Agency Public Safety Dept

Contractor University of Minnesota, Humphrey School of Public

SWIFT Contract Number 72296

Project Name Evaluation of Kathryn Swanson Seat Belt Law M.S. 1

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The initial evaluation of the Kathryn Swanson Seat Belt Law M.S. 169.686 was conducted by the contractor. This contract was for a follow-up evaluation on the impact of the law analyzing crash data provided by the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) to compare data prior to July 1, 2009 with data from July 1, 2009 through December 31, 2012. The analysis included two methods:
1) variance from the previous three year mean, and
2) variance from the trend expected due to time-trends in the data. The contractor included statewide telephone survey results from 2007 through 2013 that addressed the public's perception of the primary seat belt law.

The contractor also analyzed the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) data provided by the MN Department of Health to measure hospital medical care changes associated with restrained versus unrestrained motor vehicle occupants in Minnesota. CODES data from 2005 through 2012. The contractor determined the cost impact on government payer (taxpayer-funded) sources and estimated the likely impact of the law on seat belt use.

Project Duration

Start Date Sat, 01/04/2014 - 00:00

Original end date Sat, 05/31/2014 - 00:00

Actual end date Sat, 05/31/2014 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) 475

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $44987.00

Amendments $0.00

Contract total $44987.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Federal 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) The University of Minnesota’s Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs was the one entity that was reasonably able and available to perform the work for the following reasons:
• Experience in addressing Minnesota Legislative concerns;
• Knowledge of the information regarding public support for, and critique of the primary seat belt law;
• Quantified potential impacts of the primary seat belt law in the initial evaluation;
• Ability to quantify impacts of the law based upon available data;
• Familiarity with the complex datasets; and
• Knowledge of the two analytical approaches described under the summary section.

Evaluator Name Hal Campbell

Evaluator Email Address hal.campbell@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The contractor’s timeliness was in part dependent on the CODES data being rerun to correct errors originally found in the data. The data linkages took more time than anticipated to run to reduce the errors that were found. Once this was corrected the contractor provided a draft report on the date the final report was due. The final report was completed over one month later. This possibility was considered. That is why the due date of the final report and the end date of the contract were two months apart.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The quality of the contractor’s work was very good. There were some minor edits and additions to the report which were made by the contractor in a timely fashion. The one issue that was never completely resolve was the final deliverable to be an accessible document that could be posted on the OTS Web site. The report still has accessibility errors that need to be fixed.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The analysis was complex and could have cost a lot more if the contractor wasn’t familiar with the initial evaluation and the datasets involved. The contractor’s cost was very reasonable.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The contractor was accessible and available throughout the project. Response time was quick and the final deliverable provided additional information that was not included in the initial evaluation. Other than the accessibility concerns the report was well written.

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.): {Empty}

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 4 - satisfied