Agency Military Affairs Dept

Contractor Liesch Associates, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 441617

Project Name Design for Removal of Hazardous Materials, AHATS

Project Number (if applicable) 8602

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Design Services for hazardous materials abatement of 11 buildings in Arden Hills Army Training Site. Services provided include project coordination with the contractor and facility, preparation of specifications, processing of contractor pay requests, and project closeout report preparation.

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 06/20/2011 - 00:00

Original end date Sat, 12/31/2011 - 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: $6462.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $6460.11

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? 100% Federal

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) Single Source Rotation based on RECS Hazardous Materials Master Contracts for Design.

Evaluator Name Ken Auer

Evaluator Email Address ken.auer@us.army.mil

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The project design (PD) contractor timeliness was poor. Final report was three months overdue. It took intervention by our office, with repeated emails/calls, for the PD contractor and abatement contractor to put aside their differences, and produce the required information.
Contractor had to be repeatedly reminded of the need to provide timely project updates. When they did provide reports, the majority of the time the PD contractor simply forwarded the Air Monitoring contractor’s field notes.

Evaluate the contractor's quality PD contractor’s quality was poor. They did not provide consistent oversight responsibilities, but instead, relied on the air monitoring contractor to perform this function. PD contractor rarely visited the site. There is supposed to be a separation between the Air Monitoring contractor and the Project Design/Abatement contractors.
When repeatedly asked for the status of the final report, contractor seemed unaware of the timing or unconcerned with the delay.
Abatement contractor was allowed to leave the site without providing all the required recycling reports, manifests and bills of lading. Abatement contractor claims they were not given clear guidance on what information the PD contractor required to complete the final report.
Note: Air monitoring contractor provided their final report within two weeks of project completion.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Estimated costs were not exceeded.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Overall performance was poor. Lack of oversight, lack of guidance and lack of timeliness, resulted in unnecessary delays. Proper oversight would have prevented this from happening. Submission of documents should have been an ongoing process between the abatement contractor and PD. Ensuring all required documents were delivered, should have been established from the get go.
Unfortunately performance level has been a recurring problem with this contractor. Delays in response, lack of oversight and delays in providing final reports.

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.): {Empty}

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 2 - dissatisfied