Agency Health Department

Contractor Mathematica

SWIFT Contract Number 192562

Project Name Treated chronic disease prevalence/spending in MN

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: To fulfill two unrelated legislative requirements that necessitate effective use of the Minnesota All Payer Claims Database
(MN APCD): 1) develop public use files (PUFs) with data extracted from the MN APCD, and 2) develop attributed cost estimates and projections for the selected chronic conditions and smoking.

Project Duration

Start Date Tue, 04/06/2021 - 00:00

Original end date Fri, 12/31/2021 - 00:00

Actual end date Thu, 06/30/2022 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $515728

Amendments $20090

Contract total $535818

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Income funds

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) MDH submitted an RFO on 2/1/2021 to Mathematica because they were the only vendor to respond to a Master Contract procurement in 2019 for similar work, and as such, gained experience and developed expertise in the complex analytical work described in this request. It is essential that MDH produces continuation of this work (estimates and Public Use Files for additional years) in a way that makes new estimates directly comparable to existing estimates. MDH does not believe we can accomplish the pursuit of this work with consistent methodology and approach over time without working with a consistent vendor.

Evaluator Name Mike Burian, Pam Mink, and Karl Fernstrom

Evaluator Email Address mike.burian@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Timely for PUF (Public Use Files) deliverables. Some mutually agreeable minor delays for chronic conditions deliverables.

Evaluate the contractor's quality For chronic conditions, the overall analytical deliverables were good. Although, MDH found some typographical errors in deliverables that were not sufficiently reviewed before delivered to MDH. For PUFs (Public Use Files), the MDH team did not find mistakes, and Mathematica with proactive by presenting problems and potential solutions together for MDH to consider.

Evaluate the contractor's cost For PUFs (Public Use Files), cost seems somewhat high relative to the contracted tasks.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Mathematica's chronic conditions and PUFs (Public Use Files) project teams were engaged, easy to work with, and provided notable expertise in the work.

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 4 - satisfied