Agency Human Services Dept

Contractor Regents of the University of Minnesota

SWIFT Contract Number 108989

Project Name Nursing Home Report Card

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The state contracted with the U of MN to a) calculate quarterly risk-adjusted quality indicators for the MN Nursing Home Report Card; b) evaluate the impact of several long-term care reform initiatives; and c) analyze long-term care consumer satisfaction data to determine if racial disparities exist.

Project Duration

Start Date Thu, 06/09/2016 - 00:00

Original end date Fri, 06/30/2017 - 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: $208950

Amendments $1912986

Contract total $2121936

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? General Fund

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) It would have been costly and inefficient to rebuild years of baseline data with a new vendor to effectively conduct these evaluations and produce the required quality measures. Of even greater importance however is the complex data sharing agreements that were already in place between the University of MN and CMS, it is not feasible that DHS could successfully negotiate a data sharing agreement with another vendor to obtain access to client level Medicare claims data for privately paying individuals. In addition, the budget for this work does not include any indirect costs for the University.

Evaluator Name Valerie Cooke

Evaluator Email Address valerie.cooke@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The work was always completed on time, if there were any delays they were due to circumstances outside of our control and revised timelines negotiated mutually.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The work was always top quality. The University actively engaged stakeholders and allowed opportunity to provide input on the scope of work, methodology and review of papers produced as final deliverables.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Very reasonable as the budget does not include any indirect costs for the University.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Very Good

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.): None

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 5 - very satisfied