Agency Natural Resources Dept

Contractor Univ of ND, Energy & Environmental Research Ctr

SWIFT Contract Number 18710

Project Name Slipstream Baghouse for Taconite Industry

Project Number (if applicable) 4

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Test a potential new technology to control mercury concentration in stack emissions from taconite processing companies. The state needs the taconite industry to reduce mercury to achieve statewide emissions goals but there were no known technologies to accomplish the state's mercury reduction goals. International Hg emission goals applicable to the Lake Superior watershed also require reduction of mercury in air emissions from Minnesota's taconite industry. Thus, the state is assisting the industry in finding a cost effective mercury reduction technology. This is one of five technologies being evaluated by the Minnesota Taconite Mercury Control Advisory Committee. The most cost effective technology will be selected for longer term, full scale testing.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 06/17/2011 - 00:00

Original end date Sat, 09/01/2012 - 00:00

Actual end date Fri, 07/01/2011 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $299434.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $298682.71

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? US-EPA Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

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 Larry Kramka

Evaluator Email Address larry.kramka@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness the study was finished well ahead of schedule and within the estimated cost.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The work is of high quality as determined by a rigorous data quality review process (Quality Assurance Protocol Plan). The project demonstrated that 75% mercury reductions may be achieveable with the tested technology.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The PI provided cost estimates for the industry to use to determine affordability. Results and cost of the tested technology will be compared with those for five other technologies when the remaining projects have been completed.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance High Quality

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 5 - very satisfied