Agency Faribault Academies

Contractor Angstrom Analytical, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 49019

Project Name Monitoring for Pollard & Smith Window Replacement

Project Number (if applicable) 44119DAP

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Hazardous Materials identified in sealants in existing windows that needed to be removed by an abatement contractor, to make room for new windows being installed in the Pollard & Smith Halls Window Replacement project. Air monitoring is required by state during this process.

Project Duration

Start Date Tue, 07/10/2012 - 00:00

Original end date Wed, 07/25/2012 - 00:00

Actual end date Wed, 07/25/2012 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $12155.00

Amendments $0.00

Contract total $12155.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? FY10 AP

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) Within guidelines for selection of Master Contract industrial hygiene services, distributed amongst all the hygiene services by facility/county where work occurs.

Evaluator Name Glen Heino

Evaluator Email Address glen.heino@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Satisfactory – The Consultant performed in an average manner that demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The consultant’s overall performance is equal to any negative performance. The Consultant has contributed to the success of the project.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Satisfactory – The Consultant performed in an average manner that demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The consultant’s overall performance is equal to any negative performance. The Consultant has contributed to the success of the project.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Satisfactory – The Consultant performed in an average manner that demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The consultant’s overall performance is equal to any negative performance. The Consultant has contributed to the success of the project.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Satisfactory – The Consultant performed in an average manner that demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The consultant’s overall performance is equal to any negative performance. The Consultant has contributed to the success of the project.

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