Bring the analysis
nobody else brought.
We model every bidder's contract against your client's real claims and rank the proposals by what the client would actually have paid. Every number opens to the clause that produced it, so it holds up in the finalist meeting. You present it under your name.
want strategic guidance from their broker and say they do not get it.
You are being judged on the analysis you cannot afford to run.
A real RFP is expensive and slow, so it gets thinned out: headline terms across three or four bidders, assembled by hand, sometimes against the incumbent's own renewal projection.
The terms you compared were real terms. The problem is that every bidder proposed on a basis they chose, and there is no shared denominator to compare them on. That is a bid strategy, not a messy market.
The rebate credit as read, against what it comes to as written.
failure to adopt modern technology entered the top eight reasons employers switch brokers, first time, 2026
of employers review the broker relationship annually. Roughly a third re-evaluate only after something goes wrong.
of employers are cutting benefits in 2026, up from 44% two years earlier
Two inputs, no implementation project.
Send the claims file and the bidder contracts. There is nothing to integrate and nothing to configure per client.
Send claims and contracts
A claims file and every bidder's contract, in whatever format you received them. No data warehouse project, no per-group setup.
rebate ≥ floor × gen_rateContracts compile to logic
Definitions, discount tiers, dispensing fees, rebate mechanics, exclusions and carve-outs become executable rules, not a summary of the contract.
Claims price line by line
Every bidder's rules run against the same real claims. Same contract and same claims produce the same number every time.
You get the ranking
Bidders ordered by what your client would actually have paid, with the gap between that and the headline order shown explicitly.
A client-ready artifact, not a dataset.
You do not need an analytics team to use this, and you should not need one to defend it.
$4.25 PMPM under Bidder A, across 76,800 member months.
All five priced on the client's own claims.
“Where does that come from?” The largest single driver is §4.2(c), worth $486K.
§2.14 leaves “low-cost brand” undefined: 3 defensible readings, $264K apart.
The net cost ranking
Every bidder on one basis: what the client would have paid. Where that reorders the field against the headline discounts, the reorder is the finding.
Every number traced to a clause
The question you are most afraid of, how did you get this number, is answered inside the document. Open any figure and it resolves to the contract line, the clause, and the claims underneath.
Ambiguous terms, priced
Where a term does not resolve to a single rule, you get the readings it admits and what the spread between them is worth. That is a negotiating position, not a caveat.
Your name on it
The analysis ships as your firm's work product, and the client relationship stays yours. You present it and you defend it.
When this decision is actually live.
The calendar is not the one most renewal conversations assume. A full RFP is a three-to-five year event; the deadline that decides whether you get one is much sooner.
If the notice deadline falls inside the next ten months, the decision is now, not at renewal.
A full RFP
Nine to twelve months out. It runs 4 to 6 months end to end and only comes around every 3 to 5 years per client, so when it comes it has to be right.
The annual market check
Most PBM agreements already permit one, with a pricing adjustment if terms fall out of market. No RFP and no bidders required.
Rx trend outpacing medical
A renewal number that is hard to explain upward, on the benefit line the client understands least.
A client announcing benefit cuts
The opening to offer savings that do not touch the plan design.
An account in play
A loss, or a re-evaluation after a service failure. Only 26% of employers review the broker relationship annually, so churn tends to arrive without warning.
Your fee-disclosure conversation
Where you have to justify in writing what you are paid.
What brokers ask first.
Two inputs: the claims file and the contracts. There is no per-client integration project, no analytics build-out, and nothing to configure per group. Send what you already have.
You don't need one. The output is the artifact you present, not a dataset someone has to turn into one. It is built to be projected in a finalist meeting.
Click the number. It opens to the contract line, the clause, and the claims behind it. The answer is already in the document, which means you are not defending a black box you did not build.
Then run one contract. Priced ambiguities and ranked redlines on the agreement already in force need no bidders and no RFP in flight. That motion is annual, where a full RFP is not.
Bring one client's RFP.
Send one client's claims file and the bidder contracts. You get back the ranking, ordered by what your client would actually have paid.
Send one file and one contract.
If there is no RFP in flight, send the contract already in force instead. One contract is enough to start.