Agency Human Services Dept

Contractor CGI Technologies & Solutions Inc

SWIFT Contract Number 124365

Project Name Minnesota PI Program

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: CGI designed and implemented a solution for the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program (now the Promoting Interoperability Program) that was proprietary in nature and allowed eligible hospitals and providers to attest to performance measures digitally. Along with this attestation, they also initiated the payment process via upload of necessary files to CMS and the State. This contract was necessary for the State to continue all program work as required by CMS so that Minnesota would remain in compliance with program rules and regulations.

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 05/01/2017 - 00:00

Original end date Sat, 04/30/2022 - 00:00

Actual end date Sat, 04/30/2022 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $1351992

Amendments $1891719

Contract total $3243711

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Enhanced 90/10 Federal Funding

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) CGI developed proprietary software specifically for Minnesota and this program. No other vendor could have replicated their work without a significant cost and time investment. Along with this, the learning curve to get up to speed on a new attestation system would have placed undue burden on providers and staff that would be required to learn a new system of attestation. This extra time could have placed Minnesota out of compliance with Federal rules and jeopardized our provider's participation in the program.

Evaluator Name Matthew Gravel

Evaluator Email Address matthew.d.gravel@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Contractor was always on time and met deadlines as given by State staff.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Quality of work was excellent and their product was consistently good or exceeding standards for our program.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Contractor cost was in line with expectations compared to other states that chose to implement a similar solution for their programs. Contractor also sought ways to reduce costs through amendments as volume of work began to slow as the program nears its end.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance I would give this contractor high marks in all phases and would grade their performance as "exceeded expectations"

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 5 - very satisfied