Agency Education Department

Contractor PACER Center, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 116449

Project Name Training/resources on children ages birth - 5 year

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: This contract was executed for PACER to provide family training and information related to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part C program in Minnesota. Training and information included such things as family advocacy training, information on families’ rights under IDEA for Part C, supporting families knowledge of the process of services from referral through eligibility and transition out of Part C, collaboration between families and providers, etc. It is necessary to ensure that families know their rights and are able to support the development of their children through Part C services in Minnesota.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 10/21/2016 - 00:00

Original end date Sun, 06/30/2019 - 00:00

Actual end date Wed, 06/30/2021 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $321000.00

Amendments $250000

Contract total $571000.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? federal

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) This contract was needed after the federal funding source determined that funds for this work, which had previously been granted out to Pacer, could no longer be granted out but needed to be contracted out. At that time, PACER was the federally recognized Parent Training Center for Minnesota, serving all disability groups statewide, inclusive of all cultures.

Evaluator Name Cat Tamminga

Evaluator Email Address cat.tamminga@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Timeliness was on par with the jointly set expectations within the contract.

Evaluate the contractor's quality As applicable, requested corrections and clarifications were made for final products. There were situations when suggestions were met with resistance and it required meetings with PACER to work through and finalize. All deliverables were received according to the calendar as determined by PACER and included in the contract. All deliverables were sent to MDE in multiple formats meeting applicable contract requirements. A number of deliverables were similar from year to year, but with encouragement and updates to contract wording, new deliverables were added prior to each contract extension being executed. The final contract year demonstrated draft deliverables submitted for review already including previous year suggestions and a larger number of new deliverables at the encouragement of MDE and agreement of PACER.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Cost for each item was determined by the contractor (per deliverable) as they felt appropriate under the full amount in each federal fiscal year’s contract.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance PACER is an advocacy organization for families with children with dis/abilities. They worked with MDE through the requirements in the contract to develop a series of materials and supports for building capacity in families and providers working with families in Minnesota’s Parts C and 619 system. At times, MDE had to guide the process more directly to ensure contract obligations were met, but PACER created valuable resources for families and providers through this contract that MDE could not have created on our own.
It is important to note that there was resistance to creating new deliverables that aligned with Minnesota’s changing demographics over contract years, as well as voiced frustration from PACER on the nature of the contract requirements. In an effort to support needs and maintain the working relationship, MDE invited PACER to be directly involved in developing the contract deliverables, providing them with as much autonomy in decisions as possible. While progress was made in the contracted relationship over time, deliverable edit requests from MDE were often met with displeasure. PACER also vocalized that they were not pleased with having funding tied to contract obligations and requirements.

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 specific negative actions were taken.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 4 - satisfied