Agency Human Services Dept

Contractor Regents of the University of Minnesota

SWIFT Contract Number 243919

Project Name Intervention Services Study

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: It is difficult for many people to access intervention services because of a lack of providers, staffing or ineligibility. Sometimes service quality needs improvement. There are many reasons for these issues. DHS wanted to explore options for service improvements with the goal of preventing unnecessary hospitalizations, incarcerations, service terminations and other negative outcomes people have experienced when they do not have access to the services they need. The MN Legislature supported this study under Minnesota Laws 2023 Chapter 61, Article 1, Section 74.

Project Duration

Start Date Thu, 03/14/2024 - 00:00

Original end date Fri, 09/13/2024 - 00:00

Actual end date Fri, 10/18/2024 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $357712.00

Amendments $0

Contract total $357712.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? 2023 State appropriation

Is this a sole source contract? No

If this was a single source contract, explain why the agency determined there was only a single source for the services (if applicable) {Empty}

Evaluator Name Stacie Enders

Evaluator Email Address Stacie.Enders@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The contractor met a tight timeline to gather public and other partner feedback. The contractor did not finish the remaining portions of the contract despite a one-month extension to allow the contractor more time to finish editing their final report.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The contractor did good quality work in collecting feedback from partners and used a variety of formats including electronic surveys in multiple languages, listening sessions, and in-person meetings. The contractor did not meet the contract standards for the other requirements listed in the contract such as meeting minimum accessibility standards in the report and clarifying how the data backed recommendations. For example, there was a recommendation to raise service rates by a certain percentage, but it was unclear how that amount was calculated. Multiple requests made by DHS to make edits or add details to the report were unanswered by the contractor.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The contractor’s costs were well within budget.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The contractor did well with collecting partner feedback and reaching out to target groups DHS often does not hear from. The contractor’s performance in completing other tasks, such as providing recommendations on new legislation necessary to implement partner feedback, did not meet the contract requirements. For example, the contract requested suggested edits to statute and other regulations using the Minnesota Legislature’s style guidelines for proposal edits, but the recommendations were not done in that format and did not include draft language with details on regulation changes that DHS could use to make legislative proposals. It is unlikely DHS would use this contractor again to provide recommendations on new legislation, but DHS may be open to their services again for gathering partner feedback. DHS often contracts with this vendor for a variety of work and has generally had good results, with few exceptions.

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.): The contract was extended to allow the contractor more time to complete contracted tasks. DHS gave written feedback to the contractor on multiple report drafts indicating which sections of the report needed revising or additional information. DHS also connected with the contractor when requested and at least weekly via email or virtual meetings to discuss progress on the contract deliverables. DHS did not pay for tasks that were not performed to the contract standards by the extension deadline.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 2 - dissatisfied