Agency MN Management & Budget

Contractor MEDecision

SWIFT Contract Number 39335

Project Name Voluntary Employee Personal Health Record

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Develop and provide an electronic personal health record for SEGIP Advantage Health Plan members. The PHR was to be a dynamic, web-based tool that helped employees to make their health related information accessible and usable. Usable health information will help members take control of their health, thereby both improving health and reducing costs.

Project Duration

Start Date Wed, 05/26/2010 - 00:00

Original end date Sat, 06/30/2012 - 00:00

Actual end date Sat, 06/30/2012 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $637530

Amendments $-266427

Contract total $411103

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? 550

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 Lorna Smith

Evaluator Email Address Lorna.Smith@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Contractor was not timely on many aspects of this project. For example, a request for information about the status of compliance could take months to fill and often went unfulfilled. Contractor was willing to do whatever was necessary and was accommodating. However, follow-through was slow or nonexistent.

Evaluate the contractor's quality N/A. No product was delivered so we are unable to comment on the quality of work.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Contractor had reasonable cost. Contractor received only first payment and was not paid the full contract amount because the project was not completed.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance There are very few employer-based PHR products in use and the implementation of this project meant that several major hurdles needed to be overcome. Most vexing was the requirement to take health related data from a variety of electronic sources and reformat that data into one proprietary electronic format. The original project assigned this task to a third vendor. When that vendor was unable to perform that function, this contractor stepped up to reformat the data. Reformatting (or mapping data) was not a function this vendor has performed before. By the end of the two year contract it was still not clear that the vendor was able to reformat the data and without the reformatted data a usable PHR could not be completed. Consequently, the contract was not extended.

Would you engage the contractor's services again? No

Describe any negative action taken during the duration of this contract (i.e., termination, pursuit of suspension, etc.): No formal negative action was taken. The original contract allowed for payment at certain steps in the development of the PHR. The contract was amended to provide that the one payment was made but all other payments were withheld until a fully functional and tested product was delivered. The product was not delivered and so no additional payment was made.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 3 - neutral