Agency Military Affairs Dept

Contractor Angstrom Analytical & Environmental Services

SWIFT Contract Number Admin ID# 25784

Project Name Design of Haz Materials Abatement, Pine City NGA

Project Number (if applicable) 10115

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Provide one certified hazardous materials Project Designer to coordinate and manage the removal of hazardous materials from the Pine City Minnesota National Guard Armory. Services include project coordination with the contractor and facility, preparation of the Rapid Response work orders costs, travel, expenses, processing of contractor pay requests, and project closeout report preparation. All hazardous materials were required to be abated prior to renovation of the facility.

Project Duration

Start Date Wed, 08/10/2011 - 00:00

Original end date Sat, 12/31/2011 - 00:00

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

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $6850.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $6850.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Federal and State 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 Mr. Ken Auer

Evaluator Email Address Ken.A.Auer.nfg@mail.mil

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The project design (PD) contractor’s (Angstrom Analytical) final report for the Pine City abatement project is one year overdue. The project was completed in December 2011, and the Air Monitoring Contractor (Liesch Associates) submitted their required closeout report in the same month. FMO phone and voice mails started early in 2012 and has continued through the year, requesting the PD contract representative, Mr. Charles Tye, to determine the final report delivery timeline. On June 28th, 2012, the Pine City abatement contractor, VCI, contacted FMO in regards to delinquent payment of invoices they had submitted through Angstrom. In emails with Mr. Tye about the invoices, the FMO again requested a completion deadline of the final report. On July 24th, 2012, Angstrom mailed a packet to the FMO containing their final report. Inside the packet was the Air Monitoring contractor’s project closeout report, on which Mr. Tye had scribbled a note saying the invoices had been processed, and he felt the project was now 100% complete. Mr. Tye was told immediately this was not the case, and that the report must originate from Angstrom. As time passed by, numerous attempts (many unanswered) via email and phone have since been made to Angstrom asking for the contract deliverable final report. The latest successful conference call occurred on December 18, 2012. During the call Mr. Tye admitted to not knowing what would be required in the final report. The FMO again provided him with guidance on what should all be included in the report and how the report should be tabulated. Mr. Tye promised to have the report in our hands by December 24, 2012. To date no report has been sent, despite additional request from FMO.

Additionally, at the time of the last conference call, the contractor admitted to being only interested in providing asbestos assessment and laboratory analytical services. They were unsure as to why their company was on the asbestos Project Design rotational list. Mr. Tye stated he had never before completed a PD final report.

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. The Air Monitoring contractor provides oversight to ensure protective measures meet health and safety regulatory requirements, and that all workers are following the requirements. The Air Monitoring Contractor is not meant to represent the Project Designer on daily duties, nor is their final report to be used as the PD’s contract deliverable report.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Estimated costs were not exceeded. Mr. Tye was informed the final invoice #2011623 (Final), dated April 30, 2013 in the amount of $350.00 is being held until the final report is received. Mr. Tye was not aware they were still owed money.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Overall performance was poor. The contractor was slack on oversight and has demonstrated no desire to complete the contractual requirements. Contractor has repeatedly ignored our emails and phone messages related to this project.

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 1 - very dissatisfied