Agency Public Safety Dept

Contractor Northwest Professional Consortium

SWIFT Contract Number 37114

Project Name Evaluation of Minnesota DWI Courts

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Professional and technical services were required to develop a comprehensive approach to evaluate Minnesota DWI Courts, conduct the evaluation, and submit a comprehensive report that presents the findings of the evaluation. Initially the purpose was to develop a plan to conduct five comprehensive process and outcome evaluations and recommend one to two sites for a cost benefit evaluation. The scope was expanded to include nine process and outcome evaluations, seven cost benefit evaluations and a statewide summary of evaluation findings in nine DWI court programs.

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 11/14/2011 - 00:00

Original end date Sun, 09/30/2012 - 00:00

Actual end date Tue, 09/30/2014 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $144572.00

Amendments $364445.00

Contract total $509017.00

Did project finish within budget? No

What was the funding source? Federal CFDA 20.608 & CFDA 20.601

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 Hal Campbell

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

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Contracts that were required between NPC and the State Court Administrator’s Office, Driver and Vehicle Services, Department of Corrections, and the Department of Health and Human Services.
Involvement of Minnesota District Courts and the Minnesota Supreme Court
Assistance that was needed from county probation offices.
The 110 datasets received for the evaluation, 29 of those datasets were updated.
The issue where the same case had a disposition of dismissed and a disposition of conviction on the same date. This took up to three months to resolve with the state agency.
The scheduling of program site visits and conference calls were often difficult due to times that the program staff were available
The writing and review of reports
Staff changes in state agencies

The OTS and the Contractor were diligent in their attempts to keep to the timelines, but delays did occur. The timelines were managed as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Evaluate the contractor's quality This was the largest evaluation of DWI Courts that was ever undertaken, especially with the inclusion of the cost benefit evaluation. At the outset of the project the quality didn’t meet the expectations of the OTS. As the project took shape and regular meetings were held between the OTS project team and NPC both parties developed a better understanding of the difficulty of the project. This is where the quality of the Contractor’s work was very good. Problems that hindered timeliness were worked through, issues with datasets were resolved and the project came together. It is my professional opinion that this Contractor displayed a high level of quality when challenges were exceedingly difficult. They recognized the problems, offered solutions and worked with the agencies to resolve the problems.
One problem was the final invoice which showed the actual cost by the Contractor even though it exceeded the contracted cost by more than $1,600.00. This was a problem in determining the amount of the actual final invoice.
The final product, nine process and nine outcome evaluations, seven cost benefit evaluations, the statewide summary and the nine individual fact sheets are evidence of the high quality of work provided by the Contractor.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The total value of the project was $509,017.00 with actual expenses slightly less than $500,000.00. The cost could have been less if the quality of the data was better in some respects, but with 110 datasets some problems should be expected. Due to the extensive scope of the evaluation it can be difficult to be close on cost estimates. There were contract amendments to add funding to complete the project. $122,000.00 was added in 2014 for compensation.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The overall performance of NPC was very good. They handled difficult problems, worked well with the project manager from OTS and maintain a good rapport with the OTS project team and staff from other state agencies and county offices. The final reports were well organized and 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.): No reason for any negative action to be taken.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 5 - very satisfied