Agency Human Services Dept

Contractor Courageous Change Collective

SWIFT Contract Number 243108

Project Name EIDBI Licensure study stakeholder engagement

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Engage with stakeholders for feedback on a potential EIDBI licensure.

Project Duration

Start Date Thu, 02/01/2024 - 00:00

Original end date Fri, 08/30/2024 - 00:00

Actual end date Fri, 08/30/2024 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $100000

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $100000

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? State legislative grant funds allotted.

Is this a sole source contract? No

If this was a single source contract, explain why the agency determined there was only a single source for the services (if applicable) {Empty}

Evaluator Name Nicole Berning

Evaluator Email Address nicole.berning@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The contractor completed all requested activities on time.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The final report was high quality.
Clear structure: The summary logically progresses from the launch of the project, to stakeholder engagement, to detailed findings.
Balanced perspective: It includes input from both provider and family/caregiver groups, which gives a well-rounded view of the landscape.
Highlights concerns and recommendations: It effectively communicates practical challenges faced by providers (e.g., school coordination, staffing, billable hours) and by families (e.g., long waitlists, system navigation, safety concerns).
Emphasizes equity: The mention of cultural providers and diverse stakeholder voices acknowledges the importance of culturally responsive care.
Future implications noted: It captures how licensure could either improve or hinder service delivery depending on implementation.
Tone and flow could have been improved: The writing is factual but a bit dry and occasionally repetitive. A bit hard to follow and bounces around. Not very well organized.
Content could have been streamlined and summarized into more plain language or visual presentation.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Met the original cost of the contract.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Overall performance was fair. They engaged with the community contacts we had designated for them. I thought they could have done more active outreach on their own to recruit additional participation or go to more community centers or group meetings that were already planned to gather feedback. Ultimately, they met contract requirements and turned in a satisfactory amount of feedback from the community.

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.): The final report didn't meet DHS accessibility standards so much of that work had to be done following the contract.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 4 - satisfied