Agency Corrections Dept

Contractor Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 442368/346688501

Project Name PBEEP Energy Investigation

Project Number (if applicable) 78822RCD

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The contract is for a study in the state of Minnesota’s Public Buildings Enhanced energy Efficiency Program (PBEEEP) which applies a standard analysis and investigation method to determine the technical and economic feasibility of measures that will result in decreased energy use. The results will be recorded in the State PBEEEP Findings Workbook and in an Investigation Report which will include the measures selected by Southwest Minnesota State University implementation in the following phase of the project.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 05/28/2010 - 00:00

Original end date Mon, 04/30/2012 - 00:00

Actual end date Fri, 03/09/2012 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) 63850

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $63850

Amendments $0

Contract total $63850

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Federal Funds

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 Plum

Evaluator Email Address cplum@mncee.org

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The work met the requirements of the program. Opportunities for energy savings were identified. The analysis and final report took several months longer than expected to complete, in order to fully meet the project requirements.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The quality was good and met all of the requirements of the program.

Evaluate the contractor's cost This was a bid project and the cost was equal to the amount bid with no changes.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The overall performance met the requirements of the program and identified realistic and achievable energy savings opportunities for MCF Rush City. Additional non-quantified opportunities were identified in a separate report.

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.): {Empty}

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 4 - satisfied