Agency Health Department

Contractor Altarum

SWIFT Contract Number 210552

Project Name Birth Defects Surveillance System Interoperability Readiness Assessment

Project Number (if applicable) Admin ID: 75400, REQ ID: 5267

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The State needs expertise and project management for an interoperability readiness assessment of the Birth Defects Information System, which is a required activity for their CDC grant.

Project Duration

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

Original end date Sat, 04/29/2023 - 00:00

Actual end date Sun, 12/11/2022 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $50000

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $50000

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? 50% federal grant, 50% state 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) Altarum was named and approved as contractor for the readiness assessment requirement included in Component A of the federal grant “Advancing Population-Based Surveillance of Birth Defects”, CDC-RFA-DD21-2101
Altarum is a qualified vendor; they developed the initial birth defects implementation guide through Health Level Seven International (HL7), “a not-for-profit, ANSI-accredited standards developing organization dedicated to providing a comprehensive framework and related standards for the exchange, integration, sharing, and retrieval of electronic health information that supports clinical practice and the management, delivery and evaluation of health services.”
Altarum has convened stakeholders across states from 2019-2020 to develop a birth defects domain analysis model for HL7, of which Minnesota participated, and their birth defects registry and interoperability work are recognized within the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, a branch of the CDC (NCBDDD). They are currently working on an implementation guide for birth defects using Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR), a more recent standard for health care data exchange.

Evaluator Name Barbara Frohnert

Evaluator Email Address barbara.frohnert@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Contractor kept to workplan timelines and submitted deliverables on time. Meetings started on time.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Final report was average. Significant portions of the narrative were copied directly from meeting notes without additional analysis or context. The report was sent back twice for corrections and revisions. Final task flow diagram was acceptable, although our staff made many necessary adjustments and corrections.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The contractor stayed within initial budget. One of the requested components of the assessment was completed with general information only, and we had expected more customized information taking into account Minnesota's program needs and the context of our IT infrastructure. In retrospect, the budget may not have been adequate to complete that task adequately. Near the end of the project, it was clear that the contractor had very limited hours to complete this project. The contractor did not inquire about increasing the budget.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Project facilitation and communication were poor. Contractor did not provide agendas for weekly status meetings; they asked "what we wanted to talk about". They followed the project schedule to the letter but did not identify gaps or issues to be explored. With the knowledge and experience of this group, we expected deeper understanding and insight; it felt like it was just going through the motions. It was up to our staff to bring up areas of concern and request more follow up.

Would you engage the contractor's services again? No

Describe any negative action taken during the duration of this contract (i.e., termination, pursuit of suspension, etc.): We held a mid-course meeting with the contractor's director to discuss what was going well and what could go better. There was no improvement. We would consider working with this contractor again but would want to ensure a good fit between their staff's skill and expertise with the tasks we required.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 2 - dissatisfied