Independent Actuarial RFP Evaluations for Pension Plans
Independent, documented actuarial fee and service comparisons for pension plan sponsors. When actuarial services are paid from the trust, periodically confirming that fees and services are reasonable isn't optional — it's part of the fiduciary duty.
Long Relationships, Trust-Paid Fees, and the Duty to Check
Plan sponsors with pension plans often have actuarial relationships measured in decades — and that's not a problem in itself. But when actuarial fees are paid from the trust, ERISA's reasonableness standard applies, and 'the relationship has always worked' is not documentation. Even the best relationships need a periodic, documented confirmation that scope, service levels, and compensation remain competitive.
The market has also moved under those long relationships. Actuarial firms have consolidated significantly, service models and pricing have changed, and what was competitive when the relationship began may not be competitive now. An evaluation compares both core and non-core services consistently — instead of assuming.
Actuarial Services We Help You Compare
Evaluation scope is set with your committee, and typically covers some combination of:
Annual actuarial valuations and required government filings
Ongoing compliance and consulting support
Experience studies and assumption reviews
Benefit calculations
Plan termination and de-risking support — where actuarial precision matters most
Fee structures across core and non-core services, compared on a consistent basisEven when a relationship has worked well for years, sponsors may need to confirm that scope, service levels, and compensation remain reasonable—especially when documentation and process matter to committees, counsel, and internal stakeholders.
“As we moved towards a plan termination, we were surprised with a change in our funded status. We needed help to investigate other options.”
— CFO
An Objective Process, From a Firm With Nothing to Sell You
Culpepper RFP acts as an independent third party through the actuarial evaluation: comparing services and fees clearly, and documenting the rationale for whatever your committee decides. Few truly independent firms offer this evaluation support — most entities positioned to compare actuarial services have a consulting, brokerage, or investment relationship to protect. We don't.
Process list
Scoping the evaluation with your committee: services covered, incumbents included, criteria that matter
Identifying actuarial firms that fit your plan's size, complexity, and situation
Writing the RFP and managing the evaluation from start to finish
Handling all firm communication during the evaluation period
Comparing fees across core and non-core services on a consistent basis
Summarizing results and presenting findings to your committee
Coordinating finalist presentations, reference checks, and final fee negotiation
The deliverable is a complete decision file — criteria, comparisons, and rationale — whether the outcome is a change or a documented decision to stay.
Our References Are Our Clients — All of Them
Our clients engage us for independent evaluations at sensitive moments — often at the direction of counsel — so we don't publish named testimonials or case studies. Discretion is part of the engagement.
What we offer instead is stronger: 100% of Culpepper RFP clients can act as a reference, a standard we've maintained since the firm began. When you're seriously evaluating whether to work with us, we'll connect you directly with organizations similar to yours in size, plan type, and situation — and you can ask them anything.
Looking for a different evaluation? We also run independent evaluations for retirement plan providers, OCIO managers,DOL cybersecurity audit firms, and benefit brokers— each covered on its own page.
Questions Plan Sponsors Ask About Actuarial Evaluations
-
If you’re the person carrying the responsibility for benefits decisions inside the organization, this will feel familiar. Culpepper RFP supports HR and finance leaders, ERISA counsel, and committees—because the pressure and the risk often land on your desk either way.
-
Culpepper RFP focuses on managing the RFP process itself, so you’re not piecing together vendor comparisons, chasing information, and trying to document everything in between your day-to-day responsibilities. You’re still involved in direction and fiduciary decisions, but the heavy lift of gathering, organizing, and evaluating is handled through our documented process.
-
Our services are designed to reduce the time executives and internal teams spend managing details. Expect some upfront coordination and a few check-ins along the way, but the goal is that you’re not carrying weeks of follow-up, tracking, and evaluation work on top of everything else.
-
That’s a real concern.Our services are positioned as an independent third-party evaluation process, which can lower the temperature and keep the focus on documented criteria instead of internal pressure or preference. It won’t erase politics, but it can give you a clear, neutral structure to point back to.
-
No. Our independent evaluation processes support people who are accountable for the outcome, even if the technical details aren’t your daily focus. We can help you evaluate whether going to an RFP is even necessary, which is often what you want when you’re trying to make a smart decision without creating extra work.
-
If you’re thinking, “I’m not sure what level of process we actually need,” you’re not alone. Before you sign up with us we will review your objectives and discuss the most cost and time effective solution. Our services include fee and service benchmarking, RFI evaluation, and full RFP evaluations—so the approach can match the situation instead of defaulting to the most intensive option.
-
An evaluation is not a change — it's a documented look at the market, and your incumbent competes in it. Transition risk is real, which is why it's one of the criteria in the evaluation itself, weighed openly rather than used as a reason never to look. If your incumbent is competitive, you end up with a validated, documented relationship. If they're not, twenty years of loyalty was masking a cost your participants were paying.
-
It's the most important time. Termination and de-risking decisions rest entirely on actuarial work — funded status, assumptions, timing — and a surprise at that stage is among the most expensive a pension sponsor can experience. Before committing to a termination path, an independent evaluation confirms you have the right firm and the right scope for the work ahead.
-
Yes — every client we've ever worked with. 100% of Culpepper RFP clients can act as a reference. Once you're seriously evaluating an engagement, we'll connect you with organizations similar to yours, and what you ask them is up to you.
When Did You Last Document That Your Actuarial Fees Were Reasonable?
If the answer is a shrug — especially with fees paid from the trust — schedule a call with Jay.
You'll leave knowing whether an evaluation makes sense, what level fits, and what the process would look like.