Agency Education Department

Contractor Amherst H. Wilder Foundation

SWIFT Contract Number 231574

Project Name Family Outcomes Survey and Development

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: This project derived from family, community, and program feedback and included a full recreation of the Family Outcomes Survey and processes used in Minnesota for family feedback around federally required data points that help the state and local programs better understand families’ experiences with Part C (Birth-3) services for infants and toddlers with dis/Abilities and their families. The Family Outcomes Survey is intended to meet a federally mandated part of Part C annual federal reporting. Our Family Outcomes Survey process has had declining numbers of return rates for multiple years, and the process has not been meaningful for each and every family who receives Part C services, for the school and cooperative programs who provide these services, or for us at the state level needing to build and support better systems for those we serve. The contract was a collaborative effort with the Contractor to provide extensive in-reach with families, providers, cultural liaisons, and interpreters to gather feedback to inform a new survey and process. Ultimately the survey is intended to help the state and local programs better understand families experiences so that the systems and services can continue improving for better outcomes for infants, toddlers, and families in the short and long term.

Project Duration

Start Date Wed, 07/05/2023 - 00:00

Original end date Mon, 09/30/2024 - 00:00

Actual end date Mon, 09/30/2024 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $273228.00

Amendments $0.00

Contract total $273228.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? federal part C IDEA funding

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 Cat Tamminga Flores

Evaluator Email Address Cat.Tamminga@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness This was an ambitious project from proposal, and the contractor was able to complete the majority of the work but not all as MDE was unable to amend this contract to add more time as the funding was ending. When they noticed changes would be needed, especially during the in-reach portions of the project, they let us know and adjusted accordingly with our input. Their communication when unable to meet a specific deadline was good. They would have needed an extension to complete all the work they had hoped but this was the first time we had done this project work, and we also weren’t sure how much time it would take for all the pieces. They gave intensive detail to each product they were able to complete.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The quality of the work was strong and consistent with previous work performed by the Contractor. One of the reasons we were pleased to have a contract with the Contractor was their already-solid relationships with communities and their internal staff who are from communities we were hoping to reach most during the project, which added to the quality of their work. They were organized, met with us on a consistent basis, and we could trust that it would be done with the equitable intent of the project.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Cost was appropriate for the proposed deliverables. The Contractor does many projects with community partnerships and estimated specific items well. They did need additional time for some of the steps, which took cost from some of the proposed final products that were not able to be completed in the timeline. We were unable to extend this project beyond the initial contract expiration date due to federal funding timelines.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance It was a pleasure working with the Contractor in this capacity. We wish it could have been a longer timeframe to allow full completion of each item proposed in their robust proposal. The Contractor was professional, and communication was one of their strengths – both with us and with the people they involved in their in-reach. Their team worked well together and included us as partners in their work. They are a true community organization and upheld the voices and data privacy of participants in an unapologetic way.

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.): NA

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 4 - satisfied