Agency Human Services Dept

Contractor University of Minnesota Board of Regents

SWIFT Contract Number PTK%70316

Project Name Mental Health Quality Improvement Project

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The project was part of a 2 year federally funded Medicaid quality improvement grant. The purpose was to conduct of Quality Improvement project with 10 Assertive Community Treatment teams to improve coordination of mental health and physical health care services. Develop training materials, train providers, provide follow-up consultation, conduct conferences to share findings and evaluation intervention,

Project Duration

Start Date Wed, 01/22/2014 - 00:00

Original end date Sat, 12/20/2014 - 00:00

Actual end date Sun, 12/20/2015 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $379390.00

Amendments $0.00

Contract total $379390.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Federal Grant from CMS

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) An initial RFP was issued for the project. There was one bidder for the project. The bidder later withdrew due to concerns about the project costs. It was determined that the project director at the University of Minnesota had done some similar work with the ACT teams in the past and that they could complete in tasks in a timely manner within budget.

Evaluator Name Jerry Storck

Evaluator Email Address jerry.t.storck@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The contractor was timely in the deliverables. There were 2 amendments to the contract that were no cost but pushed back the deliverables. The timing of deliverables was due to uncertainty of the federal funding from year 1 to year 2 of the grant. Due to this uncertainty, it made it difficult for the contractor to plan for the remainder of the contract tasks. The changes were mutually agreed upon.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The contractor produced high quality training materials for the project as well as a detailed evaluation of the project. The contractor has worked on national evidenced based training materials in the past.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The contractor's cost fell within the required scope of the contract and the available grant funding for the project. The payments for the contract was based on deliverables.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The contractor's performance was good given the delayed start-up of the contract due to the initial RFP process that led to no bidders. The delay in the project given the federal timelines for the grant made the timelines difficult.

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.): {Empty}

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 4 - satisfied