Agency Education Department

Contractor MPA Foundation

SWIFT Contract Number 266330

Project Name Cannabis Model Programs

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: To support statewide health education efforts, the contractor was engaged to evaluate and create a list of model programs based on legislative requirements (120B.215). There was a research review of current model cannabis programs and wrote up a report of the findings that was posted by June 1, 2025, as required by law. Additionally, they created a 4 min video to introduce the list of model programs as well as how/why they were selected. This initiative was necessary to provide educators and school staff with accurate, developmentally informed resources that support the legislative requirement for schools to implement this education in middle and high schools starting in the 2026-27 school year.

Project Duration

Start Date Thu, 03/20/2025 - 00:00

Original end date Mon, 06/30/2025 - 00:00

Actual end date Mon, 06/30/2025 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $69913.00

Amendments $0.00

Contract total $69913.00

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) We put out for an RFP but no one applied for the RFP. We then contacted our JPA partners with expertise in the area (UMN & MNSCU) and neither were interested. As such, we reached out to MPA who came at the recommendation of another division within MDE and were able to secure the single source.

Evaluator Name Angela Hochstetter

Evaluator Email Address angela.hochstetter@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness This contract process took over a year to implement, which is a state problem, not a contractor problem. Because of this the contract time was compressed from the original development of the contract and MPA worked within the new timeline and negotiated with us ahead of time when deadlines needed to change.

Evaluate the contractor's quality While the initial drafts did not meet quality expectations—particularly in terms of writing, following the style guide provided and clarity—the contractor demonstrated flexibility and a willingness to improve. Through ongoing collaboration and responsiveness to feedback, the final product showed notable progress and better alignment with project needs.

Evaluate the contractor's cost While I appreciated the contractor's flexibility and improvements over time, I believe the value of the final product didn’t fully align with the investment made. In future engagements, I'd welcome clearer expectations around quality for deliverables and pricing to ensure greater alignment between cost and quality.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The contractor was consistently collaborative and receptive to feedback, making them easy to work with throughout the project. While the initial quality of deliverables required adjustment, their willingness to learn and improve contributed to steady progress and a stronger end product. They were also accommodating to attending meetings in person as well as virtually.

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