Noridian Healthcare shows how they use VisibleThread for Docs to drive 50% efficiency in proposal development and 80% efficiency savings for contract performance management. Presentation at the VisibleThread Users Conference Oct 2015.

1. Managing Compliance
from Bid through Execution
Holly Meyer
Karin Olson Held
Jill Hebl

2. Introduction

3. Presenters
• Holly Meyer – Director, Business
Development
• Karin Olson Held – Proposal Coordinator,
Business Development
• Jill Hebl – Senior Contract Specialist,
Contract Administration
10/21/2015 3

4. Noridian Healthcare Solutions
• 48 years, 50 states
• Federal and state presence
• Wholly-owned subsidiary of Noridian
Mutual Insurance Company (dba Blue
Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota)
• Health care-focused
10/21/2015 4

5. National Presence
5

6. Introductions, continued
• How about you?
– Industry?
– Departments?
• What does compliance mean to you?
10/29/2015 6

7. 10/29/2015 7

8. Focus on Compliance
RFP
Response
• Compliance matrix
• Credible strong writing
Bid Award
• Implementation success
• Successful performance
Continued
Growth
• Contract renewal
• Contract extensions
• Award Fee
10/29/2015 8

9. Lifecycle of Compliance

10. Different Customers
Federal State/Local Commercial
• RFP requirements are
very prescriptive
• Expect strict adherence
to RFP requirements
• Response must be
compliant to withstand
(or lodge) protests
• Often prescribe solution
and performance
requirements
• RFP requirements may
have differing levels of
definition
• Often interested in
innovation
• RFP expectations may
not all be specifically
prescribed
• Levels of clarity differ
around performance
expectations
• RFP requirements may
be vague
• Often less prescriptive
in response format
• More often expect
innovation; therefore,
include less prescriptive
requirements
• Performance
expectations are key
10/21/2015 10

11. Bid Compliance
• Review RFP
• Identify requirements
– Visible Thread: Key words/phrases such as
should/shall
• Respond to requirements
– Visible Thread: Confirm presence of key words in
response
• Develop compliance matrix
– Visible Thread: Starter matrix
– Add assignments and evaluation factors
10/21/2015 11

12. After Award
Federal State/Local Commercial
 Successful implementation
 Positive performance
 Customer service
 Enhanced employee/customer satisfaction
 Improved perception with public
 Cost savings
= “Squishy” expectations
10/21/2015 12

13. After Bid
• From bid team to delivery team
– RFP responses are often incorporated as part
of the contract
– Visible Thread: Compliance/response matrix
is the foundation for preparing for solution
implementation
– Creates a mechanism to ease handoff
between teams
10/21/2015 13

14. Contract
• Regardless of level of specificity in the
RFP, all customers expect you to perform!
• All customer types issue a contract
– Contract should outline performance
expectations
– Define any expectations that weren’t clear
– May incorporate RFP response
– Visible Thread: Create a compliance matrix
from the contract
10/21/2015 14

15. Corporate Purchasing
• Future uses:
– Purchasing or procurement
• When issuing an RFP and selecting a vendor, a
compliance matrix corresponding to RFP
requirements can assist in evaluating responses.
– Subcontractor and vendor management
• After selection, we keep scorecards of vendor
performance. A matrix developed from the contract
is ideal to track performance.
10/21/2015 15

16. Benefits
• Consistency from bid cycle through hand -
off to implementation through the
operational delivery
• Mechanism to self-assess performance
• Opportunity to course-correct early
• Visibility throughout operation
• Minimizes chance of sales promising but
operations being unaware
10/21/2015 16

17. VisibleThread – Proposal
Development

18. The Matrix
• Create after RFP release
– Track for both compliance and assignments
• Tailor VisibleThread starter compliance
matrix
– Shred the RFP first, then format to Noridian’s
template
– Create matrix in about 50% less time
10/21/2015 18

19. Starter Matrix
10/21/2015 19

20. Final Matrix
10/21/2015 20

21. Reviews – Readability Checkpoint
• Build readability assessment into color
team reviews
– Offer authors early feedback to improve text
• Run Clear Language and Quality analyses
– “To-be” state – currently revising our proposal
process
10/21/2015 21

22. Editing – Final Polishing
• Focus on one voice, tense, and
consistency among proposal sections
• Run Clear Language and Quality analyses
– Identify “low-hanging fruit,” address, and
move on
10/21/2015 22

23. Case Study – Proposal A
• Compared clarity scores for original and
edited proposal sections
• Sections edited by same person using the
Clear Language reports
– Long sentences
– Average sentence length
– Passive language
– Readability
10/21/2015 23

24. Original Version Clarity Scores
10/21/2015 24
Proposal A – Original Version
Long Sentences
Average Sentence
Length
Passive
Language
Readability
Section 1 87 sentences
18.75%
15
59 sentences
12.72%
20
Section 2 54 sentences
9.06%
7
17 sentences
2.85%
47
Section 3 91 sentences
18.65%
14
45 sentences
9.22%
32
Section 4 116 sentences
30.05%
19
35 sentences
9.07%
24
goal Fewer Fewer Fewer Higher – above
30; 50 is best

25. Edited Version Clarity Scores
10/21/2015 25
Proposal A – EDITED Version
Long Sentences
Average Sentence
Length
Passive
Language
Readability
Section 1 77 sentences
16.14%
14
40 sentences
8.39%
21
Section 2 44 sentences
7.25%
7
14 sentences
2.31%
47
Section 3 90 sentences
18.29%
14
43 sentences
8.74%
32
Section 4 101 sentences
24.75%
17
18 sentences
4.66%
26
goal Fewer Fewer Fewer Higher – above
30; 50 is best

26. Measurable Improvements
10/21/2015 26
Proposal A – EDITED Version
Long Sentences
Average Sentence
Length
Passive
Language
Readability
Section 1 # and % reduced
Red to Yellow
Reduced
Yellow to Green
# and %
reduced
Increased
Section 2
# and % reduced No change
# and %
reduced
No change
Section 3
# and % reduced No change
# and %
reduced
No change
Section 4
# and % reduced
Reduced
Red to Yellow
# and %
reduced
Increased

27. Next Steps…
• Build readability checkpoints into the
proposal process
• Consider that proposal content is often
technical and contains medical
terminology
– Readability is an even greater challenge —
and likely even more important.
– What are OUR goals for readability?
– Do we accept lower scores in those page-
constrained, highly-technical sections?
10/21/2015 27

28. VisibleThread – Contract
Administration

29. Benefits for Contract Monitoring
• Use VisibleThread to monitor both prime
contracts and subcontracts
– Should/shall statements
• Requirements
– Terms and conditions
– SOWs
– Responsible party/owner
– Comments and action items
10/21/2015 29

30. Should/Shall Organization
• Depends on type of contract
– Contract section
– Content
– Responsible party
– Specific owner
– Met/unmet
– Follow-up/comments
10/21/2015 30

31. Example Subcontract SOW
10/21/2015 31
Requirements Compliance Matrix for Example Subcontract Statement of Work
Section Content Requirement
Met/Unmet
Your comments here...
1.5a Goal
1.5a Identify the business processes, operational activities
and systems within the Appeals group with the highest
potential for productivity improvement by way of and
use of Project 1.5b activities.
Met
A/B/DME would agree
that these were
identified.
1.5a Business Benefits
1.5a Validates and prepares Project 1.5b activities so as to
powerfully initiate productivity gains with particular
emphasis on Appeals MRE and MRS staff.
Unmet Preparation to initiate
the productivity is not
an "apples to apples"
comparison so cannot
validate the increases to
be accurate.
1.5a Provides a high level overview of Appeals' business
processes, pain points and strengths.
Met These are pain points we
provided them.
1.5a Identifies root causes of major pain points, lower-than-
desired productivity, and operational redundancies
Unmet Root causes not
identified with this
group.
1.5a Sets the foundation for Future State development. Met Recommendations
received.

32. What questions do you have?
Thank you!
10/21/2015 32