Agency Human Services Dept

Contractor CGI Technologies & Solutions Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 210347

Project Name Minnesota Promoting Interoperability Program

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: {Empty}

Project Duration

Start Date Sun, 05/01/2022 - 00:00

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

Actual end date Mon, 03/20/2023 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $222404

Amendments $0

Contract total {Empty}

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Enhanced 90/10 Federal funding, 10% state share

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) Proprietary software in use for the MPIP program was designed by vendor for usage with this Federally required program. It was determined that pursuit of an RFP for these services would potentially open the State to falling out of compliance with Federal requirements and statutes. CGI also held all program information required for audit and retention purposes on private servers that could only be accessed via usage of their software.

Evaluator Name Matthew Gravel

Evaluator Email Address matthew.d.gravel@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Vendor was timely with responses to all requests and generally was able to complete all requested work within dealines set. They would routinely deliver required changes or fix problems earlier than was required by their contract.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Vendor work met or exceeded standards and expectations set by State.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Vendor costs were in line with our expectations and comparable to other states pursuing similar vendors for this work. Vendor worked with State staff to decrease costs as they were able as the program entered its final stages and less work was required, in an attempt to help save the State money.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance I would give the vendor high marks in all areas and would work with them on any similar projects in the future.

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.): State did pursue early termination of contract, but this was due to all work being completed and State staff desire to shutter the program before the scheduled end of funding in order to save funding dollars as we were able.

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