Agency MNIT

Contractor DataBank IMX LLC

SWIFT Contract Number 141057

Project Name OnBase Enhancements, Support, and Optimization

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: This contract covered general maintenance and support as well as several enhancement and optimization initiatives for the OnBase software tool.

Project Duration

Start Date Tue, 05/01/2018 - 00:00

Original end date Sun, 06/30/2019 - 00:00

Actual end date Fri, 06/30/2023 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) 5776

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $79130

Amendments $1060875

Contract total $1140005

Did project finish within budget? No

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) The software manufacturer authorizes only select vendors to provide support services for their tools. This vendor is the only source in MN that is authorized to provide this work and this is validated by a letter from the software manufacturer.

Evaluator Name Jennifer Plageman

Evaluator Email Address jennifer.plageman@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Delays were introduced by not being proactive in fixing issues (workstation issues) to keep the project moving on time. Most work was completed by one specific resource and timeliness and prioritization was an issue. The project was due to be completed 4/30/2023 but was pushed out until mid-June. The first attempt to migrate the solution to production failed and we had to roll back. The second attempt was "successful" June 21, 2023, although there was a lot of validation that had to be completed in a short amount of time. When released to the end users, many items were not working as expected and had to be fixed to match test. This was a very busy time for MDHR as it was the end of the FY and there was a lot that needed to be done in a very short amount of time and was made more difficult by the solution not working correctly initially. The end of the contract was set for 6/30/2023 and there was no one from the DataBank team available that day due to vacations.

Evaluate the contractor's quality There were issues with specific individual contractors that caused issues with the project. We had an initial document called the statement of work (SOW), which basically listed what was already in the solution and then what we wanted in the solution. The vendor is then supposed to supply the agency with a document named the solution inventory. This lists what the specific plans are for all aspects of each lifecycle based on what was in the SOW (Q's doc types, user groups, attributes, etc). We did receive and updated solution inventory for approval after the first few review sessions of individual lifecycles, but those stopped coming. There was no real documentation regarding any changes/updates in processes that were discussed at the meetings which made it hard to track and test what was being built, and to "prove" that there were things missing or not done the way they were discussed. We ended up having to keep track of all updates on our SOW so that we had a place to go back and reference. From experience of projects in the past, we are supposed to have a final solution inventory that we can use as an agency moving forward. We still have not received a final inventory; MDHR is requesting as part of their promised deliverables. Project management only focused on the vendor's resources and did not provide sufficient oversight to state resources.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The vendor was willing to adjust their listed hourly rate mid-contract to help MDHR achieve their goals which was greatly appreciated. This is a single source contract so cost relative to market is not available.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The vendor did have sufficient knowledge of the software tool and was open to the business process needs in modifying how the software worked. Most of the issues were related to one of the vendor resources and timeliness. Other vendor resources assigned later in the project were really well liked and did a great job. The end product of this project delivered a solution that is what MDHR envisioned and needed.

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.): Vendor resources were not proactive in fixing workstation issues that kept causing issues with deliverables and timelines. MNIT and MDHR had to step in to force the vendor to work with MNIT teams to fix the issue. This situation resulted in several thousand dollars lost due to delays and down time for the vendor resource. The communication with DataBank was done mostly via email which was not always the most efficient and/or effective. The MDHR project manager had several meetings with the DataBank project manager regarding these issues and that it was slowing down the progress of the project.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 3 - neutral