Agency Pollution Control Agency

Contractor Antea Group

SWIFT Contract Number 254407

Project Name Dick's Phillips 66/Additional Monitoring and CCAD Preparation

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Antea Group (Antea) will oversee installation of additional borings and a monitoring well adjacent to the leak site property and collect soil and groundwater samples. Antea will also continue quarterly monitoring of the monitoring well network. Lab services and analysis will be conducted. All subcontractors will be procured following MPCA's contractor and subcontractor purchasing manual. Antea will continue working on and submit a conceptual corrective action design report (CCAD) outlining a proposal for completing a corrective action at the leak site property.

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 08/12/2024 - 00:00

Original end date Mon, 06/30/2025 - 00:00

Actual end date Mon, 06/30/2025 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $34292.06

Amendments $0

Contract total $34292.06

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? State

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) n/a

Evaluator Name Stephen Frye

Evaluator Email Address stephen.frye@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness 3 - Neutral - Most invoices were not submitted on time. The work order was first issued on August 12, 2024. Field work took place throughout the subsequent months, and MPCA did not receive the first invoice until December 2025. Sporadic invoicing occurred after that. The invoicing should be on a monthly schedule for this site, as stated per contract. Not performing regular invoicing led to budget management issues later in the fiscal year.

Evaluate the contractor's quality 5 - Very Satisfied - The quality of the CCAD report was very good and the thoroughness of the alternatives led to MPCA being able to make a decision to proceed with a corrective action in FY2026. Performing a corrective action will move the site closer to file closure instead of being left in a monitoring phase forever.

Evaluate the contractor's cost 2 - Dissatisfied - The contractor had unsatisfactory budget management. The contractor experienced a shortage of funds for preparing and reviewing the CCAD report. Contractor did not anticipate cost overruns for drum disposal and asked MPCA for two change orders to cover those disposal costs, which later led to shortage on the CCAD reporting budget. Late in the fiscal year, the contractor contacted the MPCA for an amendment to add additional funds to the work order, but the MPCA did not agree to the amendment because the CCAD report preparation and review work had already been completed and submitted for review.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance 4 - Satisfied - Outside of the budgeting and invoicing issues identified above, the contractor did a great job at proposing a corrective action alternative at this site that will achieve the corrective action goal at the site.

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.): n/a

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 4 - satisfied