Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor Svoboda Ecological Resources Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number B33562

Project Name District Wide Wetland Mitigation Assistance

Project Number (if applicable) 95271

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Identifying, documenting and permitting of wetland impacts

Project Duration

Start Date Thu, 09/03/2009 - 00:00

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

Actual end date Wed, 11/30/2011 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) 511

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $35000.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $35000.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? SRC

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 Scott Morgan

Evaluator Email Address Scott.morgan@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness 1

Evaluate the contractor's quality 1

Evaluate the contractor's cost 3

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance 1

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.): Constant management / supervision.
1. The consultant did not properly complete the field data sheets for the wetlands or potential wetlands investigated.
a. There were no or very few remarks or comments to explain their conclusions. This was especially confusing where their conclusions were at odds with the field observations recorded.
b. SER’s initial report was missing data sheets to adequately document both Upland and Wetland data points.
2. The GPS information regarding the delineated wetland areas was not correct or complete. MnDOT sent the project alignment file so they could use it as a reference and the resulting GPS data was still incorrect.
a. The GPS data was in the wrong location. MnDOT Technical staff had to move it to the proper location to determine the wetland impacts of the project.
b. The GPS data was the wrong scale. MnDOT Technical staff had to re-scale the data to determine the wetland impacts of the project.
c. There were no attributes to the data. While this was not specifically listed as a deliverable, the data points should have information associated with them such as transect #, wetland or upland, etc. to document and coordinate the data and resulting conclusions.
d. There were no shape files with the data. The data was a collection of points rather than the shape of the wetland. This makes measurements difficult to verify.
3. Timeliness was poor. We talked with the consultant several times and had several due dates that were not met. The project manager had to call several times to get the results. On one of these calls, the project manager got the impression that SER was late delivering (on the most recent mutually agreed to due date) because they had another paying client that needed their project done by a due date.
4. Poor Communication
a. SER needed too much MnDOT management to get the results delivered.
5. Competencies are questionable.
a. SER needed too much guidance to get their information completed.
i. SER used incorrect soil indicators and had to be corrected.
ii. SER didn’t get to the A Horizon on several sites. Due to the season, we had no option to have the work re-done.
b. SER’s report drew conclusions based on single field observations that contradicted both 20+ years of aerial imagery and previous wetland delineation reports on the same site without any other corroboration or discussion.
c. SER’s initial report was considered by the Corps of Engineers to be insufficient, incomplete, and would require revisions before being accepted on a normal project (without a previous delineation report or Corps approval). The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) members echoed that comment.
d. There was no table listing the wetlands and relevant information such as sizes, type, watershed, etc. sufficient to populate the WCA Permit Application (specifically table 9 as called for in the Assignment or Scope of Work).

Upon consultation with the Corps of Engineers and the WCA TEP members, we only used the SER’s report for newly delineated wetlands I, J, & K which the 2005 Bonestroo report did not include. We were allowed to use the 2005 Bonestroo Wetland Delineation Report for Wetlands A, B, C, D, E, F, & G in the Permit Application since the SER report was not complete and they did not deliver in time to perform follow-up field site visits to adequately complete their report.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 1 - very dissatisfied