Page 21 - SepDefComp

Deferred Compensation Advisory Committee
Investment Consultant Request for Proposals Page 2

Dames) to retain the incumbent NFP, and that motion failed. Given that the meeting
already past its scheduled time, the DCAC then voted 6-0 to defer the RFP item to a special
meeting to be scheduled as soon as practicable.
DISCUSSION

Since that August 26 meeting, the selection committee met again to consider any additional
information that would lead to a specific selection recommendation that the selection
committee could then make to the full DCAC.

All the information, observations and findings presented on August 26 continue to hold
true. The selection committee believes that both are quality consultants, and their proposals
were responsive to the RFP. For greater detail, see the August 23, 2021, memo for the
August 26, 2021, DCAC meeting (attached).

For this September 29 DCAC meeting, the selection committee recommends the selection of
Innovest based on further consideration of the following factors that, in the opinion of the
selection committee, distinguish and favor Innovest:

• Independent Consulting—In the recent past, the full DCAC has discussed strategic
opportunities that included further reducing fees and customizing our target-date
fund (TDF) glide paths. The selection committee believes that both NFP and
Innovest are qualified and capable of facilitate those efforts on behalf of the DCAC.

However, those prior discussions with NFP included NFP’s proprietary TDFs and
their proprietary collective investment trusts (CITs). As a matter of County
procurement policy, NFP cannot serve as a consultant in a process in which their
products compete. The DCAC would need to hire and pay for another consultant
(alongside NFP) if it both retained NFP and wanted to access their proprietary
products.

A related concern is that to the extent the County’s plan used both NFP and its
proprietary products, the plan could find itself in a position to retain NFP as a
consultant just so that the plan could continue to access NFPs proprietary products.
That is, separating from NFP as a consultant would mean the loss of the NFP
proprietary products. The selection committee unanimously agrees that it will not
make a recommendation that would put the plan or the DCAC in that situation.

Yes, NFP could exclude its proprietary products from consideration in County
procurements, and that exclusion would nullify both of the above conflicts. However,
NFP’s RFP proposal includes mention of
their proprietary products, and the
exclusion would be their decision, not the
selection committee’s.