Agency Administration Dept

Contractor Surdex Corporation, Chesterfield, MO 63005

SWIFT Contract Number B41054

Project Name 2010 DIGITAL ORTHOPHOTOGRAPHY FOR EAST-CENTRAL MN

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: This collaborative data collection effort was coordinated by MnGeo (Admin) and included the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District, the United State Geological Survey, Scott, Dakota and Rice Counties.

The Metropolitan Council required high-resolution aerial photography for the seven-county metropolitan area to update regional land use maps coinciding with the decennial national census.

The Metropolitan Mosquito Control District needed imagery over the same area to update their map of potential mosquito breeding sites.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources needed imagery for the seven-county area, plus an addition six adjacent counties as part of its efforts to update the National Wetland Inventory maps for Minnesota.

The USGS procured imagery on behalf of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) in support of a national security program.

The investments of the state were leveraged by three Minnesota Counties, which joined the project to support their needs for high-resolution imagery for planning, engineering and facilities management purposes.

All participants require the imagery to be collected in the spring of 2010, under leaf-off and snow-free conditions. Due weather conditions that limited flights in 2010, the project was extended through the spring 2011 flying season to complete data collection for the entire project area.

Project Duration

Start Date Tue, 03/16/2010 - 00:00

Original end date Fri, 12/31/2010 - 00:00

Actual end date Sat, 12/31/2011 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $116000.00

Amendments $123900.00

Contract total $239900.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? DNR (ENR Trust Fund); Met Council; Federal

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) {Empty}

Evaluator Name Christopher Cialek; Tanya Mayer; Steve Kloiber

Evaluator Email Address chris.cialek@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness DNR: There were some project delays at least partly due to circumstances beyond the vendors control (early onset of spring leaf-out conditions); however, there vendor did make a questionable decision to move equipment out of the state at a critical time.

Metropolitan Council: For the most part, the contractor kept on schedule. The only major issue about timeliness was their choice to send their planes to another state and miss a crucial day (or 2) of very good flying/imagery weather here. In addition, the out-of-control issue with weather and leaf-out conditions in 2010 then left us without imagery for 2 counties in the south metro in 2010. However, after that, they communicated changes in schedule and any issues they were experiencing well. Data products and corrections were delivered approximately as scheduled and in a timely fashion; only slightly delayed from proposed project schedule so to address QA/QC issues. I think there were some challenges with scheduling and priorities due to the contracting situation of a primary State contract and the secondary, higher resolution, County contracts. Overall, pleased with their timeliness.

Evaluate the contractor's quality DNR: The quality of the final product is satisfactory. The color and contrast of the imagery is very good. There are no issues with clouds, cloud shadows, or snow cover. The tested horizontal accuracy meets the contract specifications.

Metropolitan Council: Product quality from the contractor was good. Any issues we found in QA/QC were addressed and fixed immediately. Communication and explanations to many questions about the imagery were thorough. We were disappointed that the flight lines over downtown St. Paul caused the appearance of building lean, thus requiring a re-flight in 2011; but pleased with their immediate response to the problem. All other issues identified including bridge lean, CIR data issues, edge matching, etc. were addressed and corrected. I think there were challenges with the collection and processing of 6” data for the counties to be re-sampled to 1’ data for the state in terms of timeliness and quality consistency. Overall, pleased with their attention to quality.

Evaluate the contractor's cost DNR: The vendor was the low cost bidder and there were no cost overruns.

Metropolitan Council: As expected from the contract. The competitive bid process yielded us the best value (cost and deliverable quality).

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance DNR: The vendors overall performance was good.

Metropolitan Council: Good! My overall experience with Surdex was more positive than my experience with a few other similar contractors. However, this time, I was not intimately involved with the contract negotiations.

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.): None

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 4 - satisfied