Agency Health Department

Contractor REGENTS OF THE UNIV OF MINN

SWIFT Contract Number 207980

Project Name Capacity assessment of the of Minnesota’s public health system to meet National Public Health Performance Standards (NPHPS)

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The National Public Health Performance Standards (NPHPS) is a framework that can be used to evaluate the capacity and performance of public health systems and governing bodies. A baseline cost and capacity assessment was needed to determine how the MN public health partners have been implementing the Foundational Public Health Responsibilities that are aligned with the NPHPS. The NPHPS assessment can help identify areas for improvement, strengthen partnerships, and ensure that the system is able to address public health issues.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 04/15/2022 - 00:00

Original end date Fri, 06/30/2023 - 00:00

Actual end date Sun, 06/30/2024 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $674000.00

Amendments $27885.00

Contract total $701885.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? State: H1237112. (Note: "Contract total" represents the total amount encumbered. An Amendment extended time across a biennium and these funds were returned to State. True total paid to University was $674,000.00)

Is this a sole source contract? Yes

If this was a single source contract, explain why the agency determined there was only a single source for the services (if applicable) cf: Joint Powers Agreement (Minn. Stat. §471.59, subd. 1 for Professional/Technical Services). Name of Governmental Unit: University of Minnesota - School of Public Health.

Evaluator Name Kim Milbrath

Evaluator Email Address Kim.milbrath@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The contractor did the best they could with a very aggressive timeline imposed on the project due to legislative requirements. Additionally, the capacity within MDH to support the effort was low as staff were still supporting the pandemic work or were just coming back to their pre-pandemic positions. This meant that there were fewer staff available to support the extensive breadth of the assessment. At times there were challenges both for us at MDH and for the vendor in being able to execute in a timely manner on development of the assessment tool and in getting responses from LPH. Again, we were under an aggressive timeline and at the front end of the pandemic recovery which created a challenging environment for the UMN, us at MDH and LPH. There were also challenges around communication at times that resulted in additional time being spent on making sure that we were all on the same page regarding what was needed in the assessment or from the assessment.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The assessment was extensive and the vendor, as an academic institution who studied public health systems, was highly qualified to execute a rigorous assessment that had strong methodology, which they did. At times, there was an overemphasis on more of an academic approach to the assessment analysis rather than the practical usage of the assessment findings for lay audiences. However, the quality of the of assessment was undoubtedly high and we have found that while the data is dated at this time it still provides an extremely useful picture of the system that both MDH and LPH can utilize as we work to fully execute on the FPHRs across the system. Again, challenges around communication and the vendor understanding our needs as a client did make the tool development and subsequent analysis of the assessment a little bumpy.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The cost for the assessment work was quite high in comparison with what we knew of other state public health assessments costs. Again, given the very academic approach to the assessment the costs seemed to be aligned with the work proposed.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance It was clear throughout the process that staff working on the assessment were incredibly knowledgeable about the methods they were employing. They are an academic research center and are deeply steeped in research methods that pass the muster for academic research. These skills were both welcomed and helpful and they at times, may have been part of the challenges we faced in our communication with the vendor. We wanted strong and valid methods but did not need to have the deep rigor required of academic research. The final assessment report was long, very academic (partners commented that the report was like a dissertation) to the point that it was difficult to easily digest the information and determine conclusions. However, the vendor worked diligently to provide tools that helped interpret the assessment results in more digestible bites for the JLT and, additionally, did a great job in developing a Tableau dashboard that has been useful for LPH to better understand where their gaps and where their strengths are.

Would you engage the contractor's services again? Yes

Describe any negative action taken during the duration of this contract (i.e., termination, pursuit of suspension, etc.): No actions taken.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 4 - satisfied