Agency Human Services Dept

Contractor Nova Consulting Group

SWIFT Contract Number 67656

Project Name Abatement Air Monitoring Shantz Hall 2nd Floor Eas

Project Number (if applicable) 55SR0020

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Air monitoring required for abatement in prep for construction project.

Project Duration

Start Date Thu, 08/29/2013 - 00:00

Original end date Tue, 10/29/2013 - 00:00

Actual end date Tue, 10/29/2013 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $2626.00

Amendments $0.00

Contract total $2626.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? FY12 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 haz mat projects.

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 4 - satisfied