Agency Pollution Control Agency

Contractor Itasca Community College

SWIFT Contract Number B12860

Project Name First Water Quality Inventor of Itasca County's De

Project Number (if applicable) CR1619

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: There are nearly 1,000 natural lakes in Itasca County. The water quality on only about 150 of these lakes has been assessed. The Itasca County region has been identified by lakeshore developers as the area for the next major phase of lakeshore development in Minnesota, so the landscape and, therefore, water quality will be under increasing pressure over the next few decades. 179 of Itasca County’s lakes have been designated as “recreational development” lakes but only 31 of these have been assessed adequately enough to meet MPCA’s standards . A broad citizens’ working group, the Itasca Water Legacy Partnership , has identified the increased assessment of Itasca County’s lakes as one of the most essential activities needed to ensure the sustained vitality of this resource that is a fundamental economic engine for rural Minnesota.

Project Duration

Start Date Thu, 04/03/2008 - 00:00

Original end date Wed, 06/30/2010 - 00:00

Actual end date Thu, 06/30/2011 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $327350.00

Amendments $0

Contract total $327350.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? 100 E710 WY2

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 Pam Anderson

Evaluator Email Address pam.anderson@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Satisfactory - Grantee struggled with developing invoices/receipts that met agency requirements. Not good communication between fiscal staff and grant staff in the grantee's organization. Reports were not received on time at the end of the grant. Quality of data is good - management of grant could use work.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Satisfactory - Amendment was necessary to add one sampling season to grant due to access difficulties. Shift of funds from laboratory to monitoring supplies. Incorrect invoices provided on multiple occassions

Evaluate the contractor's cost Satisfactory

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Satisfactory

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 4 - satisfied