a�'Q7
o(n
caD
CD
5.
C].
5-CDR —
coo
�•
CD
CD y� A) n
"H CD'mod
cD w
y .�C
C
— o
O
f�
O
"I CN
O
CD
7G+
CD t. `O CCD
n 0 B
CAD • N 'C CD
nti O O
CDCD
C "
Cj' O
CD
O
CD
rA
CDQ.
CD �.
� g
C°',
a y
° c
n03
° c
ID
C.
b
N
7'
`q
V3 N
N
y' N
n
y 0
a O
B O p
A�
G CD
FD -1
O r' O
N
O O
c y �.
-,
CD
w
H
w
CD O
CD
O
It
O
0
0
0 0
a
b
e
9
y�
r
0
0
A
CD
Q
t1.
A
A
CD
'
CD
A
CD
v�i
e�
O
n
O
�.
I-D_
CD
I
0-4
0
o
o
5
O
Zy
<
w
w
CD
'*
O
r*
O
A
CDR
t
O
a
O
h
����
�*
A
v�
A
o
"
C
o
O
.z�
;
�
":El
e
CD
a'
rn
��
w
O
R
C
a.
CD
O
(CD
A
CD
�
N
CD
o
A
p
�
O
ai
O
O
P�
C
C
�
O . iDO
CD
a
CD W
C"
CD
�
z
0
o
coo
c
CCD
CD
c�D
CCD
CCD
CCD
CCD
CCD
CCD
cCDD
n��
y
,._,
CD
O
CD
w
w
to
w
w
W
W
O
b
.,
�6pCD
s9
a0
Oily
wy
go
Qy
p.�
C
�o
(D 69 A
CIl
CD LA r.09
(D O C
00
609
W
l.h
rA A�
a
A
O
CD
o
c
CD
(D
v,
CD
v,
(D
CD
v,
(D
(D
v,
(D
v,
CD
CO
v,
(D
v,
�:
O
o CD
Oy
=°
^�
W W
I I
m Ig
fDoa
CD in •
~
00 00
Ov,
O O
.A-r
rDD
Q
r
Coo
60.)�
C
C
on
7p�C"
p
y
R
Q
O
(D
(D
(D
N
0
CCD D y
p CD
O
fD
(D
N
fD
(D
N
�C w
oCD
I I
o
fb
0
r
o
CD
a�
6e
v,
a y
�a
O y
C
�o
o
o
►C��C►C��C���C�C�
�
N
N
to
rn
N
�
y
�
�
�
N
�
�
b9
69 b9
(D
�--•
�
N
�1
ob
r
CD
�.
Qat-11O
OA
(Ci7bC/�`��-]'gi
SAD
Oy
CD
n
cn
O
O
�.
CD
n
p
0
c
OTJ
•CD
CD
CD
P)
CD
O
n
O
n
CD
•,
�*,
a
w
CD
r+
C�D�
w
Cn
o
5
°c
=
c
Cl
CD
?)
CD
0
W
C
0
p
JQ
..
r+
CD
C
o
CD
vOi
CD
Irl
�i+
n
�j
CD
J
p
CD
a �y =
=
�
r
Co
r°M
0- 0-
�CDo
C0
ca. �
c�
69 W CCD CCD p o w �
o CD
65
CAD
C. 0- j
In fD 0 O�
W
CD
N
O
vOi
ai
w
CD
w
CD
O 00
� 69
cn
� N
w
N
C OCD
vOi
w
w
y
n
�•a o �,ov,
00
ti
N
O
O
O
�'
wCD
C
R•
t`yy,
y
o CO CD O.
00 O
a co o�D O
69
�'
yr
CD
r
���
p.� CD ID
cCD
¢ r
o ' o , ,, +
"'
N �' N 0
69
CAD
n
CD
r"
CD 0
° �N El,� CD O
000
N
CD
FD
CD
►c
CD
cnCD
O
I I
(D
v,
CD
v,
N
v,
CD
rn
•C
0
"�
O
v,
►C
CD
CD
v,
0
CD
00
."3 �
:!
CD
l�ii N N O 69
'T, �. p
v�i
69 69
�
r+
Cl
CD
h
v,�
m
CZ
O O n v'
ON1
vi In
0 °
'C3
O CD O
.-+
O O
C 00
rn
CD
n oa
r
LA
CD 0
17'
n 0 b C
6s
CD
°- N
C)
¢• �
�
CCD o R" CD
cc
O
`C CD
o
O
'b
y 1
cat as
Q CD
,`~3
CD
w
O
O
CD
rA
CD
Ln
BCD
N
CD
v,
CD
W
CD
CDCCDD
ch
CA
CD
w
Q
ri
N• CD ►+�
N
CD
sA 69
,CD,i
O
• N
O&s
N ...
CD
O
O a
c6os
64
oCD
o
r
CLW
CD CO
O
N
O
n
n
Uo t
G. o.
C
O
E
CD `C
.7
CD
CD
(A
CD
w
CD
v,
CD0
rn
v�
CD
m
CD CCDD
w
CD
w
CD
n
0
o
CD
1
00 N
~
CD
w
CD
p
o'
2�
CD
rr
0
0
Fvv�
a
.
CD
A
(D
;
w
`a
vCi
14
vNi
_
CD`
CD
CIl
C
O
o
�rJ
CD
CD
C
CD
O.
'*
v
�
O
O
CD
CD
+
p
�a
�.�
b
(D
r'
o
o
z
C
�.
o
CD
w
Q°,
N
4
O
w
CD
C
L.
CD
CD
o
CD
o
.P
„
cn
=a
74
s
5
iA
�a
w
o
oCDo
o
�r
` °
y
se
a. ~
a
o
O
a�
E
co
�iyv,0y0�
"r'
_3
ram"
m
• O '+ CD
N'
N
�
:1'
`C
IC CD
z
O
O ."'
O p
(D
W
N
vA
C-D
cn
zi
O
Z
O
Z
O
"'�'
p
• CD
N
CD
"p''''
A�
O
A
o000
GL
o a
CD
CD
oN
0
CD
H
z
O
-P