Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 7738 (Risk Management Study)RESOLUTION NO. 7738 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES as follows: The MAYOR and CITY CLERK are authorized to execute, on behalf of the City of San Rafael, a contract, lease or agreement with UNIRISK, Inc., for a Risk Management Study to be completed within Ninety days of project inception for an amount not to exceed $8,975.001 a copy of which is hereby attached and by this reference made a part hereof. I, JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and adopted at a REGULAR meeting of the City Council of said City held on MONDAY the SIXTEENTH day of MAY , 1988, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:Frugoli h.� JEAN69 M. LEONCINI,'ty Clerk CONSULTANT CONTRACT THIS AGREEMENT, made on this first day of July 1988, is a contract for services between the City of San Rafael, hereinafter known as "San Rafael", and UniRisk, Inc. hereinafter known as "UniRisk". RECITALS A. San Rafael understands it has extensive risk exposures as a municipal corporation; B. San Rafael has implemented some aspects of a risk management program; C. San Rafael wishes to undertake a comprehensive study of its risk management program; D. UniRisk is experienced and well qualified in the field of risk management, and can conduct a comprehensive study of San Rafael's risk management program; E. UniRisk is aware that information may come into its possession that might impact San Rafael in the event such information were released to outside parties; and F. San Rafael desires to employ UniRisk to provide professional and technical services necessary to conduct the above mentioned risk management study; THEREFORE, San Rafael and UniRisk mutually agree as follows: 1. SCOPE OF WORK: The scope of work is generally described as conducting a comprehensive study of San Rafael's risk management program. Specifics of the scope of work for this project are set forth in UniRisk's proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit I and made a part hereof as though fully set forth verbatim. 2. COOPERATION: San Rafael and its officers and employees shall provide necessary information to UniRisk as required to perform the services described herein and in accordance with the scope of work set forth above. 3. COMPENSATION: Compensation for services under paragraph 1. shall consist of a total payment of Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy -Five dollars ($8,975), to be paid as follows: A fifty percent (50%) retainer of $4,487.50 to be paid upon the signing of this agreement. The balance of $4,487.50 to be paid upon receipt of UniRisk's final report. - 1 - �~ � ` rl N� UmRisk The compensation set forth in this paragraph shall be the total compensation for the services provided, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by San Rafael and UniRisk. 4. PAYMENT: Except for the retainer to be paid prior to commencement, UniRisk shall be paid by San Rafael for services rendered after receipt by San Rafael of UniRisk's reports. UniRisk shall submit to San Rafael an invoice for work completed. Payment by San Rafael shall be made within thirty (30) days after receipt and approval of UniRisk's invoice. 5. STATUS OF CONSULTANT: This Agreement calls for the performance of the services of UniRisk as an independent contractor, and UniRisk will not be considered an employee of San Rafael for any purpose. 6. CONFIDENTIALITY: During the term of this Agreement, UniRisk may be privileged with sensitive information that might significantly impact San Rafael if such information were disclosed to outside parties. UniRisk fully respects the confidentiality of such information, and will not disclose to anyone, directly or indirectly, either during the term of this Agreement or at any time thereafter, any such information or use such information other than in the course of services provided for San Rafael under this Agreement. All documents that UniRisk reviews, or confidential information that UniRisk receives during the course of their services under this Agreement, are the exclusive property of San Rafael and shall remain in San Rafael's possession. Under no circumstances shall any such information or documents be removed from San Rafael without San Rafael's written consent. 7. TERM OF AGREEMENT: The term of this Agreement shall be for ninety (90) days, commencing with the date this contract is executed, unless San Rafael changes the scope of the work set forth under "SCOPE OF WORK", in which case a new expiration date will be agreed upon by San Rafael and UniRisk. 8. TIME OF COMPLETION: The time for completion of this project shall be as follows: UniRisk shall begin the study within five (5) working days following the execution of this Agreement and the payment by San Rafael of UniRisk's retainer fee. UniRisk shall complete the study and deliver a written preliminary report within sixty (60) days following UniRisk's commencement of work under this Agreement. UniRisk shall deliver a written final report within fifteen (15) working days after receipt by UniRisk of - 2 - UmRisk the preliminary report containing San Rafael's comments, suggestions and recommended changes. 9. NOTICES: All notices to either party shall be deemed to have been provided by depositing the same, postage prepaid, with the United States Postal Service, addressed as follows: SAN RAFAEL: City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94902 Attn: Ms. Suzanne Golt UNIRISK: UniRisk, Inc. One California Street Suite 2780 San Francisco, CA 94111 Attn: Mr. Bruce Codding 10. INDEMNIFICATION: UniRisk agrees to hold harmless, indemnify, including attorneys fees, and defend San Rafael, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, loss, liability and damages arising from its negligent or intentional acts or omissions arising from UniRisk's work performed under this agreement. San Rafael agrees to hold harmless, indemnify, including attorneys fees, and defend UniRisk, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, loss, liability and damages arising from its negligent or intentional acts or omissions arising from San Rafael's activities related to this agreement. 11. INSURANCE: UniRisk shall take out and maintain, during the entire term of this Agreement, general liability, professional liability, and workers' compensation insurance. The limits of liability and coverage endorsements are as follows: General Liability - Limit of liability of not less than One Million dollars ($1,000,000). Professional Liability - Limit of liability of not less than One Million dollars ($1,000,000). Workers' Compensation - Limit of liability for coverage A - statutory; and Limit of liability for coverage B of not less than One Hundred Thousand dollars ($100,000). - 3 - UmRisk The general liability policy shall include contractual liability coverage for this Agreement. The general liability policy shall include San Rafael as an additional insured for all coverages. The workers' compensation policy shall include a waiver of subrogation endorsement in favor of San Rafael. All policies shall include an endorsement requiring the insurance company to give San Rafael thirty (30) days prior written notice of any cancellation, reduction in coverage, or any other material change. UniRisk shall not perform any work under this Agreement until after they have furnished San Rafael certificates of insurance evidencing the insurance required hereunder. 12. WAIVER OF DEFAULT: The failure of any party to enforce against another a provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of that party's right to enforce such a provision at a later time, and shall not serve to vary the terms of this Agreement. 13. FORUM: Lawsuits pertaining to any matter arising under or growing out of this contract shall be instituted in the city and county of San Francisco, California. 14. HEADINGS: All paragraph or section captions are for reference only, and shall not be considered in construing this Agreement. 15. ASSIGNMENT: This Agreement shall not be assigned by any party, or any party substituted, without prior written consent of all the parties. 16. BINDING EFFECT: This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding on the successors in interest and assigns of the parties. 17. ATTORNEY'S FEES: In any action to enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its attorney's fees, court costs and other non -reimbursable litigation expenses, such as expert witness fees and investigation expenses. 18. TERMINATION: This Agreement may be terminated by either party by giving ten (10) days written notice to the other party. Upon termination, payment shall be prorated for the amount of work done for any phase still in progress. Upon termination, all work completed shall be turned over to San Rafael. - 4 - Um Risk 19. MERGER AND MODIFICATION: This Agreement sets forth the entire contract between the parties, and supersedes all other oral or written provisions. This Agreement may be modified or terminated only in a writing signed by all the parties. 20. CONTROL: All study activities performed by UniRisk under this Agreement shall be under the control of and conducted with the knowledge of San Rafael management. 21. ARBITRATION: UniRisk and San Rafael agree to submit any claims arising under this Agreement to binding arbitration, pursuant to the current provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure and any successor statutes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers on the day and year written below. UNIRI;Iuce , By: Coddiucfce President Date: July 1, 1988 CITY .OF SAN RAFAEL Byy Lawrence E. Mulryan Mayor S7 Date: � 0- -7c , 1 7 � ATTEST: - 5 - /��-�l'G�-9 � • '`tel � _T1�� w'''t^ .ff4a e M. Leoncini City lerk w a a � r-� �. w amu`• EXHIBIT I CITY OR SAN RAFAEL RISKSTUDY PROPOSAL CURRENT SITUATION San Rafael, a city with a population of approximately 45,000 and an employee work force of nearly 325 has undertaken some risk management techniques, such as self-insurance of liability and workers' compensation losses. However, the city does not have a comprehensive, centralized risk management program. Although the city had an audit of its workers' compensation claims administrator about two years ago, and an audit of the liability claims administrator about three months ago, other financial checks, such as actuarial studies, have never been done. Also, there has never been a comprehensive study of all aspects of risk management, including both internal and contract administration. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY Goals We envision this study with three goals, which are to: 1. Provide the City of San Rafael with a comprehensive evaluation of its risk management program; 2. Determine the most cost effective method of adminis- tering the city risk management program, either in-house or through outside contractors; and 3. Provide specific recommendations for establishing and implementing an in-house administration program, so the City may proceed with that option. Objectives The objectives are to: I. Complete the study within 60 days of project inception; and 2. Provide a preliminary report within 60 days of project inception, and a final report within 30 days thereafter. UNIRISK'S BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS UniRisk is an independent risk management consulting firm head- quartered in San Francisco. We do not sell insurance, but Page 1 1W derive all our revenue from risk management and related consul- ting services. We are not related to insurance brokers, under- writers or claims administrators, and this independence allows us to be totally objective when evaluating our clients' insur- ance and claims programs. CLIENT REFERENCES UniRisk conducted a similar project for the City of Bakersfield. We established a new risk management program, including a comprehensive review of insurance coverages, estab- lishment of administration procedures, development of a risk management manual, and design of a loss control plan. We trained the new risk manager, who was promoted from within. We also act as contract risk managers for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. In that capacity we conducted a feasibility study for self-insurance of automobile fleet exposures, and later implemented the plan. We are currently studying a second plan for workers' compensation self-insurance. A partial list of our public entity clients and contact names follows: ABAG PLAN 10 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite B-315 Redwood City, CA 94065 415-598-9750 Mr. Brian O'Toole, Risk Manager First Project Underwriting surveys of candidate members to ABAG PLAN. Length of engagement thirty days. Fee $7,200. Second Project Loss control plan design for ABAG PLAN. Project currently in process. Fee $47,075. Bay Area Air Quality Management District 939 Ellis Street San Francisco, CA 94109 415-771-6000 Mr. Tom Bell, Director of Administrative Services Proj ect Contract risk management services, including insurance coverages review and administration, fleet loss control program design and internal claims administration Page 2 %W ■ t t U -S WTQL:V% assistance. Length of engagement one year. Fee for all services $21,600. City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxton Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 805-326-3013 Mr. Kenneth R. Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager Project Design and implementation of a new risk management program, including insurance coverages review, preparation of a risk management manual, design of a loss control plan and training of a new risk manager. Length of engagement one year. Fee for all services $52,800. UNIRISK'S PROJECT TEAM Bruce Codding, vice president of UniRisk, was the first risk manager for the City of Fresno, California. He set up the Risk Management Division, within the Finance Department, and estab- lished the city's liability, property and workers' compensation self-insurance plans. He introduced computerized administration programs that are still in use. As a consultant Mr. Codding has reviewed and analyzed clients' insurance programs, insur- ance administration procedures, and loss control and safety methods. Dr. Roland Dart, associate consultant, has over twenty-five years direct experience in police management. He served as police chief in Lafayette, Louisiana for two years, and in Vallejo, California for twelve years. He has worked with UniRisk as a subcontractor on projects requiring public safety administration evaluation. Donald Hayward, associate consultant, has more than twenty-five years loss control experience. For sixteen years he has managed the safety and loss control programs of two large, diversified Fortune 500 corporations. He has developed and implemented new loss control programs for several firms, both at the corporate and subsidiary level. We would also use one of our subcontractors, Ms. Katherine Linnemann, for the specialized service of auditing workers' compensation administration and claims management. References and contact names for Ms. Linnemann appear below. Ms. Linnemann has many years of workers' compensation claims supervision and consulting experience. She specializes in auditing large claims portfolios and periodic case management review of serious claims. Page 3 %Mv ■ 11 i--151%_ 4M W Ms. Linnemann has worked extensively with: Argonaut Insurance Company 250 Middlefield Road Menlo Park, California 94025 415-326-0900 Ms. Marie Wardell, Assistant vice President - Workers' Compensation Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer i Jensen 595 Market Street Suite 900 San Francisco, California 94105 415-543-9110 Mr. Bob MacLean Kaiser Permanente Hospital 1900 Broadway Oakland, California 94612 415-428-6510 Ms. Cheryl Lambert, Workers' Compensation Supervisor Resumes for our team members appear in Appendix A. STUDY METHODOLOGY UniRisk uses a team approach because it provides greater objec- tivity and breadth of experience than one consultant working alone. It also allows us to complete projects faster, because several tasks can be conducted simultaneously. Our team would hold an initial meeting with the City Manager and designated staff to plan a strategy for conducting the study, and set out a schedule for interviews and site inspections. We would interview key department heads and city staff to get an overview of city operations, risk exposures, loss prevention and control efforts, and a sense of their attitude about risk management. We would review current risk transfer standards and procedures. Our emphasis would be on the current state of risk management administration and endeavors, and where improvements or cost efficiencies could be made. We would contact the administrator workers' compensation self-insurance claims, and conduct and audit of that program. Our emphasis would be on determining the cost effectiveness of this program, and pointing out how the City could stabilize or reduce costs. We would also review the recent liability claims audit report to identify its recommendations and determine how they might be incorporated with the recommendations emanating from our study. Page 4 V00 5 a i W"i M it k� {l Simultaneously, we would contact the city's safety consultant and audit the services provided. We would also review the city's guidelines, personnel rules, and safety handbooks to determine their accuracy, completeness, effectiveness. In addition, we would inspect a sample group of city facilities to test the effectiveness of loss prevention and safety measures. ROTE Inspections sometimes points up serious risk expos- ures that have escaped management's attention. If we discover any serious risk exposures during our study we will notify city management immediately, without waiting for publication of our written report. We would meet with city management to discuss our preliminary report, and hold an exit conference to discuss our final report and recommendations. SCOPE OF THE STUDY This study would cover three major areas: 1. Risk management administration (see Exhibit I); 2. Self-insured claims administration, including an audit of workers' compensation claims at the administrator's offices (see Exhibit II); and 3. Safety services administration, including an audit of contract safety services (see Exhibit III). We have set out the criteria for each of these areas in Exhibits I through III, so they may be separated and reviewed by your staff more easily. The major tasks we would conduct under this study include: 1. Analyze the structure of the internal risk management program, including its placement within the city organization, staffing, functions, and related committees; 2. Evaluate the current capability, experience, knowledge and performance level of the firms supply- ing claims administration services and safety services; 3. Perform an audit of self-insured workers' compensa- tion claims; 4. Conduct a cost benefit analysis of in-house risk management administration, versus the use of outside Page 5 �t } Maw ••r--1 Nw-A 7 contractors, including the pros and cons of each method; and 5. Outline specific methods for establishing a compre- hensive risk management program, including in-house administration, budget expense allocation, hazard identification, loss control and safety, risk transfer, and training. 6. Meet with city management to discuss our preliminary and final reports, and recommendations. No comprehensive survey of liability, property or workers' compensation exposures or hazards would be conducted under this study, only inspections sufficient to test the loss prevention and safety measures in use. REPORTS UniRisk would provide the City of San Rafael with a preliminary report of our findings and recommendations within thirty (60) days following commencement of the study. City staff and department heads would be given ample opportunity to review our report and make comments. We would then issue our final report, including responses to the comments of city personnel, within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the city's response. Our reports would cover the criteria set out in Exhibits I through III for each major aspect of the study, with specific recommendations for improving programs and effecting cost savings. In addition to the workers' compensation audit report, we would provide an individual comprehensive caption report on each claim with total indemnity and medical reserves of twenty-five thousand ($25,000) or more. PROJECT MANAGEXKNT Bruce Codding would be the project manager throughout the entire study. He would direct and supervise the activities of the other team members, and act as liaison with the city staff. Bruce Codding would review the city's risk management administration, risk transfer policies and procedures, and conduct the majority of interviews with the City Manager's staff and department heads. He would prepare the preliminary and final reports. Katherine Linnemann would conduct the workers' compensation audit. Page 6 •=r■ 0 W"vvW.0V% Roland Dart would interview public safety personnel on risk management issues, and work with Katherine Linnemann on workers' compensation claims of public safety employees. Donald Hayward would interview the city's safety consultant, review the city's safety policies and manuals, and conduct site inspections to test loss control and safety measures. TIMING AND LENGTH OF THE STUDY We can begin this study within five (5) working days of accep- tance of this proposal. We anticipate the study would be com- plete within ninety (90) days, which allows sufficient time for city staff to review our preliminary report and make comments, before publication of the final report. FEES AND BILLING SCHEDULE Fees UniRisk has a standard hourly billing rate for professional services of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) for all public entity clients. Our fee for travel time and for report writing is twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per hour. These fees include all overhead costs, so there are no additional charges. The total cost of the project is $8,975.00. The following summary outlines a breakdown of our fees: Fee Summary Activity Hours Rate Fee Meetings a interviews 34.0 $75 $2,550 Inspections 4.0 75 300 Research i analysis 22.0 75 1,650 Report preparation 12.0 75 900 Report writing 4.0 25 100 Travel time 19.0 25 475 Workers' compensation audit 3,000 Total Fees $8,975 UniRisk is willing to negotiate its fees, if the City of San Rafael wants to de-emphasize any part of this study in order to reduce costs. Billing Schedule We would invoice fifty percent (50%) of the study fee at incep- tion of the study, to be paid within thirty (30) days. The balance of the fee would be invoiced upon delivery of our final Page 7 q.. ■..-e R3 V% v �= report. We are willing to negotiate this billing schedule, if the city desires. UNIRISKIS INSURANCE COVERAGE UniRisk maintains appropriate automobile, general and profess- ional liability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. We would supply the City of San Rafael with a certificate, outlining the policy limits of each coverage, following execution of this agreement and before commencement of any activities. ADDITIONAL SERVICES UniRisk can provide services in addition to those outlined in this proposal. If the City of San Rafael agrees further action should be undertaken, we would be glad to submit a proposal for services such as the following: Actuarial analysis of self-insurance funds; Analysis of risk financing alternatives; Analysis of claims cost trends and preparation of budget cost projections; Development of claims settlement strategies on serious cases; Periodic audits of contract claims administrators; koss prevention and safety training for department heads, supervisory personnel and non -supervisory employees; Advice on risk transfer guidelines and compliance procedures; Setting up risk management systems and procedures, including computerized administrative systems; Designing risk management expense allocation systems for budgeting; Participation on oral review boards for selection of risk management personnel; Training new risk management personnel; 'Designing risk management policy statements; Writing risk management manuals; Page 8 %no n I s% r.., st conducting liability, property and vorkars' compensation exposure surveys; Designing and implementing hazard identification systems; Designing model general orders related to risk management for public safety administration; Review and analysis of insurance coverages; Conducting an insurance broker selection; Conducting a claims administrator selection; Writing annual risk management reports; Analysis of employee benefit plans; and Design and implementation of an Employee Assistance Plan ( EAP) . Page 9 .0'4 : 0 V RISK NANA4ZWM. ADHMSTRATION RVALVATION �_vYtRxao a ADKINISTRATION 1. Internal A. Analysis of current organization 1. Placement within city organization 2. Analysis of program functions 3. Role of the City Manager's office 4. Role of the City Attorney's office 5. Role of the Personnel Department 6. Role of committees a. Analysis of committee functions i. Risk Management Committee ii. City-wide Safety Committee 7. Evaluation of risk management policies and procedures a. Risk financing i. Insurance purchasing ii. Self-insurance iii. Other b. Risk identification i. Identification systems ii. Quality assurance procedures C. Risk control i. Analysis of safety policies, personnel rules, safety handbooks and related material ii. Coordination with contract safety services 1 EE=BIT I V�• RISK XA AGENENT AMUNISTRATION EVALUATION d. Risk transfer i. Contractual provisions ii. Insurance certificate compliance 8. Evaluation of staffing a. Number of staff involved b. Education and experience in risk management activities, i.e., insurance, claims management, and loss control and safety C. Time allocated to risk management 9. Integration of risk management activities 10. Overall evaluation of internal administration efficiency and effectiveness II. External A. Evaluation of services provided by insurance brokers, contract claims administrators and safety service firms 1. Staff education and experience 2. Capability 3. Performance service level 4. Cost effectiveness III. IN-HOUSE ADKINISTRATION A. Pros and cons of in-house administration B. Cost benefit analysis of in-house administration versus current system C. Development of an in-house program 1. Staffing needs 2. Personnel classifications 3. Position salary ranges is %noi 51W-I%/►b IR EXHIBIT I RISK NANA4.wW,6. AEKINISTRATION ZVAL40ATION 4. Personnel search Qualifications 5. Position duties summaries (job specifications) 6. Contract services necessary under in-house administration 7. Recommendations on: i. Risk management policies ii. Risk management systems and procedures iii. Risk management manual iv. Risk management expense allocation systems for budgeting V. Training 3 V w I i WMIBIT ZI SELF-INSURED CLXM ADKINISTRATION EVALUATION I. LIABILITY CLAIMS AMINISTRATION Since an audit of the liability claims administrator was conducted recently, we would review that audit report with our claims management standards in mind. These standards are similar to those listed below for workers' compensation claims management. II. WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION We review claims administration in each of the following major categories: A. Organizational; B. Claims and litigation management; C. Reporting and contract compliance; and D. Service and cost effectiveness. A. Organizational 1. Review systems and procedures for receipt, logging and processing of claims, including reserving and payment. 2. Determine the training and experience level of the administrator's claims examiner(s), and whether their settlement authority is commensurate with such training and experience. 3. Determine if the workload of the administrator's claims examiner(s) is excessive. 4. Evaluate the administrator's diary system for review- ing claims files. How often are files reviewed? Are benefit payments audited quarterly? B. Claims and Litigation Management 1. Review the timeliness and adequacy of claims investigations. Are AOE/COE determinations made? Are injuries properly determined and defined? 2. Determine that injured employees are properly advised of their compensation benefits in a timely manner. 1 Vi7iMM-K EEBIB+. ZI SELF-INSURED CIAIM AOl MSTRATION WAIMATION 3. Determine that injured employees receive compensation benefit payments within the time frame set out by law. Are initial payments made within 14 days? 4. Evaluate the accuracy and adequacy of indemnity and medical reserves. 5. Determine if reserve changes are made in a timely manner. 6. Determine if negative reserves appear in the claims database and what procedures the administrator follows to respond to such reserves. 7. Determine if claims files contain adequate documentation, i.e., reports, statements, records, photographs and diagrams, to support case management decisions. 8. Review claims files to see if the history of indemnity and medical payments is displayed. 9. Determine if settlement benefits are paid timely. 10. Assess the medical management program. Is medical care properly controlled and are medical examinations utilized in a timely manner? Do claims files reflect a case plan? Is there a return to work or light duty program and is the administrator utilizing it effectively? 11. Evaluate the utilization and effectiveness of outside medical professionals. 12. Evaluate vocational rehabilitation management. Is rehabilitation being evaluated at the proper point of medical development? Are rehabilitation referrals made promptly? Do the files reflect a vocational rehabilitation plan? 13. Determine if vocational rehabilitation expenses are being properly controlled. Are rehabilitation bene- fits being concluded as soon as possible? 14. Evaluate the utilization of rehabilitation services and the effectiveness of such service. 15. Analyze the litigation ratio and determine if there is an excessive number of litigated claims. N 9J I 1 190% 9*4. JL MMM ZI k - SELF -INSURED CIAMW AMMISTRATION EVALUATION 16. Evaluate litigation management. Are litigation issues recognized early? Are referrals made promptly to legal counsel? Do claims files contain a litiga- tion plan? Are legal expenses being controlled properly? 17. Evaluate the effectiveness of outside legal counsel in defending litigated claims and disposing of liti- gated claims in an expeditious manner. 18. Determine if there is timely recognition of settle- ment possibilities. Are claims properly evaluated for settlement? Are various settlement forms considered, i.e., Compromise and Release, stipulated award, findings and award? 19. Verify that all subrogation possibilities are consid- ered and pursued. 20. Analyze whether bills for services are being paid within a reasonable time period. C. Reporting and Contract Compliance 1. Assess whether serious claims are reported to the excess insurer(s) within the requirements set out by the excess insurance policies or standard claims administration practices. 2. Determine if the excess insurer(s) is kept informed in a timely manner of developments in serious claims, after initial reporting. 3. Verify the accuracy of loss runs by comparison with selected claims files. 4. Evaluate the administrator's method for keeping San Rafael informed of the status of their claims. 5. Determine if the administrator is following the terms set forth in their contract with San Rafael. D. Service and Cost Effectiveness I. Evaluate responsiveness of administrator to San Rafael's request for information on administration, fees, status of specific claims, etc. 3 %N/ If 1 i r% Rcr JCC EEIiI sn II 1u„ SELF-INSURED CIAM ADlSINISTRATION EVAWATION 2. Evaluate reasonableness of administrator's charges. UniRisk will review the following in San Rafael's workers' compensation claims portfolio: 1. All open claims with combined indemnity and medical reserves of $25,000 or more; 2. All open claims reported to excess insurance companies; 3. Twenty-five percent (25%) of all open indemnity claims, in addition to the files outlined in 1. above; 4. Fifteen percent (15%) of all open claims with medical reserves, commonly referred to as "medical only"; and 5. Ten percent (10%) of all files closed within the last two (2) years. In addition to our written report, we would prepare a compre- hensive caption report on each case with combined indemnity and medical reserves of $25,000 or more. 4 i, V X11 i"'� �lJC 2 ! SIT III SAFETY SERVICES EVALUATION I. STAFF A. Education B. Knowledge K': 1. General safety 2. Public entity risk exposures 3. Governmental regulations, i.e., California Government Code, Federal EPA, NIOSH, OSHA C. Professional experience 1. Identifying loss exposures and hazards 2. Designing and implementing hazard identification and loss control systems 3. Conducting safety training A. Compliance with their contract with San Rafael III. SERVICE AND COST EFFECTIVENESS A. Inspections 1. Frequency of inspections of city facilities 2 Comprehensiveness of inspections and reports B. Special requests 1. Level of responsiveness to San Rafael's requests for service C. Cost effectiveness 1 y r I I NM% I, in V1 BRUCE CODDING Vice President During nearly twenty years in the insurance industry Mr. Codding has held a number of claims and risk management positions. He was the first Risk Manager for the City of Fresno, California, and Director of Risk Management for Varian Associates, a Fortune 500 company. He is proficient at designing and implementing complete risk management programs. He has acquired expertise in a variety of areas including: o Analysis of insurance coverages, limits and retentions. o Conducting feasibility studies of risk retention plans, including self-insurance and pooling; o Establishment of self-insurance claims administration systems; o Designing and directing loss control programs; o Analysis of claims data and projection of future losses; o Development of claims and risk management systems for microcomputers; o Selection and auditing of brokers, adjusters and contract claims administrators; o Analysis of captive insurance programs, including association, single owner and multiple owner captives; Mr. Codding holds the Associate in Risk Management (ARM) diploma. He has been affiliated with, and lectured at, the following insurance associations: o Public Risk & Insurance Management Association (PRIMA); o Public Agency Risk Managers Association (PARMA); o Risk and Insurance Management Society (RIMS), where he served as an officer in the Santa Clara Valley Chapter, as well as on national committees; and o Machinery and Allied Products Institute (MAPI) Risk Management Council. Tor ■ a a s -S W' e, at % ROIAND C. DART, DPA Consultant/Public Safety and Security Specialist Dr. Dart has more than twenty-six years experience in public safety and security. He served over twelve years as police chief in two municipalities, most recently the City of Vallejo. He has extensive experience in: o Consulting for the California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) in workers' compensation, discipline and police management; o Conducting management and planning studies for municipalities, counties, state and federal law enforcement agencies in the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands; and o Serving the International Association of Police Chiefs in a variety of responsibilities and special projects. Dr. Dart specializes in workers' compensation management. He conducts the following seminars for POST: o "Workers' Compensation Cases - Management and Control of Workers' Compensation Disability"; and o "Managing the Workers' Compensation Process and Dealing with the Problem Employee". He has also lectured before the following organizations: o California District Attorney Association; o Association of Criminal Justice Research; o The Sino -American Institute on Criminal Justice; and o Taipei and Tunghi University, Tichung, Taiwan. Roland Dart holds a Doctorate of Public Administration from the University of Southern California. In 1974 he was honored as Police Chief of the Year by the International Association of Police Chiefs. Consultant/Safety & Loss Control Specialist V Mr. Hayward has twenty-five years of loss control experience as a corporate safety manager. He has spent the last ten years as safety manager with a Fortune 500 corporation. In addition, as a consultant, he has provided loss control assistance to smaller organizations. He is proficient in designing safety plans, both on a corporate -wide basis and on an individual location basis. He has developed and implemented loss control programs with proven cost savings. Mr. Hayward's experience includes: o conducting safety and loss control audits; o analyzing loss trends from accident and claims data; o designing company and work place safety programs; o determining loss causes and providing sound corrective measures; o conducting safety training; and o interacting with senior management and line management in designing and implementing safety programs. Mr. Hayward holds a bachelor of science degree in chemical engineering from San Fernando State University. He is a member of the California Safety Management Society, and the National Safety Management Society. Mr. Hayward is a recognized expert in rocket safety, and has given presentations to the National Rocket Society. V(..V%1�, 44L KATHERDM S. LINNEXANN Workers' Compensation Claims Specialist c With over twelve years in casualty claims management, Katherine Linnemann has developed specialized skills in workers' compensation claims. She has extensive expertise in evaluating and reserves, and designing case management strategies. She is a certified self-insurance administrator. Ms. Linnemann has held claims management positions with two major insurance companies. She has consulted with large workers' compensation insurance companies and third party self-insurance administrators. Her experience includes companies in diverse industries, such as: o Agricultural cooperatives; o Commercial insurance; o Computer and computer peripherals manufacturing; o Construction; o Diary production; o Electronics manufacturing; o Foundries; o Hotels; o Pharmaceutical manufacturing; o Public entities; and o Retail stores. She is the past Secretary and Treasurer of the Industrial Claims Association, and served as a member of the Executive Committee. Ms. Linnemann has taught many classes for the Industrial Claims Association and the Insurance Education Association. Ms. Linnemann has taught at the university level, and is a guest lecturer at San Francisco State University.