The Nuances of Conducting a Robust RFP

If done properly, a request for proposals can help sponsors stay on par with the most advanced services available in the marketplace at competitive rates.

One of the most important duties a retirement plan adviser can perform for their plan sponsor clients is conducting a request for proposals (RFP) to help them select service providers that will deliver robust services at competitive fees. On face value, an RFP may seem like a straightforward process, but, if conducted properly, it can actually be quite nuanced.

As the pool of service providers becomes smaller through mergers and acquisitions (M&As) and they become more commoditized, “it is becoming harder and harder to differentiate between service providers through RFPs,” says Dan Peluse, director of Wintrust Retirement Benefits Advisors. One way advisers can help differentiate between service providers is to home in on the objectives of the clients in running their plan, Peluse suggests.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

Carol Buckmann, co-founding partner of Cohen & Buckmann, recently published a blog post detailing how to conduct an RFP more precisely, titled “The ABCs of RFPs.”

Buckmann says the first step is to start with a promising candidate pool, which, she says, can be accomplished by asking other plan sponsors for recommendations on service providers they are happy with. In addition, she adds, “your ERISA [Employee Retirement Income Security Act] attorney or CPA [certified public accountant] may also be able to identify candidates that they believe will do a good job.” To get a good sampling of the marketplace, Buckmann suggests having a pool of four to five candidates.

Next, Buckmann suggests that the RFP ask candidates detailed questions about their service offerings that will yield better information than is available on their websites.

Peluse says some of the questions he asks are, “If it is a recordkeeper, does it provide 3(16) fiduciary support? What kind of investment are they making in technology, and, most importantly, what is the participant experience that they can deliver? That can be anything from apps on the website to financial wellness programs, college savings 529 plans and health savings accounts [HSAs]. It is important to identify what a provider can offer. It is also important to determine if the recordkeeper is capable of payroll integration with the current payroll provider. Anything they can offer to make plan administration easier checks off a lot of the boxes.”

Buckmann adds: “ERISA has many special rules, so specific experience with ERISA accounts is a must. The request should ask for the number of ERISA clients the provider has, their average size, ERISA assets under management [AUM] and the rate of turnover of ERISA clients, as high turnover is often a sign of client dissatisfaction.”

It is also smart for sponsors to ask about the staff that will be provided to support their account, Buckmann says. In this day and age, it is also critical to ask about the candidate’s cybersecurity protections, she says.

As an ERISA attorney, Buckmann says it is important to ask the candidates for their “standard contract and [to] ask about the extent to which those provisions are negotiable.” She then suggests that the sponsor set a schedule and determine a hard stop on when they intend to make their final decision.

Once the RFPs have come in, the plan sponsor’s retirement plan committee as a whole should review them and select the two or three most promising candidates for interviews, she says. In these meetings, the committee can ask about their services and whether their fees are negotiable. “You will also get a feel for whether you are comfortable with the provider, and whether the provider is responsive and professional,” she says. “You can’t tell these things from written responses.”

Buckmann says it is important for sponsors to realize that ERISA does not require them to select the provider with the lowest fees; rather, they need to weigh the quality of the services that are offered.

When making a selection, Buckmann says, the committee members should discuss their assessment of the candidates and perhaps assign a value rank to each. It is also helpful to speak to one or more of the candidate’s current ERISA clients, she says. And while doing all this, the committee must document its discussions.

Once the committee makes its selection, it might seem like the process is over, but, Buckmann maintains, there is still room for more negotiation. She says the committee should inform the successful candidate it is in the final running, but say that “its selection is subject to negotiating a mutually acceptable service agreement.”

“This is important because ERISA attorneys are sometimes contacted to review contracts after the selected candidate has started to work, and, in that situation, there is little to no bargaining power to negotiate changes to provisions that may be one-sided,” she says.

If the provider is replacing an incumbent, it is important to ensure that the two providers coordinate their efforts so that there is no hiccup in service, she says. That said, there may have to be a blackout period in which the participants cannot make changes to their investments or take loans or distributions from their accounts, she says.

As a general rule, sponsors should follow the guidelines from the Department of Labor (DOL) and conduct an RFP for each of their service providers every three to five years to ensure that they are up to snuff on what is available in the marketplace and that their fees are competitive. If they find that they are not, Buckmann says, they can always try to negotiate lower fees or additional services from their current provider using the findings from an RFP.

SEC Chair Gensler’s Confirmation Hearing Displays Parties’ Priorities

Democrats used Gary Gensler’s confirmation hearing to speak to issues of racial and wealth inequality exacerbated by the pandemic—which has killed more than 500,000 Americans and caused a surge in unemployment—while Republicans focused squarely on the potential of government overreach.


The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs held a rare joint confirmation hearing Tuesday morning in which its members questioned Gary Gensler, the Biden administration’s nominee for the role of chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), as well as Rohit Chopra, the administration’s nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

The nominees received nearly equal numbers of questions from committee members, who were given free range to interrogate both candidates interchangeably. This resulted in a somewhat fragmented but still informative discussion that helped spell out some of Gensler’s and Chopra’s potential priorities as key members of President Joe Biden’s cabinet, should they be confirmed.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

Both Gensler and Chopra received glowing endorsements from the committee’s majority Democrats. On the other hand, the Republican committee members were clearly more skeptical about these picks, especially when compared with the positive tone of the hearing enjoyed nearly a month ago by Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, Biden’s pick for the role of secretary of labor.

Led by Senator Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, the committee Democrats emphasized the role that the CFPB and, to a slightly lesser extent, the SEC, can play in helping to address the nation’s severe and unacceptable degree of racial and economic inequality. They encouraged both Gensler and Chopra to prioritize policies and regulations that put working people first and that provide targeted and meaningful support to disadvantaged communities—both to address the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and to more holistically serve the nation as it eventually emerges from its current state of crisis.

Ranking Member Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, in questions repeated by his Republican colleagues on the committee, asked whether Gensler and Chopra would allow the SEC and CFPB to engage in politically motivated activities, for example in the areas of climate-risk disclosure mandates or in actively promoting racial and gender equity on public companies’ boards. Both nominees said they understood the concerns of the Republican senators, agreeing to work in a bipartisan fashion should they be confirmed.

“The economy is moving towards recovery, and we need to make sure the SEC and CFPB do not overburden the markets and reverse this economic recovery,” Toomey said.

Various senators asked Gensler what the SEC can do to address the so-called meme-stock phenomenon. He said the regulator can take steps to help improve trust and confidence in the stock market as a whole, and it can work to address the specific situation of GameStop’s stock and its interaction with private equity (PE) and short selling.

“In some ways this story is actually as old as markets themselves,” Gensler said. “This is about the age-old and ongoing clash of buyers and sellers with opposing views. However, this latest story is also clearly about technology and fairness. We have to ask how to ensure that customers of all types, retail investors included, get the best execution possible regardless of order flows. We have to find ways to ensure customers have stable and reliable access to the markets, and to promote better back office infrastructure to reduce costs and increase security.”

Responding to questions first raised by Toomey but repeated by his Republican colleagues, Gensler said he will be very focused on the concept of “materiality” in any work he does to create new requirements in the areas of environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosures. He also said he would focus on the importance of promoting disclosures about the racial and gender diversity of the leadership of publicly traded companies, again keeping the concept of materiality front and center.

Responding to related questions from Democrats and Republicans, Gensler also committed to reviewing the SEC’s recent regulatory actions regarding the proxy voting marketplace, suggesting in broad terms that proxy voting advisory firms have an important role to play in supporting institutional investors and pension funds.

Gensler was also questioned about the possibility of requiring public companies to disclose political donations made in the normal course of business. Several of the committees’ Democrats suggested that corporate executives often use company funds to make donations in the name of their company which also happen to benefit themselves as private citizens.

“Accurate and relevant disclosures are critical to investors and markets in the promotion of capital formation,” Gensler said. “I cannot prejudge specific issues, but, as I’ve said, I will be firmly grounded in the concept of materiality when considering what type of disclosures may be required. I will say that investors rightly want to know what the companies they own are doing in the political arena. There is very strong investor interest in this information.”

«