Agency Administration Dept

Contractor HR Green, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 34086

Project Name Design for Parking Meters at Specific PMD Parking

Project Number (if applicable) 02746CPP

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Need to switch to pay stations estimated cost needed public bid construction project.

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 11/21/2011 - 00:00

Original end date Thu, 05/31/2012 - 00:00

Actual end date Mon, 09/30/2013 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $48900.00

Amendments $6162.00

Contract total $55062.00

Did project finish within budget? No

What was the funding source? FY11 AP

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 Glen Heino

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

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Unsatisfactory – The Consultant performed in an unacceptable manner in regards to the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The Consultant’s overall unsatisfactory performance outweighs any positive performance. The Consultant has made significant errors or omissions or has otherwise failed to contribute to the success of the project.

The contractor failed to engineer the electrical portion of the project which delayed the bid.

Evaluate the contractor's quality
Unsatisfactory – The Consultant performed in an unacceptable manner in regards to the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The Consultant’s overall unsatisfactory performance outweighs any positive performance. The Consultant has made significant errors or omissions or has otherwise failed to contribute to the success of the project.

The contractor failed to engineer the electrical portion of the project which delayed the bid.

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 Unsatisfactory – The Consultant performed in an unacceptable manner in regards to the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The Consultant’s overall unsatisfactory performance outweighs any positive performance. The Consultant has made significant errors or omissions or has otherwise failed to contribute to the success of the 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.): Had to pursue getting full engineering performance to design the electrical portion of the project. Process was frustrating because at the same time HR Green was laying off staff, including two project managers during the course of the project.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 2 - dissatisfied