Agency MN St Colleges & Universities

Contractor AMEC Earth and Environment Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 33598/34107

Project Name PBEEEP Energy Investigation

Project Number (if applicable) 26074AKD

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The contract is for a limited 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.
CEE provided a list of specific opportunities and supporting data for the investigation
The results will be recorded in the State PBEEEP Findings Workbook and in an Investigation Report which will include the measures selected by Anoka Ramsey Community College Coon Rapids for implementation in the following phase of the project.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 10/07/2011 - 00:00

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

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

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) 24990

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $24990

Amendments $0

Contract total $24990

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Federal Funds

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) Study was undertaken to complete work for a contract that had been terminated as of 9/30/2012. Due to limited time in the federally funded PBEEEP program, a sole source with limited scope was chosen. AMEC was selected based on their performance at Southwest Minnesota State University, one of the few completed PBEEEP projects at that time.

Evaluator Name Christopher Plum

Evaluator Email Address cplum@mncee.org

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The work met the requirements of the program.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The quality was below that required by the program. Due to errors in data processing, approximately half of the findings submitted were rejected in the QA process. Other potential savings were not fully investigated.

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 performance was fair, meeting some, but not all requirements of the program.

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 2 - dissatisfied