Agency MNIT

Contractor Wolters Kluwer

SWIFT Contract Number 195488

Project Name 1885 TeamMate Migration

Project Number (if applicable) 1885

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Migrate Office of Audit from TeamMate AM (legacy system) to TeamMate+ (new platform) due to legacy system end of life/support.

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 06/21/2021 - 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? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $33235.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $33235.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? State

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) Project scope was to migrate from legacy software to the same vendor's replacement software. The vendor is the only supplier of the legacy and new platform.

Evaluator Name Jeff Hall

Evaluator Email Address jeffrey.d.hall@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Contractor generally responded to questions and completed tasks in a timely manner. We were late, but that was due to an overly aggressive original timeline.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Initial consultant was poor - confusing manner of speech, unable to provide specific guidance, was confusing, etc. Replacement was requested and provided - huge improvement. 5 consultant hours were provided for free to make up for the issue.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Cost seemed reasonable and fell within expectations.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Overall, the vendor was fair (a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10). If we had the replacement consultant at the start, it would have been an 8 out of 10).

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.): Only negatives which did not result in contract-required action were aggressive timeline and poor first consultant, both of which were addressed by vendor and internal staff.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 3 - neutral