Agency Public Safety Dept

Contractor Corona Insights

SWIFT Contract Number 36570

Project Name Drinking and Driving Campaign Awareness Survey

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: OTS required professional and technical services to weight survey results, prepare the data, analyze results and submit a final statewide report, seven county level reports, and a seven county top-level report of the Drinking and Driving Behavior and Campaign Awareness Survey that was conducted by Corona Insights, Inc. in September 2011. Statewide results were compared to the baseline survey of Minnesotans’ attitudes, knowledge, and behavior regarding traffic safety collected in April/May 2011. County level results were compared to the statewide results.

The contract allowed the Office of Traffic Safety provide information on the impaired driving problem and programs in Minnesota, evaluate DWI enforcement campaigns, and help target geographic areas in the state and specific subpopulations at risk.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 11/18/2011 - 00:00

Original end date Fri, 12/30/2011 - 00:00

Actual end date Thu, 12/29/2011 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $28165.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $28165.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Title 23 CFDA number 20.601

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) Corona Insights, Inc. was awarded a contract through a RFP process in February 2008. The contract provided professional technical services to weight survey results, prepare the data, analyze results and submit a final report. The contract expired September 30, 2011. Additional work was required to provide the final analysis and reporting to compare results from the April/May 2011 survey results with the post enforcement campaign survey results from September 2011.

• This ensured overall comparability of analysis to previous years (including consistency of
weighting factors as they were applied to each of the 7 counties, statewide analysis and the
7 county study area. The survey design allowed for studying five distinct but overlapping
populations
• Weighting was critical to ensuring findings reflected were representative.
• Statistical significance testing for each finding .
• Consistency in reporting from previous year (final reporting varies widely across firms, and some do not include key findings analysis or even question-by-question analysis).
• Integration of data from the field into the analysis software reduced the time and inefficiencies up-front.
• There is a running knowledge and understanding of opinions on these traffic safety issues in
MN over time.
• The OTS can easily identify the key findings in the reports
• The capacity internally to complete all work in a short timeframe which is critical.
• This is the final statewide telephone survey in its current format and final year of the seven countysurveys, so the OTS wants to reduce the potential of introducing inaccurate results due to the weighting process and lack of familiarity of the data.

Evaluator Name Hal Campbell

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

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The contractor completed the work in 6 weeks instead of the anticipated 8 weeks including edits
recommended by the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). They were very responsive to suggestions made by the OTS.

Evaluate the contractor's quality They complied with contract requirements. The personnel assigned to the project were technically
excellent and very open to recommendations for reporting the results.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The comparison between the cost of similar services performed a year ago and this contract saw
a 2%increase. Originally the time allotted for the work was 8 weeks, but the time to complete the
work was actually 6 weeks. Extra effort by the contractor especially over the holiday season was a good esample of the contractor understanding and embracing the service and goals of the project.
The costs were properly allocated based on this evaluator's experience.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The contractor was very prompt with responses to the OTS. The contractor was very courteous and positive with all client interactions. They listen to feedback and suggestions. The reports were of high quality. Contractor was flexible with their approach and always professional.

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 5 - very satisfied