Priced on your book.
Not your usage.
One annual figure, scoped to the book you would run this across. Modeling a fifth bidder costs what modeling a third costs, because a comparison you have to ration is not a comparison.
The RFP is rare. The market check is annual.
A full RFP comes around every three to five years per client. The market check comes around every year, and most PBM agreements already permit one.
So the quote covers the year, not the event. You are not buying an RFP tool that sits idle for four years between engagements.
Market check: newly proposed rates run against prior-year utilization, with a pricing adjustment if terms fall out of market. No RFP and no bidders required.
Full RFP: runs 4 to 6 months end to end, starting 9 to 12 months before term end, with 5 bidders in the field.
Four inputs, and none of them are seats.
There are no published tiers, because a tier would price someone else's book. These are the variables we ask about.
Book size
The number of groups, or covered lives, across the clients you would run this for. Mid-market self-funded groups typically land between 100 and 500 employees.
Motions per year
Full RFPs and market checks combined. Most of the annual volume is market checks, which is what the quote is built to cover.
Contract scope
PBM, medical, or both, and whether you need the contract already in force modeled alongside the bidders competing to replace it.
Support level
From running it yourself against your own claims files to having our team stand behind the output in a finalist meeting.
No capability sits behind a tier.
The support level changes. What the analysis does never does.
Which is the only honest way to sell coverage. A tier that withholds priced ambiguity or clause-level trace would be selling back the thing that makes the comparison worth having.
Fair questions.
There is no seat count and no per-bidder fee. We scope an annual figure against your book size, how many RFPs and market checks you expect to run, and whether you need PBM, medical, or both. Modeling one more bidder does not change the price. That is deliberate: the whole argument is that the comparison should be complete.
Because a full RFP is a three-to-five year event per client, while the market check is the annual motion and most PBM agreements already permit one. Pricing per RFP would bill you for the rare motion and give you nothing for the frequent one.
Yes, and it is the most common way to start. Send one client's claims file and one agreement already in force. You get the priced ambiguities and the disadvantageous terms ranked by dollar impact, with no RFP in flight and no bidders involved.
No. There are two inputs: a claims extract and the contracts. There is no warehouse build, no per-client integration, and no cooperation required from the incumbent whose contract is being evaluated. A BAA is executed before any data moves.
No. Everything is derived from the contract text and your own claims. That matters most in a market check, where you are testing terms against a vendor who has no incentive to help you do it.
Yours. The analysis ships as your firm's work product, and the client relationship stays yours. You present it and you defend it, which is why every figure resolves to a clause.
We typically work in annual agreements, and we would rather scope a pilot on a single live engagement than negotiate a term you are not ready for. Both are worth a conversation.
One client is enough to scope it.
We would rather quote against a real book than a questionnaire. One client and one contract is enough to have that conversation.
59% of employers are making cost-cutting plan changes in 2026, up from 44% two years ago (Mercer, 2025). Vendor selection is the one lever that does not touch the benefit.
Send one file and one contract.
We will scope the quote off what you actually run. Market check, mid-term renegotiation, or full bid: the mechanic is the same.