Agency Faribault Academies

Contractor Angstrom Analytical, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 33701 (25419/438823)

Project Name Onsite Collection Suspect Lead Paint & Asbestos Ma

Project Number (if applicable) 44DA0005

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Analysis required to update hazardous materials extents for upcoming window replacement projects at both Pollard and Smith Halls which will impact lead containing paint at lintels and asbestos containing caulkings at window perimeters and glazings.

Project Duration

Start Date Wed, 09/21/2011 - 00:00

Original end date Fri, 09/30/2011 - 00:00

Actual end date Fri, 09/30/2011 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $615.00

Amendments $0.00

Contract total $615.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Asset Preservation

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) Contractors for this work predetermined by county, and within single source limits.

Evaluator Name Glen Heino

Evaluator Email Address glen.heino@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Satisfactory – The Consultant performed in an average manner that demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The consultant’s overall performance is equal to any negative performance. The Consultant has contributed to the success of the project.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Satisfactory – The Consultant performed in an average manner that demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The consultant’s overall performance is equal to any negative performance. The Consultant has contributed to the success of the project. Could wrap up the report a little more professionally - with cover page, table of contents contact info, results in layman's terms, etc.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Satisfactory – The Consultant performed in an average manner that demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The consultant’s overall performance is equal to any negative performance. The Consultant has contributed to the success of the project.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Satisfactory – The Consultant performed in an average manner that demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The consultant’s overall performance is equal to any negative performance. The Consultant has contributed to the success of the project.

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.): Satisfactory – The Consultant performed in an average manner that demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The consultant’s overall performance is equal to any negative performance. The Consultant has contributed to the success of the project.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 4 - satisfied