Page 22 - SepDefComp

Deferred Compensation Advisory Committee
Investment Consultant Request for Proposals Page 3

• Opportunities for Plan Improvements—In the finalist interviews, each company was
asked to identify improvements they would suggest to the County assuming they
were selected as the consultant. Those suggestions included the following examples:

NFP INNOVEST
Enhanced Fiduciary Support—Fiduciary Improvement Retirement Readiness of
Diagnostic Participants
Enhanced TDF Services—Solving for Reduce Fiduciary Risk
Misfit Risk Fee Reductions for Index Funds
Enhanced Investment Fee Negotiation— Addition of 2065 Target Date Fund
Expanded Asset Classes Address Investment Menu Overlap &
Enhanced Participant Services—Holistic Performance Issues
Financial Wellness Evaluate CITs
Enhanced Fiduciary Protection—3(38) Committee education included at no
Same Fee cost

The gist of the selection committee discussion was that all ideas for plan
improvement were attractive and warrant consideration, and that the selection
committee was most impressed by the “homework” done by Innovest to prepare a
customized plan for the County. And, frankly, there was also disappointment within
the selection committee that NFP’s suggestions were not offered prior to the RFP
process. There was selection committee discussion that NFP’s suggestions could
have been offered to the County earlier in DCAC meetings or prior retreats. (The
selection committee acknowledges that in the August 26 meeting, NFP noted that
certain services were not yet approved for distribution to the County.)

Further, anecdotally, the selection committee liked Innovest’s plan for updating the
County’s portfolio of investment options by eliminating overlapping options and
continuing to look for opportunities to reduce fees. Similar discussions have
occurred with NFP, and NFP has demonstrated similar capabilities. The selection
committee discussions suggested that the Innovest plans appeared to be easier to
understand and activate at the DCAC level.

SUMMARY

In its most recent meeting, the selection committee reiterated that both NFP and Innovest
appear to be qualified companies that could meet the County’s needs.

In its effort to move towards a DCAC decision on
this matter, the selection committee met to
discuss more distinctions between the